Lynch 1

Names: Afia Lynch

I.D. Numbers: 812005600

Faculty: Humanities and Education

Semester/Academic Year: Semester I/2013/2014

Course Code: LITS 2203

Course Title: Shakespeare I

Course Leader: Giselle Rampaul

Date of Submission: 14/10/2013

Internal conflict may be described as a psychological conflict within the character. It is a primary

struggle between the different aspects of a personality. This psychological conflict, in literature,

usually occurs within the mind of a literary or dramatic character, the resolution of which is said to

create the plot's suspense. “The literary purpose of conflict is to create tension in the story, making

readers more interested by leaving them uncertain which of the characters or forces will prevail”

(Richard and Edgar, 103). “The main interest lies more with the character’s internal conflict than

any external opposition” (Brown, 132). Additionally, Aristotle went as far to say that in order to

hold the interest of the reader or audience, the hero must have a single conflict. Conflict of the

internal persuasion naturally tends to be more personal and reflects not only the characters inner

thoughts and mental processes, but also his/her political and social surroundings which, ultimately,

influence the character's modus operandi to a great degree. Shakespeare's literary dramatic piece,

“Henry V”, is no exception in this matter. In fact, one may postulate that the play is indeed

significantly about one man's internal struggle to not only prove himself as a great, wise and

honorable king, but also this man's internal struggle to unearth who he truly is after a considerable

amount of time 'masking' or acting. However, one can go further by stating that who Henry V truly

is, is far more complex than a debate of good and evil. Certainly, as much of a calculating and

intelligent creature many critics make Henry V out to be, it is imperative that one bears in mind that

ultimately Henry V is still a mere human being, one with faults, uncertainties and short-comings.

One who may also harbor insecurities concerning his identity apart from his father as well as his

legitimacy as a king, the latter of which is derived from the manner in which his father succeeded

unto the throne. This is Henry’s true internal conflict, as he finds that he must prove himself the best

not only to his people but also to himself through any means necessary, and so, the brutality,

hypocrisy and other negative traits critics tend to associate with Henry V are simply by-products of

this great need and are to be seen as not necessarily a negative thing, but something that is natural.
 Lynch 3

Does having these flaws make Henry V a bad person? Or does this just make him human?

Furthermore, while the internal conflict does create plot, it is also relevant in the sense that it

presents to the readers or audiences the dominant elements within the play such as that of

characterization, setting, language and genre. Naturally, such elements cannot simply stand

independently, but are held erect through the social and political background that accompanies them.

Both Henry V's internal conflict and these elements work hand in hand to create a cohesive dramatic

piece, one aiding the other. Therefore, Henry V's internal conflict is not only relevant in highlighting

these various elements but said elements are also relevant in presenting Henry V's internal conflict

in a number of ways.

Before one wishes to understand the elements of drama and how they are dealt with within the

respected play, one must first pay close attention to the context in which these elements are

implemented; context being that of the social/political climate of the play. However, because “Henry

V” belongs to a tetralogy, one must also take notice of the plays that preceded “Henry V”, since it is

from those said plays that a plethora of information concerning that of the protagonist in question is

developed and presented. With that being said, “Henry V”, the last play of Shakespeare's second

"history tetralogy”, which traces the fall from power of the last king of the house of Plantagenet,

Richard II, and his replacement by the first Lancaster king, Henry IV (Henry Bolingbroke) and later

Bolingbroke's son Prince Hal (Henry V), was written in the Elizabethan period. Attached to this

period were numerous beliefs or dogmas which were held strongly by the Elizabethans. This

included The Great Chain of Being or The Divine Order, a concept that held that everything in the

world, from God to the angels, all the way down to even a speck of dust, was ordered in a divinely

determined hierarchy. This divine order reveals the conservative nature of such society and also how

very important it was for one to not step out of their role, since roles were divinely appointed.
 Lynch 4

Another concept that held sway in such time was that of the Body Political and the Body Natural.

The Body Natural was referred to as the actual physical body of the King or his physical well-being,

while the Body Political was the political body. There was a belief in an intimate relationship

between the two bodies so that if anything went wrong with the King it would be reflected within

the society and may result in strange and unnatural happenings or political disorder, the latter of

which is seen in “Henry IV Part I and II” who takes the throne through illegitimate means and is

thus faced with an unstable rule. This may be observed even within Macbeth and Hamlet, both being

plays in which the King is killed and Kingship usurped illegitimately. The Elizabethans also took

religion very seriously as is seen in the belief of the Divine Right of King. Such belief held that the

king was God-appointed and thus a representative of God on earth. Therefore, any betrayal directed

towards the King or even the murder of a King, would not only be seen as treason against the State

but it was also seen as a sin against God. Additionally, as a King succeeded the throne, he was given

not only the right to rule which was a divine right but he was also given the responsibility of Right

Rule, that is to rule his people and the court as an effective leader, which will be seen to be directly

linked to Henry V's internal conflict as a King.

Firstly, it is through Henry V's internal conflict that readers and audiences are able to glean

information on not only his character, but also the characterization of others in relation to Henry V.

Over the years, critics have found Henry V's character to be one of great debate and controversy.

Responses tend to be “dualistic, polarized and diametrically opposed in nature” (Rampaul, 40).

While some may choose to look at Henry as the “ideal chivalric hero” (40), others have chosen quite

a different path, referring to Henry V as an “unscrupulous, hypocritical, brutal Machiavellian King”

[as he does] whatever is necessary for success glory and power' (40). While the play may present

Henry as 'the mirror of all Christian kings' (41), evidence within the text, according to some critics,
 Lynch 5

points toward Henry V being a cold, calculated charlatan. However, one may put forward that

Henry’s internal conflict, as aforementioned, is more than a disputation over whether Henry is a

morally good and genuine person or just the average, stereotypical, 'two-faced Christian'. It is far

more profound than just taking a clear-cut, black and white stance. To fully understand Henry V’s

behavior as an individual, one must first look at the behavior of that of his father. The relationship

which Hal shares with his father, before he inherits the throne, is imperative in his development in a

way that many do not realize. Coppelia Kahn writes that the “the patriarchal world of Shakespeare's

history plays is emphatically masculine” (47). The few women belonging to such plays are relatively

insignificant, and a man's identity is determined by his relationship to his father, son or brother.

Shakespearean men tend to face the dilemma of passage from boyhood to manhood. Such men had

to forsake their dreams or fears of union with the mother, move to identification with the father, and

then to their own identities as men, the fathers of the future. One can say that the tetralogy itself is a

“continuous meditation on the role of the father in a man's self-definition” (Kahn, 47). In these

plays, it is the father from whom men strive to separate themselves or with whom they merge. The

shift in dependency from mother to father can also be explained in psychoanalytical terms. In

Freud's developmental scheme, the father looms mainly as the 'castrating forbidder' of the oedipal

phase. Margaret S. Mahler et al. in “The Psychological Birth of the Human Infant: Symbiosis and

Individuation” posit an earlier, more supportive role for the father. The child's awareness of the

father begins around the same time the child becomes decisively conscious that he and his mother

are distinct entities. Several other discoveries such as the child's separateness from his mother, the

existence of his father, his possession of a penis, and his ability to stand upright and move freely are

associated with important ramifications. Associating “phallic consciousness with upright mobility,

the boy is strongly motivated to turn away from his mother and toward his father” (Kahn, 48). His

father, associated with this newly perceived world of objects to be manipulated, places to be
 Lynch 6

ventured and people to know, can help the child in resisting re-engulfment with the mother. In

“Henry V” the son's identity seems to be an imprint of the father's in two ways. First, Shakespeare

gives Hal the chance to rebel against his inherited identity, but also the will to check that rebellion

before it threatens lineal succession. One must realize that the Prince is only ever seen in relation to

his father, the King, since it is expected that he too will soon be king. “All men are subject to their

fathers because they were created after them in time” (Kahn, 48). The son was expected to emulate

his father, in the sense of following his example and carrying out what he had begun. Thus the play

illustrates a counter-identification with the father, which takes the form of lineal succession, that is,

the passing on of identity from father to son. In a way this removes from the identity developmental

process, as Hal realizes that he will only ever be seen as a reflection of his father and this is what

drives him to not only be a great king and find a name for himself apart from that of his father's but

also to make sure that the sins and guilt of his father is something he never has to face. Henry V's

greatness will be like the clouds, while any questions of illegitimacy will be the sun on an overcast

day; concealed and never brought up for discussion. There is also just the case of the usual rebellion

of a young man against that of this father, but according to Kahn, “Hal himself is unaware that his

affinity for the fat knight [and questionable living in general] constitutes rebellion” (73). Rather,

Henry V saw it as part of his long-term strategy for assuming a proper identity as king. This strategy

reveals his likeness to his father, his ability to think and act in the same terms of political image-

building as his father and his fitness for the very role he seems to be rejecting. Hal realizes soon

enough that it is something he cannot avoid. The Crown and the burdens and sins of his father are

Henry V's and he must handle them appropriately. Yet, he tries his best to resist the latter.

It is said that guilt is a gift that 'keeps on giving.' What other greater source of guilt is there than

the guilt of killing a King in the Elizabethan period? According to James C. Humes in “Citizen
 Lynch 7

Shakespeare: A Social and Political Portrait” in the two “Henry IV” plays, we see Shakespeare “take

the soldier Bolingbroke from “Richard II” and turn him into a more complex figure under the

pressures of monarchy” (73). As was mentioned beforehand, the Elizabethans believed in the Divine

Right of Kings. In this way, the King was seen as God's representative on earth. It was not only a

crime against the State to kill a King, but it was also a grave sin against God. Henry Bolingbroke

commits this grave sin. In order to be King, he kills the King, and must suffer “Cain's guilt” (Kahn,

70). Henry regards Hal as his punishment long before he explicitly admits, in “Henry IV Part II”, to

having committed any crime. He who righteously invoked the principle of succession even as his

'troops massed before Richard at Flint Castle, and claimed to seek only his “lineal royalties'' (70), is

appropriately punished by his own son's seeming unfitness to inherit the crown, what one may call a

King's worst nightmare. From the very beginning of “Henry IV Part 1”, one realizes that Henry IV

is “not having an easy time being King” (Rampaul, 1). While being King will always be a difficult

role, as it comes with a burden of responsibility, it doesn’t help when guilt is added to such

affliction. Henry IV's reign is unstable and not very quiet as he “suffers from a personal unrest” (1).

Readers or audiences of the play are reminded of this unrest when Henry IV speaks of his plans of

embarking on a pilgrimage but is prevented from doing so because of rebellions. This may possibly

symbolize Henry IV's inability to overcome the guilt brought upon him when he disposed of the

legitimate king as somehow “he cannot forget dethroning his predecessor” (Humes, 73). “In Henry

IV Part II”, Henry IV tells Prince Hal: “God knows, my son by what paths and indirect crook'd ways

I meet this crown; and I myself know well How troublesome it sat upon my head” (4.5.268-76).

Henry IV's ‘buried fear' rises again in the form of further rebellions, nourished by lingering

resentments against him as the usurper of Richard II. It also takes the form of disease, aging, and

death that have pervaded “Henry IV Part II”. The king is sick and dying; his sins are still upon his

head, and spreading throughout his body and the kingdom's. At the same time, Hal still has not
 Lynch 8

given up Falstaff and the attractive world he represents. The shadow of Hal's misbehaviors falls on

his father's throne, casting its legitimacy further in doubt, and the shadow of his father's suffering

falls on Hal's revels. Further down into the play readers or audiences will realize that the

aforementioned guilt is something that Henry IV never really gets over and, in fact, it seems for a

while that Henry IV is forced to take it to the grave with him, but not before it is passed on to his

heir. If it is true what many say, that the son will indeed inherit the sins of his father, then Henry V’s

worry of even seeming illegitimate before the people is more than understandable. Hal is the first-

born and heir-apparent, but he has scorned his status and acted like the prodigal second son who gets

less wealth from his father. Hal's prodigal behavior is more strongly motivated though, by a need to

differentiate himself violently from his father, concealing and denying his likeness to and sympathy

with him. It is as though he must first create the impression that he is not his father's son, that he is

of a different nature altogether, before he can admit his family resemblance and accept his paternal

inheritance. In fact, Hal never even intends his father to know that he is his son in the spirit as well

as in the letter. Had Hal not been tricked by the appearance of his father's death and taken the crown

as his 'lineal honor,' his father would never have accused him of seizing it unlawfully and wishing

his death, and Hal would never have made his moving confession of love and loyalty. In effect, Hal

reverses John Talbot's pattern of initial submission to the father and subsequent breakaway from

him; he breaks away first, by loitering in Eastcheap but like the prodigal son, he breaks away only to

make his eventual submission the more genuine. In Hal's first scene in “Henry IV Part II”, he

confesses “my heart bleeds inwardly that my father is so sick” (2.2.46), but it requires the mistaken

belief that his father is actually dead for Hal to reveal just how much he shares with him. Again, this

shows how desperately Hal wishes to separate himself from that of his father, and thus only

something as momentous as the threat of death can bring out this side of Hal. Neither man can freely

express himself, it seems, because each has something to hide. Hal hides his sympathy with his
 Lynch 9

father, while Henry IV hides his guilt over the deposition and murder of Richard. Nonetheless, that

guilt is revealed in the way he splits his son into two contending images, something most critics of

