Comparative Drama

Gadshill, Hotspur, and the Design of Proleptic Parody Robert P. Merrix and Arthur Palacas In Act II, scene iii of Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Hot­ spur enters reading a letter from “a shallow cowardly hind,” who is castigated by Hotspur for daring to question the success of the proposed rebellion. Efforts to identify the “coward” or to associate the letter with either political or dramatic figures persist to this day but with little success.1 These efforts them­ selves are often dismissed as attempts to create a false signifi­ cance or to literalize the play. Thomas Courtenay, for example, asserts that “nothing shows more clearly how these historical plays have taken the place of history than the pains taken to trace this letter to some particular person.”2 Modem editors, apparently convinced there is no solution, simply note that the correspondent is not identified. We are left then with a nagging problem: why, if he is important, is the correspondent not identified? Why was Shakespeare either so careless or so secretive? One way to resolve the problem is to view the scene struc­ turally, as the culminating scene in a three-part pattern which begins with the Gadshill-Chamberlain episode (Il.i), a struc­ turally paralleled scene, and is followed by the abortive robbery scene (Il.ii) which provides a mimetic disproof of Gadshill’s assertive rhetoric of success. The correspondent then is simply the structural counterpart of the Chamberlain, and Gadshill a comic counterpart of Hotspur. The general relationship of the Gadshill and Hotspur scenes is easily detected especially in the similarity of Gadshill’s and Hotspur’s defense of their respective enterprises. But the inter­ vening robbery scene must be included in any analysis of the 299 300 Comparative Drama pattern. Moreover, the curious sequence of the scenes, in which the comic character comes before its ethical counterpart, must be considered. Obviously we are witnessing parody, but a different kind in that we view an event which anticipates a later, thematically similar one. This type of parody, which may be termed “proleptic,”3 is sometimes used by Shakespeare and is both complex and effective. An analysis of the three scenes in terms of the rhetorical parallels will illustrate obvious rela­ tionships between Gadshill and Hotspur. A comparative analy­ sis, drawing on similar patterns from painting and poetry, will reveal the efficacy of the design—the fact that this specific “proleptic” arrangement is dramatically more effective than simple parody. I The dramatic parallel between the two scenes is strongly supported by the studied parallelism between Hotspur’s angry rebuttal of the letter and Gadshill’s playful retort to the Cham­ berlain in lines 61-76, the major speech of scene i.4 Both responses, furthermore, proceed in four parallel stages which can be labelled, sequentially, (a.) personal affront, (b.) a general defense of the plot and collaborators, (c.) an argument based on the collaborators’ capabilities, and (d.) an argument based on the collaborators’ fidelity. As measured as the correla­ tion is, there can be no doubt of Shakespeare’s intention. Both speeches first are responses to suggestions of failure. The Chamberlain withdraws from Gadshill’s robbery plans—“No, I’ll none of it”—and dryly suggests that Gadshill keep his offer of his neck “for the hangman” if the robbery should fail. In parallel fashion, the author of the letter extricates himself from Hotspur’s plot with the ironic remark, “I could be well con­ tented to be there . . .” and suggests that Hotspur’s friends are “uncertain, the time itself unsorted, and your whole plot too light for the counterpoise of so great an opposition.” Gadshill, insulted by the Chamberlain’s doubts, begins his response by confidently disparaging the Chamberlain’s logic— “What talkest thou to me of the hangman?”—and quips, “If I hang, I’ll make a fat pair of gallows; for if I hang, old Sir John hangs with me, and thou knowest he is no starveling.” Hotspur is also insulted, and angrily responds to his correspondent’s scepticism: “Say you so, say you so? I say unto you again, you Robert P. Merrix & Arthur Palacas 301 are a shallow cowardly hind, and you...