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.
Throughout the play there are occasions in which Henry betrays his friends. Falstaff happens to be one of the friends betrayed by Henry. Falstaff cherished Henry and acted as a father figure to him, yet once in power Henry forbids Falstaff to be within 10 miles of him or face punishment. Falstaff is caught off guard by Henry and is completely humiliated by Henry who tells him that he dreamed of knowing a man such as Falstaff who was fat, crude and obnoxious and that he despises ever having such a dream. These cruel words heard by Falstaff coming from his greatest companion were like daggers to his heart. In Act II, scene iii Pistol, Nim, Bardolph, and the hostess are together to mourn over the death of Falstaff. It is never said outright what killed Falstaff, but it is clear that after his encounter with King He...
... middle of paper ...
... your fresh fair virgins and your flow’ring infants . . . What is ‘t to me, when you yourselves are cause, if your pure maidens fall into the hand of hot and forcing violation; (III.iii.3-21)
Henry demonstrates a willingness to threaten the Governor of Harfleur in such a brutal manner, claiming that if they choose not to surrender he will show the citizens their worst nightmare. Henry states that he will not leave until he is standing on the ashes of what was once Harfleur and will let his men ravage through the town raping all the young women and virgins of and senselessly murder the innocent children of the town. In the end Harfleur does surrender to Henry, and it shows that Henry is prepared to disregard and even generate unwarranted violence that would take the innocent lives of children and brutally violate the women in order for him to attain his objective.
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.
Prince Hal’s destiny is shaped for him by many forces: his association with the ne'er-do-well Falstaff, the expectations of his father, King Henry IV, and the constant comparison between himself and Hotspur. All three of these forces create in Hal a sense of honor that is an integral part of his education as the ideal king, and throughout the action of Henry IV, Part I, Hal is gaining a knowledge of honor that will shape him into the King that he will become. However, it seems that Hal ultimately chooses one form on honor over the other, although he must compare the honor of Falstaff and the conceptual honor of a chivalric hero before he comes to a final conclusion.
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
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.
It has been shown again and again throughout history and literature that if there is a perfect human he is not also the perfect ruler. Those traits which we hold as good, such as the following of some sort of moral code, interfere with the necessity of detachment in a ruler. In both Henry IV and Richard II, Shakespeare explores what properties must be present in a good ruler. Those who are imperfect morally, who take into account only self-interest and not honor or what is appropriate, rise to rule, and stay in power.
He is accepted for his faults and further appreciated for his humor. Once receptive to Falstaff’s follies, an underlying wisdom can be found. Shakespeare offers Falstaff as a guide to living beyond the confines of convention, out of all the order. Disguised in banter, Falstaff calls into question values of morality and nobility. His manner is harmless in both words and actions. Of all the loyalty and disloyalty that incites political turbulence in the play, Falstaff remains inert. He does not enact any cruel aggression in effort to achieve power. Nevertheless, Falstaff commits slight though significant transgressions against Prince Hal and aristocratic values. These transgressions begin in conversation and eventually result in Falstaff’s action on the
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.
The relationship between a father and his son is an important theme in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part One, as it relates to the two main characters of the play, Prince Hal and Hotspur. These two characters, considered as youths and future rulers to the reader, are exposed to father-figures whose actions will influence their actions in later years. Both characters have two such father-figures; Henry IV and Falstaff for Prince Hal, and the Earl of Northumberland and the Earl of Worcester for Hotspur. Both father-figures for Hal and Hotspur have obvious good and bad connotations in their influence on the character. For example, Falstaff, in his drinking and reveling, is clearly a poor influence for a future ruler such as Prince Hal, and Worcester, who shares Hotspur's temper, encourages Hotspur to make rash decisions. The entire plot of the play is based on which father-figure these characters choose to follow: had they chosen the other, the outcome would have been wholly different.
Falstaff is a central element in the two parts of Henry IV, he is supports the structure of the play. Yet he does seem to be a mainly fun maker, a character whom we laugh with and laugh at. The perfect example for this was the fat knight's account of the double robbery at Gadshill. The part of plump Jack is joyously expanded and diversified, for the delight of men and the glory of, Shakespeare. It is plain that the role of Sir John is not restricted to what is indispensable to Shakespeare's main purpose. Falstaff lies at the very foundation of these plays, that it is a structural necessity.
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.
Gifted with the darkest attributes intertwined in his imperfect characteristics, Shakespeare’s Richard III displays his anti-hero traits afflicted with thorns of villains: “Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous / By drunken prophecies, libels, and dreams” (I.i.32-33). Richard possesses the idealism and ambition of a heroic figure that is destined to great achievements and power; however, as one who believes that “the end justifies the means”, Richard rejects moral value and tradition as he is willing to do anything to accomplish his goal to the crown. The society, even his family and closest friends, repudiate him as a deformed outcast. Nevertheless, he cheers for himself as the champion and irredeemable villain by turning entirely to revenge of taking self-served power. By distinguishing virtue ethics to take revenge on the human society that alienates him and centering his life on self-advancement towards kingship, Richard is the literary archetype of an anti-hero.
He is happy being a drunkard and someone who indulges what he wants. But he also realizes that it is not the type of life that a prince, or a king, should associate himself with, which leads him to his pleading—another reason the scene is prophetic. He pleads with Henry about his morality, much like he will do later in the play and in Henry IV: Part II. Though the play extempore is supposed to prepare Henry for his encounter with his father. Falstaff realizes it may be a good time to practice the inevitable encounter that he will have with Hal once he becomes king. This argument can be further developed when one realizes that it was Falstaff that called for the play extempore, not Hal. Falstaff knew he wanted a trial run before Hal’s kingship, so he gave himself one. However, Hal’s only reaction to Falstaff’s final speech is his line, “I do, I will” (2.4. 465). Some may take this as his answer to Falstaff that he will pardon him, and continue to be his friend. But the argument could be made that Hal is saying that line more to himself than to Falstaff. He is saying that he will do what’s necessary to be a good king. That he does have what it takes to leave a life he enjoys for a life of
But while the histories’ plots are largely concerned with the acquisition of political power, their themes can be said to focus more on the exercise of such power. At its heart, the Great Tetralogy is a discourse on the qualities of the ideal ruler. A comparison of Richard II and Henry V, and the way each wields political power, will serve to illuminate this point. Ultimately, Henry V is an effective king bec...
This questioning of what is actually important, physical needs or conceptual ideals, was relevant in Shakespeare’s time, and still is today. Living under Elizabeth I, the product of major religious upheaval, Shakespeare may have been disillusioned with the worlds of kings and queens of which he wrote. The belief in the importance of honor and reputation was still very popular during this time period, and in a play in which the entire plot revolved around these ideals Falstaff’s speech sticks out. This may have been a subtle critique of these values held so dearly by Shakespeare’s
Genuine people are few and far in between. Honesty is always hidden under the mystery of corruption. Wherever you go, people seem to put on mask and hide who they truly are become hidden from the outside world. Their motives are unknown but they have a deep, dark necessity to act and play a different role when they are in the presence of others. However, this doesn’t pertain to just people in the real world, it also occurs in the world of Shakespeare. The audience quickly finds that just like in their everyday life, fictional characters can also play a different role to achieve what they truly desire. Consequently, these characters develop a sense of dishonesty throughout the story and this dishonesty eventually leads to the destruction of their plans. Just like a weak foundation of a building, a weak personality will eventually crumple in ruin. In order to capture the recurring theme of dishonesty, William Shakespeare uses the death of King Hamlet to force a façade of security and responsibility on the major characters in his play, Hamlet.