Representations of war in Henry IV Part 2 demonstrate the chaos of rebellion and the fickle nature of kingship. While there are many discussions of warfare in this play, the action is not presented in the text. War is vital to displaying the power and vulnerability of the person who wears the crown and is used as a way to display masculinity as an important virtue. Through the deterioration of King Henry IV and the slow rise of Prince Hal, we witness a borderline stagnant country in turmoil. The question of legitimacy over a weakened king creates entropy throughout the land. The first representation of war in Henry IV Part 2 begins with Rumor spreading mass confusion on the outcome of the Battle of Shrewsbury throughout England. “I run before King Harry's victory, who in a bloody field by Shrewsbury hath beaten down young Hotspur and his troops, quenching the flame of bold rebellion even with the rebels' blood” (Ind. 23–27). Rumor acts as a means of deflection and confusion, a tactic commonly used in matters of warfare. The confusion that Rumor spreads mostly seems to affect the rebels, which remains consistent throughout the play, and provides a potential foreshadowing of a vulnerability and gullibility that …show more content…
Rebellion against the crown is a continuous cycle, catching fire at the whisper of a word. While the fire flickers and dims, it never ceases to be fully extinguished. Harry Percy's death is what initially sparks the fire of rebellion in Henry IV Part 2, whose spirit is described to have “lent a fire even to the dullest peasant in his camp” (1.1.125–126). Morton recounts directly after Percy's death, “being bruited once, took fire and heat away from the best-tempered courage in his troops” (1.1.127–128). It is notable that immediately after Percy's death, soldiers swiftly started retreating because it illustrates how easily the tides of war can change when the main figure is diminished in the
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".
Henry had no means of knowing how much support the rebels might attract when they landed. This suggests that Henry was not fully aware or informed of the rebellion and therefore was unsure what to do. Without knowing fully about the challenge the success with which he could deal with the challenge was severely undermined. Henry raised an army to answer the rebellion and on the 16th June, the two armies met at East Stoke; just outside Newark.
Shakespeare shows King Henry to be a politician who practices deceit by juxtaposing his expressed intentions with his ulterior motives in the plays opening monologue. The expressed intention is one that preaches unity, as is conveyed when King Henry IV denounces war as “civil butchery”, which is a clear indication of an anti-war sentiment, highlighted through the use of ‘butchery’ and its negative connotations of brutality. Moreover, when King Henry IV declares “those opposed eyes” are “all of one nature”, the synecdoche represents the idea that he is against war, which is reinforced by the ironic juxtaposition of ‘opposed’ and ‘one’, which alludes to his view on the absurdity of the conflict. The ulterior motive of King Henry IV is soon after
war often, for the sake of his country, but when he did he put in a
Henry excites fear by stating he is passionately ready to sacrifice for his country. This play towards pathos, or appealing to the audience’s emotions, is an effective way of trying to convince the House to go to war against Britain. This pathos, combined with the logic of Henry’s speech, makes for a convincing argument. Logically taking the House step by step from stating that because he has an outlook on their situation, he should express it to them, to stating his argument before the House, to saying that lacking freedom is worse than death, then taking it full circle pronouncing he would prefer to be “give[n] death” then to have his freedom taken away by the British.
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.
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.
In 1 Henry IV, Prince Henry’s gradual development was evident throughout the play. A comparison of Harry’s character during the first act against Harry in the fifth act almost seems like two different people. Prince Henry has carried out his plan to prove to people that he will be a worthy King by following his father into battle and killing the leader of the rebel army. Prince Henry’s act of bravery marks the transition between the young Henry and the mature Henry but more importantly, has earned Henry the respect and acceptance from his father.
...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.
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.
Shakespeare, William, and Claire McEachern. The First Part of King Henry the Fourth. New York: Penguin, 2000. Print.
Shakespeare’s ‘King Henry IV Part I’ centres on a core theme of 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. Through characterization Shakespeare explores moral conflict, and passage three is a prime example of Falstaff’s enduring moral disorder. By this stage in the play Hal has ‘reformed’, moved away from his former mentor Falstaff and become a good and honourable prince.
The play opens shortly after Henry Bolingbroke has usurped the throne from Richard II, becoming the fourth King Henry, and changing the royal lineage from the House of Plantagenet to the House of Lancaster. In the opening sequence, Henry IV is in the process of vowing peace in England and promising a crusade to liberate the Holy Land. No motive for this crusade surfaces in 1 Henry IV, other than the fact that it is some unfinished business from Shakespeare's preceding play Richard II (Kelly 214). Henry's pledge of civil peace is ironic because during this first scene he receives word that his troops have been overtaken by Glendower in Wales, and Hotspur has met and defeated the Scots in the North (1.1.36-61). To the news, the King replies, "It seems then that the tidings of this broil / Brake off our business for the Holy Land" (1.1.47-8). Postponing the business in Jerusalem, Henry IV eventually leads England into civil war with Hotspur at the Battle of Shrewsbury. These actions will ultimately ignite the War of the Roses between the Lancasters (Henry IV's family) and the Yorks (descendants of Richard II).
Book II describes a slight transformation when Henry, wounded, spends time in hospital. He is suddenly more involved with the war, but, as a release from the war, he now acknowledges his great love for Catherine. The war is never far away, though. Protest riots take place in Rome and Turin and there are intimations that the war is becoming a stalemate, the army disillusioned; ”there was a great contrast between his world pessimism and personal cheeriness” (127), the prospects of victory evaporating; ”the war could not be much worse” (129).
The state of affairs and the grim reality of the war lead Henry towards an ardent desire for a peaceful life, and as a result Henry repudiates his fellow soldiers at the warfront. Henry’s desertion of the war is also related to his passionate love for Catherine. Henry’s love for Catherine is progressive and ironic. This love develops gradually in “stages”: Henry’s attempt at pretending love for Catherine towards the beginning of the novel, his gradually developing love for her, and finally, Henry’s impas... ...