Cadet Will Reeves
2/10/17
Help Received: See works cited
Short Assignment on Henry V
Part 1
In his A Short Treatise of Politic Power, John Ponet expresses his belief that God has made known to man what is good and what is evil, both by implanting it in his mind, and by stating it explicitly through the Ten Commandments and the words of Christ, particularly the golden rule of treating others like one would want others to treat oneself (Ponet 182-83). Beginning with his command to Noah to take the life of a man who commits murder, God granted man authority to formulate and enforce laws. Along with this authority, God mandated that makers and executors of the laws hold everyone to the same standard of the law, and resist being swayed by emotions or other biases (Ponet 183).
A king, therefore, does not have absolute authority to do whatever he pleases. He has been appointed by God to do what is good and shun what it evil, and has a duty to carry out this mission. While the king does have the authority to establish or abolish laws that are merely practical in nature and are not rooted in issues of morality, he does not have the authority to take any action that is contrary to the laws that are in fact rooted in issues of morality, nor does he have the authority to abolish any such laws (Ponet 184-85). Additionally, if the laws dictate that a certain man should assume the throne, and yet that man knows in his heart that he does not truly have a just claim to the throne, he must relinquish his claim and hand over the throne to its rightful owner, or else face judgment before God (Ponet 185).
Because the laws made by man are ultimately earthly manifestations of God’s law, the king as well as his subjects are obligated to submit to the laws of the kingdom (Ponet 186). Furthermore, subjects have a moral obligation, not to obey their king himself, but to consider what is the morally right thing to do in a given situation, and to do that thing, even if it contradicts what those in positions of power have commanded. God will judge each person based on his or her individual decisions; no one will be able to shift the blame for their evil actions by claiming that they were merely following the orders of their king (Ponet 187). Besides God himself, a person’s first loyalty should be to his or her country as a whole, not to any one specific person within that country (Ponet 187-88).
An evil king is one who exploits his subjects, taking their wealth through heavy taxes or other means, and uses this wealth for wicked things, such as the enjoyment of prostitutes or the waging of unjust wars (Ponet 189-90). A king, or any other person in a position of high authority who rules wickedly, will drag their subjects down with them into wickedness and ruin. Therefore, such a person must be eliminated in order to save the majority (Ponet 191). In this way, the king is treated no differently than his subjects with regard to the laws. If the king violates any of the laws of the land, he should be punished accordingly, just as any of his subjects would be (Ponet 192-93). Thus, when both the members of the ruling class and the subjects see that the laws are applied equally to everyone, those in positions of authority will rule justly, seeing to it that their subjects do what is right and benefit from their rule (Ponet 193).
Part II
The night before the final battle at Agincourt, Henry has a discussion with three soldiers, John Bates, Alexander Court, and Michael Williams, although they do not realize they are speaking with the king. The discussion centers around the question of whether a king’s subjects are individually responsible for the morality of their actions when they are merely following the orders of their king. Bates believes that soldiers cannot be held morally responsible for fighting for an unjust cause because it is their primary duty obey the king (IV. i. 127-30). However, Henry makes the case that “every subject’s duty is the king’s, but every subject’s soul is his own” (IV. ii. 173). That is, every subject must obey the king’s commands, but has a personal responsibility to act morally and work out his or her salvation with God even as he or she obeys the king’s commands. However, it seems as though Henry skirts around the main question, which is: What is a person to do when his or her personal duty to act morally as an individual directly conflicts with his or her duty to obey the king’s commands? For example, of course Bardolph himself is the only one who can be considered guilty for his crime of stealing; Henry bears no blame for Bardolph’s actions. However, consider a valiant leader in Henry’s army like Fluellen. Fluellen appears to be a noble and virtuous soldier, but is he in fact doing evil by fighting against the French if Henry’s cause is unjust? Ponet would claim that Fluellen should be able to discern what is morally right, and is therefore indeed personally guilty if Henry’s cause is unjust. Henry’s response to Williams is eloquent and contains bits of truth, but Shakespeare does not give a direct answer to the question of whether Henry’s subjects will be held personally responsible before God for fighting for an unjust cause, or whether Henry will bear all the blame himself.
Henry’s soliloquy at the end of the scene relates to another issue that Ponet addressed, namely, the fact that a king should not lay claim to what is not truly his, especially in reference to laying claim to the throne of a kingdom. Henry recognizes that his father gained possession of the crown of England through unjust means, by murdering the previous king, Richard. Yet, he desperately begs God to look past that fact, at least for the present, and grant him victory over the French. He seems to feel the need to justify his cause and earn God’s favor by demonstrating sorrow over Richard’s death, and by engaging in numerous charitable works (IV. i. 284-96). Ponet would question Henry’s claim to the throne of France on two levels: Ponet would first question whether the king of England did at that time have a legitimate claim to the throne of France. Secondly, if the king of England did in fact have a legitimate claim to France, Ponet would question if it was Henry’s claim to make, or if it was a man in Richard’s line of succession who should be sitting on the throne of England and laying claim to the French lands. Shakespeare answers what would be Ponet’s first question by indicating that Henry made the decision to invade France with noble intentions; that is, he truly believed he had a legitimate claim to the throne of France (even though the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of Ely may have lied to him). However, Shakespeare does not really answer the second question that Ponet would ask. While Ponet would demand that Henry hand over the English crown to the next successor in Richard’s line, Shakespeare portrays Henry as a man trying his best to do what is right, even as he does so in the shadow of his father’s evil deeds. Shakespeare knows that Ponet is correct about the moral necessity of relinquishing the throne if one does not have a lawful claim to it, but he sympathizes with Henry, hesitating to judge him by Ponet’s strict standard, and instead seems to make an exception for him in this case. The situation is morally complicated, because although Shakespeare shows Henry to be well-intentioned, Henry’s lawful claim to the French crown is haunted by the evil means by which his father obtained the English crown.
Works Cited
Hodgdon, Barbara, ed. The First Part of King Henry the Fourth. By William Shakespeare. Boston: Bedford Books, 1997. 179-82. Print.
Ponet, John. A Short Treatise of Politic Power. The First Part of King Henry IV. By William Shakespeare. Boston: Bedford Books, 1997. 182-94. Print.
Shakespeare, William. The Life of King Henry V. Ed. Claire McEachern. New York: Penguin Books, 1999. Print.