The Flawed King in Shakespeare's Henry V
To turn Henry V into a play glorifying war or a play condemning war would be to presume Shakespeare's intentions too much. He does both of these and more in his recount of the historical battle of Agincourt. Although Shakespeare devotes the play to the events leading to war, he simultaneously gives us insight into the political and private life of a king. It is this unity of two distinct areas that has turned the play into a critical no man's land, "acrimoniously contested and periodically disfigured by opposing barrages of intellectual artillery" (Taylor 1). One may believe that Henry is the epitome of kingly glory, a disgrace of royalty, or think that Shakespeare himself disliked Henry and attempted to express his moral distaste subtly to his audience. No matter in which camp one rests, Henry V holds relevance for the modern stage. Despite containing contradictions, Henry is also a symbol as he is one person. This unity of person brings about the victory in the battle of Agincourt.
The theme of unity transcends any ambiguity found in Henry's character or motives. This theme is evident in many areas of Henry V, but for the sake of this article, the importance of this theme is discussed between play and audience, and within Henry himself. This production of Henry V proposes that these two aspects be emphasized to show how Shakespeare's play has a message for modern theatergoers. The setting and age are left the same, as this adds to the validity of the play.
Henry and his army are victorious at the battle of Agincourt. England and France are united, and Henry reigns supreme for the time being. An obstacle to overcome when directing Henry V is that it is affirmative l...
... middle of paper ...
... and ambiguity. Shakespeare uses the ironies found in the play so that we will remember his play's limits. It cannot produce an ideal, nor can we as an audience.
Works Cited
Beauman, Sally, ed. The Royal Shakespeare Company's Centenary Production of Henry V. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1976.
Bloom, Harold. Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. New York: Riverhead Books, 1998.
Iser, Wolfgang. Staging Politics: The Lasting Impact of Shakespeare's Histories. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993.
Shakespeare, William. "Henry V." The Norton Shakespeare: Histories. Eds. Stephen Greenblatt, Walter Cohen, Jean E. Howard, and Katherine Eisaman Maus. London: Norton, 1997. 726-795.
Taylor, Gary, ed. Henry V: The Oxford Shakespeare. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982.
Traversi, D.A. An Approach to Shakespeare. Vol. 1. New York: Anchor Books, 1969.
On February 19, 1942, President Roosevelt signed the Executive Order 9066 allowing the military to exclude “any and all persons” from designated areas of the country as needed for national defense. These “any and all persons” were Japanese Americans, 2/3 citizens and 1/3 aliens, and the designated area was the West Coast of the United States. The Executive Order to place the Japanese living in the United States into internment camps was deemed necessary due to the recent attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941, by Japan.
On December 7, 1941, the Empire of Japan attacked the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor, bringing the United States into World War II (Prange et al., 1981: p.174). On February 19, 1942, United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 authorizing the Secretary of War and Military Commanders to prescribe areas of land as excludable military zones (Roosevelt, 1942). Effectively, this order sanctioned the identification, deportation, and internment of innocent Japanese Americans in War Relocation Camps across the western half of the United States. During the spring and summer of 1942, it is estimated that almost 120,000 Japanese Americans were relocated from their homes along the West Coast and in Hawaii and detained in U.S. government-run concentration camps (Daniels, 2004: p.3). Approximately two-thirds of these men and women were either nisei—second generation Japanese—or sansei—third generation—Japanese Americans, the other third were issei—first generation—Japanese immigrants living in the United States at the time. While issei generation Japanese people were born in Japan and were not eligible for United States citizenship, members of the nisei and sanei generations were born in the United States, and therefore, were legal American citizens. Regardless of this distinction in citizenship, however, American powers perceived all of these men and women to be an imposing threat to the security of the United States.
Shakespeare, William. Henry the Fourth, Part 1. Ed James L. Sanderson. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1969.
The Japanese-American Internment experience lasted from 1942-1946. Approximately 120,000 Japanese Americans were affected. Many lost their property, health, sense of identity, and also patriotism during the experience. The internment brings into question the constitutionality of “military necessity” and also paved the way for the later Civil Rights Movement.
