Shakespeare’s Henry V, a Machiavellian King
- Deconstructing English
- May 1, 2018
- 10 min read
Updated: Oct 10, 2020
When Niccolò Machiavelli wrote his political treatise, Il Principe, he remarked that “a man who wishes to act entirely in a virtuous way is soon destroyed among so much that is evil in the world”1 (Machiavelli 24). According to Machiavelli, behaving in a virtuous and ethical manner is not always the astute course of action for monarchs who would like to hold onto, and even extend, their state. At times, they would need to resort to execrable means, such as war, cruelty, meanness, religious hypocrisy, and being feared, just to remain in power2 (Machiavelli 23-27, 31). That Machiavellian timbre is amply realised in the figure of Shakespeare’s Henry V, both before and after he ascends to the throne. Literary critic Harold Bloom affirms that “Prince Hal/Henry V is… another hero-villain, a pious and patriotic Machiavel”3 (Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human 11). In this article, it will be conveyed how Shakespeare’s Henry V does not change his personality when he inherits the kingdom—as his contemporaries believe; on the contrary, he has always possessed a veiled deviousness, a calculative shrewdness that enables him to conduct his people just as a ‘good’ Machiavellian king would.
Henry V is historically remembered as a good king, one who proved himself in daring battles, leading his men with valour into Agincourt. In spite of their being outnumbered, they vanquished the French with the primary aim of reclaiming a title and a land that Henry regarded as rightfully his4. Harold Bloom calls this historical figure “an enormous success in power and war… the strongest English king before Henry VIII”5 (Bloom 321). Shakespeare’s representation of this king portrays these distinctive features that his audiences were most probably familiar with. Soon after the play begins, the Archbishop of Canterbury remarks how “The king is full of grace and fair regard”6 (H5 1.1.22), he is capable of debating about “commonwealth affairs”7 (1.1.41), “discoursing of war”8 (1.1.43) and, most importantly for the Archbishop, the king is “a true lover of the holy church”9 (1.1.23). Shakespeare depicts him as an honorable king who is not only competent in performing his duty as ruler, but who also has divine support, which can only result in a period of peace and prosperity for his people.
It is interesting to notice that such highly remarkable moral qualities were not always perceived in his public persona. In effect, the prince we find in Henry IV is, by all means, the polar opposite of who he would later on become as Henry V. His own father, Henry IV, considers him a “scourge”, while he wonders whether God is punishing him with his son “For some displeasing service [he has] done”10 (1H4 3.2.5-7). Henry IV questions his son:
Could such inordinate and low desires,
Such poor, such base, such lewd, such mean attempts,
Such barren pleasures, rude society,
As thou art matcht withal and grafted to,
Accompany the greatness of thy blood,
And hold their level with thy princely heart?11
(1H4 3.2.12-17)
As the king could notice, his son’s behaviour in Henry IV does not correspond with that of a prince. He is in pursuit of low and disordered desires, “barren pleasures” that do not add value and meaning to his life, and which are commonly seen in the prince’s vulgar associates. This is the main reason why his contemporaries are astonished at the sudden transformation that occurs in the prince once he inherits the realm. In words of the Archbishop, “The breath no sooner left his father’s body, / But that his wildness, mortified in him, / Seem’d to die too; yea, at that very moment, / Consideration, like an angel, came, / And whipt th’offending Adam out of him”12 (H5 1.1.25-29). Just like a sinful Adam who willingly chose disobedience, the Prince of Wales overtly conducts himself in a wild and selfish manner. However, his father’s death appears to have mortified him to such an extent that he is propelled to radically alter his ways.
It is in clear sight that Henry V has changed from being a wild and self-indulgent prince to a respectful and ordered king; Shakespeare, though, hints that this sudden conversion is only superficial and that it has always been in Prince Hal’s covert plans for it to be that way. In one of his most famous soliloquies, Prince Henry reveals to the audience that he will “falsify men’s hopes”13, their low expectations of him (1H4 1.2.215).
My reformation, glittering o’er my fault,
Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes
Than that which hath no foil to set it off.
I’ll so offend, to make offence a skill;
Redeeming time, when men think least I will.14
(1H4 1.2.217-221)
In this passage we find a prince who is machinating to fool his own father and his subordinates into believing that he is not fit to be king. Under this scheme, he will “make offence a skill”, only to ‘redeem’ himself in due time, with hopes that showing up as “more goodly” when he arises as king will “attract more eyes” towards him.
At this point, one might wonder who the real Henry is: whether he is a good character who is disguising as an anti-hero, or a villain wearing a mask to hide his inner viciousness. Harold Bloom seems to be convinced of the latter; in Shakespeare, The Invention of the Human, he expresses that “Henry V is veiled rather than complex”15, “a hypocrite and Machiavel—though a superb wit, thanks to the teaching of Sir John Falstaff”16 (Bloom 323, 388). The veil with which Henry hides his true, “hypocrite” self is only glimpsed at by the audience, since his subjects are fooled by the pretence of his sudden change.