Hal do. Henry IV divides his son into the image of that of the bad son which is Hal the wastrel; and

the good son, Hotspur the king of honor. For Hal to become his father's son personally (to be loved)

and politically (to be trusted to as fit to succeed his father), he must restore his reputation as heir-

apparent, triumph over Hotspur, and assume Hotspur's identity as the model of chivalric manhood in

England. This he obediently promises and economically does. Hal does wear the garland

successfully, his title clear and power assured but he also succeeds to his father's guilt, which takes

the form of a persistent private anxiety, and which actually inspires his French campaign, a

stratagem suggested by his father to “busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels...to waste the memory

of former days” (4.5.213-215). Henry V ends up doing the near impossible by reestablishing

hereditary succession. Henry V not only makes a brave step in assuming his own identity but he so

lifts the cloud of guilt from his father's head.

Second of all, Henry V's internal conflict also reveals the notions of language use within the play

along with further characterization. The soliloquies carried out in both “Henry IV Part II” and

“Henry V” when Henry speaks of his motives and also when he prays before God respectively, is of

great importance. According to Morris LeRoy Arnold in “The Soliloquies of Shakespeare: A Study

in Technic” all soliloquies, “unless they open or close an act, perform the function of linking or

joining in a general way” (132). It is a short monologue filling the interval between the exit and an

entrance, a factor of the structure rather than that of the plot. In other words, no matter how

illuminating a remark it may be, a soliloquy is fundamentally a mechanical contrivance for bridging

a gap in the action. This is not to discredit the concrete act of the monologue and its content, as one

cannot deny the significance of many Shakespearean soliloquies and the wealth of information about
 Lynch 10

the individual carrying it out said soliloquies seem to provide. In essence, however, soliloquies are

for structural purposes. Some other functions associated with that of the soliloquy include

identification, disguise and characterization. Arnold goes on to say that “it is only a step from

disguise to characterization” (58). In one case the soliloquiser tells who is supposed to be, and in the

other he discloses his real personality. Naturally, the revelation of character is of greater importance,

and indeed, if interpreted in the large, it constitutes one of the most vital functions of the soliloquy.

All notable soliloquies indicate something of the speaker's nature. Often the portrayal is keenly

introspective. The self-characterizing soliloquiser, on occasion, gives a frank and, as it were,

impersonal account of his character. Excluding the usual villain soliloquy, there is only one flagrant

case of the self-characterizing monologue in Shakespeare and that is Prince Hal in “Henry IV Part

1”. This much discussed speech exists for the sake of exposition. The Prince's true worth and his

ultimate respectability must be understood from the start. Hal alone knows of his intention to 'throw

off this loose behaviour,' and consequently he divulges the secret. The Prince is not speaking as a

choral interlude, but as himself, and accordingly Hal's character suffers from his coldly impersonal

cognizance of this present delinquencies and his egoistic purpose to use them as a background for

future glorification since it is from said speech that many critics attain ammo in their negative

assaults against his character. Hal states that he is very much aware of his responsibilities and that

when the time was right he would do the right thing or what was expected of him as heir apparent.

Hal goes on to liken himself unto that of the sun, which allows the vulgar, corrupting clouds to hide

its beauty from the world. Hal goes further to say that when he throws off this wild behaviour and

accept the responsibilities of being King, a destiny Hal didn’t choose but was born into, he will

suddenly seem like a far better man. The significance of this speech cannot be emphasized enough.

