'Why, this is an arrant counterfeit rascal...' Henry V Act 3 Scene 6
Bawcock or Heart of Gold? Comparing Kent/Caius and Pistol
CORNWALL
This is some fellow,
Who, having been praised for bluntness, doth affect
A saucy roughness, and constrains the garb
Quite from his nature: he cannot flatter, he,
An honest mind and plain, he must speak truth! An they will take it, so; if not, he's plain.
These kind of knaves I know, which in this plainness
Harbour more craft and more corrupter ends
Than twenty silly ducking observants
That stretch their duties nicely.
GOWER
Why, 'tis a gull, a fool, a rogue, that now and then
goes to the wars, to grace himself at his return
into London under the form of a soldier. And such
fellows are perfect in the great commanders' names:
and they will learn you by rote where services were
done; at such and such a sconce, at such a breach,
at such a convoy; who came off bravely, who was
shot, who disgraced, what terms the enemy stood on;
and this they con perfectly in the phrase of war,
which they trick up with new-tuned oaths: and what
a beard of the general's cut and a horrid suit of
the camp will do among foaming bottles and
ale-washed wits, is wonderful to be thought on.
In this week's feature I'll be making comparisons and contrasts between the above two extracts - the first from King Lear Act 2 Scene 2, the second from Henry V Act 3 Scene 6 - to draw out the similarities and differences between the respective characters of Kent/Caius and Pistol. For those unfamiliar with these characters, Kent is Lear's banished lord, who takes on the roguish persona of Caius to keep close to his king, while Pistol one of the late Falstaff's riotous followers.
Both Kent and Pistol were portrayed by actor Anthony Byrne in recent RSC productions (in the 2016 King Lear and the 2015 Henry V ). But this is not the only parallel these characters share. Both use their sharp wit to get the upper hand over their opponents, launching into relentless tirades of bawdy mockery. From these two come some of Shakespeare's best and most imaginative insults:
KENT:
A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a
base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited,
hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave...
PISTOL:
O braggart vile and damned furious wight!
Yet as the extracts at the top of this article show, both are scorned by their superiors for this behaviour: Cornwall labels Kent a 'kind of [knave]', while Gower brushes Pistol off as 'a fool, a rogue'. Their bawdy vocabularies, fierce personalities and apparent lack of loyalty or valour paint them as nothing more than commoners. But neither character is that two-dimensional - both project outward shows which disguise their true selves and true intentions.
To take Kent first, who we know to be operating under the persona of Caius. Caius disguises Kent's true nature as a lord of Lear's court: his bawdy phrases, which Cornwall derides as 'bluntness', 'saucy roughness', and 'plainness', are a far cry from the elevated discourse in Kent's earlier scenes. Yet Cornwall does detect that, beneath this plainness, hides 'more craft' and the capacity for 'more corrupter ends'. Cornwall can sense Caius is not all he seems, but does not push the thought enough to recognise Caius's true identity. Even when Caius 'go[es] out of [his] dialect' and elevates his language ('Sir, in good sooth, in sincere verity...'), Cornwall does not realise him to be Kent, but merely a 'stubborn ancient knave [and] reverend braggart'.
With Pistol, the situation is almost the complete opposite. While Caius downwardly diverges (becomes more common to set himself apart from others), Pistol upwardly converges - he speaks in more elevated tones to match the status of those he addresses. Pistol is begging Fluellen and Gower, two officers, for Bardolph's life to be spared: it would make sense therefore, if he wishes to be prosperous, for him to appear of higher status. His words are poetic and courtly ('firm and sound of heart,/ and of buxom valour...'), and he evokes classical figures such as 'Fortune's furious fickle wheel' to argue his cause. Yet this is not enough to disguise his true self, as Gower recognises him almost immediately: 'I remember him now; a bawd, a cutpurse'. Pistol adopts an elevated persona with honourable intentions, but Gower sees such change in behaviour as a 'con' or an alehouse 'trick', decrying Pistol as nothing more than a counterfeit or fraud.
So while Kent attempts to be more common than he is, and arouses suspicion for seeming more than he appears, Pistol attempts to be more elevated than he is, and is denounced as being cruder than he appears. Yet, while the immediate responses to their disguises may differ, there is still a lot in common between these characters. Both Kent and Pistol have honourable intentions (to protect Lear; to save Bardolph's life), yet both are suspected as having dangerous designs (to craft and corrupt; to con and trick). Both are discredited as being nothing more than knaves, and both are prevented from achieving their aims (Kent is placed in the stocks; Bardolph is court-marshalled all the same).
But are Kent and Pistol knaves? And are they dangerous?
If we look back to the origin of the term, where 'knave' was used to mean a male servant, then yes - Kent is both a sworn lord of, and self-proclaimed servant of Lear; Pistol serves as Falstaff's ensign, but also as a soldier under King Henry IV and later Henry V. I would also argue that they are knaves in the other sense, in that they are rough, rude, and roguish: Pistol proves this on multiple occasions, such as his argument with Nym in Act 2 Scene 1; Kent most notably in his conflict with Oswald in Act 1 Scene 4, and continued in Act 2 Scene 2.
Despite his fierceness, I do not deem Pistol to be truly dangerous. In Act 3 Scene 2, the Boy says that Pistol: 'hath a killing tongue/ and a quiet sword; by the means whereof a' breaks/ words, and keeps whole weapons'. Pistol's violent turns of phrase may present him as being dangerous, but he rarely puts his real weapons to use - this is proved in Act 4 Scene 4, when Pistol threatens to hurt Master Fer, but does not turn his sword to the deed. This might be due to the fact that Pistol's rank is mainly honourary, and he has really done very little fighting, or that his company is often made up mostly of drunken commoners, against whom his wit is effective enough.
Kent, however, is more unpredictable, and possibly more dangerous. He seems to take offence at Oswald for almost no reason at all - while it is true that Oswald is helping Goneril to discredit Lear, he is not the greatest of Lear's enemies. Why is it then, that Kent throws so much energy into bullying and abusing Oswald, if not, at least in some small part, for fun? Kent also uses more than his wit to attack Oswald - in Act 1, he trips Oswald up and beats him; in Act 2, he draws his sword on him and strikes at him. This unmotivated hate and willingness to use weapons - perhaps in frustration of his recent banishment; perhaps in celebration of freedom from the responsibility of being a lord - makes Kent more dangerous.
So, to conclude: do Kent and Pistol become what Cornwall and Gower suppose them to be? Kent, suspected by Cornwall as being more than he appears, does prove to be more than a simple and plain knave - not a villain seeking 'corrupter ends', but a faithful servant of his king until the end. Kent's rough and rude disguise ultimately fails, as his true, loving self comes through. Pistol, spurned by Gower as being no more than a cur, proves Gower to be correct - in his final lines, Pistol decides to go back to being a 'cutpurse' and lying about his wounds in England. Pistol's attempts at elevation also fails, as he settles for being what others believe him to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment