Michael Gorski

ERH 321WX-01

Final Reflective Essay

1 May 2015

Help Received: Met with teacher on multiple occasions and discussed my topic

Challenging the Chain of Command

I have fixated on hierarchy and power for a majority of the course, more specifically, the nature of hierarchy and its function in early modern England. My original thoughts of the hierarchal structure in early modern England were superficial and derived from films, books, and other forms of entertainment. They portrayed the old-fashioned, stereotypical idea of a hierarchal system where the subordinates blindly follow the leader and adhere to his will. Prior to my investigation of Shakespeare and the course, I envisioned this as the standard for all monarchies. My research provided an in-depth view of the hierarchy, more specifically, monarchy during Shakespeare’s time period. Shakespeare consistently challenged his audience’s preconceived notions and revealed the true nature of certain ideals. This practice of challenging ideas was representative of the inquisitive nature of the Renaissance. A renewed interest in knowledge and learning allowed for anyone to question establishment and order. I also observed this trend in my short assignments on The Life Of King Henry the Fifth and The Merchant of Venice. In both of these works, Shakespeare challenges the nature of power and hierarchy. My outlook on the monarchal system of early modern England has shifted from the idea of blind followers to a more complex struggle. Now, the monarchy and the class system of society is more of a struggle to maintain power, than a ruler with an iron will.

My analysis of Henry V had the most significant impact on my understanding of hierarchy. Observations from this play influenced my understanding of hierarchy. In my second short assignment and final research essay, I focused on nobility’s usage of imagery and pageantry in order to maintain power. I noticed that Henry did not expect his subordinates to blindly oblige to his command. Instead, he exerts tremendous effort to maintain his control. Shakespeare reveals the vulnerability of hierarchy. Henry must maintain a particular image to ensure his position of king is not compromised. Shakespeare displays a style of leadership where the ruler is influenced by the opinions of commoners. I also discovered the role of a commoner was influential. In my previous understanding of hierarchy, the general population consisted of insignificant plebeians and their societal influence was minor. In Henry V, his need to convince his subordinates displays the significance of their opinions, which presents a new model of the hierarchy. There are certain events in the play where Henry is concerned with specific opinions of certain soldiers. Shakespeare shows the significance of the role subordinates play in the hierarchy. My focus on imagery and pageantry in Henry V shaped my understanding of early modern English societal structure from my original view into a new outlook displaying the complexity of power. I did not view the monarchy as a system where the ruler commanded insignificant plebeians; instead it revealed the complexity and vulnerability of maintaining power and the significant role subordinates play in society.

The emphasis on role in society and shifting my understanding of the commoner’s significance was also heavily influenced by the third short assignment on The Merchant of Venice. My prior understanding of the subordinate’s role was much like a rifleman in the military. A standard private rarely voices his opinion and has little to no influence in major decisions. He obeys orders and does not question them out of fear of reprimand. Shakespeare challenges this view through the actions of Portia. The cultural perspective of gender roles was women were lower in class than men. They were inferior to the men and therefore servant in nature. Shakespeare not only challenges culturally reality, but also speaks to my new understanding of the commoner’s societal niche. Shakespeare’s portrayal of Portia shaped my opinion of the hierarchal structure. I observed Portia testing the limitations of her role and disrupting order. Shakespeare does not display this challenge in a negative manner. Portia’s actions restore order to the chaos birthed by Shylock’s legal accusations. In this instance, the audience not only sees the disruption of gender roles, but it also alludes to the importance of a person of lower social status’s opinion. My new understanding of societal structure shifted the balance of power from the ruler onto his subordinates.

My understanding of a hierarchal system prior to my research in Shakespeare was largely influenced by my experience at VMI. It began with my time as a rat. I understood my place within the system and did not diverge from my directed path. Diverging from the path generally warranted punishment. As a third classmen, there was no real change in my influence. As a corporal, I still reported to and followed direct orders of cadet officers and commandant’s staff. The most significant influence over my view of hierarchy did not originate with cadet interactions, but more with the commandant’s staff. As a former member of cadre, I observed the ratline being executed by comm. staff, not the first class leadership. Recently, I have been researching events at VMI in the early 1990s for another course. I observed a different hierarchy throughout my research. The corps and its regulations were policed and enforced by the cadets, primarily the first class. My analysis of Shakespeare’s presentation of the nature of hierarchy blended with my research of the “old corps” shaped my understanding. The importance of cadet opinion mirrors Shakespeare’s display of the importance of the commoner.