Henry is explicitly admitting to playing a role as a means of appearing all the more great when he

must take the throne. While this is undeniably a great political strategy, one must wonder exactly
 Lynch 11

how long Hal was planning this all along and whether this is of any significance. Seeing as one is

dealing with a man who has been dubbed as the “ideal Christian king”, it is only appropriate that we

answer such question from a Judeo-Christian point of view. It is said that sins are of two kinds; ones

which are done due to what some may call an ‘uncontrollable temptation’ and the other being

premeditated. The first is made to be more excusable than the latter. However, rather than accusing

Harry of being brutal simply because he had these thoughts all along, one should look at it from a

different angle, one which encourages a sort of pity for Henry. Ultimately, if Henry did indeed have

this planned all along, it does not show him to be a deceitful and brutal person. Rather, it shows

Henry's desperation. To make up for what may be a problem in the future, his legitimacy that is, Hal

comes up with an ingenious plan as a means of ensuring his place on the throne without any

illegitimacy-related threats. Technically though Henry V is a legitimate king, he still feels as though

his legitimacy is questionable because of his father's usurpation of the throne and so to compensate

for this he realizes he must come up with the perfect plan to ensure that he is seen by all as so great a

King, that his legitimacy is never at all questioned. There is not only a need for Hal to be accepted

as a legitimate King among the people but greater is the need for him to feel legitimate within

himself. From this need arises the fuel for the critic William Hazlitt's supposition that Henry V is “a

very splendid pageant, a very amiable monster”. Henry, it seems, is so desperate to feel this

legitimacy within him and to have the people take note of it as well and so from this desperation

comes the 'unscrupulous, brutal and hypocritical' nature critics predominantly associate with Henry

V.

When readers or viewers are introduced to Hal properly for the first time in the tetralogy in

“Henry IV Part 1”, they witness a man who resembles nothing that is ‘king material’. Hal fails to

show any kind of behaviour that is becoming of a Prince, much less an heir-apparent. Hal fights with
 Lynch 12

his father about his responsibilities; he wastes his time away in taverns with questionable company,

disappoints the king and even goes as far to plot against his father, a most devious plan, with

Falstaff and company. Hal’s conduct ultimately arouses thought among the public on not only

whether Henry IV is really suitable to be a leader, as it seems that he can barely handle his own son,

but also Hal’s suitability as his father’s successor to the throne. This friction between the two men

may have been avoided or at least its severity would have been lessened, had both Hal and Henry

realize how similar they were. Or is it that their similarities were the very cause of such rift? Many

parallels between Hal's first soliloquy and his father's long admonitory speech to him reveal the

essential similarities between father and son. Both speeches dwell on the proper management of

one's political visibility and the importance of avoiding over exposure. Hal pictures himself as the

sun obscured by clouds and therefore more “wonder'd at” when he reappears, while Henry IV

compares himself to a comet “wonder'd at” because it is “seldom seen.” Henry IV implies that his is

that “sun-like majesty” that, when it “shines seldom,” wins an “extra ordinary gaze,” and Hal says

that his reformation “shall show more goodly, and attract more eyes” because of his fault. Both use

clothing imagery as well to denote a kingliness they put on or off at will; Hal says he can “throw off

this loose behaviour,” and Henry IV says that he too dressed himself in humility and then dawned

his “presence like a robe pontifical.” Henry, as much as he wishes to alienate himself from that of

his father, cannot deny how similar they both are as men. Yet, Henry wishes to draw the line on

these similarities where his father's innocence ends and his great guilt begins.

Due to the religious origin of the serious drama, the prayer, especially as the opening monologue,

is one of the oldest forms of soliloquy. Likewise the miracle plays, also known as mystery plays,

often open up with soliloquies. Arnold goes on to postulate that the introspective attitude of prayer,

as well as its deep spiritual significance, is invariably emphasized. He who judges all things is
 Lynch 13

implored to stay the thoughts of the King. Hence the reason why before the fight, Henry V in

majestic phrase asks aid of the God of battles, at the same time beseeching pardon for his father's sin

(IV.I.306-322). King Henry's account of the devices he has used for obtaining divine forgiveness is

said to give the impression of rhetorical pageantry rather than sincere contrition, since, like the King

in “Hamlet”, he wants to be pardoned but yet still be able to retain the offence. What does Henry

have to be pardoned for though? He is guilty of no sin. Yet Henry still feels the weight of his father's

guilt, even long after his father's death. The soliloquy of Claudius, however, is said to be a human

document depicting a guilty soul's struggle to pray (3.3.36-72). Realizing the enormity of his crime,

Claudius cannot find words with which to ask forgiveness. He starts and halts, unsure of what to say

or more likely of how to say it. Eventually there comes the revelation of “the divine code, questions,

exclamations, the poignant plea for help, the pliant yielding of the knees, and the beautiful trust of

the concluding hope.” “The final 'All may be well!' says Coleridge, “is remarkable; the degree of

merit attributed by the self-flattering soul to its own struggle, though baffled, and to the indefinite

half promise, half command, to persevere in religious duties. The solution is in the divine medium

of the Christian doctrine of expiation.” Yet, it is quite unfair to compare the prayers of these two

men, seeing as both prayers are done in association with different problems. While Claudius prays to

be rid of the guilt of killing his brother, the legitimate King, Henry IV prays to be rid of the guilt of

his own father's sin, something that basically has nothing to do with him. Even when Henry prays to

God and it seems like just an egotistical list of his achievements, one realizes that this just goes to

how much he wishes to depart himself from his father's actions. He speaks to God of his

achievements not to boast or appear haughty, though he does, but it is more to remind himself of

what he has done. To remind himself that unlike his father, he has succeeded unto the throne in the

right way; in a legitimate way. There does not seem to be any dishonesty in his prayer. He is simply

a man reminding himself of how far he has reached through the medium prayer, apart from that of
 Lynch 14

his father.

Another way in which Henry V's internal conflict is made even more apparent is through the

rejection of Falstaff, Falstaff being a character that is utilized to reveal the breadth of Shakespeare's

view on life. Henry is willing to do anything to assure that his legitimacy is never questioned. He

will do this by any means possible, even if it means having to reject his very good friend Falstaff.

When it comes to Falstaff, Shakespeare had broken new ground in literature. Not only had he

introduced a comic character in a serious chronicle, but he had made what should have been a villain

a favourite among audiences with all his “vices and venality” (Humes, 76). Yet for all his self-

indulgence, Falstaff has an “earthy realism” the audience could appreciate (76). It was as if

Shakespeare in the various characters of “Henry IV” was sketching a composite for leadership that

Henry could learn from. His father had the prudence necessary, even though it was too burdened by

guilt. Hotspur had the idealism, but neither the knowledge nor the temperament suited for

government due to his “defect of manners” and “want of government”. The combination of Henry

IV's caution, Hotspur's courage and Falstaff's practicality would make an ideal king. Falstaff brought

out the playful nature of Prince Hal. Falstaff knows what he is about. He isn't a man after honor as

he once blusters, “What is honour? A word. What is that word, honour? Air. A trim reckoning!” As

much as he is a comic character, Falstaff, however, is far from being a clown, and all his soliloquies

will presently be treated together as a study of his personality. Shakespeare's characters are to be

judged on two planes according to that of Curtis Brown Watson in “Shakespeare and the

Renaissance Concept of Honor”. They are to be judged on “the one involving the definitions of the

classical virtues and vices which constituted Renaissance moral philosophy; the other involving an

amoral, naturalistic attitude, which views man's human emotions, his love of life, his yielding to the

pleasures of the flesh, his shrinking from his deep-seated fears of old age and death, with sympathy
 Lynch 15

and tolerance” (224). These attitudes come particularly into play in our judgment of Sir John

Falstaff as he appears in “Henry IV Part I”. He seems to be Shakespeare's summation of this natural

view of life and defense of it. Sir John gains one's sympathy from the start. He does not defy

Shakespeare's general conception of good and evil; he ignores it. Liar and hypocrite he is, but not

with malicious intent. Falstaff seems to be a necessary counterbalance to Shakespeare's idealized

conception of what man can be, for he says, in effect, that all of us have foibles and weaknesses

which have to be recognized and freely admitted. Yet he exists side by side with characters who

embody Shakespeare's conception of our nobler capabilities. Falstaff exists in a sequence of

chronicle histories which includes such diverse characters as Richard II, Bolingbroke, Prince Hal,

and Hotspur, all of whom, in varying degrees, evoke feelings of sympathy, liking and admiration.

This means that there is a diversity and breadth to Shakespeare's view of life; he does indeed seem

to be championing many different points of view. Falstaff never seems to be in doubt. His opinions

are always fixed, dogmatic, argumentative and humorously sequential. His soliloquies tend to have

the “ring of sincerity” (125). Falstaff seems to be representative of the anti-king and anti-father,

standing for misrule as opposed to rule. It is no wonder why Hal is so attached to this one man.

Falstaff represents everything his father is not. He clings to Falstaff for fear of adopting the identity

of his father. Falstaff is unto himself, shaped like the globe and containing multitudes of

contradictions as the world itself does; fat and aging in body, but ever young in spirit and nimble in

wit; a shape-shifter in roles and poses, yet always inimitably himself; a man with a curiously

feminine sensual abundance. Though women are devoted to the fat knight, he cheats and deceives

them, giving his own deepest affections to a boy. It is no wonder then that, for Hal, Falstaff

incarnates his own rebellion against growing up into a problematic adult identity. One cannot deny

that Henry was truly Falstaff's friend. Though they shared quite a strange relationship, they both

understood each other in a way Hal's father could not have understood him. Yet, when Henry V
 Lynch 16

becomes King, he realizes that to remove himself even further from his father, he has to drop the

things of his past; Falstaff included. Partly, out of political necessity, Henry rejected the man who

truly loved him and in his place nurtured a viper. Henry realizes, unfortunately, that love and trust

has no place at court; it is only in battle that friendships between men can flourish even unto death.

Interpreters of the “Henry IV” plays divide into two camps; those who find Hal's rejection of

Falstaff a limitation of Hal's character and/or of Shakespeare's breadth of sympathy, and those who

justify it in terms of a moral theme unifying the plays. While Falstaff's rejection was really

necessary, the manner in which it was carried out is questionable. Yet, one can say that Henry, in an

attempt to not only rid himself of his past privately, had to do it in a public way so that the people

too will witness this grand change. This does not make Henry heartless but rather reveals his

insecurities and short-comings as a man. Henry cannot see beyond his quest of wanting to separate

himself from his father. Henry V only sees those that are in his way. Hal's rejection of Falstaff at the

end of the play has upset many of Shakespeare's warmest admirers, but his rejection should certainly

be interpreted as an indication of the extent to which the former Prince is willing to forego all his

youthful pleasures for the responsibilities of kingship, not the least of which is the maintenance of a

high reputation in the world's eyes (although he thus loses the esteem of many a modern reader). Hal

makes it clear that the opinion of the world is a matter that is of utmost concern to him. He tells

Falstaff: “Presume not that I am the thing I was; For God doth know (so shall the world perceive)

That I have turn'd away from my former self; So will I those that kept me company.” (5.5.60-63).

The new king is simply heeding the advice given him by his father in “Henry IV Part I”; he will not,

like Richard II, be “companion to the common streets” (3.2.68). Much as this rejection may lower

Hal in our opinion, it was necessary in order to prepare the Elizabethan audience for the royal

greatness of King Henry V, who, in the next play in this historical sequence, is to appear as

Shakespeare's most complete dramatic embodiment of the Renaissance kingly ideal.

Yet another way in which Henry V's internal conflict is made even more apparent is through the

recurring idea of the troubles of kingship. Readers or the audiences are ever so reminded of the fact

that behind the crown lies a man with actual feelings and true human inclinations. This is seen in the

motif of sleep and the lack thereof throughout the entire tetralogy. In fact, the invocation to sleep

gives rise to some of the noblest poetry in Shakespeare. For instance, there is Henry IV's majestic

and musical reverie in Henry IV Part II (III.I.5-30). The sad lot of the king, his inability to sleep and

to enjoy the life of the humble, is a favorite text for moralizing in the early work of Shakespeare.

From a King's trouble arises the question: 'why, what is pomp, rule, reign, but earth and dust? And,

live we how we can, yet die we must.” Ceremony, says Henry IV in striking phase, is the sole

distinction of the great. Like his father, Henry V laments the infinite heart-ease which “kings neglect

and private men enjoy.' The inability of majesty to sleep is a recurring idea within the tetralogy.

Both father and son deplore the inconsistency of Sleep in favoring the loathsome bed rather than the

kingly couch, but Henry the IV's imagination is stirred to the noblest utterance. In the rush of

metaphor attendant upon the vision of the sleeping sea boy, philosophizing is forgotten until the

concluding thought: “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.” It is unfair to give human, god-like

qualities and then measure them using a god-like scale. Henry V is not devoid of feeling or trouble.

He, too, faces the usual struggles of life which are amplified by him being king. Insecurities,

detachment from his own father and doubts are part of Henry V's experience but he is strong

because he fights to make himself a man know apart from that of his father and in a way he

succeeds. Henry V mingling unrecognized with his common soldiers just before a crucial battle is a

far cry from Henry IV hiding behind the many “counterfeit kings” marching in his coats at

Shrewsbury. The common humanity from which Hal seemed to exclude him by rejecting Falstaff

with neither love nor regret now inspires him to share both his fear and his courage with his men. He

does it by acting, not the image-building his father used to get the crown, but the self-expressive role
 Lynch 18

playing that he and Falstaff indulged in when they pretended to be king and each other. The topic of

Henry's conversation with the soldiers is the question of whether the king is morally responsible for

the deaths of those who fight in his wars. Hal's argument is earnest, and his logic convincing when

he says, “Every subject's duty is the king's; but every subject's soul is his own” (4.1.182-184)

However, he might as well add, “and every king's soul is not just his own, but his father's as well.”

