Introduction
One of the reasons why staging Shakespeare’s historical plays has been traditionally popular with the audiences, is because by watching them, people do not only gain factual information about the historical events, described in these plays, but they also get an insight into these events’ metaphysical essence. The validity of this thesis is best illustrated by Shakespeare’s most famous historical play “Henry V”, which exposes the effectiveness of political leadership as deriving out of leader’s ability to serve his people as his foremost priority.
Even today, this continues to be the case, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of modern politicians, who wear the same de-personifying grey suits and indulge in meaningless politically correct rhetoric, appear as being quite incapable to think of themselves as people’s servants, rather than some private individuals who do not even try to hide their psychological weaknesses in public. Therefore, it will not be an exaggeration, on our part, to refer to the character of Henry V in Shakespeare’s own manner – an embodiment of statesmen’s virtues. In this paper, we will aim at substantiating this idea to a further extent.
Body
What differentiates an ordinary individual from a statesman? He can always act as “necessary”, as opposed to acting “as it feels like”. From the play’s very beginning, Shakespeare establishes Henry V as responsible ruler of his subjects, who does not only impose law on others but also lives up to the requirements of the same law. Given the fact that Henry used to be a good friend of Cambridge, Scrope, and Grey, there can be no doubt that deep inside, he really did want to forgive them their treachery; however, such his gesture would have undermined Henry’s authority in the eyes of others; therefore, Henry did not have any other option but to sentence all three traitors to death, in order to uphold the unity of his court:
“To mark the full-fraught man and best indued
With some suspicion. I will weep for thee;
For this revolt of thine, methinks, is like
Another fall of man. Their faults are open.
Arrest them to the answer of the law;
And God acquit them of their practices!” (Act 2, Scene 2).
Law is exactly the law because it equally applies to everybody. This is the reason why making exemptions from the law is absolutely intolerable. Apparently, King Henry V was well aware of it, despite his young age. By condemning his former friends, Henry had proven himself as being worthy of a throne, because his decision indicated the fact that the matters of state represent a foremost priority to young King.
Later in the play, Henry will again be forced to put his personal feelings aside, while making important decisions, and it is the fact that he knew how to become unemotional, during the course of decision making, which had brought about his ultimate victory. In her article “The Origins of National Identity in Shakespeare’s Henry V”, Constance Hunt provides us with the insight on Henry’s rationale, behind his cruel but fair treatment of its former corrupt friends: “Henry’s army and enterprise cannot tolerate this level of insubordination, disorder, and self-centeredness. Purely self-interested desires must be ordered and redirected in the service of a common aim. Henry is willing to sacrifice his former companion to maintain order among his troops.
The soldiers who make up his army must subordinate their narrow interests to a code that requires their willingness to sacrifice themselves for the sake of a common good” (Hunt 137). Unlike many modern politicians, Henry knew that the life of a single individual is of very little importance when it comes to protecting the nation’s overall well-being. The fact that Henry was able to beat the impossible military odds, at the end of the play, points out at him as someone who actually knew the innate workings of men’s minds.
It is only through continuously participating in dangerous undertakings that men can acquire a sense of their real self-worth. This is the reason why for men, participating in war comes as something absolutely natural. Therefore, by addressing his troops, before the siege of Harfleur, Henry had proven himself as a supreme psychologist, because he had told his soldiers exactly what they were subconsciously longing to hear:
“Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there’s nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility;
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger:
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood” (Act 3, Scene 1)
Henry’s perceptional masculinity manifests itself up again and again, during the course of his speeches. Even when he negotiates with his enemies, he does it in such a way that disarms them psychologically, as young King positions himself as a person whose vision is not being blurred by chimeras of conventional morality. Apparently, Henry was well aware of the fact that winners are always right and the losers are always wrong. Moreover, his intellectual honesty prompted him to openly express such his beliefs to representatives of opposing French forces, while gaining their respect and while undermining their will to resist:
“Defy us to our worst; for, as I am a soldier,
A name that in my thoughts becomes me best,
If I begin the batt’ry once again,
I will not leave the half-achieved Harfleur
Till in her ashes she lie buried” (Act 3, Scene 3).
