934 shakespeare, William
youth to king is marked by a movement away from
lower-class companions, accentuated by the absence
of his closest friend, Falstaff. Canterbury refers to
Henry’s former friends as “unlettered, rude and shal-
low” (1.1.57), and Ely refers to the king as the straw-
berry that grows underneath the “nettle” (1.1.61) or
stinging weed. Not only does social class determine
position, it determines character. Henry’s former
companions live up to their descriptions. Preparing
for France, Pistol claims, “For I shall sutler be / Unto
the camp, and profits will accrue” (2.1.100–101). He
heads to war not for honor or to defend the nation
but to increase his wealth. Sutlers sold provisions
and were infamous in the Renaissance for being
dishonest. Pistol’s friend, Bardolph, makes good on
this promise by stealing a pax (small tablet stamped
with a crucifix) from a church, for which Henry has
him executed. Some critics have pointed out that
Henry’s invasion can be perceived as a theft similar
to Bardolph’s, though on a different scale and with
vastly different consequences.
In his speech motivating the troops at the Battle
of Harfleur, Henry addresses the two social classes
distinctly, telling the English nobles to live up their
fathers’ example and to provide an example to the
lower classes. To the lower classes, his tone is dis-
tinctly different as he tells them to “show us here /
The mettle of your pasture, let us swear / That you
are worth your breeding” (3.1.26–28). Rhetorically,
through words like pasture and breeding, the lower
classes represent livestock more than men, though
Henry does go on to say that there is a “noble lustre”
in their eyes (3.1.30). Noble is associated with the
upper class; therefore, Henry’s use of it connects
military valor and performance with nobility. Inter-
estingly, this quality is only a “lustre,” or shine, which
is superficial and reflective. While the English are
ultimately victorious, some of them are not moved
by Henry’s rhetoric. The next scene begins with
Nim (Pistol and Bardolph’s friend) refusing to join
the battle, claiming, “The knocks are too hot, and for
mine own part I have not a case of lives” (3.2.2–3).
For these common soldiers, “noble lustre” is appar-
ently not worth risking one’s life.
In arguably his most famous speech, the “St.
Crispin’s Day Speech,” Henry V engages the issue
of social mobility directly. Class becomes secondary
to participation in Henry’s army. He tells his men,
“We few, we happy few, we band of brothers. / For
he today that sheds his blood with me / Shall be my
brother, be he never so vile, / This day shall gentle
his condition” (4.3.60–63). Though he is fuzzy on
the exact details, Henry claims that participation in
this battle will raise soldiers to the rank of gentle-
men. Merit has the potential to equalize the classes.
This promise is, however, quickly forgotten. After
the battle, Henry reads aloud a list of the dead:
“Edward the Duke of York, the Earl of Suffolk, / Sir
Richard Keighley, Davy Gam Esquire; / None else
of name, and of all other men / But five and twenty”
(4.8.97–100). Only the nobility are mentioned by
name; the dead are still very much separated by class.
Similarly, in disguise as a common soldier the
previous night, Henry claims, “I think the King is
but a man as I am: the violet smells to him as it doth
to me; . . . his ceremonies laid by, in his nakedness
he appears but a man.” (4.1.98–103). Henry’s asser-
tion of essential equality among men is undermined
by the fact that he is not actually a common soldier
but the king himself. A soldier, Williams, also points
out that despite any possible solidarity, if both are
captured, their fates are very different: “[W ]hen our
throats are cut he may be ransomed” (4.1.180). Wil-
liams is referring to the practice of ransoming noble
prisoners back to their armies and executing com-
mon soldiers. So while the play illustrates the differ-
ences in social classes and raises the ideas of mobility
and equality, these ideas are ultimately undermined,
and rigid social class distinctions remain the status
quo.
Christopher L. MorrowSHakESPEarE, wiLLiam Julius
Caesar (1623)
Julius Caesar, one of the most read and studied works
of Shakespeare, is believed to have been written in
1599 (some scholars place it later, between 1600
and 1601), the first play to be performed in the
Globe Theatre, and was first printed in the 1623
First Folio. The subject matter of this play—the
historical ascendancy of Julius Caesar to the throne
of Rome, his subsequent betrayal and murder, and
its aftermath—certainly would have been popular