Shakespeare’s Henry V
User Rating: 0 / 5
- Details
- Hits: 16386
Among figures in Shakespeare’s work, Henry V has stood out as an extremely controversial figure. His duality is appalling. Shakespeare is forced to split this controversial king into a flawed king and good man. By splitting the character, Shakespeare may have had a satirical and ironic purpose. Indeed, one can easily lose by attempting to reconcile the distinct views with the irony. The audience has to choose for itself because Shakespeare avoids temptations to compromise between the two interpretations. This is the ultimate power of this Shakespeare’s production. Henry V’s comic festivity can be shown to the audience at one point, and then the play shifts quickly to depict the dark tone of the Machiavellian politics.
Henry can be taken as the mirror of Christian kings. Speaking of God, he is careful not to mention the term ‘defeat.’ He talks of future generations being proud of the ancestors that will fight in this war. Before the actual war begins, Henry V seeks to legitimize his mission. He consults with the Canterbury Archbishop, requesting for information whether he had the right to reclaiming the territories in France. Henry V is cautious to ask for clarification because he fails to understand the meandering and long-winded response that the Archbishop gives. It is only when the Archbishop gives a clear affirmative answer that Henry V wages the war (Shakespeare 301).
After taking control of France, Henry V says he loves the country so much. He cites the love for the country as a justification for the war and the subsequent seizure. Though a section of Shakespeare’s audience has taken this as ironic and humorous, it may not be the case, after all. Henry V is always serious and respectable. As he says this, he attempts to use the native language of Katharine, though his comical inability to speak it is overwhelming.
In a bid not to humiliate the French, he seeks to make a peace treaty with their king despite having defeated them. He falls in love with Princess Katharine, the daughter to King Charles IV. Instead of taking her forcefully, which is within his ability, he decides to woo her. He hates the idea of just ordering up a marriage. Under the terms the treaty proposes, King Charles has no problem in allowing his daughter to go with Henry V. It is considered a brilliant idea to have married a girl whom Henry had stripped off authority and business.
Nevertheless, Henry had the final word, and the rationale of the meeting cannot be found. It is already known to Shakespeare’s audience that the Archbishop will most likely grant Henry V the go-ahead to reclaim French territories. The two had met earlier where Henry V promised the archbishop he would withdraw a parliamentary bill seeking to have the church taxed heavily and part with some portion of its land. It is also in the audience’s knowledge that Henry V has the support of the nobles, who perpetrated the land grabbing and the massive taxation scheme. As for Henry, he knew the English people would respect him if he won. However, none of these things is mentioned as Henry V and the archbishop discuss the morality of engaging the French in a war.
The king has been depicted as a great leader; his Agincourt victory gave the British a national identity. In other words, he is responsible for the production of some sense of nationhood across Britain. In fact, Henry V’s victory has found its way in debates where Elizabethan colonization and Irish identity are concerned. The explicit identification of Henry as being Welsh is important in the preservation of the British identity (Dodd 20).
Through the Agincourt battle, Henry V displays exemplary leadership abilities. Rather than just directing his forces, he situated himself at the middle of the war area. His opponent, King Charles IV, remained in place, making his army despair under the nobles. Henry V’s innovativeness, recognition, as well as superiority facilitated the ultimate victory. A speech he made just before his soldiers went to the battle has been considered an asset to his men.
Henry V’s war is justifiable, according to scrutiny of the ambivalences and irony as well as the multivalent arguments Shakespeare explains. In fact, Shakespeare apparently liked Henry V for his war and the subsequent imperialism. There has been a resurgence of conservative assertions for the heroism of King Henry V if World War II is made the major context of interpretation. He has been seen as the one whose efforts refueled Britain’s national confidence. Recuperating Henry V’s heroism is, therefore, inevitable in the face of Hazlitt’s anti-Henry V legacy. Though he is not the ideal character Shakespeare admires, he is still a good king in a flawed world, the ideal mirror of Christian kings. Indeed, the wars he led against France were righteous ones and were apparently so to the public. Consequently, a fog of detraction and suspicion ought to be lifted off Henry V. His mirror shines, and in it is the face of a hero.
Henry V is said to have tackled most of the domestic policies, while gradually building a wider policy on them. From the beginning, he makes it clear he will rule Britain as the head of one united nation. He lets past disagreements be forgotten – Mortimer is taken into favor; Richard II honorably re-interred; the heirs of the sufferers in the previous reign restored to their initial titles and estates gradually. On the other hand, Henry sees a grave danger, and he acts ruthlessly and firmly. For instance, the Lollard discontent of 1414 is discovered early enough, as well as Henry's ally Sir John Oldcastle’s execution by burning. This, however, has been seen as a move in the bud meant to make his position as the king secure. Nevertheless, Henry V’s reign generally is free of any trouble in the home country. An exception is the Plot of Southampton favor of Mortimer. This involves Henry Scrope, Baron Scrope, Richard Scrope, as well as the Earl of Cambridge.
Henry V is can also be viewed as a Machiavellian. The word Machiavellian, quite an important term, originates from Niccolò Machiavelli, a renowned author who lived between 1469 and 1527. The Italian author’s most popular treatise is the Prince, who illustrates the cynical approach of the author to power. Ultimately, the Italian's last name is adapted contemporarily into the word Machiavellianism. Machiavellianism refers to the use of deceitful and cunning political tactics to gain an end. Machiavelli reasons dictated by reality wishes to preserve a king’s power and state, and must avoid any limitations he may place on ordinary citizens. It is not possible for Henry V to reign successfully while solely possessing moral and sound qualities. In light of this fact, it is noteworthy remembering the importance of one’s perception in public. Nonetheless, there are no rules barring Henry V from making a fake image for benefiting his subjects. While perceived as humane, religious, and merciful, Henry V could appear to possess these qualities simply. Unbeknownst to the readers, this is apparently a section of an indispensible, intricate tool meant to gain popularity for his reign. Often kings are required to act morally and reprehensibly. Therefore, while flexibility in the moral domain is required, a king ought to avoid a negative reputation. In spite of such advice, Henry V stresses that the preservation of an ideal reputation is not a prerequisite for maintaining one’s power. Henry is thus a very Machiavellian, who believes he can only benefit England if he strengthens his place first.
He wants to wage a war in order to strengthen his own authority and power. He works hard in a bid to suppress the transgressive and potentially subversive individual’s agency. During the Elizabethan times, the building of social order was extremely difficult for Henry V. Importantly, the order was hard to maintain, and Henry incorporated the subversion, which was a threat to that order.
The ensuing conflicts are bloody, but play little role in order creation; they only make the citizenry subversive. Once people in England realize Henry V is not fighting in their interests, tensions arise. Orators engage in speeches meant to change the thinking of Britons, but they do not succeed as Henry V has already created an attitude he is an exemplary leader. These conflicts have been unjustifiable, and meant only for the personal gain of Henry V. Henry’s collaboration with Falstaff was a concerted effort King Henry V put to get some theatrical skills and the language his subjects use. Since he wanted to mimic the voices of the subjects in the future, he had to learn their language for repression of the threats to become real (Dutton and Howard 8).
The view of King Henry V most justifiable to me is that of being a great leader who restores confidence and national identity to Britain. His reclaiming of France and the prior seeking of legitimization from the archbishop bring him out as a British hero and a patriot. It is evident Henry V did not have any intentions to humiliate the French and their king from the way he approaches the takeover. In addition, he woes the daughter to King Charles, which is further evidence of his commitment to make the peace treaty with France. Consequently, it is the true King Henry V is a great, victorious leader who wins the Agincourt battle with France and restores the national identity of Britain.