I began this course with an established view of the hierarchy of Shakespearian culture. It was based on previous, misguided representations of the monarchy. I thought the basic structure included a ruler who commanded unwavering support from his followers. In my experience, society bowed down to the ruler, because he was the ruler. While observing Shakespeare’s portrayal of leadership, my understanding of the nature of hierarchy and power in early modern England gained a more in-depth perspective. Through my analysis of The Life of King Henry the Fifth and The Merchant of Venice, I recognized the true nature of power. Shakespeare portrays the vulnerability of power and more importantly, the complex struggle for power that allows for significant influence from the general population. I previously viewed power as something easily attainable, because the influence of the commoner was not significant. Shakespeare gives power to this group, therefore creating a struggle for power. This shaped my outlook on the monarchal structure of early modern England and in a broader sense, my understanding of authority.

Works Cited

Shakespeare, William, and Barbara Hodgdon. The First Part of King Henry the Fourth: Texts         and Contexts. Boston: Bedford, 1997. 19-117. Print.

Shakespeare, William, and Claire McEachern. The Life of King Henry the Fifth. New York,            NY: Penguin, 1999. Print.

Shakespeare, William, and M. Lindsay. Kaplan. The Merchant of Venice: Texts and           Contexts. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002. Print.

Shakespeare, William, and Kim F. Hall. Othello, The Moor of Venice: Texts and Contexts. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007. Print

Michael Gorski

ERH 321WX-01

Short assignment on Hamlet, Prince of Denmark

27 March 2015

Help Received: EasyBib to cite; Class Discusions

Life After Death: An Analysis of Early Modern English Perspective on Spirits

Part A.

            During England’s early modern time period, the supernatural was a common cultural belief. People thought spirits were influential and active in the natural world and aligned themselves with either good or evil. This belief spawned from the biblical concepts of angels, demons, and purgatory. Constance Jordan’s chapter “Spiritual and Mental Life” summarizes and presents excerpts from this time period concerning the views of the behavior and nature of spirits and their interaction with the natural world. She highlights the works of Joseph Hall, a writer during the time period; Ludwig Lavater, a Swiss Protestant theologian; George Gifford, a Protestant minister; and Samuel Harsnett, a professor and clergyman of the time period. All of these authors argued and agreed with the existence of an interactive supernatural realm, but had varied perspectives on the nature of the spirits.

Many views exist concerning the nature and purpose of spirits in the natural world. Joseph Hall argued for the classic struggle between good and evil; and viewed the malevolent spirits as demons and the amicable as angels. He also advocated that spirits heavily influenced human behavior. Jordan presents an excerpt from Hall’s Meditation and Vows that focuses on the existence of spirits and their relation to human life. He described the good angels’ tasks as, “ever removing our hindrances from good and our occasions of evil, mitigating our temptations, helping us against our enemies, delivering us from dangers, comforting our sorrows, furthering our good purposes, and, at last, carrying up our souls to heaven (Hall, Meditations and Vows, 159).” The demons had a different nature and seek to destroy the lives of men. Hall stated, “Provoke us to sin and plot mischiefs against us by casting into our way dangerous objects (Hall, Meditations and Vows, 159).” Gifford’s opinions concerning spirits mirrored those of Hall. The excerpts that Jordan selected solely focused on the evil spirits. Gifford provided more detail concerning the physical make-up of a spirit, their origin, and how demons select their targets. He described them as “hath neither flesh nor bones (Gifford, A Discourse of…Devils, 165).” Although Gifford’s excerpt focused mostly on demons, he does reference the supremacy of angels and good over evil. He also described how demons sought their victims. Availability was the key factor in choosing those to influence for malice. The soul must be willing. Hall and Gifford’s views differed from the opinions of Lavater.

Lavater espoused that spirits were occupants of purgatory, a Catholic belief of a supernatural realm where people pay of their sins until Judgment Day and they were seeking retribution. They maintained a quid pro quo relationship with humans that allowed for their release from purgatory and a reward for the human. Lavater also argued that spirits from hell were used to morally redirect lost sinners. Lavater does not deny the existence of angels, but purports that those supernatural beings interacting with humans are merely deceased individuals.

