Content area
Full Text
Norman Rabkin, in Shakespeare and the Problem of Meaning, argues that "in Henry V Shakespeare created a work whose ultimate power is precisely the fact that it points in two opposite directions, virtually daring us to choose one of the two opposed interpretations it requires of us" (34). He relates Shakespeare's experiment in this deceptively simple play to the gestaltist's drawing of a rare beast, the rabbit-duck. E. H. Gombrich, in Art and Illusion, describes the experience of that hybrid creature as follows:
We can see the picture as either a rabbit or a duck. It is easy to discover both readings. It is less easy to describe what happens when we switch from one interpretation to the other. Clearly we do not have the illusion that we are confronted with a "real" duck or rabbit. The shape on the paper resembles neither animal very closely. And yet there is no doubt that the shape transforms itself in some subtle way when the duck's beak becomes the rabbit's ears and brings an otherwise neglected spot into prominence ... we can switch from one reading to another with increasing rapidity; we will also "remember" the rabbit while we see the duck, but the more closely we watch ourselves, the more certainly we will discover that we cannot experience alternative readings at the same time. (5-6)
Rabkin continues by insisting that Henry V, when viewed as an independent play, displays the dual perspective of this hybrid creature. He then guides his reader through the play, delineating the double image that Shakespeare has limned. I will summarize Rabkin's argument as follows.
If we focus on Henry's dazzling rhetoric, his series of unimpeded victories, his humanity toward subordinates, his charming wooing of Katharine, and his probing self-awareness, he emerges as Shakespeare's ideal king. This ideal image I will term the "rabbit" of the play's gestalt. If, on the other hand, we concentrate on Henry's manipulations-his collusion with the archbishop and bishop concerning his claim to the French throne, his strategic use of the "tennis ball" incident, his cunning entrapment of the three traitors, his callous teasing of Williams and Fluellen-his ideal image becomes slightly defaced. Furthermore, if we focus on his cruelty, either threatened or performed-his banishment of Falstaff,...