Analysis of Henr'sy V life - Essay Example

"The play is ironic: that is ..... Henry V is a satire on monarchical government, on imperialism, on the baser kinds of patriorism, and on war" (Gerald Gould). I believe to great extend Gerald Gould's analysis of Henry V is correct. Henry V, a strong, successful ruler whose inner self is often subsumed within his public role. Shakespeare character Henry is a fictive construct, a dramatic character revealed through speech and action within the conventions of the Elizabethan theater. Henry V, often polarize into "ironic" or even satiric; as a protagonist this King has inspired as much dislike as praise and has a monarchical government. Granted, Henry is a strong imperial leader. His oration to his men at the breach, with its inhuman but exhilarating images of the tiger, the cannon, and the rock, works well as a rhetorical ploy to make them keep fighting in a tough situation. But his fantasy projection of what will happen if Harfleur does not surrender, although it can be justified as a bargaining chip, contains an excess of callous ruthlessness--especially in the vision of how the "blind and bloody soldier" will rape "fresh fair virgins" and "shrill-shrieking daughters"--that is hard to condone by complacently referring to what was expected in medieval siege warfare. Henry also damages his image by implicitly allying himself with the tyrannical King Herod when he alludes to his soldiers as " Herod's bloody-hunting slaughtermen". Henry plays a similarly ruthless role in the final scene of the play. He is prepared to remedy the "imperfections" of France (caused by him) only if the French will "buy" peace on his terms; he is even a stickler for the final article of the treaty, that the French King must always refer to him as son and heir. Echoes of his negotiating through threats of rape cast an ironic light on Henry's reference to Katherine as "our capital demand," another of the "maiden cities" to be vanquished (Derek Traversi, 1957). Henry is less successful in bridging the gap when he hides his royal identity and attempts man-to-man conversation on the night before battle. He fails to convince Williams that the King will never agree to be ransomed, and their encounter ends on a contentious note, with Henry accepting a challenge from the soldier. Henry shows his military discipline in approving, without hesitation, the execution of Bardolph for stealing from a church: "We would have all such offenders so cut off". Yet there is no moment of compunction, no recognition of past ties between him and his Eastcheap companion, even though Fluellen makes a point of identifying Bardolph by his carbuncled complexion and nose "like a coal of fire". It is only retroactively linked with Henry's spontaneous and understandable anger over the massacre of the luggage attendants, an anger that then reaches excess in Henry's threat to cut more throats. If temperance is a cardinal virtue of the ruler, Henry has failed again. His behavior on the battlefield veers confusingly between coldblooded practicality and barely restrained fury. Henry is convinced that the course of the war is providentially arranged and that human intervention counts for little: "We are in God's hand, brother" ((Henry V (ed.), 1954, III. vi. 177) and "how thou pleasest, God, dispose the day!" (IV. iii. 133). Often, though, the dramatic context overlays Henry's religious assertions with irony. Henry determines that the campaign against the French "lies within the will of God," but only after declaring his intention to make the Dauphin pay dearly for his ill-advised gift of tennis balls. The favorable portrait of Henry is continually subject to ironic qualification without being totally undercut. Henry's possible chicanery or question the decency and fairness of his tactics modify the portrait of him as a hero without turning him into an antihero. Henry V is shown to us as a great leader, but not an infallible one." Henry Strong leadership shows imperialism that Shakespeare implies, requires cunning as well as open "courage"--the combination that Machiavelli outlines when he advises the prince to be both "fox" and "lion." And far from being a straightforward demonstration of kingship, with Henry displaying various facets of the royal persona in a fairly static way, the play allows for undercurrents of uneasiness or doubt, moments of possible failure as Henry refines his roles as monarch. Henry is projected as a kingly paragon; Canterbury expresses wonder at this new king's attributes in the opening scene. As well as being a great orator, Henry excels in four areas: he can "reason in divinity," he is an expert in "commonwealth affairs," his "discourse of war" is highly impressive, and he can expound on "any cause of policy" (i.e., argue about politics). What is more, Henry goes beyond the rhetorician who theorizes on abstract propositions, for he has put into practice an active rather than a contemplative virtue: . . . The art and practic part of life Must be the mistress to this theoric. (Henry V, 1954, I. i. 51-52) King Henry has much to live up to. Can he establish himself as an accomplished orator, a pious man of God, a statesman-politician, and a military leader All of these roles are manifested, to some degree, as the play progresses, and most of them are touched on in Henry's opening scene. As a patriotic ruler he takes command of the situation and displays his control publicly. The key term here is "resolved." Almost Henry's first words, referring to the legitimacy of his title in France, are "We would be resolved," and once Canterbury's explanations are complete and the King is ready to call in the Dauphin's ambassadors, he closes the debate with "Now are we well resolved" (I. ii. 222). Not only has the issue been clarified, enabling him to proceed, but he is fully determined ("resolved") to go ahead with his military campaign. In addition, Henry projects himself as both responsible and pious before he allows Canterbury to launch into his discussion of Salic law. Concerned with the "truth" of his claim, he urges the Archbishop to expound the case "justly and religiously." In effect the King adopts the