Shakespeare's 'Henry V': portrait of a King or template for Kingship?

Shakespeare's portrayal of the king shows that power complicates the traditional distinctions between heroism and villainy, so that to call Henry one or the other causes an oversimplification of the issue. As Henry himself comments, the massive responsibilities laid on the shoulders of a king render him distinct from all other people, and the standards that can be brought to bear in judging a king must take that distinction into account. A king, in Shakespeare's portrayal, is responsible for the well-being and stability of his entire nation; he must lower his personal feelings, desires, dislikes, and even conscience wholly to this responsibility. Perhaps, then, the very nature of power is morally uncertain, which would account for the unspoken account of Henry's actions that many up to date readers find in the play. But within the structure of judgment suggested by the play, there is no doubt that Henry is both a great king and a hero.

The qualities that make Henry universally admired include his bravery, his fluency, his ability to appear regal or humble depending on the demands of the situation, and his willingness to step down from his position and talk with the common soldiers, as he does the night before the Battle of Agincourt. His less admirable qualities include his insistence on disowning his responsibility for other people's deaths and his heartlessness toward his former friends.

Whichever qualities we find most striking in Henry, it is important to note that in order to be effective, it is essential that Henry appear to be good. Henry's claim to the English throne is weak, since his father was a usurper, and for Henry to appear to be a legitimate king he has to seem like he has God on his side. For example, he makes sure that the Archbishop of Canterbury publicly presents the arguments supporting Henry's legal claim to the French throne, even though the arguments are logically tortured, and even though the audience already knows that he cannot trust the archbishop.

Shakespeare provides us with plenty of clues that Henry is self-consciously performing the part of the good king, but he doesn't necessarily give us the sense that Henry is in fact bad. Henry V explores the idea that the qualities that make one a great king are not necessarily morally worthy ones-what makes a good king is not what makes a good person. Henry is willing to kill his former friends coldly and slaughter thousands of French people in the heat of battle to satisfy the demands of his throne; he must put his personal feelings second to the requirements of rulership and achieve the result he desires at any cost. Henry's act of placing responsibility for the war on others helps him to achieve his goals, as it burdens others with the moral pressure of stopping the war. This behaviour may make Henry seem unlikable, but it also makes him a great leader and leads directly to the triumph at Agincourt in Act IV.

In conclusion, I believe that Shakespeare wrote the play because both he wanted to show how to be a good King -what should be done when being a leader and also to show what an excellent King he thought Henry V was and how he wanted people to remember him.

Rebecca Cheetham Ms.Pomeroy 10 mercury