What possible reasons could Henry have for engaging with ordinary people during his youth if his real plans are to transform himself later on? While he was prince and his responsibilities were few, he may have possibly reasoned that that was the only chance he would ever have to amuse himself in ways that would be censured once he became king. Another possibility to explain his reckless attitude can be derived from Henry V’s response to the Dauphin for suggesting that he would much rather frolic than reign, to what Henry replies: “we understand him well, / How he comes o’er us with our wilder days, / Not measuring what use we made of them”17 (H5 1.2.67-69). This passage insinuates that Henry did, after all, have a clear aim in mind when he chose to befriend ordinary people. He may have sought their company with the main purpose of getting to know those who would one day be his subjects. A closer relationship with them could give him a clearer and more profound view of their lives, which could facilitate his governance. Historian Frederick Turner also argues that, since he has inherited a crown “that was not itself legitimately attained by succession”18 (Turner 106), if he is not a rightful king in the eyes of the people, he at least needs to behave like one in order to attain that right through his own merits. Having insight on his subjects’ lives could give him the upper hand to alleviate their burdens and, in return, be seen as a caring ruler.
In spite of what may have ushered Henry’s scheming thoughts, what is most important is the fact that Shakespeare places at the forefront the issue of whether the right to rule is actually “derived from birth or behaviour”19 (The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare’s History Plays 16); fundamentally, it questions whether the king is a divinely anointed monarch or not. With regards to this issue, Machiavelli, a political philosopher of the Renaissance, mentions that, although principalities are mostly hereditary, sometimes the people are willing to change their own rulers by force, crowning others who they believe will guide them better20. And as Michael Hattaway in The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare’s History Plays states “Shakespeare had absorbed the influence of the Italian political historians of the Renaissance, epitomised by the writings of Machiavelli”21 (Hattaway 18). It is then not surprising that Shakespeare may have had certain aspects of Il Principe in mind when depicting Henry’s figure.
One could make a comparison, as Harold Bloom did, between Shakespeare’s Henry V and the type of prince Machiavelli describes. For instance, as was shown in the introduction, Machiavelli was convinced that, at times, a monarch would need to “do wrong” in order to keep his state and that the criticism and “reputation for cruelty” this would most likely grant him should not make him hesitate from performing his duty. Virtue “if followed would be his ruin; while something else, which looks wrong, may bring him security and wealth”22 (Machiavelli 24). This is depicted in Henry’s hatching of the plan to fool his own people only to shine brighter in their eyes after his unexpected change. But this is not the only instance of his machiavellism.
Machiavelli also adds that “a prince should appear merciful, faithful, kind, religious, upright, but should be flexible enough to make use of the opposite qualities when it is necessary… a prince, especially a new one cannot do all those things for which men are praised, being often forced, in order to maintain the state, to act contrary to honesty, friendship, kindness, and religion”23 (Machiavelli 28). This passage from Il Principe outlines and lays bare what appear to be Henry’s own mind and ruse. As was previously seen, the bishops in Henry V describe the king as someone who is faithful and well-versed in holy matters: “Hear him but reason in divinity / And, all-admiring, with an inward wish / You would desire the king were made a prelate”24 (H5 1.1.38-40). Henry is well-versed in the Holy Scriptures, just as if he were a bishop himself. Anyone would believe that his interests are also those of God. Just like a pious man, he manifests qualities such as kindness and uprightness, for instance, towards his men who would go to war at his command. When addressing the Archbishop about the invasion of France, he reminds Canterbury that he should not “fashion, wrest, or bow [his] reading”25 (1.2.14) about the claim to take over the French crown “For God doth know how many, now in health, / Shall drop their blood in approbation / Of what your reverence shall incite us to”26 (1.2.18-20). Henry sounds concerned about his men’s blood being spilled without a reasonable and genuine cause, hence why he urges the Archbishop to be truthful about the legal aspects of the appeal.
But Henry’s acts are also the opposite of those a god-fearing man should possess, he is after all a Machiavellian king. Hence why he acts against honesty and friendship when he rejected his old companions and his own teacher, “The tutor and the feeder of [his] riots”27, John Falstaff (2H4 5.5.63). To Falstaff he says “I know thee not, old man”28 (2H4 5.5.48) and adds “Presume not that I am the thing I was; / For God doth know, so shall the world perceive, / That I have turn’d away my former self; / So will I those that kept me company”29 (2H4 5.5.57-60). If he is willing to keep his state, since his legitimacy as king is in question, he needs to behave just as a king would, even when this implies a rejection of everything and everyone he once held dear. Henry is forced to relinquish his old behaviour because “the legitimacy of the monarchy is refounded upon this sacrifice”30 (Shakespeare’s Twenty-First-Century Economics 112).
