Notesale: Turn your study into money

Document Preview

Extracts from the notes are below, to see the PDF you'll receive please use the links above

---

Hannah Wilson-Bettis
B321231

Tuesday, 18 March 2014

Writing in History – Formative Assignment 2
This essay consisting of a critical analysis of Henry V, especially of Act IV, Scene III
is a highly historical analysis
...
Throughout their criticism, the critic draws upon historical,
dramatic, political and social elements in order to effectively analyse both Henry V as a
character, and a play, specifically Henry’s famous speech in Act IV Scene III
...

A negative feature of the critics approach is their writing style
...
Phrases just as ‘so much for pragmatism’ and ‘the yawns and groans
that will greet another recitation of Grandad’s war stories’ breathe into the essay a
conversational tone, that might be refreshing and engaging had the remainder of the essay
not been so deeply rooted in historicism
...
However, the critic mentions that Henry’s speech consists of a
‘deliberate misrepresentation of the king’s military strategy’
...
This approach is therefore problematic because it detracts from
the dramatic values of this section
...
They see the battle of Agincourt which Henry is facing as a practical problem
rather than an important event within the play
...


1

Hannah Wilson-Bettis
B321231

Tuesday, 18 March 2014

Writing in History – Formative Assignment 2
This explores Henry’s speech as a propagandist tool rather than a dramatic display of
heroism
...
In which case, Shakespeare was portraying correct historical
information as far as he could
...

At the start of the passage, the critic mentions the king as ‘an actor’, criticising
Shakespeare’s character as disingenuous
...
Even into modern
times, the monarch is doubtlessly the biggest role model to their countrymen, and therefore
they are required to assume the ideal emotions
...
From one perspective, the critic assists the reader in seeing the multiple sides
of Henry, enlightening his ever-shifting persona and the impossibility of some of the claims
he makes in his famous speech in Act IV Scene 3
...
As far as
history is concerned, we shall never know if the character Shakespeare portrays is accurate,
as Henry V was two centuries before Shakespeare’s time, and as aforementioned, the heavy
censorship in the 15th century would have prevented his true personality from being public
knowledge
...
The feudal
relationship Henry has with his soldiers is compared to a ‘soon-abandoned propaganda
poster of the Second World War’, highlighting the blatant indoctrination of the soldiers’ minds
2

Hannah Wilson-Bettis
B321231

Tuesday, 18 March 2014

Writing in History – Formative Assignment 2
and again, showing Henry in the opposite way Shakespeare intended: as a villain
...
This insight into Shakespeare’s writing could be
useful in dissecting Henry personality as a fictional character; however, it could be
problematic in the sense that it hinders the momentum and direction of the play as a whole
...
This statement pulls the clash between history
and literature further into the foreground
...
Especially due to the lower-class soldiers being men of the land, who would still have to
provide for the kingdom post-war as feudal laws stated at the time
...
For those with little knowledge of social and political norms
of the fifteenth century, the critic here highlights crucial information to aid wider
understanding of the play
...
They state that
Shakespeare ‘would not be so rash as to portray a national hero shirking a fight’
...
It
shows the play as it is: a work to entertain, not to make a political statement despite the
politics surrounding it
...
This adds to the critics heavy base in
historicism and makes the essay more rounded, essentially being incredibly useful to the
reader
...
They do take on a
highly factual approach for most of the criticism, however, they also drop in opinions such as
stating that Henry is ‘still uncomfortable with his position at the head of the army’ right before
he is about to give his speech and go into battle
...
This is problematic as it could be
misleading to a reader and, in theory, restricts further speculation about Henry’s state of
mind and the reasons Shakespeare chose to put his heroic speech immediately after this
apparent uncertainty
...
Most of what they are
analysing is considered the greatest speech in the play, and possibly one of Shakespeare’s
most famous verses
...

Overall, this makes this critical analysis of Henry V problematic because it does not give
enough credit to its literary merit
...
Its unwavering attention on the
speech Henry gives in Act IV Scene III does nothing to further the readers’ understanding of
the play as a whole
...
Kiernan, Victor, Shakespeare: Poet and Citizen (London: Verso, 1993) pp

---