The Histories

Shakespeare's histories, while documenting important moments and people in English history have given modern readers a look into the social stratum of the times, with plays such as Richard III, history is used to ridicule and denounce an enemy of the royal house. In Henry V, however, Shakespeare builds patriotic pride with the rise of a hero rather than the fall of a villain.

Passage/Language Analyses

The largest factor in Shakespeare's success with writing is his strength with words and choices therein.

"Margaret: No sleep close up that deadly eye of thine, unless it be while some tormenting dream affrights thee with a hell of ugly devils. thou elvish-marked, abortive, rooting hog, thou that wast sealed in thy Nativity, the slave of nature and the son of hell, thy slander of thy heavy mother's womb, thou loathed issue of thy father's loins. Thou rag of honor, thou detested--"
Richard: Margaret!" -- Richard III 1.3.57

This passage clearly displays Margaret's prophetic insults and jeers, every curse spewed forth by the aged queen having not only come true, but contributed to the dramatic irony of the piece as a whole. The language, while very central to this particular History is nearly a mirror opposite to the devices and language used in Henry V, itself being a direct opposite to Richard III, representing an English hero rather than an English villain and displaying a prominent and just past rather than the dismal, dark days of Richard III where fear and terror ruled rather than Henry's heroic acts to restore honor to the English royalty. Margaret's curses remove Richard from Henry further, Richard being a symbol of hatred while Henry is epitomized as all that is good about royalty and their power with Richard being the slimiest man imaginable. Despite their obvious differences, Richard and Henry do have few similarities, both being ruthless, no nonsense kings though for very different reasons. Richard, while being a dirty, scum of the earth type character, does have some of the qualities of benevolent Henry, his doggedness,his passion and lust for power, and both manipulate nearly every character in their respective plays, albeit in very different ways and for very, very different reasons.

"He which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian." Henry V 4.3.83

Henry uses his influence to bend his men to his will, using male bravado and pride rather through instilling fear in them and threatening them, or in the case of Queen Elizabeth, promising grandchildren in penance for murdering her own children. Henry's speeches instill such a spirit in his men that they will willing give up their lives for his honor rather than return to their country. In the scene prior to the battle on St Crispian's day Henry plays on what seems to be a theme of Shakespeare's, his male characters' weakness when their manhood is questioned, the same thing ocured in Richard III when the two murderers accuse their consciences of making them womanly and therefore the two backpedal and talk their way into manly, testosterone-filled peace, with such masculine things as murder, rape, adultery, and theivery. Quite the examples of what it is to be a man. In Henry, however, manhood is achieved, as said in his speech by fighting a doomed battle for the sake of your king's honor. This stunning contrast of language lends such unique airs to each of the plays and builds on Shakespeare's own skill even more, should that be possible.

Commentary

The Histories, while still based on fact and the two actual kings Richard of Gloucester and Henry V, are both very romanticized, one for the better and the other in order to make a rival and extinct house infamous. This romanticizing of the past, and therefore altering of history, makes for a better story despite the loss of fact in the dramatization. Richard and Henry were excellent novels to read back-to-back, being as the two are such distinct opposites in their documenting of a brief span in England’s history. This romanticizing, while dramatic and engaging, also gives the plays a more literary effect, Richard III concentrating on the allure of evil and the downfall of those who are tempted while Henry V concentrates on one's personal glory and the honor within victorious war. The common themes of historical plays seem to be putting rulers above their subjects, in Richard this being through his casual murders and utter diffidence for his crimes, in Henry V, he thinks that a personal insult from the French is enough to throw away the lives of his countrymen simply to teach the French a lesson in humility. Even though both plays had been written to please the current monarch, both seem to stab at the monarchy in subtle ways that are not entirely obvious to the viewer unless they delve deeper into the structure of the plays themselves.

Personal Reflection

I enjoyed reading these plays, both being key moments in English history and representing such powerful symbols in literature despite being historical accounts. The persona that Richard presented was so wonderfully and deliciously dark, the man seeming to have absolutely no morals or conscience and therefore ruling with entirely free reign, doing as he pleased at every turn, no matter how horrific the means to his ends. Henry, however, was so overblown and had such an inflated sense of self-importance, War would not be my reaction to a nasty joke. Despite his reaction and 'noble' intentions, Henry V was a good book to read, rich with male pride and a very different kind of ruthless quest for domination. Henry's betrayal of Falstaff is a tarnish on the shiny silver of his reputation, ridding himself of such a rambunctious and lowly friend sure did help him get to the throne and secure his status there however for such a goodly man, it seemed out of place and odd. Ovgerall, the rallying patriotism of the play did itself in, for my taste, it lacked the air of intrigue and deceit that Richard III was so rich with. But, although it may fall short of the dark setting and plot of Richard, Henry was itself a good play in its own right. The two were good examples of Shakespeare's histories and pairing the two together increased the effect the juxtaposition of two such major characters.

Tyrrel
"Their lips were four red roses on a stalk,
Which in their summer beauty kiss'd each other.
A book of prayers on their pillow lay;
Which once,' quoth Forrest, 'almost changed my mind;
But O! the devil'--there the villain stopp'd
Whilst Dighton thus told on: 'We smothered
The most replenished sweet work of nature,
That from the prime creation e'er she framed.'
Thus both are gone with conscience and remorse;
They could not speak; and so I left them both,
To bring this tidings to the bloody king.
And here he comes.
All hail, my sovereign liege!"
KING RICHARD III
"Kind Tyrrel, am I happy in thy news?"
Richard III 4.3.217