The oral report of Henry VI Part 1 focused on several themes which included Pride, Portrayal of Women, Honor and Rise of Machiavellianism. The presenters made use of the sharp contrast between characters and topics in the play even further for the themes and discussing questions, such as chivalric pride vs. personal pride, chivalric code vs. Machiavellianism, power of men and power of women, etc. Despite all the discussions on these “protagonists,” it is necessary to study more on Henry VI, the “real” protagonist even though he appeared much less than other characters in the play and appeared to be a puppet emperor. Sigmund Freud believes that an existence of a “father figure”, in terms of an entity or an abstract social system, is the key …show more content…
The role of the father playing in both family and society is to maintain the sense of social order; however, the government body under the rule of Henry VI was constantly hard pushed by those considered to be the inferior forces. According to Freud, “The sexual wishes in regard to the mother become more intense and the father is perceived as an obstacle to the son; this gives rise to the Oedipus complex.” (Freud, 67) By definition, Oedipus complex means “the unresolved desire of a child for sexual gratification through the parent of the opposite sex, especially the desire of a son for his mother. This involves, first, identification with and, later, hatred for the parent of the same sex, who is considered by the child as a rival.” (Dictionary.com)In this case, a Father Figure is the key to repress the sons from killing the fathers and marrying mothers, keeping the familial and social order. “Oedipus complex” in Henry VI occurred amongst most of the English nobles who desired either personal pride or power; these nobles represent the sons, and power represents the mother. Richard of Plantagenet, for example, said that “Which Somerset hath offered to my house, / I doubt not but with honour to redress. / And therefore haste I to the parliament-/ Either to be restored to my blood, / Or make my will th’advantage of my good.” (2.5.125-29) This quote illustrated how Richard of Plantagenet wondered that he could one day be retitled as …show more content…
For instance, in Act IV scene I, when Henry VI was crowned in Paris, York and Somerset started their argument again. Henry ordered them to forget their quarrel and reminded them that they were "amongst a fickle and wavering nation"(4.1.138). He then comforted both of them by saying that "I see no reason, if I wear this rose / That anyone should therefore be suspicious / I more incline to Somerset than York. / Both are my kinsmen, and I love them both"(4.1.152-55) At this point, it seemed that Henry VI finally said something to maintain the unity of the nation as a king was supposed to say. Nevertheless, he then made a strategic mistake by assigning York to the leader of the troops in the territory of France and Somerset to unite the horsemen and the infantry. This new commission on York and Somerset rose their internal conflict from face to face argument to the military level. Their continuous and upgraded struggle was proven later in Act IV; when York and Somerset failed to support Talbot and led to his death, each of them shifted the responsibility onto the other, saying, “A plague upon that villain Somerset, / That thus delays my promised supply/ Of horsemen, that were levied for this siege.” (4.3.10-12) and “York set him on to fight and die in
rebellion within the tavern setting as he becomes an adult with the political prowess to
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".
From his fifteen year minority to the inept rule of the rest of his reign, Henry VI was a "child", at least as far as governing ability was concerned. The period of his minority and the time that he was the titular king laid the groundwork for the Wars of the Roses. Had Henry been an intelligent king, with at least some political acumen, and the ability to win the respect of his nobles, their may have never been any Wars of the Roses. But his weakness in allowing government by favorites and governing foolishly on his own, at the very least directed his country down the road to a bloody civil war.
Henry V is not a simple one as it has many aspects. By looking into
then when your next in line for the throne, to bare the weight of a
This meant Henry was now heir to the Throne. His fathers concerns for him caused Henry to be guarded heavily at all times and able to be seen by only a few people. When he was in public he was scared of doing many things and acting himself because he was scared of his fathers temper.
...der to maintain success. King Henry showed that he is restricted to one language which resulted him to not gain the lower class power and it then lead him to focus on his political status. On the other hand, Hal presented himself to the viewers as a friendly character, yet he sustained to manipulate and lie to others to achieve his goals. Henry IV n, Part 1 presents the idea of political power and the different characteristics leaders follow. The lesson for audiences, then, is to develop relationships with different people who will expand one’s area of inspiration and the ability to advance success. One can learn from the mistakes of King Henry and remember to be visible and properly positioned, so society can see one’s strengths and talents.
