This is a very rough draft, and it is still missing many of the resources that I have collected. I set it up more as an outline, especially in the latter paragraphs... but I'm hoping it make sense, even with all the resources and evidence not typed in!
In most societies and cultures, hypocrisy
has negative connotations. Those accused of being two-faced are generally
looked down on and their hypocritical actions are reproved. However, the
ever-brilliant Shakespeare demonstrates how just such a double-value system
was, in fact, beneficial to one man (Henry V) in his play of the same name.
Although King Henry V is portrayed as
the ideal king because of his ready assumption of the moral mantle that
accompanies his divinely appointed kingship, given his childhood this is
ultimately an act of hypocrisy. However, this admittedly un-idealistic character flaw is what made Shakespeare’s King Henry such a capable king.
Throughout history, King Henry has
been rightly acknowledged as one of the great English monarchs, often held up
next to bastions such as Alfred the Great, Edward I, Queen Elizabeth, Queen
Victoria, and more (O’Connor). Despite this credit given him for his success,
however, very few truly appreciate the effort that this man put into his
kingship – because they overlook one fundamental part of his character, his
initial hypocrisy. For anyone who is remotely familiar with Henry V’s young
life, they know that he was less than morally upright and was, we might say, rather
the opposite of the king he grew into. The shift from one to the other is seen
almost immediately upon his ascension to the throne. Some critics suggest that
this is a, “satirical exposure of vicious hypocrisy (Boyce and White, 261).”
What these critics neglect, however, is the effort and sacrifice that such
change – such “vicious hypocrisy” – cost the still-young man. He gave up his
previous life and actions in order to become not the man but the king that his country needed.
Evidence of this is clearly seen in
Shakespeare’s portrayal of Henry’s character. The sacrifice and sense of loss
that the young Henry felt are poignantly expressed in his soliloquy on the role
of a king in Scene 1 of Act V. In it, he cries out loud, “What infinite
heart's-ease / Must kings neglect, that private men enjoy! / And what have
kings, that privates have not too, / Save ceremony, save general ceremony?”
(Shakespeare). He here laments all that he has forgone (and must forego) in
order to live up to the ceremony, to the role, of king. The fact that he chose
to take that mantle upon himself and was so effective in doing so is
commendable – and knowing that he did it in direct violation of his past (an
almost hypocritical act) shows just how much of an understanding he must have
had of this “ceremony” and what would be required of him. Just as with any man,
to act in direct opposition to one’s nature would require incredible thought,
self-control, and motivation – all traits that one would want in a leader, in a
king. His actions, then, must be more the result of calculation than simple
charisma, more diligence than luck.
Indeed, as one examines his life (as
we will here do through the medium of Shakespeare) the evidence of such
commitment is clearly visible. His clear effort to link himself with God and
make his divine right unquestionable is one example, and is both visible
throughout the play and very effectively managed. [expound]
Another of the benefits of his
‘hypocrisy’ is the ability to shift roles, to empathize even. The first time we
see this in Shakespeare’s play is in Act II Scene II when he deals with the
traitorous nobles. It also seen when he goes undercover among his solders. [expound
on situations here]
His ability to act in favor of state
over his own personal desires is also shown in how he deals with some of his
previous friends. One such friend, previously very close to the young king, was
one of the nobles mentioned above. Two more of his friends – Bardolph and Nym –
are also found guilty of crossing the state in the form of looting during
wartime. In each of these instances, the king upholds the law and sentences
each of these dear friends to execution despite his own feelings because that
is what the law (the ceremony and responsibility of his station) requires.
[expound]
Another instance of his understanding
and calculated efforts at work is in the forced surrender of the town of Harfleur.
This speech is often a discordant moment for one who has not accepted the
king’s layered personality. Here, the ‘charismatic leader’ of the previous few
acts suddenly becomes scathingly brutal in Act III Scene III as he addresses
the governor of the soon-to-be-surrendered town. Some readers have expressed
their shock [find that one quote again] at his callousness here. However, if
one accepts the premise that King Henry is cognizant and intelligently
committed to his cause, one realizes the mastery of this speech. It is so much
better to speak of rape and massacre and to so frighten the governor of the
obstinate town into submission than to lose actual lives in less effective
struggle. The king is intentionally using such harsh rhetoric to avoid further
loss of life.
Even the king’s famous and moving
speeches are demonstrative of his mental capabilities. To be able to not only
understand the situation, but to capitalize on it and turn that into such
rousing and eloquent verses – and all under extreme pressure (i.e. in the midst
of battle), is a noteworthy feat. [expound]
The wooing of Katherine, prince of
France, is further evidence of his assumption of a role for the sake of his
kingdom. [expound]
In each of the situations and
Henry’s actions shown above, the image of a simply idealistic and
larger-than-life character increasingly give way to a clearer image of a man
with understanding, intelligence, and love for his nation who made sacrifices
to achieve success. As Shakespeare’s Henry says of himself and his “hard
condition, twin-born with greatness (his kingship), he “must bear all”
(Shakespeare) that is asked of him, and so he does, lifting the ceremonious
mantle in such as way as to become one of the greatest kings that England has
ever known.
Works Cited
Boyce,
Charles, and David Allen White. Shakespeare A to Z: The Essential
Reference to His Plays, His Poems, His Life and Times, and More. New York:
Facts on File, 1990. Print.
O'Connor, Gus Lubin and
Liz. "The 10 Greatest British Monarchs In History."Business
Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 30 July 2013. Web. 23 Nov. 2015.
<http://www.businessinsider.com/the-10-greatest-british-monarchs-in-history-2013-7>.
Shakespeare, William. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare.
N.p. : Latus ePublising, n.d. Print. Kindle Books.
