ABSTRACT
It was an act of justifiable anger, needing no apology, yet that Shakespeare's attitude to it was ambivalent is suggested by Fluellen's disquisition in IV.7.11-52. Henry of Monmouth is the modern Alexander of Macedon, like him not only in his victories but also in 'his rages, and his furies, and his wraths, and his cholers, and his moods, and his displeasures, and his indignations'. And Fluellen reminds the audience (which has heard, and maybe shared, some criticism of the King for turning off his old friend Falstaff) that he was like Alexander also in that, for Alexander killed his friend Cleitus. But whereas Alexander was 'in his ales and his cups', Harry Monmouth did it 'in his right wits and his good judgements'. His action in banishing Falstaff was just; so was his action in killing the prisoners; both were inevitable in the circumstances; yet however necessary, they were both regrettable. The comparison with Alexander shows that the slaughter of the prisoners made Shakespeare reflect on the nature of the Heroic King. Because he is different from ordinary men, 'his affections ... higher mounted than ours', he must at times flout our ordinary sentiments; and we should gladly put up with it and accept him for what he is. Falstaff's name is already fading from Fluellen's memory, for all his 'jests and gipes, and knaveries, and mocks'; but Harry of Monmouth will always be celebrated as a good man. So once more Shakespeare refuses to let the epic conception of his hero pass without considering other aspects of his nature.
