ERH 321WX
John Stann
11/9/19
Help Received: Spell Check, Grammar check, Works cited

Revenge
Hamlet, like many of Shakespeare’s plays with a focus on a particular emotion or set of emotions. In Othello, for instance, Shakespeare focuses on passions and in Hamlet, Shakespeare decides to tackle the act of revenge. Two of the main characters in Hamlet are driven by the desire for revenge, and this desire drives both characters to either act rashly or to madness and eventual suicide. In Hamlet, the main character, Hamlet, and Laertes are both driven by revenge. It Is important to study revenge specifically in Hamlet not only because we can learn what the people thought about revenge but the Christian doctrine on revenge can be learned too.
Shakespeare was influenced in his plays by his Christian religion. Many Christian themes seep into his plays and suicide and revenge specifically are explored in great detail in Hamlet. “Hamlet is strongly influenced by Christian theology: even as it lays out the motives and impulse to revenge, it also gestures toward the prohibition of revenge in divine and positive law.” (Jordan,202). Shakespeare also adds a legal twist to the issue of revenge. According to the customs and beliefs of England at the time, “Most opinion declared that a wronged subject had no recourse against tyranny but prayer.” (Jordan, 202) However, because Hamlet is royalty himself, some believe him to be in a privileged position and he should act not just for revenge, but for justice as well. (Jordan, 203) A third twist is added with the relationships of the characters of the play. Because Claudius was Hamlet’s father’s brother and he married his mother this makes Hamlet’s desire for revenge a familial matter. Because Claudius married his brother’s wife some would believe this to be an incestus relationship, Hamlet himself makes reference to this in the play. Because Incest is a sin, was Hamlet justified in this regard to act against a sinful person? The beliefs on revenge is interesting in early modern England while the bible declares revenge to be a sin, there were some instances according to Early English writers that said that revenge was allowed, albeit still looked down on. “the most tolerable sort of revenge is for those wrongs which there is no law to remedy; but then let a man take heed the revenge be such as there is no law to punish; else the man’s enemy is still beforehand, and it is two for one.” (Jordan, 208) Through this view of the multifaceted approach to revenge the character of Hamlet and his desire for revenge becomes far more interesting to analyze.
Part 2
Hamlet’s desire for revenge comes from his want for justice against his father. “Yea, from the table of my memory, I’ll wipe away all trivial fond records, all saws of books, all forms, all pressures past. That youth and observation copied there, and they commandment all alone shall live with the book and volume of my brain.” (I.v.97-101) Hamlet doesn’t want the throne, he doesn’t even want to live, he just wants justice for his murdered father. Because there is no law, above the king, Hamlet is justified in seeking revenge. He doesn’t gain anything out of it except for rest for his and his father’s soul. “Rest, rest, perturbed spirit!” and later on “That ever I was born to set it right!” (II.i.179-185). Laertes, on the other hand, while he does seek revenge for the same act, murder, does not go about it in the correct way. There are legal ways to solve disputes, the king, however, manipulates Laertes so that he can use him for his own plans instead of Laertes going about getting justice in the proper way. “Let this be so, his means of death his obscure funeral, no trophy, sword, nor hatchment o’er his bones no noble rite, nor formal ostentation, cry to be heard, as ‘twere from heaven to earth, that I must call into question.” (IV.V. 209-213). Instead of Laertes desiring justice in the legal manner, he gets caught up in his emotions and vows revenge instead. In doing so, he uses revenge in the wrong way.
Everything in the Christian world had a purpose, revenge should be used only in the right way. This includes revenge. Hamlet sought revenge for the right reason while Laertes sought revenge for the wrong reason despite desiring the same end goal.

Works cited

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Edited by Constance, Jordan, Pearson/Longman, 2005.

ERH 321WX

John Stann

Help Received: Works Cited, Spell Check, bibliography

Shakespeare and War in Othello

With the end of the middle ages and the beginning of the renaissance, ideas began to spread that changed society and the world one of these ideas was the evolution of the military.  (pg 291.). Because of a military revolution and the rise of nation-states, warfare changed from cavalry dominating the battlefield to infantry. Muskets and cannon replaced longbows and crossbows and professionalism replaced feudalism. All of these changes affected the way wars were fought and the status of soldiers in society.

During the middle ages, knights were an important part in society.  They offered their lords military service in return for land.  The age of enlightenment and the renaissance changed that way of life permanently. When nation states arose, and kings turned into enlightened despots, the knightly class became honorary and their status changed from warrior to noble and politician. The way of the sword went from being an honorable and dignified post to one taken up by the common man, the peasant.  “However, by Shakespeare’s time, men on foot- infantry from the – had come to dominate, and the professional soldier acting in concert with others became the new image of war.” (pg 292).

During this evolution from knight to professional, soldier’s roles changed dramatically as well. Men began to wear uniforms and units carried flags.  Troops became specialized and professional’s in their craft.  (pg 292). Soldiers began to be seen as a low class by society’s upper echelons, and mercenary armies became common, especially in Italy where the populations of the various city-states and small Republics did not allow for rulers to recruit large armies. “Othello is not a citizen-soldier, but rather a foreign mercenary hired by the Venetians.” (Pg 292). In England, the military revolution was crucial and affected everyone because of the many civil wars that had gripped the country.  England, preferred to not keep a standing army, and instead focused most of its military spending on its navy.  The army developed its own chain of command, ranks and a formal military training system. In England, discipline and professionalism were incredibly important.  (pg 294). Rank was important, not only in the chain of command on a battlefield, but also in the social environment of society itself.  An Ensign, a rank only used by the army, carried the colors of the unit. A lieutenant was the aid de camp to higher officers, especially generals, and the position was a coveted one. (pg 296). War had changed from focus on single combat, honor, and nobility to being bloodthirsty, professional and a gruesome business.  At the battle of Agincourt, Henry V gave no quarter, an unprecedented act betraying his honor as a knight.  During the Wars of the Roses no ransom was taken by knights on either side, and casualties were extremely high for the time. During the time of William Shakespeare, warfare changed drastically from small armies of knights and their retainers to large professional armies of infantry soldiers with strict discipline and rank structure.

Act 2, scene 3 of Othellois a perfect example of the changing views on military professionalism.  In this scene Iago gets Cassio, the newly promoted lieutenant drunk while he was supposed to be on duty.  Lines 240-290 have Cassio and Iago talking about honor and reputation.  Cassio tells Iago that he is hurt “past all surgery” (II.III 238).  Cassio is the newly appointed lieutenant to Othello, this position was one of respect and responsibility and whoever held it was supposed to act honorably. Cassio, by drinking while on duty tarnished his reputation and “The immortal part of myself. And what remains is bestial. My reputation Iago, my reputation.” (II.III.240-241.).  Officers were supposed to hold themselves to a higher standard, this has carried over to our military today.  Cassio laments the fact that he hurt the honor of his general by behaving in a stupid and dishonorable way.  The way that junior officers acted reflected heavily on their commanders.  Junior officers represented the commander when he was not there, and this is why Cassio feels ashamed.  Othelloshows a different attitude towards the military. In Henry IV, the soldiers and Fallstaff try to wiggle their way out of military service.  In Othello, the soldiers enjoy their service, and lament not acting honorably. These are two very different views.

Bibliography

Shakespere, William.  Othello. Ed. Hall, Kim. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007.

ERH 3231WX
John Stann

Help Received: Spell Check, Grammar Check, The British Library Website, works cited.

The Merchant of Venice

Despite not having much knowledge on the Jews or having that many Jewish people in England during the 16^thcentury, Elizabethan England persecuted the Jewish people rather harshly.  Jewish people had to either practice their faith in private or convert to Christianity. Many of the Jewish people in England at the time had fled from Spain or Italy where the Spanish Inquisition had driven them out. (https://www.bl.uk/shakespeare/articles/how-were-the-jews-regarded-in-16th-century-england).  The British Library website says that one of the most famous Jews that lived in England was Roderigo Lopez, who was Queen Elizabeth’s personal physician, and he was executed for conspiring to poison the queen.  According to historical records “The historian, William Camden reports that Lopez went to his death strenuously, affirming that he loved the Queen as well as he loved Jesus Christ; which, coming from a man of the Jewish profession, moved no small laughter in the standers-by.”  (https://www.bl.uk/shakespeare/articles/how-were-the-jews-regarded-in-16th-century-england). Many believe that William Shakespeare took these prejudices and wrote them into his play, The Merchant of Venice, when he came up with the character of Shylock.

The character of Shylock was written very curiously by Shakespeare. Despite having many of the characteristics of the Jews of the 16^thcentury, he can also be seen sympathetically by the viewers of the play.  This dilemma makes for an interesting analysis of the character. In act three scene 1 of the Merchant of Venice, Shylock gives a compelling argument for Jews and how they are being treated unfairly.  “I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction. “ (III.i.49-61). This scene shows that Jewish people are human and because they are human, they should be treated equally as well.  There is a darker undertone to the quote however, and Shylock is letting his anger and frustration seep through in his words. He swears that, because he is human, like the Christians in Venice, he will behave as they do, he will be vengeful, hateful and spiteful, just like the Christians.

The Merchant of Venice is an interesting play, the character Shylock has many of the features and characteristics that Christians perceived of Jews at the time. However, there is a certain sympathy that can be felt towards Shylock. He is left alone at the end of the play and is in a pathetic state throughout the play.

Works Cited

Shapiro, James. https://www.bl.uk/shakespeare/articles/how-were-the-jews-regarded-in-16th-century-england

Shakespere, William.  The Merchant of Venice. Ed. M. Lindsay Kaplan. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002.

ERH 321WX

Short Assignment 1

John Stann

Help Received: Works cited, Grammar check, Spell Check.

Part 1:

The short treatise of political power by John Ponet shows what some educated people in England believed should happen if a king or monarch was being unjust to their people and their perspective on rebellion and civic order.  Ponet believes that that God has the most absolute power and should even hold the monarch accountable and that a government should be established for the people.  (Hodgdon,180).  He also argues for checks on the government so that it does not turn into a tyranny. (Hodgdon, 180).  He believes that a person does not owe the duty to their obedience to the monarch themselves but instead, they owe it to the state. (Hodgdon,180).  Ponet also declares that citizens should obey their monarch if it is beneficial to the kingdom and to God. (Hodgdon,181).  Despite this believe of a monarch for the people, Ponet believes that if a monarch is unjust, the individual person should rebel and if his cause was just God would then intervene on his side and help him. (Hodgdon,181-182).

Part 2 (34-39)

Act 1 scene 3 of Henry IV, Part 1 is a good example of demonstrating what the people believed of rebellion.  The Percy’s are discussing rebellion because King Henry IV was not recognizing them as much as they had hoped since they helped him win the crown. The Percy’s believe that King Henry is a usurper and a tyrant and are angry at having to give up their prisoners.  “By God, he shall not have a Scot of them, No, if a Scot would save his soul, he shall not! I’ll keep them, by his hand (I.III.213-216).” Discussion turns from the prisoners to the legitimacy of Henry IV and how Mortimer should actually be king. This scene backs Ponet’s belief of rebellion because Henry Percy says in one of his speeches in this long scene that

“Wherein you range under this subtle king! Shall it for shame be spoken in these days, or fill up chronicles in time to come, that men of your nobility and power did gage them both in unjust behalf. (as both of you- God pardon it!- have done) To put down Richard To put down Richard, that sweet lovely rose, and plant this thorn, this canker, Bullingbrook?” (I.III.169-177)

This excerpt shows that they believed originally that they originally thought that Richard II was a poor king and they tried to replace him with a better king, who also turned into a tyrannical king.  Henry Percy later on tries to encourage the other Percy’s to “restore yourselves into the good thoughts of the world again” by rebelling against King Henry whom they believe to be a tyrant. Ponet argues that rebellion against a monarch is just if that monarch is not helping their citizens. King Henry is not directly being a tyrant to the people of England but the Percy’s believe that he is being unjust to them for not giving them more power after putting him on the throne.

Bibliography

Hodgdon, Barbara. The First Part of King Henry IV, Texts and Contexts, William Shakespeare  Hodgdon, Bedford/st. Martin’s, 1997.

Shakespeare, William.  The First Part of King Henry IV, Texts and Contexts.  Edited by Barbara Hodgdon, Bedford/st. Martin’s, 1997.

