Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Is shakespeares take on henry v accurate
Shakespeare's henry iv part 1 essay
King Henry IV Part 1 analytical commentary of Act 4
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Is shakespeares take on henry v accurate
Henry V from Shakespeare’s play of the same name was a disappointment as a monarch. Although he was an intelligent man, he failed his people and himself by choosing to be unsuccessful as a true head of state. As the guardian of the people, the promotion of righteousness should be have been the first priority of Henry V. But what is righteousness, and how does it apply to a king? The main priority of a king, throughout his entire rule, should be to promote virtue to the people through way of his own example, especially in considering laws and other affairs of the state. Henry V, however, did not promote virtue during his reign, and was, in fact, very prideful and self-centered, as shown by his message to the French prince, in which he boasted that he would “shine so brightly that even the Dauphin will be struck blind.”1 At the Siege of Harfleur, Henry V struck fear into the hearts of the French people by threatening violence if they did not surrender immediately.2 Henry V could have walked away from the battle and prevented the ensuing crimes, but because he valued what he perceived as honor and valor more than he valued the lives of the people, he chose to scare the governor of Harfleur into surrendering. He did this by announcing loudly the evils he planned to inflict on the people. Henry V even went so far as to say that the promised harm would be solely the fault of the governor of Harfleur.3 Without a strong sense of morality, a kingdom will fall into anarchy because when everyone is searching for personal gain, even at the cost of others, trust will dissolve and the people will destroy each other rather than risk being destroyed themselves. There would be a contempt for the law because no one would feel morally obligated ... ... middle of paper ... ...imary obligations of a ruler should be to strive to become a finer person, follow the will of God, and to promote peace. Henry V did not find the wellbeing of his people to be of great importance, which should have been his greatest concern. Thus, Henry V was not a good king. Works Cited 1. St. Augustine, of Hippo. "Of the liberty proper to man's nature, and the servitude introduced by sin." City of God. Unknown: New Advent, Inc., 1997. 515. Electronic resource 2. Shakespeare, William. No Fear Shakespeare: Henry V. New York: SparkNotes, 2003. Print. 3. Gyetvai, Katia, “Princely Priorities”, in Angelicum Program, edited by Katia Gyetvai, Sandor Gyetvai, Gina Gyetvai, and Shelbie Boor, 3-4. Email: Great Books Graders, 2013 4. Knight, Kevin. "CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Joan of Arc." NEW ADVENT: Home. Last modified 2009. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08409c.htm.
For hundreds of years, those who have read Henry V, or have seen the play performed, have admired Henry V's skills and decisions as a leader. Some assert that Henry V should be glorified and seen as an "ideal Christian king". Rejecting that idea completely, I would like to argue that Henry V should not be seen as the "ideal Christian king", but rather as a classic example of a Machiavellian ruler. If looking at the play superficially, Henry V may seem to be a religious, moral, and merciful ruler; however it was Niccolo Machiavelli himself that stated in his book, The Prince, that a ruler must "appear all mercy, all faith, all honesty, all humanity, [and] all religion" in order to keep control over his subjects (70). In the second act of the play, Henry V very convincingly acts as if he has no clue as to what the conspirators are planning behind his back, only to seconds later reveal he knew about their treacherous plans all along. If he can act as though he knows nothing of the conspirators' plans, what is to say that he acting elsewhere in the play, and only appearing to be a certain way? By delving deeper into the characteristics and behaviors of Henry V, I hope to reveal him to be a true Machiavellian ruler, rather than an "ideal king".
When we look at Henry as a king we have to look in the context of
honorble ruler. Henry IV was king of France between 1589 and 1610. He was supported
There is quite a lot of turn around and Henry never uses negative comments. Henry has close relationship with his men, by using a variety of strong terms. Henry's lecture has reference to the superior being to give more assurance. Furthermore King Henry gives divine inspiration to many leaders now days.
Henry V is not a simple one as it has many aspects. By looking into
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.
The book, Beyond The Myth: The Story of Joan of Arc, by Polly Schoyer Brooks, is a biography.
King Henry IV is saddened and ashamed of Harry’s drinking and stealing and wonders if he will ever become a capable leader. King Henry IV even questions if some...
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.
In the play Henry V written by Shakespeare. Henry was presented as the ideal Christian king. His mercy, wisdom, and other characteristics demonstrated the behavior of a Christian king. Yet at the same time he is shown to be man like any other. The way he behaves in his past is just like an ordinary man.
Through high moral character Henry established credibility with the audience through creating a setting that aroused feelings in the people at the convention in order to convince them they had to fight for more than just peace. The goal Henry had when he spoke about war was to be honest with the crowd and point out that they needed to do something now or they would loose not just what he loved, but what they also loved. Henry said “If we wish to be free, if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending...and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight!”. In this quote the tactic of ethics is apparent in that Henry wanted to achieve a personal level of connection with the audience and establish his credibility. By relating losing the war it also meant the lose of their feelings of comfort and contentm...
However, he didn't listen to the duke of york who desperately wanted a say. This could have been another reason for the outbreak of conflict because the people didn't think he always made the right decision and the duke of York didn't like not being listened to. Another problem was with patronage, as Henry was overgenerous, but only to some people, he would give lots of patronage to Somerset and Suffolk but none to York. This was even worse because he had borrowed from York and instead if paying him back, gave patronage to others. He gave away more and more money and land so that there wasn't much left for important times like war and to make people happy or come onto his side.
I side with Loades on this as despite resentment from the nobles, after the Perkin Warbeck imposture there were no more serious uprisings which strongly support the success of Henry’s policies. Whilst most nobles would see his methods as unjust (especially the wide of use bonds and recognisances) Henry succeeded in increasing the crown’s standing at the expense of the nobility, securing his position whilst weakening the nobles. Through most of his policies Henry was successful in limiting the powers of nobility. Henry sought to restrict the noble’s power and yet at the same time needed them to keep order and represent him at local levels, therefore Henry sought not to destroy the nobles but to weaken them enough that they did not pose a threat, he needed a balance of control over the nobles and strong nobility.
When Henry took the throne, he gave most of the responsibility to Cardinal Thomas Wolsey. He did this because as a 17 year old boy, he felt he wasn’t ready for all of that responsibility at once (Sommerville). Even though he was king, he had no desire to know the everyday problems of England. One of Henry’s biggest accomplishments as king was implementing a naval fleet. He tried to get England to fight with Scotland and France (Scarisbrick 738).
Augustine, Saint. “Of the Foreknowledge of God and the Free Will of Man, Against the