Jordan addresses an opinion of the time period that there was no spiritual world. These individuals believed that the appearance of ghosts were hallucinations and evidence of lunacy. False spiritual encounters were a frequent occurrence and this led certain parts of the population to hold a more rational ideal. Jordan addresses this belief with excerpts from Lavater and Harsnett. Lavater agreed that a portion of the population held the rational view that chalked ghosts up the mental tricks and hysteria. He argued that this is the exact opposite the realm of the supernatural is active in man’s life. Harsnett investigated false exorcisms that were used for show and eventually came to the conclusion that they existed for solely for the theater. His argument challenges the existence of the supernatural and more specifically their interaction with man.

The English developed many opinions concerning the supernatural. Early modern English culture was biblically focused and the most prominent idea viewed spirits as angels and demons. The angels worked to better the lives of men, while the demons sought to destroy man and distance him from God. Another biblical perspective focused on the inhabitants of purgatory and hell. Some believed that spirits were deceased humans that sought retribution on earth or as warnings concerning the afterlife. In contrast, a scientific and rational view argued that the supernatural was figment of the imagination or signs of delusion. Overall, the supernatural realm played a major role in influencing the culture of early modern England.

Part B.

            In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, he challenges the common cultural perception of supernatural interaction with the natural world. An opinion in early modern England was supernatural phenomena were not real. Instead, what people perceived as interaction with spirits were merely products of the imagination. Along with imagination, people attributed seeing and interacting with spirits to mental illness. These two beliefs spawned from the occurrence of false supernatural experiences. Shakespeare challenges the existence of spirits and the supernatural through the nature of the interactions of Hamlet Senior’s spirit with other characters. His interactions with his father’s ghost are responsible for the development of his plot for revenge against Claudius and the eventual decline of his mental stability. Shakespeare utilizes the interaction with the supernatural between Hamlet and his deceased father to challenge the accepted notion that the supernatural existed.

The manner in which Shakespeare presents the ghosts provides room for inquiry concerning its existence. Hamlet Senior’s ghost appears to Marcellus, Bernardo, and Horatio in Act One, Scene One during their evening guard shift. The ghost is asked by the men on guard to speak, but it does not obey their commands. Later in Act One, Scene Four, Hamlet is brought by Horatio to view the ghost during a guard shift. Hamlet observes the spirit and answers the ghosts request to follow itself. In the next scene, Hamlet and his father’s ghost are alone when he describes the crimes of Claudius to his son and convinces Hamlet to exact revenge. The circumstances surrounding the ghost’s introduction are unusual, because Hamlet is the sole communicator with this entity. Other characters merely view the ghost and there is no interaction.

Act Three, Scene Four is central to Shakespeare’s challenging of ghosts. Hamlet is talking to his mother concerning her treachery and Claudius’ crimes. During the course of their argument, the ghost of Hamlet’s father enters the room and Hamlet tries to convince his mother that the ghost is there, but she will not believe him. The queen says, “This is the very coinage of your brain. This bodiless creation of ecstasy is very cunning in (Shakespeare, Act 3, Scene 4, Lines 139-141).” She attributes the claims against her new husband and Hamlet’s talk of ghosts to be figments of his imagination. After interacting with the ghost and being labeled as a lunatic by his mother, Hamlet randomly kills Polonius. This incident alludes to the idea that the spirit of his father is an idea created by Hamlet. The increased decline of his mental facilities and his continued obsession with revenge creates an image for the audience that Hamlet is becoming a lunatic and the spirit is nonexistent.

Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Prince of Denmark seeks to challenge the cultural belief in the supernatural with the interactions between the ghost and other characters. His depiction of Hamlet’s decline in mental health creates the concept that the ghost is not an actual ghost, but a figment of his imagination. The spirit gives him an avenue escape from the grief of his father’s death and it developed out of the grief. Shakespeare challenges the audience to consider the reality of the supernatural during the early modern English time period.

Works Cited

Jordan, Constance. “Spiritual and Mental Health.” William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. 2nd ed. New York: Pearson/Longman, 2005. 157-80. Print.

Shakespeare, William, and Constance Jordan. William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. 2nd ed. New York: Pearson/Longman, 2005. Print.

Michael Gorski

ERH 321WX-01

Short Assignment on Othello

6 March 2015

Help Received: EasyBib to cite

Part A.