Much controversy has been sparked due to the internment of the Japanese people. Many ask whether it was justified to internment them. It is a very delicate issue that has two sides, those who are against the internment of the Japanese-Americans and those who are for it. With World War II raging in the East, America was still, for the most part, very inactive in the war. When America took a stand against Japan by not shipping them supplies, Japan became very upset. Japan, being a big island that is very overpopulated with little natural resources, depended on America to provide them with an assortment of supplies including scrap metal and oil, vital items that are needed in a time of war. Japan retaliated by declaring war on America and attacking Pearl Harbor. This surprise act led to many soldiers deaths and millions of dollars of damaged army equipment, including air craft carriers and planes. As a result to Japan declaring war, the Japanese-Americans were asked to and eventually forced to do their duty to the country and report to internment camps until the war conflict was over. Many opposed this act for a couple of reasons. One reason was that people felt that it was a huge hypocrisy that the Japanese were being interned while the Italians and Germans, also our enemies, were still walking around free in America. Another reason why many were against the internment was because many of the Japanese had already been in America for some time now. The Issei, the first generation of Japanese people that immigrated from Japan, had immigrated many years ago. A whole another generation of Japanese children had already began growing up in America called the Nissei. They were automatically U.S. citizens for they were born in America and for the most part were like other American children. Anti-Internment activists also said that the Japanese were being robbed of their rights as U.S. citizens. However, there are two sides to everything.
King Henry V is arguably one of the most widely known English monarchs in the history of the country, however this knowledge often comes from only one source, the works of William Shakespeare, namely, King Henry IV (part 1 and part 2) or the more famous King Henry V. With public knowledge of King Henry V coming often solely from this one source, it is important to look at Shakespeare’s perspective and the social and political climate in which he worked.
Shakespeare, William. The Life of King Henry the Fifth. New York: Unicorn Publishers Inc, 1950. Pg. 173-295.
Warren, Roger. Shakespeare Survey 30. N.p.: n.p., 1977. Pp. 177-78. Rpt. in Shakespeare in the Theatre: An Anthology of Criticism. Stanley Wells, ed. England: Oxford University Press, 2000.
The military might of Rome was second to none in its prime. Victorious battle after battle did nothing but increase Rome’s population of young men suited for combat, increase Rome’s borders, and increase Rome’s influence over its people and the surrounding people. With such great generals as Alexander the Great, Pompey the Great, and Julius Caesar Rome won many decisive battles. At its largest times, Rome controlled most of the Middle East, Asia Minor, present day Europe, and Egypt. It’s is hard to state that conquering and controlling all of the surrounding territory didn’t help aid in Rome’s great success. But would they have been so successful militarily if they didn’t have the trade routes or the technology?
Through the conduit of Henry’s speeches and diction, Shakespeare depicts the monarch as a benevolent leader. Before the English invasion of Westmoreland, Henry articulates his passion for the English cause
Shakespeare’s Henry’s most remarkable and heroic quality is his resolve; once Henry has his mind set on accomplishing something he uses every tool at his disposal to see that it is achieved. ‘If we may pass, we will; if we be hinder’d we shall your tawny ground with your red blood discolour’ Henry meticulously presents himself as an unstoppable force to which his enemies must choose to react; although his methods are morally questionable they a...
Cohen, Walter, J.E. Howard, K. Eisaman Maus. The Norton Shakespeare. Vol. 2 Stephen Greenblatt, General Editor. New York, London. 2008. ISBN 978-0-393-92991-1
The change process within any organization can prove to be difficult and very stressful, not only for the employees but also for the management team. Hayes (2014), highlights seven core activities that must take place in order for change to be effective: recognizing the need for change, diagnosing the change and formulating a future state, planning the desired change, implementing the strategies, sustaining the implemented change, managing all those involved and learning from the change. Individually, these steps are comprised of key actions and decisions that must be properly addressed in order to move on to the next step. This paper is going to examine how change managers manage the implementation of change and strategies used
Change is the only constant in life. And therefore it should be understood as part of a continuing work in progress that calls for a much broader canvas that seeks out competing voices, and works with the resulting ambiguities, contradictions and tensions of messy reality (Graetz, F. & Smith, A., 2010). In this submission I try to show that organizational change is majorly based on the environment surrounding it much more than the desire of the members or change agents working in that organization. This view diverts from that of Lippitt, (1958) who suggests that implementing planned organizational changes successfully depends on premeditated interventions intended to modify the functioning of an organization. It also diverts from the traditional approaches to organizational change that generally follow a linear, rational model in which the focus is on controllability under the stewardship of a strong leader or ‘guiding coalition (Collis, 1998). In this discussion therefore, comparison made between the different philosophies of change and I try to show that successful change implantation largely depends on an organizations appreciation of what goes on around it rather than what they have planned as a strategic direction.
Henry IV is a play that concerns itself with political power and kingship in English history. References to kingship are prevalent throughout the play, especially in the depiction of the characters. Although most of the characters in this play could teach us about kingship, I would like to focus my attention to Prince Henry. I think that this character helps us to best understand what kingship meant at this particular time in history.