Henry V's Dual Character: Hero and Manipulator in Shakespeare

Introduction: A King of Two Faces

In Henry V by William Shakespeare, two truly dichotomous portraits are created of the king's character. In one sense, he is portrayed as a unanimously honored king — one of the most remarkable leaders in England's history — aptly painted as a revered and conquering hero, beloved and appreciated by all. Yet the other portrayal is drastically distinct, coloring the king as a manipulative, Machiavellian leader who used his cunning rhetoric and the "singing violin" of his speech to push his men into dangerous, irresponsible battle for little other than personal glory. Shakespeare's characterization of King Henry is both complex and morally ambiguous, as several critics have observed. This paper argues that the fundamental tension in the king's character is that he is a chameleon with a number of different personalities, adept at cunningly altering his persona and the manner in which he interacts with people, strictly dependent on the situation and his personal interests at any given moment.

As one scholar remarks, "The young king is a more complex person than he at first appears. There are many instances throughout the play where he shows himself to be a model king. His dignity stands out by comparison with the boastful, vain, and foolish French" (Mulherin, 28). At the opening of the play, that is at least the impression given of the young king; however, the careful reader must keep in mind that it is actually nothing more than an impression — there is no real substance behind it.

As the Archbishop of Canterbury remarks:

The courses of his youth promised it not.
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 whipp'd the offending Adam out of him,
Leaving his body as a paradise,
To envelop and contain celestial spirits. (I.i.62–69)

This excerpt is entirely revelatory, as it creates a strong impression of the young king as a virtuous and practically angelic ruler. However, the careful reader will recognize that people simply do not transform overnight in such stark and deliberate ways. Even though the Archbishop of Canterbury suggests that the wildness in the young king seemed to die when his father did, a more discerning reader will remain suspicious of such an alleged overnight transformation. One should be even more suspicious of the vocabulary chosen to describe the young king; he is painted in terms that are almost completely angelic and celestial. Nevertheless, the duality inherent in the young king's personality — the fracture in his character — becomes readily apparent as the play progresses. The king is well versed in sly and cunning rhetoric and uses it as a powerful tool to manipulate people at will and to achieve his own personal agenda.

Henry's Rhetoric and the Exploitation of Patriotism

In Act III, before the walls of Harfleur, King Henry delivers one of the most famous speeches in the play, and perhaps one of the most famous speeches in all of Shakespeare's work. Even so, this speech — however noble the words may seem on the page or on the stage — is actually an exercise in the shrewdest form of manipulation. From his opening plea of "Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more," Henry unifies his men for his cause (III.i.1). To be clear, this is his cause and not theirs; it is in his personal interest to vindicate his own ego that he encourages them to go into battle once more. He is able, however, to camouflage his vested interests, making the stakes at hand seem like a communal cause. This is first accomplished by exploiting the notion of patriotism.

Henry's exploitation of patriotism is a two-part process: first, he exalts all things English, and then he compels his soldiers to prove that they are worthy Englishmen. This is extremely clever and calculating. By revering all things English and creating a sense of zeal and intense national pride, Henry sets the bar extremely high, leaving it to the soldiers to prove that they are worthy. In reminding his men of their warlike ancestors and great historical battles, he attempts to rouse a passionate nationalist fervor and a sense of pride in their glorious heritage. There develops a strong implication that if these men want to do their noble heritage any justice, they must live up to it — and thus they must fight.

Second, Henry takes a non-traditional democratic stance, expressing an egalitarian view of fighting in battle by saying that every soldier is as good as a nobleman: "For there is none of you so mean and base / That hath not noble lustre in your eyes" (III.i.29–30). With these words, Henry endows his men with an elevated stature, hoping to compel them to act in an elevated manner. This is a truly crafty way to provoke his men to fight, as the king is essentially eliminating the rigid class levels of society in one swift stroke. The king — their trusted leader — is telling them what they have always wanted to hear: there is no difference between them and a nobleman. The one thing they must do to prove this true is to fight.

Another shrewd manner in which King Henry compels his men to fight is by presenting himself as one who truly does not wish them to. All parties are aware of the realities of war — pain, separation, injury, and death. Given these tragedies, Henry cunningly presents himself as a fundamentally peaceful king who has been forced into making war. He appears not to want to risk the lives of his men or plunge his nation into chaos, but claims his hand has been forced. This is of course completely hypocritical, given that Henry is the one who is invading France — thus negating the "modest stillness and humility" he claims to prize (III.i.4). Still, one can argue that Henry V does not celebrate war so much as it celebrates Henry and his skillful political ability, which happens to involve using war to achieve his desired ends.

