|← The Great Generals of the American Civil War||Evolutionary Change in Human Genome →|
In the conversation between Canterbury and Ely in the act one introduce the intrigue politics that is behind the scene. This politics underlies the whole play by referring back to important events that took place before the play began. The aim of the introduction was to familiarize the Shakespeare audiences the historical events in Shakespeare’s time, as in Henry V’s time (about 200 years earlier).
At the time Henry V, the church was extremely wealthy and powerful institution. It was only second after monarchy in the influence and riches. However, in the play the church which is brought into the picture is Catholic Church but not the Church of England. The wealth of the church comes from the wealthy decease landowners who donated to the church before they die (Shakespeare 56). The aspect of the landowner donating the wealth to church so that the church will pray for them and keep their soul from going to hell was brought out in the introduction. The corrupt character of the church leaders is also depicted. The church leaders are presented to spend the church money on luxuries for their own selfish gains. The corrupt trait is also seen in Ely and Canterbury. They attempt to stop the passage of the bill so that they forfeit lots money and giving some direct to the king. This was familiar and obvious to Shakespeare’s audience. The tactic that was use by the clergy men cannot escape the eye of modern audience who are much aware of earlier special group lobbying the government (Shakespeare 32).
In the play the price Henry V is portrait as a wayward in the two Henry V and Henry IV play. The reformation and the wayward youth are successful introduced by clergymen. It is significantly mention throughout Henry V. The fact that Henrymoralcharacter is a forge one apparently features in the play together with the suitability as a king figure. The trait of Henry in the play Henry IV contradict the trait he portrait in the play Henry V. He appears to be mature with ideal trait that suits the English ruler. The traits are good or bad but it compelling him to be a figure. Henry V is a play that is unique compared to other Shakespeare’s historic play. The play only focuses on a single man Henry V (Shakespeare 40).
Henry V appears as a wayward prince. The issue of his wayward youth and his reformation, introduced here by the clergymen, gets significant mention throughout Henry V. In fact, Henry’s newly forged moral character, along with his suitability for the role of king, is perhaps the play’s major focus (Shakespeare 40). If Henry appears to be a drunken scoundrel in the Henry IV plays, he has now matured into an ideal English ruler who, good or bad, is a compelling figure. Unlike some of Shakespeare’s other history plays, which focus on groups of historical figures, Henry V is very much a play about a single man.
Although, the play forecasts on a good number of characters, Henry is an hero and the play’s protagonist because he is the one who directly initiated nearly all of the relevant action in the play. He is an outstanding figure who has a high level of intelligence and charisma which is briefly mentioned in the two Henry’s plays by Shakespeare. On the other hand Henry V is portrayed as a teenager prince who is pleasure-seeking while wrestling with his role as the only heir to his father’s throne (Shakespeare 38). The most significant quality in his character is his ability to be resolve: he sometimes uses a lot of resources at his disposal to see it that he accomplished a goal once he has set his mind. He presents himself as someone who cannot be stopped at anything and others must be careful when choosing how to react. Apparently, this approach may seem morally disputed, but on the other hand it is an important psychological weapon that Henry uses to force people into doing what he want them to do. Henry repeatedly acted in a way that makes him look like an ideal king but that is unacceptable for a common citizen. For example, he usually criticizes the contemporary readers for not taking the responsibility for the war in France. He even warned the French governor at Harfleur that if the French government does not lay down the arms, they will be the one to be blame for the massacre that he will create (Shakespeare 68).
Henry possesses ability in language. He had rhetorical skill of forceful weapon whose strength is compared to his army’s sword. In other words, could inspire and revive his supporters, terrorize his enemies, and sway almost everyone who listens. Through Henry’s speeches, Shakespeare creates a rhetoric that is, like Henry himself. Henry is depicted in the play to be menacing and cold. We can see this when he made a speech to the Dauphin’s messenger. He appeared to be uplifting and passionate. Another scenario that he depicted the same trait is when made a speech during his St. Crispin’s day. He appeared to be terrifying and gruesome as in his diatribe against the government of Harfleur. In every case Henry gestures seems to be speaking his mind but it is not forgetful that his speech is brilliantly crafted to suit the expectation of the listeners. He presents himself with honesty but still manage to manipulate his audience and that is quality of a special leader (Shakespeare 54).
It is not clear from Shakespeare play what motivate Henry to invade France. What is clear is the Henry weighty responsibility which is not exclusively a lust for land and power. Henry took the kingship mantle seriously. He is dedicated to fulfill his mandate of his higher position. We can see him mourning his inability to sleep untroubled sleep of any successful man who committed to pleasure of power (Shakespeare 75). It is also clear in the speech made by Henry that Shakespeare is insinuating that Henry is a Hero. In the play made by Shakespeare he is depicted to be undeniable and uplifting leader. He describes him to be estimable king. According to Shakespeare Henry is a hero in his commitment to his obligation that goes beyond personal feelings. Henry is depicted as a resolved king in his capacity despite his prone to rush decision which is more of personal. In the eyes of the audience it appears that Henry manages to mitigate his decision (Shakespeare 78).