Michael Gorski

ERH 321WX-01

Final Research Essay

Help Received: Teacher comments during conference//Class discussions//Used Sparknotes to locate scenes for reference in Henry V//Copy and pasted my sources from previous works//In class peer workshop comments-Zippel//Teacher comments during class

Challenging Royal Imagery: Analysis of the Character King Henry V

The majority of Shakespeare’s plays display a common theme, challenging cultural opinions and beliefs. During the early modern English time period, the theater was a more liberal environment in contrast with the rest of society. It presented an opportunity for writers to question traditional beliefs and also to express their personal opinions. This period in English history witnessed the Renaissance and with it, the questioning of age-old beliefs and a surge of intellectual development. Shakespeare repeatedly challenges the established system of royalty, more specifically their image and how they shaped and presented it to the general public. He uses Henry V’s character to display the inner workings of the nobility and raise questions concerning their conduct. The everyday commoner of the early modern time period had very little or no interaction with the royalty, except for parades. Nobility openly presented themselves in a positive and almost deity-like manner to the public in order to establish their authoritarian rule. Shakespeare desires to enlighten the public of the nobility’s humanity and the reality of their nature. In The Life of King Henry the Fifth, Shakespeare challenges the early modern English perspective of royalty through the character of King Henry V, the use of artificial guises, reflection of Machiavellian principles, and the concept of royal pageantry “royal pageantry.”

Royal imagery was a major facet of Elizabethan culture and Shakespeare alludes to it through the actions of Henry and the structure of Henry V. His use of the chorus represents the common practice of a ruler parading themselves to the commoners to assert their dominance as a leader. Vanrigh’s “Henry V as a Royal Entry” references Elizabeth I’s usage of practice. After her coronation, she followed a specific path around London, openly displaying herself to the public (Vanrigh, 356). This use of pageantry in order to enhance her reputation ties in with Shakespeare’s use of the choruses. Vanrigh’s article mentions the final chorus describing “the king’s return to England after Agincourt” (Vanrigh, 356). Both leaders, stop along their routes to display themselves to the public (Vanrigh, 356). Elizabeth was christening her established reign as queen and Henry was displaying his leadership potential and victory, both in order to enhance reputation. Shakespeare’s use of the chorus sets the foundation for his analysis and challenge towards royalty. It also alludes to the Machiavellian reference of artificial guises used by rulers to shape their image (Hodgdon, 309-310). The chorus mirrors the practice of pageantry. Vanrigh states in “Henry V as a Royal entry, “The dramatist’s rationale for tapping the vein of royal display is both formal and political” and “he formalizes the chorus as the textual equivalent of a triumphal arch” (Vanrigh, 357). Shakespeare reveals the true intentions of rulers to his audience and sets the foundation for the contrast between the public’s view of royalty and their humanity.

Henry’s character in Henry V acts as a conduit through which Shakespeare communicates the humanity of nobility and their ability to conceal their true nature. A commoner possessed an inaccurate picture of the personality of their kings and queens. They did not have the ability to observe the inner workings of the royal courts and Shakespeare does his best to speculate this and simultaneously, challenge reality. Certain instances and overarching themes allow the audience to speculate and question royalty’s true nature and give insight into the different masks rulers wear.

The most significant behavior used by Shakespeare in order to communicate Henry’s humanity is his insecurity. It not only displays his humanity, but his ability to mask it. A noteworthy instance is in Act IV; Scene I. Henry desires to discover the opinions of his men concerning his leadership. Henry disguises himself as a common foot soldier and has a conversation with a soldier named Williams (Act IV, Scene I). He inquires of Williams’ opinion of the king and his leadership during the campaign. Here, the audience sees Henry’s vulnerability and insecurity, because he concerns himself with the opinions of his subordinates and explains the struggles of leadership to Williams. A leader, more specifically, an effective leader, should not concern himself with the opinions his men, nor reveal insecurity. It is necessary to success on the battlefield that a leader exudes confidence, because his men will feed on this confidence. If the leader reveals insecurity to his subordinates, then his men will subconsciously reflect this and most likely fail on the battlefield. This disguise conceals Henry’s weakness and insecurity, because it vital to the success of the battle and campaign that the men see their leader as bold and courageous. In reference to Machiavelli’s The Prince, Shakespeare is using Machiavellian principles by allowing Henry to employ artificial guises (Hodgdon, 310). Machiavelli believes it a good leader is who is able to deceive when deemed necessary. Machiavelli’s main argument is “end justifies the means”; meaning someone’s end goal justifies the actions necessary to achieve said goal (Hodgdon, 310). This belief advocates Henry’s decisions, behaviors, and actions during the play. Along with justifying his means, the artificial guise allows for Henry to conceal his insecurity, which reflects his humanity to the audience. He appears unsure of his leadership capabilities in Scene I; but by the third scene, he appears before his men and issues the “St. Crispin’s Day Speech.” This illustrates nobility’s ability to shape themselves into what they desire the public to see. Shakespeare is providing his audience a glimpse into the art of pageantry commonly used by royalty of his time period.

Shakespeare is consistently allowing the audience to see the inner workings of Henry’s personality displaying his humanity and weakness, but shifts to the public eye and illustrates Henry as a formidable leader. He uses this again with Henry’s behavior concerning the declaration of war and the legal and religious repercussions of the war with France. Henry is constantly affirming his ability to wage this war, whether it is through priests analyzing religious law or prayer. The opening scene depicts two priests meeting in secret, illustrating this as the inner workings or the uncovered view of Henry (Shakespeare, Act I, Scene I). Henry is pestering the priests to declare this a “just war” (Meron, 72-74/Mebane, 252). Shakespeare displays a lack of confidence that Henry has in the campaign. Along with the priests, he requires that member of his court read him the loophole that allows for him to rightfully claim France (Shakespeare, Act I, Scene II).

