Good & Grace from Evil & Sin in Love's Labor's Lost & Henry V
How can good be distilled from evil? How can sin turn to grace?
GOOD FROM EVIL IN HENRY V (1599):
In Shakespeare's Henry V, Act 4, Scene 1 (Folger), King Henry says something that some readers and audience members may find strange:
"There is some soul of goodness in things evil,
Would men observingly distil it out.
We should note that this is not at all the same as arguing that evil means can and should be used to achieve good ends: As they say, the ends do not justify the means; but this statement by Henry is very different.
Given that Henry was a kind of prodigal son, it seems Henry himself is living evidence that good can be distilled from evil: Perhaps the time he spent with Falstaff not only corrupted him for a time, but also helped him understand aspects of himself, and a wider range of his subjects, better, and therefore made him a better king.
Henry's time as a prodigal son was not chosen as an evil means to achieve a good end: He chose to be prodigal for the excitement and pleasures it gave him. However, repenting of the "sins" of his prodigal years allowed him to reap unforeseen benefits.
Henry is also the king who, in 3.3, at war with France, threatens the town of Harfleur with terrible destruction, with rape of maidens and the killing of infants, like Herod the Great and the slaughter of the innocents. Yet Henry's bark may be worse than his bite, and this evil threat may have "some soul of goodness" in it, that by threatening great evil, the town may actually be spared, as well as sparing his own men the dangers of more battle. So evil-seeming fiction - and theatricality - may also be distilled to find a good soul at its heart.
GRACE FROM TEMPTATION AND SIN IN LOVE'S LABOR'S LOST (1594-1595):
Five years earlier, Shakespeare explored a similar idea in Love's Labor Lost. At the end of the play, the men have disguised themselves to secretly woo the women they believe they have chosen, but the women learn of this in advance, and so they also disguise themselves to trick the men into wooing the wrong women. People sometimes act strangely, wildly, inappropriately, when they think they are disguised, whether they are masked as actors, members of Elizabeth's court at a Christmas masque, or sometimes, people on the internet.
News arrives that the father of the Princess of France has died, and suddenly things become serious. The princess offers an explanation for the women's behavior that might be taken the wrong way, and then Berowne offers a similar explanation in greater detail. These explanations are like apologies, also like blaming the other for their own bad behavior, but also like the line quoted above from Henry V. Here's what the Princess has to say:
I thank you, gracious lords,
For all your fair endeavors, and entreat,
Out of a new-sad soul, that you vouchsafe
In your rich wisdom to excuse or hide
The liberal opposition of our spirits,
If overboldly we have borne ourselves
In the converse of breath; your gentleness
Was guilty of it. (5.2.804-811, Folger)
[ODELL PARK, Love's Labour's Lost Jun 12, 2020, YouTube, starting at 2:14:19]
In other words: Forgive us if we have been too bold: Your gentleness tempted us to it and is to blame.
Is this an attempt to avoid responsibility for being too bold? Or a way both to apologize for feminine boldness, and to express gratitude for male gentleness? (Or both?)
Soon, also here is what Berowne says, something very similar but in greater detail:
For your fair sakes have we neglected time,
Played foul play with our oaths. Your beauty, ladies,
Hath much deformed us, fashioning our humors
Even to the opposèd end of our intents.
And what in us hath seemed ridiculous—
[...]
Which parti-coated presence of loose love
Put on by us, if, in your heavenly eyes,
Have misbecomed our oaths and gravities,
Those heavenly eyes, that look into these faults,
Suggested us to make. Therefore, ladies,
Our love being yours, the error that love makes
Is likewise yours. We to ourselves prove false
By being once false forever to be true
To those that make us both—fair ladies, you.
And even that falsehood, in itself a sin,
Thus purifies itself and turns to grace. (5.2.830-851)
[Calvin University, Love's Labor's Lost, June 8, 2016, YouTube, starting at 2:18:08]
In other words, Berowne says yes, they broke their oaths to avoid the company of women. And yet he blames the women's beauty and heavenly eyes, so the fault is shared by the women. They were false to their oaths, only to be true forever to the women.