During the early modern time period in England, Venice and its culture were held in high esteem. The English believed that it was an upper level society, more sophisticated and modern compared to the city-states surrounding it. Hall analyzes two different aspects of Venetian culture. The glorified aurora ascribed by other societies and the harsh reality of Venice’s history. The English and other European societies had created a utopian society that was not representative of Venice’s actual circumstances.

Hall describes the idealized opinion of Venice held by most Europeans as “the Myth of Venice (Hall, 234).” Hall highlights four facets introduced by David McPherson that form the foundation for this “myth.” Hall states, “McPherson outlines the four components to this myth: Venice the Rich, Venice the Wise, Venice the Just, and Venezia Citta galante (Venice the Gallant City) (Hall, 235).” These perceptions were not just rumors and stories dreamt up by the citizens. Venice was a unique culture, but not as perfect as people created it to be. Venice was a modern culture that was ahead of the curve. During this time period, it was the commercial center of the Mediterranean and exercised firm control over trade in the Mediterranean. Trade introduced many foreigners to the Venetian population, and with these aliens came a wide range of political and religious beliefs. This is another reason why the Venetian society was viewed as superior. Their government was able to maintain control over such a wide range of peoples and operate successful business. These factors gave Venice the perception of being a glorified and advanced society. What the people of early modern England observed in Venice was not as prestigious in reality.

During the time period in which Shakespeare was writing Othello, The Moor of Venice, Venice was experiencing a slue of problems. The prominent issue that Venice experienced was the loss of Cyprus. This showed the weakened state of Venice and their loss of control of trade in the Mediterranean. English traders had taken over some of trade in the Mediterranean and Venice was concerned with keeping peace, which led to the development of a cowardly reputation. Corruption was now infecting the government that had once held a firm grasp on control. Authors attribute this failure to the freedom in which foreigners were allowed to conduct themselves within the city. Hall mentions that Venetian art displays blacks as a staple of Venetian culture. Other societies viewed Venice as a harlot by allowing such cultural diversity to go unchecked in their city.

To other European cultures, more specifically the English, Venice represented a more modern culture. There was a certain aurora surrounding the Venetian culture, which created what Hall describes as “the Myth of Venice (Hall, 234).” Venice was strong and powerful city-state that held control of Mediterranean trade and for a certain time period was the pinnacle of perfection for a society. The harsh reality of Venetian history is that it did not adhere to this myth for long. During the time Shakespeare was writing Othello, The Moor of Venice, Venice had declined from its former glory and lost the supremacy of Mediterranean. Hall highlights the two conflicting cultural views concerning Venetian society in early modern England.

Part B.

            A trending theme in Shakespeare’s plays is the idea of perception versus reality. This concept that Shakespeare consistently utilizes is seen in Othello, The Moor of Venice, in his challenging of what Hall calls “the Myth of Venice (Hall, 234).” Throughout the play, actions of certain characters show the differing views of Venice. Shakespeare reveals both elements of Venetian culture, the powerful and strong Venetian personality and the weakened and declining status. The character of Othello represents this well. Othello displays the concept of perception versus reality by analyzing and criticizing the Venetian society through the character Othello.

Othello’s personality displays the power that eventually declines in Venetian culture. In the beginning of the play, Othello is a bold and outspoken personality. In Scene 3 of Act 1, he is defending himself against the accusations of tricking Desdemona into marrying him. He presents a rebuke towards Brabantio’s claims and maintains order throughout the situation. There is no panic and his attitude is one of calmness. This represents the once powerful Venice that people knew and understood. His ability to maintain composure in a chaotic situation is descriptive of the Venetian government. During its prime, Venice had many foreigners going about their city, but still maintained a sense of order. It is during the decline of Venetian society that this composure is lost and Othello represents this transition.

As Iago begins to trick Othello into believing Desdemona has been unfaithful, there is a change in Othello’s attitude. His reasoning and judgment are nonexistent and he is easily swayed. Due to his unstable mindset, he has a seizure, murders Desdemona for being unfaithful, and kills himself. Othello’s ability to be easily swayed represents the loss of control that the Venetians had over Mediterranean. Othello’s character transition is a clear representation of the decline of Venetian power.

