This dissertation examines how Henry V cannot exist solely as a patriotic representation of the ‘star of England’ (Henry V, Epilogue, 6). Drawing on the theories of Stephen Greenblatt and Jonathon Dollimore, it argues that there is radical ambivalence in the text, in Henry’s character and in the war that he invokes against France. Shakespeare offers the astute reader the opportunity to distinguish between true adherence to idealism and the supposed external adherence to it, in Henry V he exposes the rulers who espouse it and other grand concepts yet still steep themselves in blood. The play’s mode of presentation is therefore used by Shakespeare as a carefully planned strategy, rather than mere historical homage. The play is not simply a reflection of the nationalist fervour which suffused England in 1599, it is a text whereby subversive perceptions of that complex and dangerous new world are voiced but also constrained.
The first chapter examines the veiled challenge to Renaissance authority, seen in the way that Shakespeare recognises Henry’s duplicitous journey from youthful imperfection as the wastrel Prince Hal in Henry IV, Part I and Henry IV, Part II. It suggests that a knowing, dispassionate artificiality was always present in Henry and that this implies Shakespeare’s rebellion against Renaissance ideals. The second chapter looks at Henry V and shows Henry’s transformation, seemingly absolute and fashioned by monarchist pride but, at the same time, it is clear that the covert rebellion against Elizabethan rule offered by Shakespeare challenges orthodoxy. It is shown in the disruptive power of the scenes at Harfleur where the reader is tempted to draw parallels between Henry V and Milton’s Satan in Paradise Lost. The third chapter deals with the ending of the play and Henry’s ‘wooing’ of Katherine, an episode which effectively works to erase the cult of beauty and romance so espoused by Renaissance society. The conclusion suggests that the language of the Henry plays seems to be saturated by diverse, covert political persuasion as well as the drama of war and the beauty of aesthetics. Therefore, Shakespeare’s ideal reader is not one who sees in Henry V the reflection of a historical or political context alone, although, for Shakespeare, it seems that the dramatic poetry of the plays is inseparable from its historical and social conditions. Rather, they are perhaps one who allows himself to remain divided between these two, distinct approaches.
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
1: TRANSFORMATION
2: ACCESSION
3: THE AFTERMATH
CONCLUSION
Objectives and Topics
This work examines the complex interplay between Shakespeare's representation of monarchical power in the Henry V plays and the volatile socio-political climate of the late Elizabethan era, specifically focusing on how the plays both mirror and subvert Renaissance ideals of authority and colonisation.
- The duality and transformation of Prince Hal into King Henry V.
- The subversion of Renaissance idealism through depictions of violence and moral ambiguity.
- The presence of colonialist motifs and the problematic "othering" of Ireland and France.
- The strategic use of silence, doubling, and mimicry to challenge Elizabethan power structures.
Extract from the Book
Henry V and the veiled challenge to Renaissance authority
Critical responses to Henry V have, necessarily, engaged with Shakespeare’s focus on the sedition and disorder concealed within the apparently ingenuous, uncomplicated construct of the history plays. The ambiguity, that Shakespeare should simultaneously lionise and undermine Henry, is an intriguing topic which has long resonated, particularly since the publication of Hazlitt’s work of 1817, Characters of Shakespeare’s Plays, in which he departed from the patriotic panegyric that Henry V had hitherto held in the public’s eyes to contend that Henry was not only a glowing example of Christian monarchy but ‘a very amiable monster.’ Hazlitt elucidates the point that the text is very much more than mere homage to Henry’s prowess as military leader and Christian King. Rather, the veiled rebellion within the texts points to an ineluctable challenge to Renaissance authority which inevitably includes strategies of subversion and explorations of colonisation.
It is undoubted that Shakespeare was paradoxically, as Greenblatt says, ‘the epitome of freedom’ but also a ‘figure of limits.’ It was the recognition of necessary constraint which prevented him from writing, in Walter Ralegh’s words, too ‘modern’ a history, lest by following ‘truth too near the heels, it may haply strike out his teeth.’ It is clear though that he understood his art to depend upon a shared understanding of society, but he did not simply submit to the norms of his age. Rather, he at once embraced those norms and subverted them.
Summary of Chapters
INTRODUCTION: Outlines the scholarly perspective on Henry V as a text that simultaneously lionises and undermines monarchical authority while engaging with themes of subversion.
1: TRANSFORMATION: Explores the duality of Henry’s character development from the dissolute Prince Hal to the "mirror of all Christian kings," highlighting the artificial nature of his reformation.
2: ACCESSION: Discusses Henry’s claim to the French throne and his manipulation of political and moral discourse to justify colonial aggression and war.
3: THE AFTERMATH: Analyzes the final act's courtship of Catherine as a metaphor for colonial subjugation, erasing romantic ideals in favor of political and economic dominance.
CONCLUSION: Synthesizes the argument that Shakespeare’s work is deeply saturated with covert political persuasion, challenging the audience to look beyond the surface of patriotic homage.
Keywords
Shakespeare, Henry V, Renaissance, Authority, Subversion, Colonisation, Monarchical Power, Prince Hal, Agincourt, Elizabethan Era, Politics, Ideology, Doubling, Representation, History
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this work?
The work investigates the subversive elements within Shakespeare's Henry V plays, focusing on how the author challenges established Renaissance ideals of power and authority.
What are the central themes explored?
Key themes include the transformation of identity, the morality of war, the nature of kingship, and the underlying colonialist anxieties of the late 16th century.
What is the research question or goal?
The goal is to deconstruct the binary oppositions within the plays to show how Shakespeare uses a "veiled rebellion" to critique the absolute nature of monarchical rule.
What methodology is employed?
The text utilizes literary analysis combined with new historicist perspectives, examining intertextual links to contemporary political documents and post-colonial frameworks.
What is covered in the main body?
The body covers Henry's transformation from a "wastrel prince," his ascent to the throne, his justifications for the French war, and the symbolic conquest of Catherine of France.
Which keywords define the research?
Significant keywords include subversion, Renaissance authority, colonisation, political displacement, mimicry, and monarchical hypocrisy.
How does the author interpret Henry's rejection of Falstaff?
The author views this as a cold, calculated move by the newly crowned King to detach himself from his past and establish a "Kingly presence" free from the corruption of his youth.
What role does Ireland play in this analysis?
Ireland is treated as a "ghost" in the text; its absence or textual erasure is interpreted as a strategic act of censorship regarding Elizabethan colonial brutality.
How is the courtship of Catherine perceived?
Rather than a romantic union, it is analyzed as a colonialist fantasy where Catherine is reduced to an economic prize and an instrument for producing a new generation of soldiers.
- Quote paper
- Sophia Sharpe (Author), 2013, Henry V and the veiled challenge to Renaissance authority, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/319865