Their sin thereby "purifies itself and turns to grace." A nearly blasphemous idea.
And this from a playwright who seems to have gotten Anne Hathaway pregnant before swearing (in church, before witnesses) to love and honor her in marriage. Did his sin turn to grace?
And in a kingdom where people were required to swear loyalty to a Protestant queen, and to avenge those who might conspire to kill her, even if they had previously promised loyalty to Roman Catholicism. Did their sin turn to grace?
St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) popularized the idea of Adam's "original" sin in the Garden of Eden was a "happy" or "necessary" fault, because it required God's redemption through the "happy" sending of his son to save all humankind. (This "happy fault" phrase, "O felix culpa," became part of the Exsultet sung at the Easter Vigil perhaps as early as the 4th century.) St. Paul in Romans 5:20 wrote, "where sin abounded, there grace abounded much more." The prodigal son was considered a great sinner; Paul considered himself a great sinner, for having persecuted Christians before his own conversion. Perhaps in that way, the great sinner, having known mercy, might become all the more a vessel of grace.
Shakespeare's formulation is either just a clever conceit, or even more bold and surprising.
~~~
MY RECENT POSTS ON LOVE'S LABOR'S LOST:
5. Love's Labor's Lost, Arcangela Tarabotti, and Mirrors of Difference - November 16, 2021
4. Elizabeth I, Popes, & Ferdinando I de' Medici in Love's Labor's Lost - November 9, 2021
3. Women Priests Assigning Penance in Love's Labor's Lost? - November 2, 2021
2. Good & Grace from Evil & Sin in Love's Labor's Lost & Henry V - October 24, 2021
1. Begging & Poor (& Chastity & Pregnancy) in Love's Labour's Lost (1594-1597) - October 12, 2021 (this #1 post was also part of another series)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for reading! My current project is a book tentatively titled Hamlet’s Bible, about biblical allusions and plot echoes in Hamlet.
Below is a link to a list of some of my top posts (“greatest hits”), including a description of my book project (last item on the list):
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2019/12/top-20-hamlet-bible-posts.html
I post every week, so please visit as often as you like and consider subscribing.
GOOD FROM EVIL IN HENRY V (1599):
In Shakespeare's Henry V, Act 4, Scene 1 (Folger), King Henry says something that some readers and audience members may find strange:
"There is some soul of goodness in things evil,
Would men observingly distil it out.
We should note that this is not at all the same as arguing that evil means can and should be used to achieve good ends: As they say, the ends do not justify the means; but this statement by Henry is very different.
Given that Henry was a kind of prodigal son, it seems Henry himself is living evidence that good can be distilled from evil: Perhaps the time he spent with Falstaff not only corrupted him for a time, but also helped him understand aspects of himself, and a wider range of his subjects, better, and therefore made him a better king.
Henry's time as a prodigal son was not chosen as an evil means to achieve a good end: He chose to be prodigal for the excitement and pleasures it gave him. However, repenting of the "sins" of his prodigal years allowed him to reap unforeseen benefits.
Henry is also the king who, in 3.3, at war with France, threatens the town of Harfleur with terrible destruction, with rape of maidens and the killing of infants, like Herod the Great and the slaughter of the innocents. Yet Henry's bark may be worse than his bite, and this evil threat may have "some soul of goodness" in it, that by threatening great evil, the town may actually be spared, as well as sparing his own men the dangers of more battle. So evil-seeming fiction - and theatricality - may also be distilled to find a good soul at its heart.
GRACE FROM TEMPTATION AND SIN IN LOVE'S LABOR'S LOST (1594-1595):
Five years earlier, Shakespeare explored a similar idea in Love's Labor Lost. At the end of the play, the men have disguised themselves to secretly woo the women they believe they have chosen, but the women learn of this in advance, and so they also disguise themselves to trick the men into wooing the wrong women. People sometimes act strangely, wildly, inappropriately, when they think they are disguised, whether they are masked as actors, members of Elizabeth's court at a Christmas masque, or sometimes, people on the internet.
