By the end of Henry V, the character of King Henry had changed considerably since he was first introduced in the beginning of the Shakespearean tetralogy. It is ironic that Prince Hal, who drank with the common folk in the taverns has, through the sequence of plays, became one of the most prestigious kings of England. At one time, Prince Hal was a disgrace to his father, and the kingdom worried about the stability of the future king of England. Despite the negative views and doubts, King Henry V proved himself to his subjects and became one of the most brilliant and celebrated kings of England.
I believe that King Henry’s most beneficial attribute to his kingdom was his ability to unite his people. His military and political power, along with his deep understanding of manipulation, worked collaboratively to bring the nation of England together during a time of war. Some may say that Henry’s manipulation seems to be a negative trait, however, he proved to use it in a powerful yet respectful manner. Additionally, such maneuvering and persuasion was for the sole purpose of leading England to a victory, and not solitary gain.
Another truly important aspects of Henry, was his connection to the real people of England. He was known to socialize and mingle with the common people during his younger years. Some members of high society deemed such conduct as inappropriate behavior for a future king, however, in the end, this is a quality that led to the expansive popularity of Henry. Henry knew his subjects. He felt as though her were one of them. He felt as though they were equal. He felt as though they were his “brothers, friends, and countrymen.”
Overall, the literary figure of Henry V is seen as a hero. This leader brought a broken nation together to fight an impossible war that even surprisingly ended in victory. Though the win for England was a major milestone in their history, the fact that Henry made his people feel united was even more triumphant.
4 comments:
I like how you analyze Shakespeare's characterization of Henry as someone who overcomes adversities and ultimately triumphs. I think another way Shakespeare does this is by making Henry hyper-masculine:his virility is conveyed when the Dauphin says that the French women will leave them for the English men if they do not fight (3.5.28); his greatness is manifested in his ability to win wars/battles; his fighting on Saint Crispin's day means that he does not have to "hold his manhood cheap"; he is able to control his tears/emotions when Exeter has his "mother" come into his eyes; an of course he successfully annexes Catherine under his reign. I agree that Shakespeare does thoroughly paint him as a hero.
I agree with your post, I too feel that Henry did experience a rebirth and came back stronger because of his past. I think that Henry is a character that people either love or hate—there is no middle ground. But it is evident through your post that you have sympathetic views towards Henry. I think the essence of his character is still applicable to modern times, as there are people who have unfavorable pasts for instance, like Robert Downey Jr. He too has had an unfavorable past, but is making a comeback as a decent person and a hardworking actor, but because of his past he is still criticized.
I like how you analyze his past to get a sense of how he became the leader that he was. He does mature greatly in order to rule the kingdom since hardly anyone would believe that he was actually serious about taking over in his younger days. Part of me wonders what would have happened had he lived long past the war. We see that he planned to make things go his way even in 1 Henry IV. It would have been interesting to see the people's reaction to him afterwards.
A very nice examination and summing up of Harry's past across these plays--and good call, Alex, on the Robert Downey, Jr. comparison!
Post a Comment