Shakespeare wrote both tragedies and comedies, with the tragedies including highly comic scenes and dark subjects. Shakespeare's history play includes both comedy and tragedy along with drama that is typically composed for a general audience with entertainment as its primary goal. Shakespeare's writing has been divided up by academics into a variety of categories, including the Romans and problems as well as the comedy, history, and tragedy sections.(Burnett, 2015, p. 11). Since the historians can be more accurate in the English History show business, which includes outliers, the histories in conjunction with current Renaissance dramatists aid in the definition of genre history plays. like King John as well as King Henry 8. Moreover, there is a continuous series of eight dramas which cover the war of roses with the last being considered to be made of two cycles.
There are several plays which contain a historical element especially the Roman Plays which many scholars do not refer to historical. For instance; Julius Caesar, Coriolanus together with Antony and Cleopatra are not considered as history plays. Ten plays that talk about the history of English that was written in the period between 12th and 16th century can be referred to as history plays as well as the ones written in the period around 1399 to 1485 in particular(Hertel, 2014, p. 13). The plays are usually named after the reigning sovereign with the focus being placed on the leadership of the period they were written. The plays can be chronologically arranged in order though Shakespeare did not assume the arrangement while writing them. The dramatizations cover five generations that were characterized by medieval supremacy struggle since in most of the parts they usually depict a century that was associated with war in France during the reign of King Henry V up to Joan of Arc in addition to the War of the Roses which entailed the Lancaster and the York.
The history plays were imagination works of art that are loosely based on Historical figures due to the fact that Shakespeare used to be a keen reader in history matter which motivated him to view the dramatic impact caused by historical events and characters. In the present day, the historical figures are described according to the Shakespeare’s definition like for instance; he describes Richard III as a very evil person who was a psychopath with deformed body parts that made him bear a grudge with the human race. Despite efforts placed by various historians to describe Richard as a different person, Shakespeare’s Richard remains to be stuck in the current culture as the real personality. King Henry V together with Prince Hal is described by Shakespeare as perfect kingship models which come after the education gained through indulgence during the misspent youth thus turning out to be perfect human beings. These can be attributed to the fact that Shakespeare chose to describe the kings using good qualities and themes since his intention was to develop a dramatic story to be presented to the public(Burnett, 2015, p. 13). The admired discernment of medieval history that has been described throughout the reign of these rulers is the work of Shakespeare. This has led to the consumption of the entire Shakespeare’s vision since Henry IV would have a different perception in the present day. In his play, Shakespeare attempts to point out important features which could be memorable to the leader thus creating a momentous historical figure.
The Life and Death of King John
The initial folio of Shakespeare’s work is listed according to the series of actions that occurred rather than the composition order of specific plays whereby short forms of the full titles are utilized. King John history play is the first work done by Shakespeare whereby a dramatization of the King’s reign who ruled England since 1199 up to 1216. The play was written in mid-1590s although the publication of the First folio took place in 1623. The king has been generally considered as one of the weaker efforts that were done by Shakespeare(Hertel, 2014, p. 16). The king received an ambassador who came from France with claims that pain caused by war could cause the renouncing of John’s throne in favor of Arthur who was his nephew. King Philip from France believed that Arthur was the rightful heir of the leadership despite King John adjudicating the inheritance argument between Robert Falconbridge and Philip who was a bastard brother. During this period, it became evident that Philip was not the legitimate son of King Richard since Queen Eleanor was the mother of both John and Richard. King John, therefore, recognized the resemblance that reigned in the family which made him suggest that he would forsake his initial claims of taking over the land of Falconbridge in exchange for the knighthood.
King Philip together with his forces laid siege to Angier town which was ruled by English men whereby he threatened to attack if at all the citizens did not support Arthur. Austria supported the claims since they believed that Philip took part in the murder of King Richard. As a result, King John together with Philip arrived in Angier to stake their claims whereby they found no one expects the representatives who stated that they would offer support to the lawful king. This led to the crash of armies but to the disappointment of the two kings, there was no victor thus each army dispatched an indication to claim victory. The citizens of Angier continued to decline the recognition of the two claimed kings since there is no army that had emerged victorious. Later on, King Philip came up with a suggestion that both England and France should unite in order to punish the citizens of Angier whereby he came up with a proposition that his son Louis should marry Blanche who was John’s niece(Bickley, 2016, p. 21). This gave King John a stronger allege over that throne while Louis took over the French territory despite the Constance accusations towards Philip who had abandoned Arthur after Blanche and Louis got married.
