How, do you believe, did Shakespeare want his audience to respond to the eponymous hero in Henry Vth? Your essay should include references to the differing critical responses the play has engendered.

University Degree Linguistics, Classics and related subjects

When writing “Henry Vth,” Shakespeare was trying to achieve a number of responses to the character of Henry. He portrayed Henry as an eponymous hero, but this hero had faults, what needs to be discussed is whether these faults effect the audiences response to Henry and whether they are either inexcusable or unavoidable.

One view of an ‘eponymous hero’ would require Henry to fill a number of criteria. He would have to be the basic epitome of hero, somebody that is automatically thought of when the word hero is mentioned. He must be the ideal leader and gentleman that people can look up to and be inspired by. Another approach would be that of Machiavelli. He put forward the idea that a good leader and hero may still be so even with flaws and faults. To have control and stability the leader must be capable of using cruelty and deceit as well as honesty and generosity, it is true to say we see all of these in Henry. Taking the first approach to defining a hero, the ambiguities in Henry’s character would show him to be less of an eponymous hero and more of a war criminal, but as many critics suggest, his faults are impossible to get away from.

What is important in answering this question though is what Shakespeare wanted his audience to respond to and not what they possible might have seen as faults. Although the ambiguities may have changed first opinions of Henry, Shakespeare’s intent remains the same. This intended response can be broken down into four main areas; he wanted to inspire and motivate his audience through the character of Henry and at the same time evoke patriotism and pride in their nationality through the depiction of the great victory upon the stage.

We shall now look at, with reference to the text and different critical opinions exactly how Shakespeare achieved these responses, and what the ambiguities are that may defect them.

To look at the response originally intended we must view the play in an Elizabethan context. The play was written at the end of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, at a time when troops were being sent off to fight in Ireland. This fact tells us that one of the reasons for the plays existence would be propaganda, using the play as motivation for troops going off to fight for their country. Another reason for the plays creation would be to flatter the Queen towards the end of her reign. When people saw Henry on stage they look at ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

This tells us that the character of Henry is being used almost as a political tool, so it is likely that the portrayal of his virtues is exaggerated to fit the era of the plays first showing. Although this is unimportant to the play this fact does help to show us why Shakespeare cultivated Henry to have these effects on the audience.

Analysis and criticism of the play has changed greatly over the years. Since Hazlitt first raised questions about Henry in 1817, critics have seemed to split themselves into two groups. ‘Partisans of Henry and partisans of pacifism – who either intensely dislike Henry or believe Shakespeare loathed King Henry and tried to communicate his moral distaste.’ The majority of critics are followers of the belief that Henry is genuinely a true hero and magnificent leader. The so-called ‘Partisans of pacifism’ pick out the violent, selfish side of Henry that could be seen in him at various parts of the play such as the siege of Harfleur. Henry uses horrific language and imagery to threaten the governors of Harfleur into surrender. ‘The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand – Shall defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters…- Your naked infants spitted upon spikes’ (3.3.35-39). As with most of the play, this piece of text can be interpreted in two ways. Either as simply a statement of barbarism from Henry, showing the audience that he is the kind of leader that would let his troops do this. Or secondly are more believably, Henry uses this speech as a very clever piece emotive speaking, using fear to get the governors to back down. The audience would admire this strategy, as he impresses us with a vocabulary of powerful threats without at all intending of horrifying us by actually committing these atrocities.

The second major point to look at in Henrys character is his use of God as justification. Throughout the play Henry gives the impression of being extremely pious and forever explaining that the battle is in God’s will. ‘But this lies all within the will of God’ (1.2.290). Here Henry is reacting to the ‘tennis balls’ joke played on him by the Dauphin. At this same point Henry shows some quick wit, which amuses the audience, ‘We will in France, by Gods grace, play a set’ (1.2.263). This line serves two purposes, both the tennis pun to mock the Dauphin, and more importantly we see Henry referring to God for both motivation and justification for the battle ahead.

Henry does though seem to prove his faith when he prays before the battle. This prayer though does suggest Henry has more faith in God than his own leadership. ‘Steel my soldiers hearts; possess them not with fear’ (4.1.283)

Because of Henrys solitude when praying we are shown he is truly of strong faith and looks to God for strength and fortune rather than an excuse. The audience would have seen being pious as a strong attribute especially in a time of strong religious belief.