When the soldiers leave, Hal delivers a long soliloquy that recapitulates and combines the major

motifs from two great speeches in Henry IV Part II: his father's meditation on sleep (3.1) and his

own on the crown (4.5). The theme of all three speeches can be stated as the ironic disparity

between the tangible majesties of kingship and its emotional burdens. Hal's soliloquy might be

uttered by any of Shakespeare's kings: as its truths are universal. But its context makes it a telling

comment in Hal's particular identity as king. Not only does it refer backward to the troubled

circumstances of Hal's succession to the throne but it also leads to the prayer in which he confesses

his fear that God will punish him for his father's crime by giving victory to the French: “Not today,

O Lord! O not today, think not upon the fault My father made in compassing the crown!” (4.1.298-

300). After 1599, the theme of unhappy majesty disappears from the Shakespearean soliloquy, and it

is succeeded in the next few years by occasional moralizing on love.

In conclusion both Henry V's internal conflict and the elements of characterization, setting,

language and genre work hand in hand to create a united dramatic piece, one assisting the other.

Therefore, Henry V's internal conflict is not only relevant in highlighting these various elements but

said elements are also relevant in presenting Henry V's internal conflict in a number of ways. As

was mentioned, a study on Henry V as a person cannot be carried out on a flat basis of good versus

evil. Rather, it is far more complex than this. Henry V's internal conflict must be studied in relation

to the environment and people around him. Firstly there's the relationship Henry V shares with his
 Lynch 19

father. Here Henry V is faced with the task of separating himself from that of his father as a means

of seeking individuality. Secondly, whether Hal was planning to reject Falstaff all along was also of

great significance for it does not reflect his brutality but rather his need to escape completely from

the past and all its associations. Henry V is not the brutal, Machiavellian king many critics make

him out to be. Rather, Henry V is just human, and as any human he is going through life, learning

and experience as he goes along.

Works Cited

Arnold, Morris LeRoy. The Soliloquies of Shakespeare. New York: AMS, 1965. Print.

Brown, Larry A. "Tragedy after Aristotle." (n.d.): n. pag. Web.

Cavanagh, Dermot, Stuart Hampton-Reeves, and Stephen Longstaffe. Shakespeare's Histories and

Counter-histories. Manchester, UK: Manchester UP, 2006. Print.

Cuddon, J. A., Claire Preston, and J. A. Cuddon. The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms and

Literary Theory. London: Penguin, 1999. Print.

Curtis Brown. Shakespeare and the Renaissance Concept of Honour. New Jersey: Princeton UP,

1960. Print.

Humes, James C. Citizen Shakespeare: A Social and Political Portrait. Westport, CT: Praeger,

1993. Print.

Kahn, Coppélia. Man's Estate: Masculine Identity in Shakespeare. Berkeley: University of

California, 1981. Print.

Mahood, M. M. Shakespeare's Wordplay. London: Methuen, 1957. Print.

Roberts, Edgar V., and Henry E. Jacobs. Literature: An Introduction to Reading and Writing. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1998. Print.

Rampaul, Giselle. “Henry V.” University of the West Indies. PowerPoint. 2013.

Rampaul, Giselle. “Shakespeare I.” University of the West Indies. PowerPoint. 2013.

Shakespeare, William, Joseph Quincy. Adams, Horace Howard. Furness, and Hyder Edward.
 Lynch 21

Rollins. Hamlet ; Vol. 1, Text. Philadelphia [u.a.: Lippincott, 1877. Print.

Shakespeare, William, and Roma Gill. Henry IV, Part 1. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1993. Print.

Shakespeare, William, and René Weis. Henry IV, Part 2. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. Print.

Solnit, Albert J., Peter B. Neubauer, Samuel Abrams, and A. Scott. Dowling. The Psychoanalytic

Study of the Child. New Haven: Yale UP, 1995. Print.

Tennenhouse, Leonard. Power on Display: The Politics of Shakespeare's Genres. New York:

Methuen, 1986. Print.