In contrast, Shakespeare presents a confident leader in Act III, Scene III. Henry threatens the governor of Harfleur that he cannot control his men during the attack and implicates during the attack, he is not responsible for any heinous crimes committed by his soldiers, for example, raping and pillaging. He also threatens to be merciless if the governor does not immediately surrender Harfluer to his command (Shakespeare, Act III, Scene III). This depiction of Henry shows a confident and strong leader, but also merciless. Shakespeare depicts an idea not common during the early modern period. During this time period, an English soldier was more professional that the soldiers of Henry’s time. Medieval soldiers were more ruthless and the idea of soldiers raping and pillaging after a battle was not uncommon.

Soldiers became more professional during Shakespeare’s era, but he is illustrating the concept of use of artificial guises during the scene (Hodgdon, 310). Henry’s strategy here is to mentally defeat the enemy, before the actual battle has begun. To ensure success, he must create a bluff that makes the French soldiers believe they are fighting savages. After the battle, Henry is merciful to the citizens of Harfleur and conveys a different image. He even goes as far as punishing the crimes of soldiers. His acts of mercy towards the citizens of Harfluer and justice towards his own soldiers reinforce the overarching theme of disguise. Henry must hide his insecurity. He remains unsure of the war throughout the play and constantly seeks affirmation from God. Henry is worried that the atrocities he commits now will affect later generations. His attitude is one of paranoia. Shakespeare conveys the fear of enacting a curse of God upon his lineage, which drives him to seek affirmation from God. His mercy negates his feeling of guilt. This shift in attitude after the battle allows for Henry to shape is image as a leader and alludes to Shakespeare’s questioning of royal imagery. This is the most notable shift, because it is such a drastic change; suggesting, Shakespeare used Henry’s threat as a bluff.

This shift from merciless to merciful provides a vivid image for the audience and conveys the reality of pageantry. Henry can project any image of himself and convince people of anything. His powers of reasoning and disguise reflect the Machiavellian principles (Hodgdon, 309-310). Shakespeare depicts Henry as this master of deception, but it is necessary evil, enabling him to be an excellent leader. Here, Shakespeare is relying on Machiavelli’s “the end justifies the means” (Hodgdon, 309). He creates Henry into this character that can convince anyone of anything. This deception also manifests itself with the scene involving Fleullan, Gower, Williams, and the glove. Shakespeare revives the old spirit of Hal, seen in Henry IV. From the audience’s perspective, Henry is creating this elaborate scheme for his own amusement. Here, Shakespeare is displaying the ease with which Henry can shape his image. Finally, there is the interaction between Katherine and Henry that serves a dual purpose (Shakespeare, Act V, Scene 2). First, Shakespeare is illustrating Henry’s true nature. He grovels to Katherine, begging her to marry him. Here, the audience is provided with a depiction of the real Henry. Shakespeare spends a majority of the play showing his insecurity, only for it to be immediately covered. Henry has worn a multitude of masks and Shakespeare displays the true Henry. This refocuses the audience on viewing the humanity and reality of the nobility. Henry grovels and goes to great lengths to ensure Katherine’s love. This insecurity gives the audience a glimpse and helps to understand how human their rulers are. It removes the deity-like status and displays that they must court the same as all others. Shakespeare is displaying the almost “naked” Henry to his audience, allowing them to see the true form of Henry.

Shakespeare’s depiction of Henry not only depicts this insecurity and raw emotion, but also his expert use of false imagery and deceiving people for personal gain. Throughout his plays, Shakespeare challenges cultural notions and traditions that were established in early modern Elizabethan England. The theater arena, being liberal and progressive, relative to its time period, provided a near frictionless avenue to question the long-established traditions. Coupled with the Renaissance and the rise of the school of thought that called for men to question and discern the truth for themselves. In Henry V, Shakespeare challenges the public’s view of royalty by revealing the humanity of nobility and exposing their use of pageantry. It was common practice amongst the nobility to project an image in order to mask their flaws and struggles. This allowed them to be effective leaders. Relying on the Machiavellian idea that “the end justifies the means,” leaders were allowed to doing anything to accomplish their goals and at whatever cost (Hodgdon, 309). Shakespeare uses Henry to reveal to the commoners and general public the reality of royalty. He affords them a speculative look into their emotions and decisions. This allows the audience to see the transitions in behavior in attitude, centered on Henry’s use of artificial guises.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Meron, Theodor. Bloody Constraint: War and Chivalry in Shakespeare. New York, New York:   Oxford University Press, Inc., 1998. Print.

Meron, Theodor. Henry’s Wars and Shakespeare’s Laws: Perspectives on the Law of War in       the Later Middle Ages. New York, New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1993. Print.

Mebane, John S. “Impious War: Religion and the Ideology of Warfare in Henry V.” Studies in       Philology 104.2 (Spring 2007): 250-266. Web. 7 Apr. 2015.

Shakespeare, William, and Barbara Hodgdon. “The First Part of King Henry the Fourth.” 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.

Vanrigh, Anny Crunelle. “Henry V as a Royal Entry.” SEL Studies in English Literature 1500-     1900 47.2 (Spring 2007): 355-377. Web. 7 April 2015.