Meanwhile, Cardinal Pandolf arrived from Italy whereby he came with accusations that John had contravened with the will of the Pope and as a result, he appointed an archbishop who was not desired by John. The King refused to repudiate and as a result, there was a miscommunication with the Cardinal and as a result, he was forced to pledge for support from the Louis although Philip was still hesitant since he had created family ties with King John. Pandolf brought around King John by pointing out that he had old and firm links with the church. War broke out under the leadership of Philip which targeted Austria in with an aim of avenging for Richard which led to the capturing of both Arthur and Angier by England(Quarmby, 2012, p. 19). Eleanor took charge of all the possessions that were in France while Philip went to collect fund in various monasteries that were under the English rule. John reacted by ordering Hubert to murder Arthur while Pandolf suggested to Louis that he was supposed to claim the throne of England from Arthur which led to England’s invasion.Hubert did not manage to kill Arthur as per king Johns wish and this led to the nobles led by the King to urge for the release of Arthur from custody. John agreed with the nobles after Hubert had lied to him about the death of Arthur which even the nobles believed thus defecting to the side of Louis. Later on, Philip returned with the report that the monasteries were unhappy with the attempts of John to seize their treasures. Meanwhile, Hubert found himself in a livid argument with John whereby he was forced to reveal that Arthur was still alive and to his surprise, it appeared to delight John in that he sent Hubert to break the news to the nobles.
Arthur died while attempting to jump from the wall of a castle although it is not clear whether it was suicide or he was just trying to escape. This made the nobles to believe that John had murdered Arthur which made them decline all the entreaties made by Hubert. As a way of reconciling with the French, John attempted to seal a deal with the Cardinal through swearing an oath of commitment to the Pope and in turn, Pandolf would negotiate with the French. This was followed by the appointment of the bastard to lead the army of England and after the cardinal had failed to convince Louis, there arose a great battle which recorded a high number of fatalities on both sides. Louis suffered a major blow after a ship carrying his soldiers capsized in the sea thus weakening his forces(Bickley, 2016, p. 23). As a result, the English noblemen resolved to serve King John after rumors started spreading on how Louis had planned to murder them soon after he conquered England. A discontented monk later poisoned John which made his nobles to congregate around him while he died. All through, the bastard was planning for the final attack towards the army of Louis but his plans were cut short by a peace treaty that was brought by Pandolf. As a result, the noblemen from England resolved to take an oath of allegiance to Prince Henry who was John’s son which taught the bastard that internal squabbling can be as dangerous to England territory since it could also lead to foreign invasion.
King Richard II
King Richard II is among the history plays done by Shakespeare around 1595 which is mainly based on the life of the king who rules in England in the period between 1377 up to 1399. The initial play done by Shakespeare was to as Henriad as defined by scholars and it fell under the first segment of the tetralogy. The play mainly focuses on the last two years of the King Richard’s reign which was around 1398 up to 1400(Hertel, 2014, p. 24). In the first act, Richard was majestically seated on his throne where he was supposed to resolve a conflict between his cousin Henry Bolingbroke who later was recognized as Henry V and Thomas Mowbray. Thomas was accusing Henry of reckless use of money that Richard had given him to cater for the soldiers in addition to the issue of murdering the Duke of Gloucester who was Henry’s Uncle. The first Duke of Lancaster was known as John of Gaunt who was also Henry’s father who believed that Richard was responsible for the death of his brother. After numerous efforts to reconcile the two men, Richard agreed on resolving the matter in a recognized manner whereby the two men were supposed to engage in a battle trail despite objections that were forwarded by the first Duke.
The battle used to be an extremely formal event which was characterized by a long ceremonial opening. Before the combatants could engage in the battle, Richard interrupted resolving that the two men were supposed to be banned from England with Henry being specifically sentenced to a ten years permanent ban. The decision was highly opposed with some citizens viewing it as the commencing fault which was later followed by a series of many other that led to the eventual overthrowing as well as his death due to the many flaws that were displayed(Hertel, 2014, p. 27). For instance, the king displayed the features of indecisiveness whereby he was not sure whether to let the dual engage in a fight or not as well as uncertainty since he did not define the way he had allowed Henry to return while leaving Thomas behind after the ban ended. In addition, the king displayed the character of abruptness since he waited until the last moment so that he could stop the tournament which was highly expected. Richard’s decisions failed to dismiss the uncertainties that revolved around his contribution towards the death of Gloucester. Richard appeared to be guiltier after he failed to offer a logical explanation following his judgment in addition together with the mishandling of situations which were supposed to be handled with caution.
After the death of the First Duke, Richard II decided to seize all the land and money he owned and as a result, the nobility became very angered thus accusing the King of misusing England’s money. The noblemen also accused Richard of taxing the common citizens as well as taking all the money belonging to Gaunt so as to fund a war that was going on in Ireland. Richard had started fining the nobility if at all their ancestors had committed any crime. Therefore, the noblemen decided to assist Henry to return to the country from Ireland with an aim of overthrowing Richard from power. Henry’s quest faced an opposition challenge which was portrayed by the faithful nobles such as Bagot, Bushy, and the Duke of Aumerle who was their cousin(Bickley, 2016, p. 25). Richard II left England to go to Ireland were war was taking place and it is during this time that Henry decided to grab the opportunity and assemble an army which invaded the northern coast of England. In order to capture the region, he was forced to execute both Green and Bushy thus overthrowing the Duke of York who had been left in charge while Richard was away.
