to be inquisitive about the world around them. One revolutionary artist, William Shakespeare, updated the simplistic, two-dimensional writing style of pre-renaissance drama. He focused on creating “human” characters with psychological complexity. The upheaval in the accepted social hierarchy allowed Shakespeare to explore the humanity of every character regardless of their social position. Even monarchs are given human emotions and are capable of making mistakes. The most perfect example of this is the character King Henry V. Although King Henry V exhibits the virtues of an ideal English king throughout the play, he is a bad leader, yet he was created this way to portray him to be nothing more than mere human; this dualistic portrayal of a character in Shakespeare’s writing reveals the character-based nature of Renaissance drama.
King Henry’s actions portray him as an appalling leader.
Amongst Henry's several undesirable traits, he allows himself to be partial by people who have ulterior motives. The most significant illustration of this is when the archbishops convinced Henry to take over France so it would allow them to be able to save resources for the Church. Henry doesn't accept responsibility for his actions, he places the blame on others. For example, before Henry begins to take over a French village, he instructs 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 manipulated his troops to go along with these criminal acts using his most powerful tool - language. He tells the soldiers that what they're doing is noble, and that they should be proud; however, they're attacking another country in order to conquer it. Michel Foucault, in his article, Subject and Power, notes the reason for Henry’s irresponsibility’s when it comes to his position in power. He notes that it is no different than parents over children, psychiatry over the mentally ill, of medicine over the population (Foucault 781). These things need to exist because of the constructs of society. Moreover, Foucault notes that “this form of power applies itself to immediate everyday life which categorizes the individual, marks by his own individuality, attaches him to his own identity, imposes a …show more content…
law of truth which he must recognize and which others have to recognize in him” (Foucault 781). If we relate this back to the realm of King Henry, we can then say that everyone is a subject, and we are all looking to be attached to an identity. Each identity has power and each position of power can be used for good or evil, that’s all a matter of perspective, that’s all part of being human. In the case of Henry, his position of power is self-fashioning. Self-fashioning, a term coined by Stephen Greenblatt, is the process of constructing one’s identity and public persona according to a set of socially acceptable standards. Because Henry is king, his degree of what is socially acceptable in the construction of his own identity is channeled mostly through his advisors and from others. In that sense, as a reader, I don’t blame him for being the way he is, but his actions make him weak and appalling, but they also make him human.
King Henry V is easily influenced from others in high positions of power, this makes him a weak ruler. For example, Frances' demise is mostly due to Henry's willingness to accept advice from the bishops who had a selfish motive for their judgment. In Act 1, Scene 1, Henry is promised a large sum of money by the Church to help fund his invasion of France. In order for Henry to obtain these finances, he would have to abstain against a certain bill that the bishops - Ely and Canterbury – realize hinder the state of the Church. Shortly after, Henry goes to Ely and Canterbury to help him determine whether it's just for him to establish his leadership over France. Canterbury informs Henry he should pursue the invasion arguing that it is illegal for France to use the Salic law since it originated in Germany. As well, he disputes that the manner in which previous French kings have claimed the throne would have been in violation of the law. Accordingly, with this argument Henry decides to go ahead with the invasion of France. The problem is: Henry's decision was motivated by the influence of others. This decision is significant because it holds thousands of lives at stake with only a small group of people benefitting. Despite the ethical and moral problems here, this example reveals the nature of plays during this time. That is to say, the Renaissance era used character-driven plots with the sole purpose of ‘humanizing’ plays. In this sense, I mean Renaissance drama focuses on certain elements of the human experience – jealousy and tragedy.
The tragedy of King Henry V is composed of many human qualities; one of these qualities, which is seemingly negative, is his inability to claim responsibility for his actions.
In Act 1, Henry asks Canterbury's opinion on taking over France, stating that a harsh war would ensue only if Canterbury finds that it is just. In that situation Henry places the responsibility on Canterbury's shoulders, since Canterbury argued for the idea. In Act 2, Scene 4, Henry has Exeter tell King Charles that Henry demands the throne of France. Henry demands that if King Charles doesn't comply, he would be accountable for all the bloodshed of the war. In this way, he would be able to say that people died because King Charles refused to give up his crown. In Act 3, Scene 3, Henry threatens the French village of Harfleur with rape, and death amongst the citizens, unless the governor surrenders the village. Henry attempts to make the governor of Harfleur responsible for having English troops reek havoc on the village. In Act 4, Scene 1, Henry disguises himself under a cloak, and converses with various soldiers. One soldier, Williams, criticizes Henry's recent actions, explaining that they've hurt many soldiers. The disguised Henry is offended that he has blamed him, and so he challenges Williams to a
fight.