 |
|
|
|
 |
| It is of course
easy to argue that Hal and Catherine marry as a political arrangement and
thus that Hal's courtship of her is devoid of genuine feeling. Yet
it cannot be forgot that the entire play is about diversity or conflict
which aspires to unity: the unity of a band of brothers, of Catherine and
Hal, of France and England -- of suffering and joy. (And this is
of course the task of justice, unceasing resolve of the new or the past
situation, ethical demand, or rule adaptation into a cogent consistent
corpus called the case law).
In the courtship scene, what must be brought to unity requires persuasione for command is never enough: Catherine must be persuaded to command. How? In large part we see two, in good humor and sincere posture, matching wit. In that each is indeed witty, we must ask unpack this quality to see of what it is comported. It is, consider, exactly those qualities we have seen individually. Hal's speech is aggressively tender, tenderly demanding. So too, he is relentlessly subtle, and subtly determined. There is more than a simply sum of two terms, concepts, stances. Rather mingled together we arrive at the idea of courtship -- or true defense of a position, here marriage. Consider that all true defending of a position seeks to show something to the listener so that she says "ah, I see." And here, true unity between Hal and Catherine requires such a saying or she is nothing more than a conquered spoil of war. Perhaps commanded, but not unified with Hal in any true sense of the word. |
|
| It is significant
to note that in seeking Catherine's assent, Hal must yield. Not only
must he literally ask consent (a necessary condition to Catherine's yielding)
but he must refine, and control the raw decidely masculine "jokes" between
himself and Burgundy in the preceeding scene. He cannot treat her
as one who will "endure handling."
And Catherine affects. After her line "les langues des hommes sont pleines de tromperies (117-18)," Hal ceases in his flattery and speaks more frankly to her. She appears to draw him out. She too evokes him to finally attempt to speak French when she professes to not understand his important reply to her question of whether she can love France's enemy. In short, Hal is vulnurable, Catherine assertive. But this does not create a hierarchal reversal, rather it is an exchange of position that therefore puts each on equal footing with the other. To unify Hal put away his essential soldier self and yeild to the "witchcraft" of Catherine whereas Cathernine must assert some form of independence resisting Hal until he courts rather than takes. |
|
| As you read this scene consider how Hal's and Catherine's move toward union -- in a way more profound than political arrangments -- may be characterized as a move to resolve. And then consider that resolve is the sole purpose and aspiration of the adjudicative forum for it is the place for the mending of conflict. Given this parallel, consider the necessary conditions that comport Hal's and Catherine's union and see if an analogy can be drawn to to adjudicative forum. BUT critically, note that neither character rids him or herself of the aggressive or passive, taking or giving, raw or refined. Rather, each adds to those qualities, a bit of its opposite to transform the trait into one altogether different than what it was. Think of each seperately and distinctly keeping in mind how these qualitites are a neceesary apsect of "just" resolve. |
