In Henry’s soliloquy from Act 4 Scene 1, I thought it was interesting how he was defending his position as a king. As much as he put his country through an “unnecessary war”, we realize that a lot of decisions made by those who are supposedly “wiser and smarter” really are just human decisions that are spurred by pride and the need for recognition. He also juxtaposes two very difficult places to be in: either you take responsibility and you have the high position (being a king) or you have less to no responsibility and you live like a peasant. When trying to decide between the better of the the two, it’s basically being stuck between a rock and and hard place. It also made me realize that leadership is really a trade off. Sure, it’s a lot of sitting down and planning rather than being in the action and being killed, but it requires a huge burden (whether warranted or unwarranted) that must be addressed. It’s more of a psychological burden to bear rather than experiencing what maybe war feels like, first hand.
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Macbeth, the victim or the villain? – Arron's Blog on Macbeth: Victim of Fate?
- Professor Berggren on The Curse of Macbeth aka The Scottish Play
- Ronie Sharma on Scene Study-Troilus and Cressida Act 3 Scene 1
- Ronie Sharma on Does the end justify the means?
- Ronie Sharma on “The poison of that lies in you to temper.”
Archives
Categories
Meta
Historical sources
Imagery
Links
Macbeth
Pastoral themes
The Taming of the Shrew
Tags
- Achilles
- agamemnon
- appearance
- Beatrice
- Chorus
- Claudio
- Cressida
- deceit
- disguise
- disguises
- dogberry
- dupe
- fair
- foul
- free will
- group 5
- Helen
- Helen-Paris
- Henry V
- Hero
- induction
- irony
- lies
- love
- Lucentio
- Lust
- Macbeth
- Margaret
- Much Ado About Nothing
- music
- Paris
- predestination
- prejudice
- reality
- scene study
- Shakepeare
- shakespeare
- shrew
- taming
- The Winter's Tale
- the witches
- Troilus
- Troilus and Cressida
- Troy
- Ulysses
This is thoughtful. Perhaps Henry overstates the dichotomy that you point to: is there really nothing between being a wretch with a gross brain and a king with overwhelming responsibilities?
I think Henry does overstate the dichotomy. At points, it almost seems as if he’s complaining. “Oh, how horrible being a king is…it’s not worth anything…I’d rather be poor…” He obviously *is* undergoing a huge amount of pressure and stress because if this war, but then again, one can argue that the war isn’t even necessary. So, although he does have some merit to say what he does about the travails of being a king, in a sense, it’s his own doing.
In addition, I’m sure that the very ceremony Henry is complaining about now he highly enjoyed at his coronation and subsequent events. You wouldn’t hear him complain about being a king then.
While the “wretches” in Henry’s mind have nothing to worry about, it seems like an unfair comparison. Not everyone is a poor, stupid oaf. There are a lot of people under Henry who I’m sure have plenty to worry about; and in my opinion, just because their worries aren’t on as grand a scale as Henry’s doesn’t mean that Henry can disregard those worries.
While there is obviously a wide range of “middle ground” in society, I saw this exaggerated dichotomy as Henry’s way of saying that in his world, there are only two kinds of problems: the kind leaders have, and the kind followers have.
Although one of the interpretations discussed today in class suggests that Henry is being snobbish during his soliloquy, I think it’s worth noting that he’s clearly anxious about the lives that are depending on his decisions. While other scenes may suggest that Henry makes arrogant decisions that his soldiers pay the price for, this soliloquy shows (to me) a leader that is aware of how high the price is for victory.
What is interesting about this is the comment made in class comparing George W. Bush to Henry V. Both were supposed and viewed as common men, one a “peoples king” and the other a “peoples president”, and both are similar within the context of history. They both put their countries through unnecessary wars, having many view them to the extremes of being war criminals. Both were unruly in their youth, and did not exhibit behavior you would expect of someone that would one day be king or president.
Bush several years after his presidency was over, like Henry, spoke of the hardships of being in charge and the thousands of decisions he had to make while balancing what he saw as what was good for the people, and what the people saw and thought of him. I just think it’s interesting how history seems to always repeat itself, and that when men assume the rank of high if not the highest power, many of their actions and decisions reflect and draw back through hundreds of years of time and parallel other men in power.
First I must apologize for the lateness of my response. I’ve read the blog post and comments attached and I clearly see the dichotomy between the King and common men. In Act 4, Scene 1 King Henry takes a step back and looks at the overall portrayal of the common people. He states that they only care about themselves and for that reason alone, they are dumb. He as the King has to care not only about himself moreover about the entire society and he has to consider political decisions that may affect them as well. In this scene King Henry would rather be a common person than a King. “The slave a member of the country’s peace, enjoys it; but in gross brain little wots, what watch the King keeps to maintain the peace, whose hours the peasant best advantages” (4.1 286-289). At this point in the play, King Henry is doubtful of who are the lucky ones. He emphasizes in these lines that the decisions he makes are also in the best interests of the people. Even though there is no need to continue the war, he believes victory will also benefit the peasants.