Henry the fifth is one of the plays through this semester that I enjoyed and understood the most. I am very interested in fiction that is backed with an accurate history, and I think that Shakespeare does a good job of creating a world around history. There are a few points about the play I found interesting and would like to discuss, more specifically pertaining to Henry himself.
First is Henry the Fifth as a character. The way he presents himself is very surprising considering his background as a wild youth. Every action Henry takes seems calculated and sophisticated early on in the play. This is not to say that they do not appear this way throughout the play, but rather Henry can seem a bit unhinged at times. One of these moments is when he receives a chest full of tennis balls. This proceeds with Henry declaring war on France, but I have to question his maturity on this decision. While one can argue that this war was an inevitable feature of this play, another can argue that Henry jumped the gun on declaring this war over such a meaningless and immature attack on him. Another example is when he makes his speech at the gates of Harfleur. He has a very sizeable speech that details rape, murder, and theft of the city, should they choose to fight rather than surrender. A surrender could have been arranged in a number of other ways, and the gory details of this speech were unnecessary and inappropriate. This is not to mention that it is left open whether or not the details of this speech happened after the surrender. All the speech does is make King Henry seem unjust and a little unhinged.
Another point in this play that I found interesting is when Bardolph steals the Pax tablet and is punished for it. This scene is remarkable because Bardolph is a good and close friend of Henry, and is still hung for his actions. This is because Henry had decreed that if one is a looter, then they should hang. This scene holds more than one way to interpret Henry. For one, Henry can be seen as an unsympathetic sociopath, who shows no emotion toward anyone but his country as a whole. The approach the class took on Henry, which I admit I also take, is that Henry is a just ruler, and makes this decision to show that no one is above the law, not even people closest to him.
-Justin Pepe (Blogging Circle 5)
Justin, I think the scene where Henry has Bardolph executed is one of the most complicated moments in the play, in terms of figuring out Henry’s true motivations, especially if we read it in relation to the Harfleur speech. It’s very interesting to read both of those scenes together. One possible reading of these two events would be that King Henry is a simple lover of order and legal proceedings. According to this then, his speech at Harfleur must have been an absolute bluff, made only in order to forego any actual violence. (What then would he have done had the governor refused to yield?) Another possible reading is that Henry is constantly trying to compensate for his reputation as a blundering and ill-equipped juvenile. By this reading, he would have been perfectly willing to actually plunder Harlfeur. His motivations according to this reading are much more emotional and impassioned (ultimately leading to needless ruthlessness).
Hello Justin,
The scene where Bardolph steals the Pax tablet is among one of my favorite scenes from this play because it shows King Henry’s complexity as a ruler. The two possible readings for this scene make Henry such an interesting character because they show the difficulties in being a strong leader who abides the law at all costs. Seeing Henry’s evolution throughout the play and the mention of his past is interesting because it allows the reader to interpret his actions and speeches in many different ways. His speech at Harfleur is one of those polarizing moments in this play and I believe it makes Henry a unique character.
Justin,
You bring up valid points on Henry V’s complex nature. At times he seems collected and meticulous in his approach, whereas other times, it appears that he reacts off of gut instinct. I believe there to be two reasons for that. Firstly, he has a chip on his shoulder because his status as leader is always put into question, given his juvenile and sportive background. Known as a trouble maker who took nothing serious in the early portions of his life, Henry V always desired to go to and beyond his duties, simply to rub it in the face of the naysayers who doubt him. Secondly, Henry V is unsure of his own validity as King because he received it by being the heir to an illegitimate king (his father). This sense of self-doubt is one that he carries with himself, which is shown at his demand to hear the Archbishop reveal to him why the actions he is about to commit are fully reasonable. Clearly, although we see a promising leader, the chinks in his armor tend to shine as well. Great job!
Justin,
I too think it was interesting to see the change in Henry’s attitude throughout the play. I think you make an interesting point when saying that one could argue the war is an inevitable occurrence in the play because I am sure many people would in fact take that stance. However, I think it makes the plot more interesting to think that Henry declared war over a chest of tennis balls. I actually wrote about the symbolism of the tennis balls in my own blog post last week and related them to how Dauphin questioned Henry’s decision to invade France. I like how you described Henry as being ‘unhinged’ at times and I also thought the speech at Harfleur was rather inappropriate and added to his lack of sanity.
Hey Justin,
I definitely agree about it being an interesting play, especially since it’s loosely rooted in historical realism. I think Henry is a hard to read character. We get lots of conflict between what he says (like not harming the French) and what he actually does (IE, threaten the innocent of Harfleur, order to kill the French prisoners, and hang two of his old pals.) And maybe Henry was trying to be fair to all his men when he executed Bardolph, but he certainly was being cold when he ignored his other friend and banished him as soon as he became King in the last play.