Shakespeare was displaying to the people of England the reality of Venice’s history. Most of England believed in this legend that Venice was a perfect society, invincible to anything. Shakespeare reveals the decline of Venice to show readers Venice was not the great entity they believed it to be. He does this through the character of Othello. In Othello, The Moor of Venice, the protagonist, Othello, represents the decline of Venetian society and supports Shakespeare’s argument for the weakened state of Venice.

Works Cited

Shakespeare, William, and Kim F. Hall. Othello, The Moor of Venice: Texts and      Contexts. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007. Print

Michael Gorski

ERH 321WX-01

Short Assignment on The Merchant of Venice

25 February 2015

Help Received: EasyBib to Cite

Part A.

Kaplan brings together five different beliefs concerning the treatment of women and protocol for marriage during the Shakespearian and early modern English time periods. She highlights the patriarchal idea of that dominated that culture through Juan Luis Vives, Thomas Becon, and Thomas Smith. This view that a woman was a man’s property and treated as lesser humans generally accepted in culture during this time period. This reveals itself in a practical way through the beliefs of Smith and Niccholes concerning marriage relationship. Kaplan also observes a radical view in the form of Cornelius Agrippa and Alexander Niccholes’ view on the treatment of women. During the early modern English time period these were accepted cultural ideas and Kaplan presents an all-encompassing grouping of evidence to display these concepts.

The first and most common cultural belief of early modern English viewed women as lesser creatures in comparison to men. The dynamic between men and women in society was one of dominance. The man was in charge of the household and made the decisions. Vives states several characteristics of a woman’s role in this culture and primary one being inferiority. “To Vives, women’s inferiority necessitates their subordination to fathers and husbands (Kaplan, 312).” Women were least respected members of society. Major components of Vives’ opinion were, “wife does not even own her body (312, Kaplan)” and necessitates “silence in the presence of others (Kaplan, 312).” Vives reflects the traditional Catholic teachings and opinions that have women imprisoned by their gender. Becon’s approach adheres to the stringent guidelines that Vives upholds. He represents the dominant view of culture during this time period. “Wives should stay at home, bear with their husband’s bad behaviors, and seek to hide and extenuate his flaws rather than reveal them with chiding (Kaplan, 312).” Becon’s views only differ slightly from the views of Vives, in that he believes the child, regardless of gender, should have consent when it applies to marriage. Even with minute differences, the opinions and beliefs of the both Vives and Becon reflect the culture’s attitude and treatment of women during the early modern English time period. This patriarchal mindset translates into the patriarchal view of marriage during the time period.

Kaplan mentions the protocol for marriage concerning the views of Smith. Smith advocated for a strong male role in the marriage and that woman’s property becomes the property of the man upon being wed. He also states that woman’s life be separate from the man’s public image. “Smith prescribes a strict separation of the wife’s private sphere from the husband’s public one, but he argues that the English woman’s lot compares favorably to that of her European sisters (Kaplan, 315).” Smith reflected the prominent cultural belief of this time period that women were beneath the man.

Kaplan also observes radical opinions that clash with the concept of male superiority. Agrippa’s view is that women are superior to men and does not conform to the mainstream cultural standard. Also, she observes another clashing opinion concerning male superiority, but was not uncommon during this time period is seen in the opinions of Niccholes concerning marriage. Niccholes argues against the shallowness of marriage and that men should be relentlessly pursuing their prospective wives. This was a common practice for a man to pour out gifts for this woman he was courting. Niccholes reveals a part of culture that is rarely viewed. The focus was on the patriarchal dominance and subordination of women, but men valued courtship and exhausted money, time, and effort into the process.

Kaplan analyzes the treatment of women in early modern England through the beliefs and opinions of five different authors. She highlights the most prevalent cultural idea of male superiority in the male and female relationship through the ideas of Becon and Vives. The patriarchal protocol for marriage is described in the opinions of Smith. She also brings to light the lesser-known and recognized aspects of culture. This is seen in her description Agrippa’s belief that women are superior to men. Niccholes’ opinions concerning marriage also highlight radical and unknown concepts. Overall, Kaplan highlights common belief that men were superior to women that dominated the culture of early modern England.

Part B.

            Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice challenges the cultural opinions and beliefs of his time period, early modern England, concerning women’s role and treatment in society. The common and prominent view of women was that they were subordinate to men. The man was the lead role in the relationship. Shakespeare questions this throughout the course of the play through two female characters, Jessica and Portia. Their actions and interactions with other characters challenge the male superiority and cultural customs that accompanied the patriarchal mindset. Shakespeare’s plays continuously challenge the main facets of cultural belief during his time period and The Merchant of Venice seeks to questions the notions of women’s role as lesser creatures in early modern England.

The first character that Shakespeare utilizes to confront the concept of a woman being submissive is Portia. There are several instances that would be viewed as controversial by the audiences of Shakespeare in early modern England. The first is when Portia disguises herself as a man to act as a lawyer to defend Antonio against Shylock. According to Kaplan’s mention and description of Stubbes’ view, a woman cross-dressing was viewed as trying to seize a man’s authority. To the people of early modern England, Shakespeare’s depiction of cross-dressing would shock his audience and shatter many cultural ideas. Not only did she cross-dress, she argued against the opinions of a man and proved him wrong. During this time period, women were not allowed to speak out in public. The man acted as the voice between his wife and the public and for Portia to speak openly in a court further shatters cultural barriers. Portia’s superior logic defeats Shylock and causes him to lose the case and forfeit money. This instance alone destroys multiple cultural notions and challenges patriarchal beliefs.

The second instance concerns Portia tricking Bassanio into giving her his ring. Portia is disguised as a man at this point in the play and undermines her husband’s authority very deceitfully. Women were required to submit fully to their husbands, but here Shakespeare challenges that notion. Portia is questioning Bassanio’s faith to their marriage and a woman questioning her husband was looked down upon during this time period. Shakespeare utilizes Portia and more specifically these two instances to challenge the status quo claiming that men are superior to women and women are the lesser creatures.

The second character that depicts the challenging of male superiority seen in The Merchant of Venice is Jessica. She blatantly disregards the authority of her father and disowns his beliefs, steals from him, and leaves to be a Christian man, Lorenzo. Not only was she a female, but also she is still an unmarried child in Shylock’s household. Culturally, this was viewed as disrespectful, because the parents more often than not chose the husband for their daughter. For her to make this decision and without her father’s consent is a major violation of mainstream ideas and is another instance of Shakespeare challenging the societal traditions man being superior to female.

Shakespeare’s plays were revolutionary during the early modern era in England. He always sought to challenge long established traditions. The Merchant of Venice challenges the cultural notion that women are lesser creatures and therefore below men in societal ranking. Through many female characters, Portia and Jessica to be very specific, he blatantly attacks these notions and challenges the crowd to rethink long-established tradition. The specific instances fore mentioned highlight the concept that Shakespeare was always questioning mainstream ideas and The Merchant of Venice challenges women’s treatment and societal role in early modern England heavily.

Works Cited

Shakespeare, William, and M. Lindsay. Kaplan. The Merchant of Venice: Texts and           Contexts. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002. Print.

Michael Gorski

ERH 321WX-01

Short Assignment on Henry V

11 February 2015

Help Received: EasyBib to cite; Consulted Mr. Griffin concerning a citing issue

Part A.

Hodgdon provides a perspective concerning Shakespeare’s view of politicians and leaders and its connection with Niccoló Machiavelli’s The Prince. She focuses on the concept of self-concealment and “the assumption that politics is a deceitful practice (Hodgdon, 309).” The connection between actors and how politicians use deceitful tactics to ensure their audience or followers believe who they are is central to Hodgdon’s argument. She focuses on two excerpts from Machiavelli’s The Prince that highlight concepts central to her argument. Hodgdon utilizes these two excerpts to argue that Machiavelli’s The Prince has connections with Shakespeare’s cultural environment concerning politics.

Hodgdon provides a brief background on Machiavelli’s The Prince and his reasoning behind writing it. Machiavelli spent time as a government servant and The Prince is based on his observations while holding this position. He brings to light a cynical view concerning politics. Most people viewed their politicians and leaders as these great and flawless men, but in reality, politics was not always what the public viewed it as. Machiavelli argues that this deceitfulness was a necessity for any successful leader. Shakespeare adopts this policy in Henry V and seeks to enlighten people as to the true nature of their leaders. The concept of self-concealment during Shakespeare’s time period was very relevant. People in positions of authority during Shakespeare’s time were idealized and people did not understand the darker side of politics. People believed their leaders to be gods amongst men without any faults.

