The Histories

The Histories: Tudor Propaganda
One of Shakespeare’s three distinct genres, the histories explain the history of the British, mostly during the War of the Roses. These histories can be compared to the action movies of today. Since these plays are based on actual historical figures, many question how accurate these plays are to the real history. Unlike real history however, Shakespeare’s historical characters differ in their persona corresponding to the time period Shakespeare was living in. Shakespeare lived during the Elizabethan era in Great Britain, during which Queen Elizabeth I ruled. Queen Elizabeth is from the house of Tudor, the house that ended up ruling Great Britain after the War of the Roses starting with the crowning of Henry VII, also known as Henry Tudor, also known as Richmond in Shakespeare’s play Richard III. In order to coincide with his country’s patriotic feelings and the British peoples’ feelings towards past kings, Shakespeare accordingly made characters to fit these needs. Richard III is portrayed as the ultimate evil, the ultimate snake in the grass; this power-hungry monster who will stop at nothing. On the other hand, Henry V is shown as a pious, righteous, and glorious leader who never shirked his kingly duties. Regardless of how these characters are viewed, however, Shakespeare excels at creating two highly dynamic, developed, and interesting characters. In these plays a lot of foreshadowing is hinted at since the people seeing these plays at the time already knew what was going to happen since this was their history. Even though these plays Shakespeare has written are slightly biased the character development is still very critical. For example in both Henry V and Richard III the actions of the main characters develop in intensity exponentially as the play progresses. While Richard is killing a king in the beginning, he then moves on to his brothers, the princes, and then to even his best friend, Buckingham. Henry V, however, is seen as being viewed by others as childish yet over the course through multiple tests of masculinity, he proves his kingship by the end of the play. It is this development of these well-known historical characters, whether they are fictitiously created or not, that gives the histories such literary acclaim.


* * *


Analysis:
In the plays Richard III and Henry V we are presented with two very different sides of the spectrum in terms of characters. Richard is truly the ultimate evil without a lack for morality. Meanwhile Henry is the embodiment of heroism and chivalry; of a true underdog. What really sets these two characters apart is power; how they use their kingly power and how they view it. In Richard’s case it is how he wants this power since he was only king for two years. In fact, Richard is only king halfway through act four and shortly after is killed in act five. Richard is utterly consumed by this lust, this yearning for power he so greatly wants. In his famous opening speech the audience is already shown how he justifies his reckless actions:

Richard: And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days.
Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous,
By drunken prophecies, libels and dreams,
To set my brother Clarence and the king
In deadly hate the one against the other:
And if King Edward be as true and just
As I am subtle, false and treacherous,
This day should Clarence closely be mew'd up,
About a prophecy, which says that 'G'
Of Edward's heirs the murderer shall be.
Dive, thoughts, down to my soul: here
Clarence comes.

This entire speech shows how Richard is driven to the point of madness over his desire for the crown. In fact, just from the beginning of the play we can see that he is willing to even kill his brothers, his own flesh and blood, just for one chance to have the power he so greatly desires. The reader can somewhat understand his plight; he is a lonely person, rather disfigured and discontent with himself. Yet it is from this uncontrollable aspect of his life that Richard decides that the only way to alleviate his pain is by becoming a villain; and this is where the perverse realms of Richard’s mind begin to take hold over him. By the end of the play Richard is seen as so inhuman due to his lack of humanity for the countless people, many who were close to him, that he murdered. In fact, what is paradoxical is how he has done so much for his kingly power yet in the heat of battle he would willingly give it all away just to save his own life. What is also paradoxical is how Richard embraces death, uses it as an instrument of self-fulfilling pleasure but when he faces death himself, he refuses to die.
Henry V, on the other hand, is the exact opposite of Richard. At the beginning of both plays both characters are seen as unfit to rule yet Henry has had this power thrust onto him from the very beginning. In fact, he really had no choice and now must face the world as a grown, mature individual. Henry had just as much potential to become Richard-esque yet he changes his ways from his youth as an immature boy to a powerful and courageous ruler. Unlike Richard, who desires the throne so much, Henry doesn’t use his position to flaunt his power or to feel like he has a legitimate purpose in the world. In fact it is Henry’s selflessness that makes him and Richard two completely different characters:

King Henry: I am a king that find thee, and I know
'Tis not the balm, the sceptre and the ball,
The sword, the mace, the crown imperial,
The intertissued robe of gold and pearl,
The farced title running 'fore the king,
The throne he sits on, nor the tide of pomp
That beats upon the high shore of this world,
No, not all these, thrice-gorgeous ceremony,
Not all these, laid in bed majestical,
Can sleep so soundly as the wretched slave,
Who with a body fill'd and vacant mind
Gets him to rest, cramm'd with distressful bread;
Never sees horrid night, the child of hell,
But, like a lackey, from the rise to set
Sweats in the eye of Phoebus and all night
Sleeps in Elysium; next day after dawn,
Doth rise and help Hyperion to his horse,
And follows so the ever-running year,
With profitable labour, to his grave:
And, but for ceremony, such a wretch,
Winding up days with toil and nights with sleep,
Had the fore-hand and vantage of 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.

While Richard envies those in power, Henry, in fact, envies the slave who has life easier than he does. Henry would give away all of his power to live a worry-free life but at the same time he realizes that his troops and all of Great Britain need him. From the beginning of the play others have told him he wasn’t fit to be king. The Dauphin of France even sends him tennis balls to make a statement on how immature he is. Many question his past where he affiliated himself with scoundrels such as Pistol and Bardolph; doubt hangs in the courtroom. It is this inner confrontation about whether he is worthy or not that plagues him throughout the entire play until he comes of age at the battle of Agincourt. It is this selfless behavior that sets apart Henry from Richard and shows Henry’s true colors. The desire for power and how these two characters handle it differently show Shakespeare’s biased history writings in full effect. Regardless, however, it is the dynamic development that makes the audience cheer at Richard’s death and shed tears of joy at Henry’s victory over France.


* * *


Reflection:
I found Shakespeare’s histories to be very intriguing. The astounding leap of character development from the comedies is what, to me, makes these plays astounding. In both plays the character development of Richard and Henry had me turning until the last page. I loved Richard’s character; the perfect epitome of a villain. Never before have I seen a character so ruthless and evil. It was this inherent evil that made the play so realistic; I truly could imagine in my head these events happening. On the other hand while Henry V is a little over-the-top in terms of the perfect hero, in character development we get to see some flaws he has in his character such as playing tricks on other people. I felt that both plays provided what I like to see in a piece of literature: real characters. Not cookie-cutter characters that remain the same but dynamic characters that have emotion (or in Richard’s case, a lack of emotion), that are biased, that react as a real person would. Overall I found Shakespeare’s histories an interesting look into his own twist on british history woth some extra drama thrown on for good measure.



It's a trap!!!!!!