It is namely Henry’s strong resolve to be crowned as the King of France, which served as inspirational motivation for his troops. From the very beginning of his French military campaign, Henry fought alongside his soldiers, which had brought him a great deal of respect, on their part. While being hard on others, he was also hard on himself.
In her article “Henry V as a Royal Entry”, Anny Crunell-Vanrigh is making a very good point when she says: “Henry V repeatedly articulates ideals of mutual obligation. Reciprocity is a prerequisite for the success of both players and the king. Soldiers on the battlefield are bonded by a compact to turn a foregone defeat into a victory. Success is the result of a group effort” (Crunell-Vanrigh 370). During the course of his famous Saint Crispen’s Day Speech, Henry reaffirms his oneness with his loyal soldiers, while glorifying the idealistic concept of “combat brotherhood”:
“We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile” (Act 4, Scene 3)
These Henry’s words cannot be thought of as the part of King’s skillfully mastered rhetoric – Henry did believe in the ideals he was promoting in front of his army, at the outset of Battle of Agincourt. Apparently, Henry belonged to a rare psychological type of “existential idealist”, which explains why young King would never trick his subjects into doing something they did not want. While understanding perfectly well that he could not afford to allow his soldiers to decide on whether to participate in the battle or not, he does it anyway, simply because he knew that the army’s actual strength only indirectly corresponds to the sheer number of its troops.
In the battle, soldiers’ fanaticism and their loyalty to the cause make up for the lack of their numbers. This explains why, although the French army outnumbered the English army in proportion 5 to 1; Brits were still able to win a decisive victory in the Battle of Agincourt – unlike French, British foot soldiers and knights were inseparably united around their King, which in its turn, can be explained by the fact that they perceived Henry V as someone worthy to risk their lives for.
In Shakespeare’s play, Henry’s nobleness is not being solely manifested by his conduct in battles. King’s conversation with Katherine reveals him as a gentleman, who despite his lack of cultural refinement is nevertheless capable of appreciating female virtues as a “thing in itself”. Whereas Henry had succeeded in conquering France with his army, Katherine had succeeded in conquering Henry’s heart with her womanly charms:
“If thou would have such a one, take me; and take me, take a
soldier; take a soldier, take a king. And what say’st thou, then,
to my love? Speak, my fair, and fairly, I pray thee” (Act 5, Scene 2)
Conclusion
Thus, we can say that the ultimate reason why the character of Henry V continues to appeal to Shakespeare’s fans even today is that he represents a physical embodiment of politically incorrect values: militarism, nationalism, and sexism. It is namely this factor, which attracts people to Henry V on a subconscious level – apparently, by being intellectually exposed to his character, readers become instilled with Shakespeare’s own ideas as to what represents objective values in the lives of men and women.
Moreover, they embrace Shakespeare’s outlook on the very essence of statesmanship as such that cannot be thought of outside of governmental officials’ psychological qualities. It is people’s biological makeup that prompts them to act in one way or another, because, as “Henry V” reveals, people’s ability to adjust their behavior to the notion of nobleness has nothing to do with the “environment” (in his young years Henry never showed any signs that he would become a great King). Therefore, the reading of this particular play comes as the breath of fresh air in the stale atmosphere of political correctness, which nowadays defines socio-political realities in Western countries.
Bibliography
Crunell-Vanrigh, Anny “Henry V as a Royal Entry”. Studies in English Literature 1500-1900. (47) 2, (2007): 355-77.
Hunt, Constance “The Origins of National Identity in Shakespeare’s Henry V“. Perspectives on Political Science. (36) 3, (2007): 133-40.
Shakespeare, William “Henry V” [1599] 1997. Project Gutenberg Ebooks. Web.