Machiavelli believes this cynical view of politics, in which leaders find it necessary to put on a fake persona, is not bad. He states that it is necessary for them to act this way. He goes on to highlight many of the things that Shakespeare highlights in Henry V. “For there is such a distance between how men do live, and how me ought to live, that he who leaves that which is done, for that which ought to be done, learns sooner his ruin than his preservation (Hodgdon, 310).” Machiavelli believes that these are necessary characteristics for being a good leader. He does not think that good leaders need to be completely evil but it is a tactic to be utilized at certain times.

During the 16^th and 17^th centuries, in which Shakespeare lived, the most leaders were viewed as the direct line to God. Particularly in England, their belief was that God directly appointed king or queen and questioning their authority was heresy. People revered their leaders and in reality they were normal people. Most politicians had bad habits and skeletons in their closets. The ability for them to project themselves as something they were not contributed heavily to how good or bad of a leader they were. Hodgdon is highlighting a reality between the writings of Machiavelli and Shakespeare’s culture.

Part B.

            Shakespeare’s Henry V reflects the principles of Machiavelli’s The Prince throughout the course of the play. The character that illustrates this principle of the necessity of deceitful politics is King Henry. Shakespeare uses King Henry to enlighten the people of England of the humanity of their rulers. It was common knowledge during Shakespeare’s era that kings and queens were directly appointed by God. If anyone were to question the authority of the king or queen, it was viewed as questioning the authority of God. Another group of characters that accurately displays this perception versus reality concept are Nym, Bardolph, Pistol, and the Boy. The speech the boy makes concerning his superiors displays Hodgdon’s self-concealment argument. Shakespeare is revealing the humanity of rulers as well and arguing that utilizing deceitfulness is necessary for a politician through the example of King Henry.

In Henry V, King Henry provides the perfect example for this concept of politics being a deceitful business that requires dark tactics. Throughout the play, there are many specific instances in which Henry employs deception to achieve his goals. The first major instance is when he disguises himself as a regular soldier to wander the camp and discover the opinion of his own soldiers concerning himself. This example not only highlights the deception, but it alludes to the idea of self-concealment introduced by Hodgdon. In this scene, we see Henry convincing certain men that he is someone else to accomplish a task. Machiavelli identifies this as a necessary characteristic of being a good politician and Shakespeare uses it to reveal the reality of rulers of his era.

Along with deception being part of a ruler’s arsenal, Machiavelli also highlights the fact that most rulers have vices. No ruler is perfect and Shakespeare makes this very clear in King Henry’s speech to the governor of Harfleur. He gives the governor an ultimatum concerning their surrender. The option is surrender and they will be treated with grace and mercy or they do not surrender and he promises a darker outcome. Henry goes into great detail concerning the consequences of not surrendering. These consequences include placing dead babies on spits, raping women, etc. To the citizens of Shakespeare’s time, these consequences would have come across as barbarian in nature, but Shakespeare was revealing the reality of warfare and being a good ruler. This scare tactic led the French to surrender at Harfleur and it was an effective.

There are several instances that display Hodgdon’s self-concealment in the interactions between Nym, Bardolph, Pistol and the Boy. The speech made by the boy in Act Three Scene 2 accurately displays this self-concealment metaphor. He comments on how these three men that he has served under are all cowards and thieves that project themselves as noble heroes of the crown. There are other scenes where Shakespeare alludes to the lies of Nym, Bardolph, and Pistol.

Throughout the course of the play, Shakespeare displays this concept of self-concealment presented by Hodgdon. The ability for rulers to act deceitfully and utilize their vices was a reality for most politicians. Machiavelli affirms this in The Prince by explaining that politicians must adopts this false persona to be effective rulers. Shakespeare enlightens the people of his time period to this reality through many examples in his play. These include the actions of King Henry and Bardolph, Nym, Pistol, and the Boy. These all display the concept that reality is different from what people perceive it to be and Machiavelli’s idea that politicians and rulers are different from the how the public views them.

Works Cited

Machiavelli, Niccoló. “From The Prince.” 1513. The First Part of King Henry the Fourth: Texts and Contexts. By William Shakespeare and Barbara Hodgdon. Boston: Bedford, 1997. 309-13. Print.

Shakespeare, William, and Claire McEachern. The Life of King Henry the Fifth. New York, NY: Penguin, 1999. Print.