As Machiavelli says, it is only necessary for a king to appear to have good qualities since the people only judge by what appears to their eyes, few of them can actually come in close contact with a king so as to see through his disguising mask31. If a king is careful enough not to let his true feelings show, he would most likely be regarded as an honorable man and would be free to pursue other great achievements such as war and conquest32.
As was seen above, although Henry V is remembered as one of the greatest monarchs in English history, Shakespeare reinterprets his persona as someone whose calculative shrewdness makes him worthy of being called a Machiavellian king. Since the legitimacy of his rulership and his divine anointment were questioned, Henry had to show beyond doubt that he was deserving of the kingship he had been given. To do so, Shakespeare resorted to Niccolò Machiavelli’s advice for successful sovereigns. Henry’s demeanour throughout both parts of Henry IV and Henry V exhibits characteristics of a true Machiavellian king who appears to have surface godly devotion, while not being afraid of resorting to evil means when the time calls for it. This is the king Shakespeare depicts, the one who has enchanted hundreds of people since.
Endnotes
1. Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince. Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington, n.d. Web. 27 April 2018. Page 94. 2. Machiavelli, Niccolò. Ibidem. Pages 23-27, 31. 3. Bloom, Harold. Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. New York: Riverhead Books, 1998. Print. Page 11. 4. McDowall, David. An Illustrated History of Britain. Essex: Longman, 2006. Print. Pages 53, 54. 5. Bloom, Harold. op. cit. Page 321. 6. Shakespeare, William. “Henry V” in Complete Works of William Shakespeare. Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions Limited, 2007. Print. Act I, scene 1, line 22. 7. Shakespeare, William. Ibidem. Act I, scene 1, line 41. 8. Shakespeare, William. Ibidem. Act I, scene 1, line 43. 9. Shakespeare, William. Ibidem. Act I, scene 1, line 23. 10. Shakespeare, William. “Henry IV part I” in Complete Works of William Shakespeare. Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions Limited, 2007. Print. Act III, scene 2, lines 5-7. 11. Shakespeare, William. Ibidem. Act III, scene 2, lines 12-17. 12. Shakespeare, William. “Henry V” in Complete Works of William Shakespeare. Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions Limited, 2007. Print. Act I, scenes 1, lines 25-29. 13. Shakespeare, William. “Henry IV part I” in Complete Works of William Shakespeare. Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions Limited, 2007. Print. Act I, scene 2, line 215. 14. Shakespeare, William. Ibidem. Act I, scene 2, lines 217-221. 15. Bloom, Harold. op. cit. Page 323. 16. Bloom, Harold. Ibidem. Page 388. 17. Shakespeare, William. “Henry V” in Complete Works of William Shakespeare. Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions Limited, 2007. Print. Act I, scene 2, lines 67-69. 18. Turner, Frederick. Shakespeare’s Twenty-First-Century Economics. New York: Oxford University Press. 1999. Print. Page 106. 19. Hattaway, Michael. The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare’s History Plays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Print. Page 16. 20. Machiavelli, Niccolò. op. cit. Pages 2, 3. 21. Hattaway, Michael. op. cit. Page 18. 22. Machiavelli, Niccolò. op. cit. Page 24. 23. Machiavelli, Niccolò. Ibidem. Page 28. 24. Shakespeare, William. “Henry V” in Complete Works of William Shakespeare. Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions Limited, 2007. Print. Act I, scene 1, lines 38-40. 25. Shakespeare, William. Ibidem. Act I, scene 2, line 14. 26. Shakespeare, William. Ibidem. Act I, scene 2, lines 18-20. 27. Shakespeare, William. “Henry IV part II” in Complete Works of William Shakespeare. Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions Limited, 2007. Print. Act V, scene 5, line 63. 28. Shakespeare, William. Ibidem. Act V, scene 5, line 48. 29. Shakespeare, William. Ibidem. Act V, scene 5, lines 57-60. 30. Turner, Frederick. op. cit. Page 112. 31. Machiavelli, Niccolò. op. cit. Page 28. 32. Machiavelli, Niccolò. Ibidem. Page 23.
Works Cited
Bloom, Harold. Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. New York: Riverhead Books, 1998. Print.
Hattaway, Michael. The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare’s History Plays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Print.
Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince. Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington, n.d. Web. 27 April 2018.
McDowall, David. An Illustrated History of Britain. Essex: Longman, 2006. Print.
Shakespeare, William. “Henry IV part I” in Complete Works of William Shakespeare. Hertfordshre: Wordsworth Editons Limited, 2007. Print.
Shakespeare, William. “Henry IV part II” in Complete Works of William Shakespeare. Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions Limited, 2007. Print.
Shakespeare, William. “Henry V” in Complete Works of William Shakespeare. Hertfordshire: Wordswort Editions Limited, 007. Print.
Turner, Frederick. Shakespeare’s Twenty-First-Century Economics. New York: Oxford University Press. 1999. Print.
Comments