I completely agree with you regarding Henry’s characterization, as he’s difficult to narrow down. There’s a deep irony in Henry asking if he can justifiably wage war on France, yet the next scene he’s so quick to decide after receiving the chest from the Dauphin. I’m not sure if you’ve seen “The King” on Netflix, but one of my issues with it is how it tries to paint Henry as a completely good and fair ruler when he is much more complicated than that. I think his characterization is my favorite aspect of this play because he’s not just a cut and dry leader–he is struggling to prove himself as king and rectify his youthful past. Rejecting Falstaff in II Henry IV and executing Bardolph in this play emphasizes his shift from being Prince Hal to becoming King Henry.
Hello Justin,
I really enjoyed your post! I also agree that Shakespeare does a good job at creating a world around history; ultimately bringing it to life. I, too, questioned Henry’s maturity in my blog post. He seems to make rash decisions and act off of impulse. It can be difficult to differentiate a good ruler who is doing his best (which may involve making hard choices, like having to surrender a friend to prove his seriousness) from one who was simply heir to the throne, but not yet prepared for the power that comes with that. Overall, I think most signs point to him being a good ruler, and despite his lack of maturity at times, he does what needs to be done.
Justin,
I completely agree that Henry is unhinged at times. The rash decisions he makes and the ways that he reacts to certain things, such as when he received the tennis balls and declared war on France, when the joke was actually quite harmless, show just how unhinged he really is. I totally agree with you about Henry being an unsympathetic sociopath. I mean, just take a look at his band of brothers speech before charging into battle with France. Sure, at times the speech seemed and was motivational, but it really didn’t sit right with me when he said, “The fewer men to live, the greater the share of honor.” It shows that he in a sense, doesn’t even entirely care about what happens to these men at this point.
Justin,
Similar to your line of thinking, I am also intrigued by King Henry’s characteristics as a leader. From my perspective, I think that he is not a genuine leader. I think that he could have avoided war because he mainly declared war in order to prove himself as a leader of England. He is selfish and manipulative, especially with his use of language in his speech at the gates of Harfleur. I feel that his men were not capable of causing the destruction he entails in the speech. He merely exaggerated the capabilities of his men in order to strike fear into others. An individual who thrives from the fear of others is no leader, but a coward.
The scene where Bardolph is punished seems like a scene that isn’t talked about as much as it should be. I didn’t really take Henry’s decision to hang Bardolph as him being heartless, but more so, like you said, being a good ruler. After years of being looked upon (purposefully) as a fool and a disappointment, Henry wants to prove himself worthy of the crown and that means not showing mercy, even to friends.
Justin-
Though I definitely didn’t enjoy this particular play as much as you, I agree that Henry V’s character and complexity is still one to note. Someone in class mentioned that he had somewhat of a toxic masculinity to him, and parts of your post seem to tie in with that. Henry consistently felt the need to prove himself as a ruler and shed his boyhood reputation. Where it falters is his tendency to hyper-reactive and defensive. He makes examples out of people when they break the laws or disobey him, sparing no one. Shakespeare’s decision to have Henry execute one of his friends makes for a dynamic character but a disloyal friend.
I feel you make great and interesting points about Henry V as a character. I also find fiction based on historical figures rather fascinating myself. I always personally found that whole speech he gave to that French city to be an interesting and immature one. It certainly works to scare the leader and people of France, but he does so using such what I like to call immature language. He says all these details about gore and sexual assault that reminds me of something a teenager would say to sound shocking and edgy amongst his/her friends. I feel historic fiction is fun due to how , Shakespeare for example, writers can tweak details and almost make characters out of these historic figures we keep in our minds all these years later.
Justin
One thing I’ve learned through studying history this semester is that it is largely interpretive, despite it being an evidence-based discipline. Shakespeare’s Henry V, undoubtedly romanticized beyond belief, is in reality nothing more than a more verbose version that any historian might put forward himself. His motives and actions, as you point out, are indicative of a personality type, and it is a historian’s job to develop the character based on the histories he has before him. All Shakespeare did was put words in his mouth; the real Henry V did the rest.
Hi Justin!
The scene where the tablet is stolen is one that stands out to me more than the others and a scene that I talked about in class. It is interesting to me that he sentenced his friend to be hung because of his actions. I think in many ways this is Henry’s way of proving he is a capable ruler and can do what needs to be done when the time comes. In the beginning of the play it is clear that others view Henry as a child, a wild youth who has no business ruling a country but through the play we see Henry’s complexity as a King which proves that he is no longer the wild youth he used to be.