Like Petruchio in his war on Kate’s inner shrew, Henry V employs an “us v. them” tactic in an unexpected way. In addition to the requisite French bashing, Henry rouses the troops in the opening of scene 3 by inviting them into his noble circle. He talks about their fathers’ honor and valor insisting “there is none of you so mean and base that hath not noble lustre in your eyes” (3.1.29-30). Neither the emotional push nor pull of these arguments are unique. When at war, the enemy is vilified and the soldier is glorified. What is interesting about Henry’s speech, and also very relevant today, is the secondary other that Henry creates. It is not enough for the “us v. them” scenario to encompass one body of “them.” There are also the “men of grosser blood” who stand across the sand line (3.1.24). Who is Henry talking about? Despite his grand linguistic gestures, the men whom he addresses in this speech are at the very bottom of the totem pole. This speech is not for his horsed noblemen but for the common foot soldier. There are no men of grosser blood. Henry creates a social fallacy to further manipulate his soldiers’ emotions.
Consider the stance of the poor white southern anti-abolitionist in the nineteenth century. For someone who didn’t actually own slaves and therefor had no economic stake in slavery, an anti-abolitionist stance is purely emotional. No group of people wants to see themselves as being the bottom of the social hierarchy and so they push another group beneath themselves. In the case of Henry’s soldiers, the social implications are far less disturbing as the men of grosser blood are an imaginary group of people, but the attitude is the same. Henry smoothly uses a complex model of “us v. them” to accomplish his aims, without actually alienating any English people.
When I read 3.1, I assumed that the “men of grosser blood” that Henry was referring to were men who are even more violent and more barbaric than what Henry had just described in the previous lines. “And teach them how to war!” he said, which I interpreted as be so ruthless that even those who act at the pinnacle of cruelty will have something to learn from Henry’s soldiers. I thought that King Henry’s entire speech in 3.1, seeing as it as the only speech in the entire scene, was almost a pep talk, a way to ease the minds of his soldiers and also of himself, a preparation of war so to speak.
This speech also leads into a central conflict in the play which is man vs. himself. Henry’s doubts about his own claim to the French throne leads to the concealment of his identity among his soldiers to hear their opinion on the ensuing war. His struggle with his own ambiguity leads him to seek consolation somewhere else: in his men.
We’ll talk about the difference between this speech, where these class distinctions are almost as disturbing as the dehumanization being recommended to men who must fight a battle, and the Crispian’s Day speech that is its twin in Act 4. It’s another pep talk, but takes a far more inclusive view of the English “nation.”
While I understand the interpretation of Henry’s speech to the soldiers, I don’t agree with it. When Henry says, “Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war.” (3.1.24) I don’t think he was using an “us vs. them” device in order to make the soldiers feel superior to others. In the next line, “And you, good yeoman, Whose limbs were made in England, show us here The mettle of your pasture.” (3.1.24-27), he calls out a group of men who are also of a lower class. I don’t see it as Henry trying to boost their confidence in their station in life by calling out those of lesser rank, I see it as him trying to boost their pride for their station in life. Henry says, “Let us swear That you are worth your breeding, which I doubt not, For there is none of you so mean and base That hath not noble luster in your eyes.” (3.1.27-31). He isn’t telling them they are of noble rank, he is saying that because they are English men fighting for their country they are deserving of credit even if they are of a lesser station in life. While his speech does evoke a somewhat false sense of what he actually believes, based on his other speeches about social positions, it isn’t looking to say, “hey, you’re better than those low-lifes, so fight on!” I think Henry is just throwing a bunch of fuzzy words out there to get his men pumped up for a treacherous fight.