Later in the play we see other characters try to persuade us to side with Henry, even when he commits a blatant war crime. The French kings order to ‘kill all the poys (boys) and the luggage’ (4.7.1) is responded to by Henry with the order ‘every soldier kill his prisoners’ (4.6.37). This order from Henry is just as horrific and illegal as the French kings, but the way Gower and Fluellen respond to it seems to put the order as one of great leadership. ‘A gallant King’ (4.7.10). The reaction of Gower and Fluellen and the emphasis on the French wrongdoing tries to sway the audience into thinking Henry has done the right and justified thing.

An important trait in Henry that we see throughout is his ability to stay calm and well mannered. The only time we ever see him enraged is after he hears about the death of the English boys ‘I was not angry – until this moment’ (4.7.53)

He stays unflustered at even the most testing time of the evening before the battle, and here also he is at his most inspirational. Instead of sitting in his tent polishing armour, Henry gets out and visits his troops ‘a little touch of Harry in the night’ (4.chorus.47). Although the men don’t know whom they are speaking to, the audience would feel that Henry is very approachable and that he is caring and unselfish. The point that Henry sees himself as just another soldier is continuous throughout the play, the ‘we band of brothers’ speech (4.3.60) is another example. Some critics feel it is his remaining connection with the lower classes and is therefore not good for him but others see it as Henry being highly respectful and grateful for all the men fighting under him and with him. The ‘once more unto the breach dear friends’ (3.1.1) speech is another prime example of Henrys relationship with his soldiers, friends rather than plain soldiers. This makes Henry more motivational as the soldiers feel they are all fighting together rather than for somebody else. Henrys relationship with the troops make him look humble and approachable still at a seemingly young age, the transition he has made from his hazardous youth would certainly inspire the audience as they have seen the emergence of this prodigal son through Henry IV (parts 1 & 2) and now here.

A tool Shakespeare uses to highlight Henrys good points, and the English in general, is to juxtapose them with the French. Henry can be compared with the Dauphin who is of the same age and status. The Dauphin is portrayed as being extremely arrogant ‘Tut, I have the best armour in the world’ (3.7.1). His preparation before the battle is laughing and being crude whereas Henrys is of a solemn night vigil and prayers for his men’s safety. This furthermore increases are respect for Henry and makes him inspirational to us.

To evoke a feeling of patriotism and pride in the audience Shakespeare uses the simple tool of the English victory, the sweet victory feeling though is enhanced by the way the English are portrayed to be so up against it. The French arrogance and downheartedness of the English, as well as the vast difference in numbers make victory for the English look impossible. Henrys speech before the battle though about St. Crispians day is so motivational the audience would feel that somehow, through strength of spirit over strength of numbers the English could win. The play is still used to inspire patriotism now, Laurence Olivier’s film in 1944 at the height of World War II for example, and also at the time of writing when Englishmen were being sent to Ireland. Henry is also seen at the beginning of the play to be a nationalist, his description of the Scots as ‘weasels, sneaking and petty thieves’ (1.2. --) may also be welcomed by the audience. Nationalism though for some critics is seen as a downfall because it can lead to racism and brutality but the fact is its what the audience want to hear.

In conclusion Henry is fundamentally admired by the audience for his motivational and inspirational capabilities, also his warmness and mercy as a leader and his focus. His ambiguities of character may in some eyes dampen this effect but Machiavelli was very true in saying that any heroic leader must have faults or bad patches in their personality to make them a well-rounded leader. Henry’s transition from boyhood hooligan to eponymous hero is made more believable also by the inclusion of these talking points as to whether he has matured perfectly or not. In my personal opinion I would go along with the idea that Shakespeare did admire Henry and wanted to show this with his depiction on stage, the fact that critics have only started to find ambiguities 300 years after the plays first performance tells us that Shakespeare included them to make us think about Henry not doubt him.

Machiavelli (1469-1527) – The Prince (unknown publication and date)

Gary Taylor – Oxford Edition Introduction, 1998 p1