Preview

Social Positions Explored In Shakespeare's Henry V

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1502 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Social Positions Explored In Shakespeare's Henry V
5. Social Positions Explored in Shakespeare’s Henry V Shakespeare’s Henry V explores the relationship and variations of thought between nobility and commoners. Throughout the play, Shakespeare describes multiple instances that depict the vast divide between the King and the lower class. Harry perceives himself as a man whose “cause [is] just, and his quarrel honourable” (IV.i.121); however, his subjects are hesitant to admit they believe this as well. Shakespeare identifies what it is that makes the King so different from commoners by putting them in a similar situation and describing the various reactions. The disparity between the two positions is also demonstrated in the responsibilities each one assumes according to their social rank. …show more content…
In this passage, a servant boy negatively comments on the people he is serving: Nim, Bardolph, and Pistol, which also reflects his view as a commoner on the King. This particular section of the speech focuses on what it is to be a man and in the eyes of the boy –and by extension the people–, these three, as well as King Harry are not men, for they are not honourable. The boy is servant to these three men however, he obviously does not respect “such/ antics” (III.ii.29-30) nor does he think them to be men because, as described later in the soliloquy, it is Nim and Bardolph’s “filching” (II.ii.42) that makes them less manly; this reflects the commoners’ thoughts on Harry, whose actions and goals could also be perceived as stealing. The boy continues: it offends his “manhood if [he]/ should take from another’s pocket and put into [his own], for it is plain pocketing up of wrongs.” (III.ii.45-47).This correlation returns the notion that the common people do not necessarily agree with Harry’s justification for the war. This sentiment is later echoed by another member of the lower class, Williams: upon Harry, in disguise, telling Williams he would be happy to die in battle because the King’s “cause [is] just and his quarrel honourable” (IV.i.121), Williams replies “That’s more than we know” (IV.i.123) insinuating the commoner’s doubt in Harry’s claim to …show more content…
This is evident in Harry’s transformation from the frivolous youth of 1 Henry IV to the disciplined leader in Henry V. In 1 Henry IV Harry enjoys his time with Falstaff, Bardolph, Nim, and Poins; in Henry V, upon hearing the news of Bardolph’s hanging for stealing comments “we would have all such offender so cut off” (III.vi.98). Harry’s ascent to the throne forced on him the responsibility of keeping stability and enforcing laws within the kingdom. Shakespeare uses this event to exhibit a monarch’s duty to put aside personal feelings for the greater good of the country. In this case, the greater good is winning the war: “For when lenity and cruelty play for a / kingdom, the gentler gamester is the soonest winner.” (III.vi.102-103). Harry has no visible emotion after hearing the news of his former friend’s sentence. Harry seems to understand that it is his responsibilities to his position that prevent him from being just a normal man: “his ceremonies laid by, in his nakedness he appears but a man” (IV.i.102). The King’s soliloquy at the end of act IV, scene i, resonates with the same sense of understanding. Harry laments his position of responsibility as a “hard condition” (IV.i.215) and recognizes the only thing Kings have “that privates have not [...]/ [...] [is] ceremony” (IV.i.220-221). The soldier Williams states that some of the

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    When living in the court of King Henry VIII, one must be cautious at all times. A single wrong move, and the overly paranoid King would have your head in a basket before you had the chance to make your case. This lesson was learned by the King’s closest advisor, Thomas Cromwell in the early half of the 16th century. “Class was everything at the court of Henry VIII. You were born into greatness. You did not work your way up.” English society has always been notoriously classist, and this was especially true during the time of the Tudor throne. Despite the odds however, Cromwell managed to quickly rise through the ranks of English society. He worked his way through the English upper classes and made both himself, and his station essential to…

    • 675 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    What Was Henry Viii's Rule

    • 1871 Words
    • 8 Pages

    The successes of Henry VIII can be seen in his ability to keep and gain power and the force of his military efforts.To determine if Henry’s rule was a success, we must define what success means in the context of a ruler. This argument identifies the goals set forth by Henry, and his ability to achieve these goals. It’s also worthwhile to note the state and legacy that his rule left upon England. The reasons we can call Henry VIII’s reign a success will be laid out in his personal, political, religious and military accomplishments while on the throne. Henry’s reign can be defined by his ability to indulge in his desires. Whether that was to take and hold power, spend money on luxuries and war, or to consume more food in his later years. He had a number of personal desires beyond living a life of luxury, namely to have an male heir to the throne. Despite troubling history of marriage, he was successful in not only producing one heir, but three: Edward VI, Mary I, and Elizabeth I.Henry was successful in using fear to make those seeking to undermine think…