The reader knows with certainty, however, that King Henry is decidedly not a peaceful king. Henry is capable of appearing peaceful, but his actions consistently demonstrate a completely different sort of ruler. King Henry condemns Bardolph to death with apparent coldness. Gone is the self-professed sense of mercy with which Henry releases the treasonous drunkard in Act II, scene ii. His decree that "[w]e would have all such offenders so cut off" — meaning that all looters should be hanged — shows just how severe a man Henry has become (III.vi.98). In this instance, King Henry is entirely cut off from compassion and mercy because, in that moment, such qualities do not suit his purposes.

Religion as a Tool of Manipulation

Some scholars are insufficiently aware of the shrewd manipulation present in the young king's actions and take them at face value. "At Agincourt, he [King Henry] shares the anxieties of the common soldiers but his genuine courage and heroism inspire them to victory" (Mulherin, 28). This is a far too facile approach and a sweeping interpretation of the text — one which is less than accurate, particularly when one examines the exact words the young king chooses:

Gloucester, 'tis true that we are in great danger;
The greater therefore should our courage be.
Good morrow, brother Bedford. God Almighty!
There is some soul of goodness in things evil,
Would men observingly distil it out.
For our bad neighbour makes us early stirrers,
Which is both healthful and good husbandry:
Besides, they are our outward consciences,
And preachers to us all, admonishing
That we should dress us fairly for our end.
Thus may we gather honey from the weed,
And make a moral of the devil himself. (IV.i.1843–1854)

The words chosen by the young king do not reflect "genuine courage and heroism" meant to inspire others to victory, as Mulherin concludes, but rather a shrewd and calculating strategy to ensure that his troops continue to behave like carefully manipulated puppets. King Henry acknowledges the extreme danger and then makes the entire mission seem as if it is a holy one. Lest any of his troops run off in fear or refuse to fight, the king instills the idea that the work they are doing is actually God's work — so holy as to be practically divine. They are all tasked with the mission of destroying evil and giving their enemies a lesson in morality. This is simply a strategic way of ensuring that none of the soldiers back down, since the implied message is powerful: if any soldier retreats, he will have God to answer to, for what he refused to engage in was a holy mission.

It would be a mistake to interpret these actions as signs that Henry is more religious or devout than other kings. However, some scholars repeatedly make this mistake. As one argues, "In addition to being Godlike, like Moses or Joshua or Saul, the King claims God's authorization and backing for what he does. The Archbishops assert that 'God and his angels guard your sacred throne.' As opposed to the French who only use God's name to swear, Henry continually invokes His help and blessing, and his war cry in battle is 'God for Harry, England and St. George' (3.1.34). Specific Biblical references and proof texts are offered as justification for his decisions" (Marx). This is an overly superficial reading of the text. The fact that the young king invokes God and uses the Bible as justification for his actions does not make him a religious and virtuous man. King Henry engages in these invocations of God in a public and performative way — not from a genuine desire to communicate with the divine. As already discussed, the young king's speech before Harfleur, which ends with "God for Harry, England and St. George," is one of the most manipulative pieces of rhetoric in the entire play. Invoking God and the saints does not make him a devout king but a strategic one who clearly understands how to sway his men into doing exactly what he wants.

Conclusion: Shakespeare's Morally Ambiguous King

In conclusion, Henry V presents one of the most fascinating characters that literature has ever produced: a truly nuanced figure. On the one hand, Shakespeare portrays King Henry as England's virtuous, conquering hero, bravely leading his men to God-sanctioned victory over French aristocrats. At the same time, the king is a Machiavellian operator who manipulates his men through rhetoric and other means to accomplish personal glory on the battlefield and an expansion of his power. Some scholars become preoccupied with attempting to determine who the "real" King Henry is, when in reality it is far more likely that the king, as an entirely public figure, possesses a profound duality of character. He is simultaneously the benevolent, God-fearing king who wishes to inspire his people and the shady politician who shirks responsibility and thinks nothing of threatening others with bloodshed and utter destruction.

Works Cited

Corrigan, P. Shakespeare on Management: Leadership Lessons for Today's Managers. Dover: Kogan Page Limited, 1999. Print.

Garber, M. Shakespeare and Modern Culture. New York: Random House, 2008. Print.

Marx, Steven. "Holy War in Henry Fifth." English Department. Web. 25 Apr. 2013.

Mulherin, J. Henry V. Slough: Evans Brothers, 2001. Print.

Olivier, R. Inspirational Leadership: Timeless Insights from Shakespeare's Greatest. Boston: Nicholas Brealey Publishing, 2013. Print.

Popescu, O.A. "Henry V: The Machiavellian Production of an Ideal King." University Review, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2013.

Shakespeare, W. "History of Henry V." Open Source Shakespeare. George Mason University, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2013.

Wikander, M.H. Fangs of Malice: Hypocrisy, Sincerity, and Acting. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2002. Print.