To fully grasp the concept of early modern perspectives in England regarding the amalgamation of Honor and Arms, one must first grasp the traditional ideals of chivalry that fashioned the “lineage culture” Northern English countries, the symbolic and political forms of chivalry utilized in the Elizabethan courts, and the concentration on war and warfare as professions in the last two decades of this era (Hodgdon 319). These three variations and practices of chivalry do share one development over time; They demonstrate the fuse of military, noble, and religious beliefs into a unifying code of virtue to from the century’s defining concept of Honor and Arms. By defining each variation of chivalry during this era, one can identify this concept’s influence on Shakespearean theater and the character development within the plays.

During the early 15th century, the virtues of honor and family lineage often faced inconsistent interpretations, ultimately due to the coupling of honor and the family name even in circumstances where the two stood for different resolves. In order to mitigate these contradictions, London’s court attempted to combine honor with humanistic learning and the Protestant faith, as seen in Sir Thomas Elyot’s Book of the Governor (Hodgdon 320). Elyot attempted to incorporate these chivalric values into a universal religious system to codify “knighthood”, an unprecedented and undefined profession that was often overlooked before this era. Elyot’s focus on “warrior values, political autonomy, and individual will” gained traction among political activists of the time to justify their conduct within the courts and wars (320). These values laid foundation for the definition of chivalry at the time, and for Shakespeare’s incorporation of Honor and Arms throughout his plays, specifically in Henry V.

Towards the height and end of the Elizabethan era, war became greatest means of attaining honor and legacy; it was considered a “testing ground” for nobility and encouraged them to seek out military conflict in order to obtain reputations of honor and prestige (Hodgdon 326). During these decades, the civic codes focused primarily on “moral, spiritual, and paternal qualities of leaders that aligned with the chivalric ideals of knighthood” (333). Leonard Digges, author of An Arithmetical Military Treatise, Named Stratioticos, exhibited this ideal by stating a good general must be, “Religious, Temperate, Sober, Wise, Valiant, Liberal, Courteous, Eloquent, of good Fame, and Reputation”, which was then codified in Sir William Segar’s work, Honor Civil and Military (333). Digges shifted the focus on these defined traits towards leaders who are, “learned in Histories, and in those Sciences and Arts that may enable him of himself, without direction from others, readily to conceive and judge of military actions”, emphasizing humanist learning and the ability to fashion oneself into a professional soldier utilizing a scientific body of knowledge (333). This shifted the concept of honor into a more professional pursuit, almost identical to pursuing an occupation. This development of chivalry and honor over time can be exemplified in Henry V due to Shakespeare’s emphasis on noble ideals and character development, common themes throughout many Shakespearean plays that depict the concept of Honor and Arms.

In Henry V, Shakespeare utilizes King Henry V as the embodiment of the modern perspective of Honor and Arms. This becomes apparent in Act III Scene 1 and 2 when Henry lands at Harfleur and prepares his soldiers for war against the French. Henry states,
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: (Shakespeare III. i. 3-6).
This line exhibits the virtues and ideals that are emphasized in knighthood during this era, such as modesty and humility. Henry wants his men to carry these virtues with them, even into war, for which he instructs them to mask them with ferocity. His concentration on an animal-like presence and absolute intimidation represents the concept of bravery and warrior ethos so heavily called upon during this era. Also, Henry unifies his soldiers by enforcing a sense of nationalism and eliminating the concept of lineage, ultimately encouraging his men to prove themselves regardless of their socio-economic class. This action deviates from the original and more traditional conception of chivalry in the early 15th century, where family and lineage defined an individual’s nobility. He states, “And you, good yeomen, Whose limbs were made in England, show us here The mettle of your pasture” (III. i. 25-27).

Henry V’s valiance and attitude throughout this speech serves as the depiction of the early modern perspectives of Honor and Arms in England, only to be juxtaposed with the cowardice actions of his men in Act III Scene 2. Following his speech, Henry’s men show mixed emotions towards war, primarily fear. The conversation between Nim, Bardolph, Pistol, and the boy serves to contrast with Henry’s embodiment of the modern perspective of chivalry and to emphasize his true knighthood. Nim, Bardolph, and Pistol represent all that is opposite of the modern view of chivalry, whereas Henry is the true depiction of this ideal. This scene is placed directly after Henry’s speech to serve the purpose of possibly offering a more realistic view of what knighthood looked like during this era, as opposed to what the ideal should be.