    • 1871 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    King Richard’s ability as an actor within a play explores how this type of villainy was entertaining in the era of Shakespeare. Richard’s evil is immediately established as his moral deformities are clearly embodied in his physical deformities. In justifying his premeditated meddling, he personifies war in his first soliloquy. ‘Grim visag’d war hath supported his wrinkled front’ and moved to caper ‘ nimbly in a lady’s chamber!’ Richard’s nature: ‘Deform’d, unfinished’ thus justifies his evil as he cannot participate in the war -lovemaking atmosphere. This was obviously a form of entertainment to the Shakespearean audience who had known of the war of the Roses and Richard’s deformities.…

    • 1018 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Henry VI and the Nobility

    • 1329 Words
    • 6 Pages

    The power of the Nobility was the most important cause of unrest in the period of 1450 to 1470. ‘How far…

    • 1329 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In the play King Henry IV part 1, Shakespeare reflects both sides of Prince Harry, and his reformation that guide him to be a great King. In the beginning King Henry states; “When honor speaks, it speaks about Hotspur. I can only see my own son, Harry, and his reputation for wildness and dishonor.” Harry is known as a disgrace, his days consist in being a thief and not behaving as an honorable prince. He accepts himself as a disaster; and no one thinks that his capacity and attitude can lead him to be a great man with a clever plan. By the middle of the play he exposes his great secret; “I’ll be so wild, I’ll make wildness an art form, then redeem myself when the world least expects me to.” His elaborate plans consist in exhibiting the worst…

    • 309 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Shakespeare’s focus is characterisation and valuing honour and loyalty to the monarch in the context of performance…

    • 1311 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hotspur's Views On Honor

    • 791 Words
    • 4 Pages

    In this comparison, Hotspur is the too hot porridge, Falstaff is the too cold porridge, and lastly Hal is just right. Hal is the perfect in between of Hotspur and Falstaff. Hal understands honor to be noble behavior, not noble actions. He shows us at the beginning of the play that he’s a ruffian, but lets us in on his plan to regain the honor later. These actions of hanging out with criminals and hoodlums didn’t earn him favor with his father or with England for that matter. His plan to earn the honor later was to lower the views of him now, so that when it is time to be the hero everyone will love him even more instead of just expecting it from the get-go. His longing for honor is in moderation and he achieved honor in a suitable way. When Hal fought Hotspur it wasn’t so that he could earn honor but so he could save the thrown and his father, it was essential. Hal’s plan was effective, removing himself from his previous lifestyle just in time to be the hero his father needed him to…

    • 791 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Through ‘The Tragedy of King Lear’, Shakespeare represents a distinctive voice in which influences the way we perceive the role of power play in our world as it broadens our understanding of the universality and complexity of power play. Compared with the 21st century film ‘Brassed Off’, we are presented with an insight into the various means of attaining power and its ability to uncover the true nature of people within their struggle for supremacy and control. Shakespeare presents 'The Tragedy of King Lear' as the struggle for power and the political and filial machinations that the desire for power can create. Shakespeare focuses the distinctive voice around the central character King Lear who represents a conceited oppressor whose fall from power prompts the downfall of the Kingdom that he once controlled. The main cause of his demise is his failure to understand and possess a clear vision of the people around him. In Lear's eyes, he sees his eldest daughter Goneril’s facade to be a loyal and true expression, 'Sir I love you more than word can wield the matter/Dearer than eyesight, space and liberty', although Lear's inability to see the truth results in his manipulation and the banishing of his loyal acquaintances; his youngest daughter Cordelia and his dear friend Kent. Although Lear can physically see, it is the understanding, awareness and direction that he lacks and is blind to. In contrast to Lear being physically capable of seeing, Gloucester becomes physically blind but gains the form of vision that Lear lacks, and consequently Gloucester evades a corollary comparable to Lear's. Here Shakespeare presents his distinctive voice on power play through the depiction of the manipulation and motivation behind the characters struggle for sovereignty. His clever use of his characters and their relationships allows us to gain an insight into the condition of the human psyche throughout their individual attempts at power and highlights the complexities associated…

    • 1100 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    As Cicero states: “men may construe things after their fashion”, in the midst of subjective conflicting perspectives upon a certain personality, what would you draw from it? William Shakespeare lends this thought to the audiences of his time as well as ours through the play, Julius Caesar. Was Julius Caesar really the noblest man that ever lived, an ambitious tyrant, or both? Enhanced by the personal values of Cassius and Brutus, we can discover that studying the conflicting perspectives of Caesar and his power can bring us closer to the truth of his character whilst cultivating a more diverse and provocative insight to Shakespeare’s context and audience.…

