Henry as the Machiavellian Prince?

Kenneth Branagh (who's work I most certainly am not a fan of) once said in an interview that a Machiavellian reading of the text is "shallow". And despite the fact that Branagh is of course heir to the throne of God, I'm going to have to disagree with him. Henry V is a total Machiavellian ruler. He manipulates his friends, toys with his enemies, understands the concept of correctly capturing new territory, and is a master general, something Machiavelli said was what every ruler should be. Does anyone agree/disagree? I'd love to get your thoughts on this one.

I have qualms with Branagh, but I have to agree with him here.

A traditional view of Henry V (as Shakespeare would have inherited) was a Machiavellian-like one. He inherited a usurped crown and needed to both prove himself as the great Christian rightful king, and as a powerful king (due to the fact that the kingdom was crumbling at the end of Henry IV's reign.) And this comes across in Shakespeare's version, as you highlight above.

If Henry V was written by a lesser writer, he would have been straight Machiavellian. But the amazing thing about Shakespeare's histories is that he takes the historic figures and splits them between how they are typically presented and how he presents him. The duality in Henry V really comes across in the figure of the chorus, who, when not muttering about the impurities of the stage, presents the traditional views of the Great Henry V. However, when we see Henry interact on stage, he is far less confident, for less heroic than we are made to believe. Look at the beginning few scenes of Act IV for a good example of this. At times he bumbles his way through arguments, he messes up around Katherine - he is still the Hal of 1 Henry IV. At other times, he is the great Prince.

So yes, there is a Machiavellian aspect to Henry V, but this is only one side of him. There was a critic who compared the figure of Henry to this image

http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=h...9QEwAQ&dur=548

You can only see one at a time, but they are both there.

I just have to disagree with you. But mostly, like all Shakespeare, the interpretation is based on the reading. In Branagh's film adaptation, we are supposed to almost pity Henry when he takes Harfleur. Beaten and bloodied, he kind of just staggers into the town. However, if you've read The Prince (which you probably have, because you seem like a well-read, intelligent person), Henry follows most of Machiavelli's ideas.

Until he around Catherine or in disguise. Until he is himself. I'm not saying he is not Machiavellian but there is more to him than this. If you follow his journey from 1 Henry IV he is worthy of some pity. But yes Branagh does ham things up as he is wont to do.

When he is around Catherine he does exactly the kind of things that Machiavelli would've proscribed; he marries nobility in a newly conquered territory, which would therefore cement his right to rule.

You are confusing his actions with how he acts. His actions (as in, the things he does) are very Machiavellian. But his speeches, and his words, contradict his acts or what he says. It is as if there is a path set before him (prescribed by history) but he doesn't always seem to realize what he is doing. So yes, he "marries nobility in a newly conquered territory"(very Machiavellian), but his scenes with Catherine don't portray the confident man conquering the captured lady: he comes across more like the helpless romantic here.

I'm not going to address this subject and get entangled. But how can anyone separate his actions from how he acts? How could that be done without a bipolar form of schism.

No, I understand what he's saying; a person's action could give a deeper insight to their actual feelings or motives. However, I still feel that even his actions contribute to my theory. See especially his conversation with the Archbishop.

In response to cafolini: that's why I mentioned the duck/rabbit theory. There are two sides to Henry, but you can only see one at a time. The duck/rabbit is not both a duck and a rabbit, it is one or the other. When Henry is the duck (arbitrary designation) he is the Machiavellian king that history, the chorus, and his charted course make him out to be. When he is the rabbit, he is the bumbling romantic who is very unsure of himself and his cause. Shakespeare never allows us to settle on one side of Henry: Henry is so entrenched in his own propaganda that it has become his second self - but it is not, at the core, who he is.

See, I wouldn't necessarily say he's a bumbling romantic. All of his conversations are like a chess game, and he is very calculated in what he chooses to say, as well as how he allows others to see him.

Best considers it as a Christian king at Church' service, as Canterbury puts it:

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.
(1.1)

The force that makes Shakespeare's plays are timeless is its ability to adapt to cultural, political and religious contexts of the world, Henry V became the most popular of stories in the twentieth and twenty-first century because of its universal theme (war), allusions to the Iraq War where Banks (replacing the Church) finance the war and make the head of a charismatic and proud leader (as Coriolanus), make their plays immortal, almost like Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet.