The most important theme in Shakespeare's Henry V is honor, specifically honor recognized by others. Honor recognized by others has substance, while the self-centered personal pursuit of honor may ultimately diminish it. This tension is captured just before the Battle of Agincourt when King Henry offers to send the cowardly home to England, arguing that “the fewer men the greater share of honor". He also says “if it be a sin to covet honor, I am the most offending soul alive” (Henry V 4.3.) In this, it is interesting to ask oneself if Henry seeking the recognition that results from honor (in this case bravery in battle) or the personal and social benefits of honor (the ability to inspire others to bravery and greatness?)
The two characters
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".
The first appeal that Henry uses in his speech is ethos which appeals to ethics. Evidence from the text is, “fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country” (lines 13-14). This shoes that God has credibility. It also shows that you need to respect God over Britain. The next piece of evidence that I found in the speech is whenever the text said, “…and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings” (lines 16-17). This is saying that you should respect God above man. That is two ways how Henry used the ethical appeal, ethos.
William Shakespeare's play, Julius Caesar, has a heavy focus on honor. The characters in the play have a tendency to refer back to honor and the honor of Rome, but are they really as honorable as they say? Honor is a very abstract concept that is widely applicable in many situations, but what is it? To honor someone is to show them respect, and to be honorable is to act in a way that deserves respect and admiration. The characters of Julius Caesar, for the most part, are all seeking some form of honor, but do they achieve it? Three of the best examples of honor in Julius Caesar are Brutus, Cassius, and Portia. With varying levels of honor, these characters display the spectrum well.
Rather than a sense of patriotism, it is clear to the reader that Henry's goals seem a little different, he wants praise and adulation. "On the way to Washington, the regiment was fed and caressed for station after station until the youth beloved that he must be a hero."
The father and son relationship is one of the most important aspects through the youth of a young man. In Shakespeare’s play Henry IV, he portrays the concept of having "two fathers". King Henry is Hal’s natural father, and Falstaff is Hal’s moral father. Hal must weigh the pros and cons of each father to decide which model he will emulate. Falstaff, who is actually Hal’s close friend, attempts to pull Hal into the life of crime, but he refuses.
One of the key words in his dialogue is 'honour' because in Elizabethan times honour was bound up with ideas of nobility and manliness. Henry has constant reference to the divine, to get permission for his actions, 'God's will.' Additionally there is various uses of semantic fields, associated with religion, God, covet, honour and sin; all taken from the bible. Henry applies a very close relationship term, 'cuz.'
Henry in Henry V The bishops refer to Henry in the first scene as "a sudden scholar" who can "reason in divinity. " Canterbury says, "The king is full of grace, and fair regard. Ely quotes "and a true lover of the holy church. The two bishops, pretty much have the same view on Henry, they think highly of him.
Henry's final step in maturation was finally made through the sacrifice of his companions, and their pressuring him to lead the charge. The reaction of one soldier to another is the basis of war, as camaraderie is the methodology by which wars are won. Henry gave witness to the horrors of war, the atrocities of battle, the deaths of his friends, and later a life of victory. The ultimate transformation in Henry's character leading to a mature temperament was found by finding himself in the confusion of war and companionship.
Are these two gentlemen seriously examining the King’s issues with France, or are they looking rather intently at their own interests? What are they really saying about the questionable behaviour of the King during his days as a Prince? What do they really mean by the image: “strawberry ... underneath the nettle”?
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 lose 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 loss of their feelings of comfort and contentment from the privileges they had worked hard on to achieve.
In the first part of the novel, Henry is a youth that is very inexperienced. His motives were impure. He was a very selfish and self-serving character. He enters the war not for the basis of serving his country, but for the attainment of glory and prestige. Henry wants to be a hero. This represents the natural human characteristic of selfishness. Humans have a want and a need to satisfy themselves. This was Henry's main motive throughout the first part of the novel. On more than one occasion Henry is resolved to that natural selfishness of human beings. After Henry realizes that the attainment of glory and heroism has a price on it. That price is by wounds or worse yet, death. Henry then becomes self-serving in the fact that he wants to survive for himself, not the Union army. There is many a time when Henry wants to justify his natural fear of death. He is at a point where he is questioning deserting the battle; in order to justify this, he asks Jim, the tall soldier, if he would run. Jim declared that he'd thought about it. Surely, thought Henry, if his companion ran, it would be alright if he himself ran. During the battle, when Henry actually did take flight, he justified this selfish deed—selfish in the fact that it did not help his regiment hold the Rebs—by natural instinct. He proclaimed to himself that if a squirrel took flight when a rock was thrown at it, it was alright that he ran when his life was on the line.
Passage Analysis - Act 5 Scene 1, lines 115-138. Shakespeare’s ‘King Henry IV Part I’ centres on a core theme: the conflict between order and disorder. Such conflict is brought to light by the use of many vehicles, including Hal’s inner conflict, the country’s political and social conflict, the conflict between the court world and the tavern world, and the conflicting moral values of characters from each of these worlds. This juxtaposition of certain values exists on many levels, and so is both a strikingly present and an underlying theme throughout the play.
However, many would view his The idea of honor much like the victor of war, has no true answer, but the most correct observation lays in perspective. Each soldier fights for their own individual cause, while one views the other as dishonorable, they likely view themselves as honorable, as a soldier willing to sacrifice.
Falstaff’s honor speech does not imply cowardice, rather it exemplifies the contrast between himself and King Henry IV. In King Henry IV part one, act 5, Fallstaff explains why honor is not an ideal he strives for. He says that honor drives him to battle and asks, if he dies for honor, what is the reward? Honor will not assist him if he is wounded, it is nothing but air, a word. It is only achievable through death, and it is useless to the dead. Therefore, in the upcoming battle Falstaff will not, as characters in heroic plays had done for centuries, sacrifice himself for love of country. He will instead look out for his own self interest, and attempt to earn acclaim from the actions of others.
In Henry V, the actions of King Henry portray him as an appalling leader. Among Henry's many negative traits, he allows himself to be influenced by people who have anterior motives. This is problematic because the decisions might not be the best decisions for the country, or neighboring countries. The bishops convinced Henry to take over France because they would be able to save land for the Church. Henry doesn't have the ability to accept responsibility for his actions, placing the blame on others. Before Henry begins to take over a French village, he tells the governor to surrender or risk having English troops terrorize civilians. This way, if the governor declines, it would be the governor's fault for the atrocities that would occur. Henry has gotten his troops to go along with the take over by manipulating them. He tells the soldiers that what they're doing is noble, and that they should be proud. In fact, they're attacking another country in order to conquer it. Henry's character comes off as coldhearted and careless. Henry shows ruthlessness towards civilians, threatening them with atrocities. He's careless with his soldiers, thoughtlessly allowing their executions, or playing hurtful games with them.