“Dulce et Decorum Est” Short assignment

John Stann

ERH 205WX

4/1/19

HR: Spell Check, Grammar Check, “Dulce et Decorum Est”

Changes:

One important change that was made in Owen’s poem “Dulce et Decorum Est” was in the second stanza.  In an earlier version, there is a line where the poem mentions gulping and wondering if the shells that landed were gas shells or duds and loosening masks in case the shells were gas.  In the final version he removes this and this was a good change. The poem runs smoother without the added lines.

Another change that he made that is small but important is in the first stanza.  He originally put “Clawing” for the line “Till on the haunting flares” and haunting just feels and seems more relevant then Clawing. How do you claw a flare?

John Stann

ERH 205WX

3/6/19

HR: Spell Check, Grammar Check, works cited.

Word Count:  1,184

The real meaning behind “The Man Who Would Be King”

“The Man Who Would Be King,” is a tale of adventure and exploration, of two conmen going off to conquer a kingdom for themselves.  Many people who have read “The Man Who Would Be King,” assume that this short story is a work either for or against imperialism, due to other works written by Kipling, such asThe White Man’s Burden.  Authors such as Jeffry Myers or Paul Fussell argue, and counter argue that the story does a good job depicting anti-imperialism or say that the work fails because some of the qualities that the main characters, Peachy Carnahan and Dan Dravot, show are too redeeming.  What if Kipling didn’t have a deeper meaning to the story and purely meant it to be a tale of adventure.  While some of the evidence leads readers to believe that it is an anti-imperialist, much of the story doesn’t feel like it is either intentionally supporting or anti-imperialism.  This includes the way the characters act, how the plot develops and how the story ends. “The Man Who Would Be King”is purely a story of adventure and while there are signs of anti-imperialism and pro imperialism that was just the feelings of the time and had nothing to do with why the story was written.

Like many novels and stories, “The Man Who Would be King”,is read and interpreted differently by critics who both praise and attack it. Since the author is dead, we do not know what he meant by writing it.  Assumptions occur even when the story is known to be fictional and have no second meaning.  One example of this is The Lord of the Rings.  Many people, who both love and hate the books, have claimed that they are allegories, comparing characters like Gandalf to Jesus.  Tolkien himself, however, disagrees and said that “I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence.”  Kipling may have just meant “The Man Who Would Be King,” to be a story, like his book, The Jungle Book.

One of the reasons that make it hard to believe that “The Man Who Would Be King” is supposed to mean something is the way the two main characters act and the tone of the story.   The main characters are two conmen named Peachy Carnahan and Danny “Dan” Dravot, these two men lived a life of adventure but were also from the bottoms of civilization. They were criminals who bribed others to keep their stories out of newspapers. “We might threaten a Station-master, and make him send a wire on tick, said my friend, but that’d mean inquiries for you and me.” (Kipling 2) Despite these unredeemable qualities there are some traits that these characters have that Kipling believes in, and thinks are important for men to have. These include self-reliance, loyalty, courage and a spirit of adventure. “Then, the camels passed away along the dusty road, and I was left alone to wonder.  My eye could detect no failure in the disguises. The scene in the Serai proved that they were complete to the native mind.” (Kipling 11) Characters are an important part to any story, and if Kipling wanted “The Man Who Would Be King” to be anti-imperialist he should have chosen more effective characters.  Instead of characters who could be relatable because of their courage and loyalty, Kipling should have chosen purely evil and corrupt men without any “good” qualities at all.  A businessman, industrialist or a banker would have been a perfect choice to fill this role.  Kipling, however, chose Peachy and Dan.  Instead of meaning his work to be anti-imperialist, the story was just about two men and the spirit of adventure, the courage and loyalty they shared.