He was a human that had emotions, he experienced grief with the multiple miscarriages and deaths of his sons and the betrayals of his wife’s, Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard. Also the death of Jane Seymour, the only wife to give him a male heir, brought him into a depression. These events changed Henry’s perspective of his own self, that he was without a legal heir, his health was horrendous and he was being betrayed by those closest to him. Lipscomb describes the transformation of Henry from the popular prince to the tyrant king know today. As shown, “the last decade of his reign, Henry VIII had begun to act as a tyrant. The glittering, brilliant monarch of the accession, toppled into old age by betrayal, aggravated into irascibility and suspicion as a result of ill health and corrupted by absolute power, had become a despot”. Henry is not thought of as the good Christian, but Lipscomb writes throughout this book that Henry was very serious about his religious affiliations. Lipscomb portrays Henry VIII as, “a man of strong feeling but little emotional intelligence, willful and obstinate but also fiery and charismatic, intelligent but blinkered, attempting to rule and preserve his honor against his profound sense of duty and heavy responsibility to fulfil his divinely ordained role”. In other words he was an emotional mess that did not know what to do with his feelings, so he bottled them up and south to seek
While neither Machiavelli’s The Prince nor Shakespeare’s Henry V focus explicitly on gender roles, they both make assumptions and implications sufficient to illustrate their opinions about the nature and place of women in relation to men. In Machiavelli’s The Prince, men and women are depicted in traditional gender roles with women as tricky and unreliable, but ultimately yielding to men who are portrayed as tough and immovable. Shakespeare’s Henry V acknowledges these ideas, but also portrays women as able to influence events within the small domain they are given.
King Henry V is known for many things but mostly known for conquering France. Machiavelli is known mostly for writing The Prince which is a handbook for politicians that inspired the term “Machiavellian” and established its author as “the father of modern political theory”. Shakespeare was born in April 1564 in Stratford-upon-Avon, United Kingdom and died on April 23, 1616, in Stratford-upon-Avon, United Kingdom. Shakespeare wrote Henry V in 1599 telling the story of King Henry V around the time of the Battle of Agincourt in 1415. Machiavelli was born on May 3, 1469, in Florence, Italy and died on June 21, 1527, in Florence, France before the age of Shakespeare.
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.
Henry V, written by William Shakespeare, is by far one of his more historically accurate plays. This play is the life of young King Henry V, who ascended to the throne after his father, Henry IV's death. These times were much different for England, as Henry V was a noble lord whom everyone loved, whereas angry factions haunted his father's reign. Shakespeare portrays a fairly accurate account of the historical Henry V, but certain parts are either inflated"deflated, or conflated to dramatize Henry V as a character suitable for a Renaissance audience.
Enshrouded by manipulation, filled with deceit, and laced with ominous intentions, William Shakespeare's Hamlet, is a compelling and renowned tragic tale of the competition for control. The main characters, most notably Prince Hamlet and Claudius, King of Denmark, provide quintessential examples of the struggle to attaining and maintaining power, and the disparity between appearances versus reality. Provided within the context of Machiavelli's controversial The Prince, their characteristics make them worthy of comparison to Machiavelli's ideas to the ideal Prince. The mind of Machiavelli's Prince is calculating and cunning, in all actions concerned foremost with the ends rather than means. Therefore, as compared to Machiavelli's ideas for successful ruling, it is Claudius who meets these standards to the fullest.
The civil war had resulted in the ever-changing amount of kings over the years. This lack of stability could result in Henry being faced with a lack of support from his subjects. Their faith in a king who would guide the country was low, and their interest in the monarchy was fading. They needed consistency, which Henry could not offer considering his unsteady path to safeguarding his position on the throne. The nobility was another issue he had faced. Growing power of nobility in England could be met with resistance to Henry being on the throne. Henry was a calculated king, whom was not interested in the common characteristics of a king; drinking, constant lavish gatherings… Henry was more interested in being a strong and strict king. An opposition from the nobility could result in large reluctancy to follow Henry, further causing insecurity. However, he still had the more favourable opinion than Richard, who was strongly disliked in England, apart from in the north of
According to Niccolo Machiavelli’s, The Prince, there are five traits that make up a successful leader. The five traits that are necessary in determining a leader’s success involve being feared, being virtuous, having the support of the people, having intelligence and the use of arms. In this paper, I will argue that the Duke Vincentio of William Shakespeare’s, Measure for Measure, is an ineffective leader because he loses virtue acting deceitful and spying on his subjects as a friar. Also, when he realizes that his people do not fear him, he allows for Angelo to come so that he can win their respect by becoming the better option of the two. It is portrayed by his constant presence in the play as the friar, that instead of earning the support of his people, he treats them as puppets and himself as the master puppeteer.