“Words are potent weapons for all causes, good or bad.” (Manly Hall) Manly Hall’s statement is pertinent to the relationship between words and conflict in Shakespeare’s Henry V, in which dialogue is often linked to conflict. Even “a merry message” (I, ii, 298) can have a double-meaning and relates directly to conflict occurring throughout the play. Shakespeare conveys the relationship between words and conflict as weapons through the use of literary devices, namely double entendre and imagery that link to war or violence. It is King Henry that uses words as weapons in reference to war and political conflict in the form of a double meaning. In this context words that at first seem innocent instead connect with themes of conflict and frighten …show more content…
At the gates of Harfleur, Henry uses his words as weapons to strike fear into the Governor of Harfleur through imagery that depicts atrocities. Henry’s words are threats of what will become of the Governor’s beloved citizens of Harfleur and if that alone would not scare him to submit to Henry, his use of visual and auditory imagery give dramatic effect that makes Henry’s words considerably more “potent”. If the Governor does not surrender and “open his gates” (III, iv, 51), Henry states he would allow his soldiers to “Defile the locks of…shrill-shrieking daughters” (III, iv, 35) and see Harfleur’s “naked infants spitted on pikes” (III, iii, 38). Because this violent auditory and visual imagery is being forced into the Governor’s mind, the visions this would invoke serve to intimidate and scare him even more. Virgin daughters being raped, and naked babies being impaled on pikes are perfect examples of the dangers faced by the Governor’s most vulnerable people. The innocent young girls and the soft, naked and defenceless baby are extreme subjects for Henry’s violent imagery. This truly reinforces the Governor’s fear that his people are vulnerable to the horror being pictured in his mind. This ultimately is proved as effective weapons as the Governor concedes and does, in fact “open his gates” (III, iv, 51). Henry’s words of frightening imagery that both scare and frighten the Governor clearly display that they are “potent weapons”, a fact reinforced by Henry’s
rebellion within the tavern setting as he becomes an adult with the political prowess to
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
and not that he did this by his own choice. With this metaphor of a
Lately, it would be difficult to find a person who speaks in the elaborate way that nearly all of Shakespeare’s characters do; we do not describe “fortune” as “outrageous” or describe our obstacles as “slings and arrows,” neither in an outward soliloquy or even in our heads. Lately, people do not declare their goals in the grandiose fashion that members of royal family of Thebes proclaim their opposing intentions: Antigone’s to honor her brother and Kreon’s to uphold his decree. Lately, people do not all speak in one unified dialect, especially not one that belongs specifically to the British upper class; Jack and Algernon’s dialogue is virtually identical, excepting content. Unlike the indistinguishably grandiose, elaborate, fancy way characters speak in Shakespeare’s plays, Antigone, The Importance of Being Earnest, and other plays written before the turn of the twentieth century, more recently written plays contain dialogue that is more unique to its speaker. This unique dialogue indicates a change in the sort of characters which drama focuses on which came with a newly developed openness to those who are different from us. Moving away from recounting tales of nobility, royalty or deities brought the lives of a common, heterogeneous populace to the stage and, with these everyday stories, more varied speech patterns.
Shakespeare has written three different ‘types of genre’ in his plays. One of these is his Tragedies like ‘Macbeth’ and ‘Romeo and Juliet’. Another genre he writes within is Comedy, an example of which is ‘Much Ado About Nothing’.
Henry V, like most characters created by Shakespeare, is very complex, and cannot by defined in black and white or as good or bad. However, he is the sum of his actions, and his actions and decisions during the campaign during the campaign in France lead him to be classified as a war criminal. A politician who works for his own good and through that, the good of his country, Henry’s decisions are often cold and calculated, designed to manipulate those around him.
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.
One of the most famous scenes in Henry IV: Part I is the scene in which Prince Hal and Falstaff put on a play extempore. This is often cited as the most famous scene because it is Hal’s turning point in the play. However, the scene is much more than that. The play extempore is a moment of prophecy, not epiphany because is cues the reader in to the play’s major themes, and allows readers to explore the possibilities of the play’s continuance.
Written during a time of peace immediately following the conclusion of the War of the Roses between the Yorks and the Lancasters, William Shakespeare’s play Richard III showcases a multi-faceted master of linguistic eloquence, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, a character who simultaneously manages to be droll, revolting, deadly, yet fascinating. Richard's villainy works in a keen, detestable manner, manifesting itself in his specific use or, rather, abuse of rhetoric. He spends a substantial amount of time directly interacting and therefore breaking the fourth wall and orating to the audience in order to forge a relationship with them, to make members not only his confidants of murderous intentions, but also his accomplices and powerless, unwilling cohorts to his wrongdoings. Through the reader’s exploration of stylistic and rhetorical stratagem in the opening and final soliloquies delivered by Richard, readers are able to identify numerous devices which provide for a dramatic effect that make evident the psychological deterioration and progression of Richard as a character and villain.
Shakespeare constructs King Richard III to perform his contextual agenda, or to perpetrate political propaganda in the light of a historical power struggle, mirroring the political concerns of his era through his adaptation and selection of source material. Shakespeare’s influences include Thomas More’s The History of King Richard the Third, both constructing a certain historical perspective of the play. The negative perspective of Richard III’s character is a perpetuation of established Tudor history, where Vergil constructed a history intermixed with Tudor history, and More’s connection to John Morton affected the villainous image of the tyrannous king. This negative image is accentuated through the antithesis of Richards treachery in juxtaposition of Richmond’s devotion, exemplified in the parallelism of ‘God and Saint George! Richmond and victory.’ The need to legitimize Elizabeth’s reign influenced Shakespeare’s portra...
Hal’s remark to his father indicates a now strong, independent mind, predicting that Douglas and Hotspur will not accept Henry’s offer because of their love for fighting. Henry’s reply in turn indicates a change in attitude towards his son, a newfound respect. Acknowledging Hal’s prediction, the king orders preparations to begin, and we see he has his own set of solid moral values: knowing that their ‘cause is just’ helps him to reconcile with his highly honourable conscience that there is indeed cause for war. Still maintained is the conflict between the very format of the text, with Hal and Henry’s conversation held in formal verse typical of the court world, in which Hal is now firmly embedded. Falstaff, however, sustains his equally typical prose speech, which indicates to the audience the enduring division between the court and tavern worlds.
The contention that Shakespeare’s histories are in fact political drama appears to fall uneasily on the ears of modern readers. One reason for this could be the fact that we, as a society, have blurred the connotation of politics to the vaguest of notions – narrow at times, yet far too inclusive. A young reader is likely to view politics as election and debate, a sort of ongoing candidacy. Indeed, this may be a valid modern definition, if somewhat limited. For our purposes, however, this definition is not sufficient to establish a starting point from which to examine Shakespeare’s presentation of political drama.
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.
The Effectiveness of Shakespeare’s Linguistic Choices in Conveying the Power Struggle Between Katherine and Petruchio