Another reason why the story does not seem to be anti-imperialist, is the way it unfolds and how it is presented to the reader.  A safer, and clearer way to show that “The Man Who Would Be King” was be anti-imperialist would have been to have the story follow the characters along their journey so the readers could be observers of the actual events happening and make a judgement for themselves as to why the protagonists did what they did.  Even the narrator is confused as to what is happening during the story. While Peachy is telling his story, he tells contradictory messages and convolutes the facts. The narrator must interrupt the storytelling and make guesses at times as to what really happened or ask Peachy questions to clarify something he said.  This leaves the reader uncertain about what happened on Peachy’s adventures.  The narrator himself doesn’t believe Peachy and sends him off to an asylum.  The narrator finally believes in the story when Peachy shows him Dan’s head with the crown on it.  The head, however, disappears and this makes it impossible for others to believe the story and thus the reader of Kipling’s tale shares a special relationship with the narrator because they are the only people who know what happened.  Instead of using fiction as a way of conveying an important message Kipling should have used another genre if he really wanted people to know that imperialism was wrong.  He wrote The White Man’s Burden as a poem, and there is no debateor questions asked about the meaning of that. Fiction is such a convoluted way of conveying a message, if Kipling was desperate to show how much imperialism was bad, he should have chosen a different form of writing. While fiction can carry a meaning, it usually is used to tell a story, or the meaning is the motivation of the characters and their growth in the story.

Motives are an important reason for writing a story and it not only drives the author to write, but it also drives the characters, the plot and everything about the story.  Every piece and part of a story has a motive and instead of writing about anti-imperialism Kipling just wanted to write a good story about the qualities of a person. What makes someone good, or what makes them bad.  This makes more sense with the way that “The Man Who Would Be King” played out. The story was convoluted, with a confusing narrative and interesting characters that flipped between being greedy and self-centered to being loyal to each other and their code.  This makes the story about the personality of the protagonists and what they did in different situations instead of anti-imperialist.  Character growth is a better meaning for writing a story. Peachy and Danny grow over the course of the story from naive adventurous young men to men who are more mature and changed from their experiences in a foreign and hostile country. While their motives stay the same, instead of wanting to rush in and leave they stay and plan and are more cautious. While their motives may have stayed the same the way they go about accomplishing their goals has changed and this shows a different level of maturity, even if Peachy and Dan are the same devious characters.

The plot the characters and settings make an exciting adventure story about two men, their personalities and how they grow and develop.  This does not mean that “The Man Who Would Be King” is about anti-imperialism or pro-imperialism, it could have just been a story like any other and literature should not be critiqued without knowing the author’s intent.

Works Cited:

Jeffery Myers’s: The Idea of Moral Authority in “The Man who Would be King”

Kipling, Rudyard, 1865-1936 Montefiore, Jan (1948~).  “The Man Who Would Be King” Penguin

Classics, 2011.

John Stann 

2/15/19 

Words: 1,419 

Help Received: Spell check, works cited.   

The Hallow Crown Part 2: Henry V.  

The Hollow Crown takes on a new approach to the Shakespearian play, instead of focusing on the outward, physical conflicts of the play, it instead focuses on the internal struggle of Henry as he wrestles with himself and his legitimacy to the throne of England and if his war with the French will be successful.  This unique twist to the play differs from the other two great adaptations not only because of the focus of the series but also in the way it was filmed.  Tom Hiddleston does a great performance of King Henry and shows the inner soul of the king. 

The Hallow Crown is a miniseries that focuses on the plays of Shakespeare including Richard II and Henry V. Despite this shows smaller production size, it should be ranked among the other two great film adaptions of Henry V because it focuses on the emotional aspect of Henry V.  There are many major scenes where this is obvious, the “Into the breach” scene is one, the famous “Band of Brothers” speech is another and finally the ceremony speech which shows Henry wrestling with himself over what he should do and if the battle of Agincourt will be successful. This movie, like the 1989 version does not shy away from showing the cruelty of war.  For example, the movie shows the brutal killing of the boys in the wagon train by the French at Agincourt. Another example of this brutality is at the Siege of Harfluer and the “Into the Breech” speech.  In this speech, in the film, the camera zooms in on Henry’s face and solely on his face. His soldier’s faces are in the background at times but most of the time the camera is focused on Henry. You can see his face in visible pain and you can imagine Henry’s mind racing in a way to attempt to motivate his troops.   In Hiddleston’s version the camera is focused on Henry for ninety percent of the time.  You can see the emotions running in him, it almost looks like the king was crying, with his bloodshot eyes. The exhaustion from the battle is also clearly visible.  His simple chest plate is brown from dirt and beat in and Henry’s hair is wild and dirty as well.  This is different from the Branagh version which pans out on the entire battlefield during Henry’s speech.  With the Branagh version, Henry is barely visible in the first part of his speech. It is only towards the end when Henry comes into focus. The camera moves around from the people of the town, to the governor, to Henry’s weary soldiers and back to the town, it is dark, you see the explosions and the burning town and that and the denizens of Harfluer are the focus.  Like the 1989 version, The Hollow Crown is not scared to show the horrors of war, and during the siege you see men being burnt by oil, killed in the darkness and alone.  Once the siege is over, Henry V gives a speech to the citizens and the governor of the town. This speech that Henry gives tells of horrible atrocities that would be committed if the town did not submit.  

