Shakespearean Histories

Part A

Passage/Language Comparison Analysis

One of the major aspects of a Shakespearean History is the use of a soliloquy or an aside to allow the main character to profess his or her true emotions to the audience. In both "Richard III" and "Henry V", Shakespeare utilizes a soliloquy or brilliant speech to show the main characters' true colors. It is interesting to examine the contrasting speeches and to determine how Shakespeare uses language to potray Richard and Henry in different ways via the use of the same device.

Henry V

"We are glad the Dauphin is so pleasant with us;
His present and your pains we thank you for:
When we have march'd our rackets to these balls,
We will, in France, by God's grace, play a set
Shall strike his father's crown into the hazard.
Tell him he hath made a match with such a wrangler
That all the courts of France will be disturb'd
With chaces. And we understand him well,
How he comes o'er us with our wilder days,
Not measuring what use we made of them.
We never valued this poor seat of England;
And therefore, living hence, did give ourself
To barbarous licence; as 'tis ever common
That men are merriest when they are from home.
But tell the Dauphin I will keep my state,
Be like a king and show my sail of greatness
When I do rouse me in my throne of France:
For that I have laid by my majesty
And plodded like a man for working-days,
But I will rise there with so full a glory
That I will dazzle all the eyes of France,
Yea, strike the Dauphin blind to look on us.
And tell the pleasant prince this mock of his
Hath turn'd his balls to gun-stones; and his soul
Shall stand sore charged for the wasteful vengeance
That shall fly with them: for many a thousand widows
Shall this his mock mock out of their dear husbands;
Mock mothers from their sons, mock castles down;
And some are yet ungotten and unborn
That shall have cause to curse the Dauphin's scorn.
But this lies all within the will of God,
To whom I do appeal; and in whose name
Tell you the Dauphin I am coming on,
To venge me as I may and to put forth
My rightful hand in a well-hallow'd cause.
So get you hence in peace; and tell the Dauphin
His jest will savour but of shallow wit,
When thousands weep more than did laugh at it.
Convey them with safe conduct. Fare you well" (1.1)

Richard III

"He cannot live, I hope; and must not die
Till George be pack'd with post-horse up to heaven.
I'll in, to urge his hatred more to Clarence,
With lies well steel'd with weighty arguments;
And, if I fall not in my deep intent,
Clarence hath not another day to live:
Which done, God take King Edward to his mercy,
And leave the world for me to bustle in!
For then I'll marry Warwick's youngest daughter.
What though I kill'd her husband and her father?
The readiest way to make the wench amends
Is to become her husband and her father:
The which will I; not all so much for love
As for another secret close intent,
By marrying her which I must reach unto.
But yet I run before my horse to market:
Clarence still breathes; Edward still lives and reigns:
When they are gone, then must I count my gains" (1.1)

In the two speeches above, Shakespeare utilizes the soliloquy to show the evil inside of Richard versus the courage and resolve of Henry. In Richard's quote, he frequently refers to death. He is planning to kill off his brother Clarence, and he wants to profess it to someone. By speaking to the audience, Richard can reveal all his secrets and let the audience in on what is in store for the rest of the play. Richard's speech paints a dark picture for those listening, and it is interesting to see what Richard is willing to do behind other people's backs to get ahead. Henry, conversely, is willing to do what it takes to conquer and ascend the throne in France, but he is portrayed as a character who will do it the "just" way. Several times in his motivational speech the word pleasant is invoked; the diction in Henry's speeches is more positive than in Richard's. As Henry talks, he openly warns France to watch out for him; unlike Richard, Henry is shown as brave enough to announce his plan to the world. It is interesting to compare the two previous speeches and to note their similar purposes while recognizing the differences between the two English rulers.

Part B

Commentary on the Genre

Shakespeare's histories are interesting in that they are based on real people and real events in history. One aspect of his histories is the ongoing "War of the Roses" between the houses of Lancaster and York. The conflict between the two houses is an interesting study, and it must have had an effect on Shakespeare's writings. Histories also seem to be more flexible than comedies. Comedies have a set formula that works well for them whereas histories seem to vary. For example, in "Richard III" Richard is potrayed as an evil monster who will stop at nothing to get the crown. The whole tone of the play is dark and full of despair. In "Henry V", however, Henry is shown as a great man who, despite his assault on France, has behaved in ways that a king should. He gives motivational speeches and rallies his men behind him in ways that Richard cannot dream of. The fact that both these plays are considered histories while being written with such different intentions shows the versatility of the genre.

Part C

Personal Reflection

I personally enjoyed reading the histories "Richard III" and "Henry V". I found the contrast in characters fascinating. It was interesting to transition from the evil Richard to a considerably more gentle Henry. Most will not admit it, but it is enjoyable to read about others doing evil things that we would never imagine doing. When Richard decides to murder his brother, it is shocking and difficult to understand. The challenge Shakespeare presents the reader is getting inside the characters' heads. I found it particularly challenging to relate to Richard at all, which is why I found it most intriguing. In "Henry V", I found a big change in tone. Henry speaks in a style unlike Richard. Anything Richard would say has beeen completely switched around. The comparison between the two Englishmen made my experience more enjoyable and meaningful. Having read them together I found a greater understanding of the genre and its purpose.