    • 787 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Edmund In King Lear Essay

    • 654 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Throughout this passage of text Shakespeare is cleverly questioning the attitudes and values towards the laws of inheritance, the Chain of Being, the belief in Pagan gods and astrology. This is an important contextual feature. People about the Shakespearian time went by the laws of inheritance, the Chain of Being, the belief in Pagan gods and astrology indisputably. The laws of inheritance and Chain of Being were not beneficial to Bastards but it was not seen as unjust due to the strong beliefs of the society in Shakespearean times.…

    • 654 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hamlet, You Crazy

    • 1864 Words
    • 8 Pages

    The early England’s notion of honor described by Terry is promise. Men were considered honorable simply by right of birth and involved forever loyalty to one’s lord. Honor simply gave its holder dignity and status of a true honorable man, and this was categorized as the most important feature in a man. However during the Renaissance period, there was a major shift in the beliefs of honor. Terry said, “One of the most complex changes in the code of honor was a move from an external code to an internalized concept of what it is to be an honorable man.” (Terry 1071) The involvement of blood and lineage stopped coming in to play and in every situation, men behaved to please both “their state and their god.” (1071) The modern code of honor is heavily affected by religious affair and needs to satisfy god and one’s loyalty. Hamlet, the protagonist of the play is caught in an ambiguous world, the pressure between the old and the new code of honor leads him to become mad and think of…

    • 1864 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Lotherington says, ‘No king could rule without the co-operation of the nobility, which was largely responsible for conducting the king’s business in the provinces’ and Pendrill supports this when he says that Henry VII’s prime aim was to restore a partnership in government, shifting the balance in his favour after the disruption of the Wars of the Roses. Policies to achieve this combined a mix of the ‘carrot and stick’ technique. The ‘stick’ approach combined military and financial restraints and a reduction in central and local power. Whereas the ‘carrot,’ approach saw Henry develop a reward system for service and encouraging loyalty from his peers. However the question remains, how did Henry do when meeting the nobles. Are we to believe Pendrill who claims, ‘Henry’s relationship with his nobility was, ultimately a failure.’ Or are we to follow Guy’s line who claims, ‘by means of bonds, Henry VII in effect disabled his nobility.’…

    • 1899 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    The social structure in Elizabethan England at the time, as was in Ancient Greece, was not as widely varied as the modern-day class system is now. In their time, there was the upper class and lower class; middle class was nearly non-existent. Antipholus fell under the upper class and Dromio, his lowly servant. We understand their social status through the way they communicate with each other or, in Antipholus’ case, the way he beats Dromio. The relationship between man and servant can be summarized by Antipholus words to Dromio for not responding in a comprehensible way.…

    • 458 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Hamlet Marxist Criticism

    • 1685 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Throughout the entirety of Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet, if one looks carefully, one can see many aspects of Marxist thought prevalent in the story. To effectively analyze a story through a Marxist critical lens, the reader needs to pay close attention to how characters of different classes interact with one another, especially in respect to class oppression and social inequity, particularly if the actions or words of a character talk of rebellion against the upper classes. “To Marxist critics, a society's economic base determines the interests and styles of its literature; it is this relationship between determining base and determined superstructure that is the main point of interest for Marxist critics” (Abele). The analyst must also recognize to what social class the author belongs and how that might affect the portrayals of certain characters. The way in which different classes in Hamlet interact, along with how the society is actually structured, are the driving forces behind the events in the play.…

    • 1685 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    According to F. Scott Fitzgerald, "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." Indeed, very few people have this quality, the playwright William Shakespeare being one of them. In many of his plays, "Henry IV, Part One" among them, Shakespeare juxtaposes different worldviews, ideologies, and even environments. His characters usually provide a clear example of a split among them in one of many perspectives. One of his characters in "Henry IV"—Falstaff—is first seen as an endearing, uproariously funny scoundrel and later reveals himself more of a lowlife with his view of honor—he seems to believe it when he says that honor is merely "air" and "a word." Henry Percy (a.k.a. Hotspur), another character in the same play, is a warmongering young noble who ends up wanting and leading an armed rebellion against the king (a.k.a. Henry). His view of honor—more regularly occurring in the world and more "correct" than Falstaff's by far—sets up the second major view of the idea of honor. With the two different ideologies, it is difficult to say what exactly Shakespeare wanted his audience to make of what "honor" really is, but perhaps he wanted his audience to see that the world is, in fact, a mixture of extremes. Thus, perhaps the correct view of honor is that it gains respect and gives those who have it a good name despite how they achieved it, only so long as the people of that age decide that to be what "honor" really is.…

    • 1559 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays