Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Relevance of Shakespeare and his plays to the contemporary world
Relevance of Shakespeare and his plays to the contemporary world
Shakespeare’s Henry IV Part 1 Essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In the historical play Henry V by William Shakespeare, we are introduced to the story of a young and influential King Henry V of England, and his quest to conquer France under the ruler ship of Charles VI of France. This play details Henry’s life leading up to and following the Battle of Agincourt in the year 1415, which according to the “Hundred Years’ War”, was fought between England and France from 1337 to 1453. Now, in the source “William Shakespeare Biography”, it was found that Shakespeare lived from “c. 1564-1616” and is “widely considered the greatest dramatist of all time.” He too is of English descent, which suggests the bias that is present in this play, as according to “Henry V List of Characters”, Shakespeare’s primary purpose …show more content…
From the information delivered by Shakespeare on King Henry, it symbolizes the significance of Henry’s multifaceted personality in becoming a successful ruler, and the fact that relationships will be torn apart, in order to achieve success on the battlefield. When analyzing this specific passage of Henry V, one of the most prevalent literary elements within King Henry’s monologue is his usage of hyperboles to symbolize the anger and vengeance he wishes to impose on the Dauphin when he threatens, “And tell the pleasant prince this mock of his Hath turned his balls to gun stones,” (293-294). This line exemplifies not only King Henry’s ruthless behavior, but also his seriousness of approach to war in comparison to the Dauphin, as his threat to unleash cannonballs upon France indicates the importance of war to him as monarch, and that he is prepared to defend himself and his country’s honor when necessary. It also suggests the maturity Henry possesses in dealing with the subject of war, as the Dauphin’s threat actually backfires on him when Henry responds in a passionate and …show more content…
In this speech, Henry is alluding to both phrases as a sense of Biblical justification for him to impose destruction on France as a result of the Dauphin mocking him. This passage also displays the religious side of King Henry and his willingness to use evidence in support of his decisions rather than purely making decisions off of first instinct. While at the same time, this passage also shines light on Henry’s strategic, yet arrogant nature as a ruler when making the claim that through God’s will, it is only just that he declares war with the French when clearly there are many different interpretations that can be made when reading from The Bible based on the person’s background and culture. As a result, Henry’s interpretation is shaped by his noble bloodline, as well as his forefathers’ rich history with conquering the French, as King Charles later references in Act 4 of Scene 2. Therefore, King Henry’s usage of biblical allusions to God symbolizes his cunning and decisive nature when making decisions, but also how recklessly he chooses to retaliate against his enemies, and how that ultimately works against him as it severs his relationships with others such as Sir John Falstaff. When analyzing the form of King Henry’s violent monologue, one of its most striking features
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 fact that Henry V is one of Shakespeare's histories is very significant because history is the backbone of the episode. References to their history with Romulans are made. Such as to events on Galornden Core, in which Beverly the doctor explains that she recently gained a lot of experience with Romulan physiology.
The marriage between King Henry and Katherine is nothing more than just a medieval political union that brought succession and power in Europe. It seems that Shakespeare played with the interpretation of what’s personal and political involving a person’s union or marriage as the case may be. It can be seen as the personal evolves the political, and then the political evolves the personal. Shakespeare successfully acknowledge the portrayal of marriage in a meaningful characterizations. Both King Henry and Katherine has their own separate point-of-views from two different cultures and way of living, towards conflicts such as power struggles they had in that particular era.
Appearance vs. Reality in Henry IV Shakespeare's play Henry IV begins with a king (King Henry) beginning a pilgrimage after killing King Richard II. Henry believes that by gaining the throne of England. He has done an honourable deed, yet he admits that the fighting and bloodshed could continue, A.. . ill sheathed knife. . . @ 1.1.17. -.
King Henry was not very proud or accepting of his son. This is shown very early in the play when he speaks about him to Westmoreland. The king states:
One of Shakespeare’s series of Henry plays, Henry V chronicles the titular character’s conquest of the country ‘cross the channel from his own kingdom. Beloved by England for its heroic description of the famed ruler, Shakespeare’s play is highly regarded and often listed with his other masterworks. However, one striking difference separates it from other scripts: its altogether lack of an obvious antagonist. While Much Ado About Nothing had Don Jon and Macbeth had, well, Macbeth, Henry V possess no such villain to oppose the protagonist, King Henry. Nevertheless, if one dares to explore the story further, a couple characters come into consideration for the position of villain. On the one side is the King of France, who is certainly made out to be in the wrong. Opposite him is none other than the golden boy himself, Henry. Despite the general appearance of Henry, there may be more underneath the surface.
Shakespeare, William. Henry V. The Norton Shakespeare Based on the Oxford Edition: Histories. Eds. Greenblatt, Stephen et al. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. 736-793.
Identity is a concept that has long been explored by many kinds of people. Yet, there has never been a clear answer, no matter how many times in how many ways it has been analyzed. It is no different for the two plays, Henry IV and Six Characters in Search of an Author. In their own ways, each play has an idea of defining their identity. The reality of the plays
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.
King Henry V is considered to be by far one of the greatest rulers to ever have graced the throne of England. Shakespeare demonstrates this belief by exemplifying Henry’s strong attributes showing just how great and powerful of a leader Henry was. However the issue of power and ethics plays a tremendous role in the personification of Henry as a person. There is no doubt that Henry’s power and ethical stance makes him a great king, but by being a great king, Henry is forced to act in a way that can be construed as dissolute. Henry betrays a number of his friends including Falstaff, and threatens the Governor of Harfleur ordering him to surrender or he will kill the innocent children of Harfleur. It is through the issue of power and ethics demonstrated by King Henry V that the blurred line between hero and villain can be seen and in the end one can see that it is possible to describe Henry as being an immoral human being.
After letting the church convince him to go war something changed in henry. His mood changes because he was ready for war after the unexpected gift of tennis balls from the Dauphin. Henry stated whatever happens it’s the will of God. Yes, the childish gift from the Dauphin offends him but instead of conquering France out of anger. The Church influences him to fight with God on his side and God will lead him to victory. As Henry put all his trust in God that demonstrated another characteristic of an ideal Christian king. Regardless of what he might face, he has no fear because he knows that God is with him.
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.
Shakespeare, William. The Life of King Henry the Fifth. New York: Unicorn Publishers Inc, 1950. Pg. 173-295.
King Henry jumps into the role of royalty with astounding courage, determined to defend his position at all costs. For example, in his reply to the ambassador, King Henry transforms the Dauphin's jest regarding a juvenile game of tennis into a war- threatening metaphor declaring, "When we have matched our rackets to these balls, we will in France, by God's grace play a set, shall strike his father's crown into hazard." (1:2 272-274) Determined to prove his mental growth away from his irresponsible teenage years and into the role of a successful king, Henry embarks on war with France to gain his rightfully deserved country as well as the respect of rulers and nobles alike. However merciless in his course of action, King Henry's steadfast resolve grants him the ability to make changes quickly and improve his beloved country.
In Book III Henry says (175): ”I was always embarrassed by the words sacred, glorious, sacrifice and the expres...