 The day or so before Agincourt when Henry declares “No surrender,” to the French Herald is another visible sign of Henry’s humanity. He is exhausted and sick, his hair is dirty, he looks tired and is breathing heavily and he puts his hand on his side like he is trying to recover. The king chokes up when he mentions that his men are sick as well.  Fesh from the murderous speech and battle at Harfluer to connect with Henry the audience must see Henry as human and this scene does that perfectly.  The king himself is feeling the pain and exhaustion of the forced march and sickness that follows in any military during that time period. He is not high and lofty like the French, whom you see feasting and riding their splendid mounts and it shows how he cares and that makes the audience care.  Another famous speech that Tom Hiddleston acts exceptionally well in is the ceremonies monologue that he gives before the night before Agincourt.  It is almost reminiscent of the Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, with Henry tearing up and praying to God to allow him to win his battle. It is an emotional scene and done very well.  In Hiddleston’s version the camera, once again, is brought up close to the king you see his weary face and the emotion he puts into the speech is intense. The audience feels for Henry, and the speech captures the severity and desperation of the situation.  This scene in the Branagh version comes the closest to focusing on the king and his emotions as a human being.  However, the camera is still focused on the background more than Henry and this draws away from the moment.   

BBC’s version still focuses on the background, side characters and the setting, but it is not the central point, Henry, the man is. I think you become more attached to Henry in the BBC version then in the 1989 film. You see a person who enjoys life when he can but who can also be serious when he needs to be. He embodies the simple lifestyle, even though he is a king. The confidence Henry shows when he places his crown on his head like it doesn’t matter in the first scene with his councilmen makes you want to be that confident and to believe in Henry.  It is not just with Henry that you see this major difference between shows.  You become closer with Pistol and Bardolph and Nym as well, despite them being side characters.  When Bardolph is sentenced to be hung for stealing church items you suffer for Nym and Pistol when they try to save their friend. You suffer with Henry when he passes by the body of Bardolph on the road to Agincourt.  The Hollow Crown does an excellent job of portraying emotions and the psychological effects of war because you care more about the people in the show. 

The reasons and goals for filming such an infamous play in different ways are numerous.  In Branagh’s version he is focusing more on the people and locations around King Henry, trying to show their emotions and the devastation of war. This was due to the anti-war sentiment following the Vietnam War. In Branagh’s version the settings are mostly dark and dreary and either muddy or raining.  While the major characters are still important, the ordinary citizens and followers of both the French and the English are the ones affected the most.  You see them struggling, fighting, dying and being beat down by the devastation of war. In this struggle though, a bond is formed, a brotherhood of the warring class and those who suffer in such conditions.  While Branagh originally wanted to show the horrors of war he still shows the bonds of war.  The speeches of the Branagh film are focused on the secondary characters showing their reactions to the speeches. At Agincourt, for instance, during the “Band of Brothers” speech, the camera does follow Henry, and you see the soldiers and knights of his army and their reactions to Henry’s words.  For example, you see Exetor grin when his name is called, and you see the brotherhood being formed during that speech. (Henry V) The BBC version, has other motivations for being filmed, and takes a more natural and approach to the story. Henry directs his speeches at the audience.  While you see the side characters some, they are not as important. the crew focused more on Henry and on the audience and to focus on the emotional aspect of conflict and life instead of on the physical aspect.  The film also gave a more heroic view of the play compared to Branagh, this was due to the Olympics being hosted in London during the year it was released, and BBC took this opportunity, to showcase British culture.  (BBC Drama publicity) 

The Hollow Crown is a remarkable version of Shakespeare’s Henry V.  It draws you into the story, helps you get attached to the characters and makes you feel what they are feeling in a way that other versions do not. In many scenes you can see and feel Henry’s emotion in him, and this is what makes this version stand among the great adaptations of the play.   