News arrives that the father of the Princess of France has died, and suddenly things become serious. The princess offers an explanation for the women's behavior that might be taken the wrong way, and then Berowne offers a similar explanation in greater detail. These explanations are like apologies, also like blaming the other for their own bad behavior, but also like the line quoted above from Henry V. Here's what the Princess has to say:
I thank you, gracious lords,
For all your fair endeavors, and entreat,
Out of a new-sad soul, that you vouchsafe
In your rich wisdom to excuse or hide
The liberal opposition of our spirits,
If overboldly we have borne ourselves
In the converse of breath; your gentleness
Was guilty of it. (5.2.804-811, Folger)
[ODELL PARK, Love's Labour's Lost Jun 12, 2020, YouTube, starting at 2:14:19]
In other words: Forgive us if we have been too bold: Your gentleness tempted us to it and is to blame.
Is this an attempt to avoid responsibility for being too bold? Or a way both to apologize for feminine boldness, and to express gratitude for male gentleness? (Or both?)
Soon, also here is what Berowne says, something very similar but in greater detail:
For your fair sakes have we neglected time,
Played foul play with our oaths. Your beauty, ladies,
Hath much deformed us, fashioning our humors
Even to the opposèd end of our intents.
And what in us hath seemed ridiculous—
[...]
Which parti-coated presence of loose love
Put on by us, if, in your heavenly eyes,
Have misbecomed our oaths and gravities,
Those heavenly eyes, that look into these faults,
Suggested us to make. Therefore, ladies,
Our love being yours, the error that love makes
Is likewise yours. We to ourselves prove false
By being once false forever to be true
To those that make us both—fair ladies, you.
And even that falsehood, in itself a sin,
Thus purifies itself and turns to grace. (5.2.830-851)
[Calvin University, Love's Labor's Lost, June 8, 2016, YouTube, starting at 2:18:08]
In other words, Berowne says yes, they broke their oaths to avoid the company of women. And yet he blames the women's beauty and heavenly eyes, so the fault is shared by the women. They were false to their oaths, only to be true forever to the women.
Their sin thereby "purifies itself and turns to grace." A nearly blasphemous idea.
And this from a playwright who seems to have gotten Anne Hathaway pregnant before swearing (in church, before witnesses) to love and honor her in marriage. Did his sin turn to grace?
And in a kingdom where people were required to swear loyalty to a Protestant queen, and to avenge those who might conspire to kill her, even if they had previously promised loyalty to Roman Catholicism. Did their sin turn to grace?
St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) popularized the idea of Adam's "original" sin in the Garden of Eden was a "happy" or "necessary" fault, because it required God's redemption through the "happy" sending of his son to save all humankind. (This "happy fault" phrase, "O felix culpa," became part of the Exsultet sung at the Easter Vigil perhaps as early as the 4th century.) St. Paul in Romans 5:20 wrote, "where sin abounded, there grace abounded much more." The prodigal son was considered a great sinner; Paul considered himself a great sinner, for having persecuted Christians before his own conversion. Perhaps in that way, the great sinner, having known mercy, might become all the more a vessel of grace.
Shakespeare's formulation is either just a clever conceit, or even more bold and surprising.
~~~
MY RECENT POSTS ON LOVE'S LABOR'S LOST:
5. Love's Labor's Lost, Arcangela Tarabotti, and Mirrors of Difference - November 16, 2021
4. Elizabeth I, Popes, & Ferdinando I de' Medici in Love's Labor's Lost - November 9, 2021
3. Women Priests Assigning Penance in Love's Labor's Lost? - November 2, 2021
2. Good & Grace from Evil & Sin in Love's Labor's Lost & Henry V - October 24, 2021
1. Begging & Poor (& Chastity & Pregnancy) in Love's Labour's Lost (1594-1597) - October 12, 2021 (this #1 post was also part of another series)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for reading! My current project is a book tentatively titled Hamlet’s Bible, about biblical allusions and plot echoes in Hamlet.
Below is a link to a list of some of my top posts (“greatest hits”), including a description of my book project (last item on the list):
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2019/12/top-20-hamlet-bible-posts.html
I post every week, so please visit as often as you like and consider subscribing.