role of spiritual authority (the "prelate" who can "reason in divinity") when he warns Canterbury Under this conjuration, speak my lord: For we will hear, note, and believe in heart That what you speak is in your conscience washed As pure as sin with baptism. (29-32) At the end of the Archbishop's speech Henry checks again, in front of witnesses, that his own "conscience" will not be sullied by pursuing a title that is specious: May I with right and conscience make this claim Showing his skill in "commonwealth affairs," he cuts through Canterbury's rousing talk of heroic royal ancestors to discuss instead practical steps to "defend / Against the Scot" while the English troops are away in France. Shrewdly Henry recalls how the Scots invaded England while Edward III was away campaigning in France, but Canterbury, also a politician, caps this by reminding Henry how England under Edward III not only defended itself adequately against the Scots but also captured the Scottish King. The King listens carefully to his counselors; he is persuaded by their pragmatic arguments that one-quarter of the English forces can win the war in France while the rest defend their own country (Russell Jackson and Robert Smallwood, 1988). Henry is "so severe a justicer" that "his people both loved and obeyed him"; he left "no offence unpunished nor friendship unrewarded" and proved a "terror to rebels, and suppressor of sedition." Henry does not hand out rewards for friendship (although he promises "quittance of desert and merit / According to the weight and worthiness" [34-35]), but we do see him firmly administering punishment, acting the part of "severe . . . justicer" so that he can effectively crush sedition. (Henry V, 1954) Henry pursues justice rigorously through the letter of the law. Only God's "mercy" (twice repeated) remains, to which Henry piously commits them. Shakespeare suggests here that kingship entails a firm administering of justice that cannot always be tempered with mercy; moreover, the monarch's show of authority may sometimes depend on the Machiavellian technique of entrapment. Strong leadership, Shakespeare suggests, is a matter of playing the role convincingly and encouraging others to do the same--to become what they act: In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility; but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger. (Henry V (ed.), 1954, III. I. 3-6) Henry has completely appropriated the persona of the soldier, calling it "A name that in my thoughts becomes me best". His threatening speech is thus predicated on a total divorce between the sensitive mortal who is bound to feel "pity" for violated women and butchered babies and the hardened military leader who would fatalistically let his soldiers run amok. If Henry actually allowed this brutality to take place, could he remain a respected ruler, full of "king-becoming graces" Again there is a tenuous balance between the monarch's ruthlessness and "mercy." It is possible, though not certain, that the blood-chilling threats are merely a clever tactic to coerce surrender, so that once the Governor has capitulated Henry can "Use mercy to them all". There is a similar conflict between the King's "lenity" and "cruelty" toward an individual when Henry, while insisting on treating the French with respect and not stealing from their land because "the gentler gamester is the soonest winner," nevertheless approves Bardolph's execution. He reveals no regret over the death of an old comrade for theft. The expedient military leader clearly cannot afford to be sentimental (lexander Leggatt, 1988) Henry's meditation on "ceremony" bitterly explodes the mystique of kingship: its dependence on empty forms, which calls into question its genuine substance. Suddenly the emperor is admitting that he has no clothes. Whatever authority the King possesses he must forge for himself, since "place, degree, and form" have no creative or healing powers. No wonder that Henry deeply resents the "ceremony" that both insulates him from his subjects and traps him in a web of anxieties and public responsibilities. Inevitably he romanticizes the lives of the private man (as "infinite heart's-ease") and the peasant (who "Sleeps in Elysium"), just as he exaggerates the "hard condition" of being a king. On a deeper level, though, he faces up to the implications of his title. When he prays that God will take from his men the "sense of reck'ning" he refers literally to the soldiers' ability to count the huge number of the French enemy, but he also touches on the somber meaning that Williams has introduced just before: a "reckoning" on the Day of Judgment. Thus, it is true that Henry V is a satire on monarchical government, on imperialism, on the baser kinds of patriotism, and on war. As Henry's "bounty" as one of the king-becoming graces, just as Henry has displayed temperance justice to the traitors, "devotion" to God, and "courage" and "fortitude" in battle. But the King's justice is sometimes akin to ruthlessness and his honesty undercut by deviousness or cunning, although these too (the play suggests) may be necessary attributes of kingship (Ronald S. Berman, 1962). Henry V reflects the Renaissance "acceptance of deception and intrigue and violence as legitimate instruments of political behavior." And for Henry the dark side of royalty is its utter isolation--the king, vulnerable to betrayal, can have no close friends-- as well as its deceptive appearance of glory. Since the "ceremony" of monarchy is merely symbolic, the king must work on his own initiative, with talents honed through trial and risk, to win solid achievements for his country. Work Cited Henry V (ed.), The Arden Shakespeare ( 1954), p. xvi. Derek Traversi, Shakespeare: From Richard II to Henry V ( Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1957) Russell Jackson and Robert Smallwood (eds.), Players of Shakespeare 2 ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), p. 5. Ronald S. Berman, "Shakespeare's Alexander: Henry V," CE, 23 ( 1962), 532-39 lexander Leggatt, Shakespeare's Political Drama: The History Plays and the Roman Plays ( London and New York: Routledge, 1988), p. 114. Read More