 Bibliography 

“The Hollow Crown – Media Centre.” BBC, BBC, www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/mediapacks/hollowcrown. 

Genzlinger, Neil. “Questions to Ask a King Before You Are Beheaded.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 19 Oct. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/arts/television/hollow-crown-serves-up-shakespeare-and-royal-contrasts.html. 

Shakespere, William.  “Henry V” 1599. 

Power, Ben. “The Hollow Crown.” Season 1, episode 1, 2012. 

Henry V, Kenneth Branagh, 1989. 

ERH 205WX  

2/12/18 

Henry V paper 

John Stann 

HR: Spell Check 

Henry V: In Film 

Kenneth Branagh’s 1989 film adaptation of the famous Shakespearean play has been well praised by Critics who oftentimes compare this film version to another famous adaptation, that of the 1944 version. Instead of a comedic, moral boosting rendition like the 1944 version, Branagh’s film was produced during the Vietnam war and shows us the horrors of war.  Branagh’s film, tries to show the evil of war and appease an anti-war populace who are tired of war and violence.   Branagh shows a more violent and darker world, and this is certainly true in the film. The settings are dark, Henry’s hall in the first act is barley lit, nothing is colorful, the two battles are muddy, and either taking place in a rainstorm or at night and Henry’s violent, and darker side is also shown.  The traitors are highlighted and Henry’s “into the breech” speech has a particular affect on the audience with descriptions of babies being placed on spikes and other horrible visions of war.  Even Henry himself is portrayed in a darker, and as an anti-hero instead of a straight up hero.  He orders the French prisoners killed, and his into the breech speech is also brutal.  Even while wooing Princess Katherine he discusses, owning France and saying that he would love her as much as he loves France.  Despite all of these shortcomings, in the end Henry is still shown as a hero, which is why I believe he is an anti-hero.  At the end of the battle of Agincourt you see Henry carrying the body of a slain boy who was killed when the French broke through the lines.  He also gave a rousing speech to his men before the battle and refused ransom.  

The Branagh version of Henry V is a dark story of war and brutality which tries to show a darker version of Henry V and fuel the anti-war sentiment during a time when many people were against the war in Vietnam.  This anti-war culture influenced this film greatly and made for a great version of the film. 

Bibliography: 

Donaldson, Peter S.  “Taking on Shakespeare:  Kenneth Branagh’s Henry V. Shakespeare Quarterly 42.1 (1991): 60-71.   

John Stann 

1/22/19 

Help Received: Spell Check, The time traveler’s guide to medieval England.  

Chaucer’s England  

Chaucer, who wrote The Canterbury tales, lived in an interesting time and based his work off of these times.  We can learn a lot about Medieval England from the tales that he tells especially about Law, Justice and the judicial system.  

Law was a complex system during Medieval England, it was made especially complicated due to the “overlapping jurisdictions of church and secular authorities.” (Chaucer’s England 30)   The church was the highest authority in the land followed by the king. During the middle ages the church and state were one and it was only after the 30 years war that the modern state was formed and the church and state were separated.  Before then, however, the Church owned land in the different kingdoms and Bishops and other clergy had immense power, oftentimes taking the roll as judge and juror.  Sometimes bishops led armies and they always had retainers.  The government system was also very superstitious, they believed in such things as witches, and other fictional beliefs and saw the Jews as the cause of many problems including the black death.  Thus, in England most of the Jews were expelled from the country and there were many burnings of witches.  Due to this molding of church and state many of the punishments or deciding of the punishment were superstitious as well. One common decision to see if someone was guilty was to force the accused to walk over hot coals. If their feet were burned they were guilty if they escaped being bunt then they were innocent.  These customs and traditions may seem foreign and stupid to us, however, back then, Religion and superstation were almost one, this was due to the lack of literacy and understanding of common facts, thus astrologers, physists all held high places in society.  The law system was not as much law, even though the beginnings of modern law began to form in this time, as they were superstitions.   

Works Cited.  

Mortimer, Ian.  The time Traveler’s Guide to England.  Simon and Schuster, New York. 2011.