When Richard came back from Ireland, Henry claimed his throne as well as all his land and property since he had already crowned himself the King title of Henry IV. He put Richard under custody and placed him as a prisoner in Pomfret castle which led to the formation of a rebellion which was led by Aumerle. York discovered the plans of his son and immediately reported the matter to Henry who opted to forgive him after the Duchess had intervened during the capital punishment of other conspirators. King Henry IV lived in fear of Richard who was alive in prison and as a result, a determined nobleman known as Exton got in the prison and murdered Richard(Bickley, 2016, p. 28). After the murder of the former king, Henry renounced the act and as a way of cleansing, he decided to undertake a journey to Jerusalem.
King Henry IV
The King lived an unquiet life since the usurpation of Richard II was expected to be solved after he had held a crusade in the holy land although the riots that were happening in the Scottish and the Wales borders could not facilitate the act. Additionally, Henry had increased odds in his relationship with the Percy family who played a great role in his ascent to the throne despite their close ties with Edmund Mortimer who was the rightful heir of Richard’s position. Hal was the son of King Henry and he played the role of the Prince in Wales increased the troubles of his father after he opted to forsake the royal court by referring to it as a waste of time since he was supposed to associate with a low profile company. This made him a scorn object to the nobility who raised a question about the worth of the Royal jury. Hal was being influenced by a corrupt, old and drunkard friend who was known as John Falstaff who lived a low life. His personality influenced the life of the prince in that it captivated him to ignore the important things in life including ignoring and despising them(Shakespeare, 2016, p. 45).
The play was characterized by three major groups who were brought together by Shrewsbury battle which would determine the success of the rebel group. One group was made up of the King together with his council who played the key role in the play in the background. The other group consisted of the rebels who were vigorously personified in Henry Percy with the Northumberland Earl being led by Thomas Percy. Later on Douglas, the Scottish Earl, Owen Glendower, and Edmund Mortimer joined forces in strengthening the opposition(Quarmby, 2012, p. 34). The final group was made up of Price Hal together with his allies like Falstaff, Peto, Poins, and Bardolph who were streetwise with pound foolishness which made the group smear over the historical grim using comedy colors.
The play commences with the King being angered by Henry Percy who is also known as Hotspur who denied the king to take an appropriate action to the prisoners who had been captured due to their actions that were against the Scots in Holmedon. Hotspur demanded a ransom from the king whereby he needed his wife’s brother to be released from Glendower by the Welshman who had captured him. Henry refused to comply with seeing the loyalty portrayed by Mortimer and instead, he started to treat Hotspur with the rudeness which was accompanied by threats(Shakespeare, 2016, p. 67). This made Percy and his supporters to be alarmed by the king’s dangerous way of treating them in that they decided to proceed and come up with common cases which involved the Scots and the Welsh. This was intended to overthrow King Henry IV since the second act of rebellion was meant to ingrate and conquer his leadership.
All through, Prince Hal was drinking, joking and stealing together with his associates whereby he personally admired Falstaff and pretended to be like him through his actions. The prince was thrilled by insulting a depraved friend by making a sport that resembled him which was a plot by Poins to masquerade themselves in order to rob and frighten Falstaff. They conducted highway robberies which were meant for fun and as a result, they made Falstaff suffer only for Hal to intervene and return the robbed goods(Burnett, 2015, p. 47). Hal believed that his chance will come whereby he will be in a position to take over the King’s position through showing his worth by exploiting unspecified nobles. His sudden change in behavior was meant to attract greater rewards as well as receiving acknowledgments for his role as a prince thus earning respect from the royal court members.
Mortimer rebellion which was facilitated by Hotspur gave them a chance through the coming together of both the high and the low people in the society which made the prince to consult his father to be given a high command. Hal vowed to his father that he would battle all the rebels against Henry’s leadership starting with Hotspur by ordering Falstaff to lead a group of soldiers that would battle at Shrewsbury. The battle was very important due to the fact that rebels could gain a standoff which would be accompanied by great riches in addition to other powers that were pending under Northumberland, Mortimer, Glendower as well as the York’s Archbishop(Shakespeare, 2016, p. 33). Henry was therefore forced to come up with a decisive victory in this situation and sure enough, he managed to outnumber the rebels despite Hotspur leading his wild troops on the battlefield.
In the climax of the play, Falstaff had become very extravagant such that the King’s press became misused by taking money from the able-bodied men who were willing to give up on their duties together with the poor citizens whom he saved from the battle by denying them food and freedom. Falstaff left Hal in the battle and later faking his death in order to avoid being killed by Douglas. Hal managed to defeat Hotspurs in the battle leaving his body lying in the fields while Falstaff revived during a mock miracle(Shakespeare, 2016, p. 54). In order to avoid loneliness, Falstaff decided to stub the corpse of Hotspurs and later claiming that he had killed the rival which Hal knew better and thus allowing him to carry on his disreputable tricks. After being granted grace by the prince, Falstaff decided to change his behavior and in turn adopt a clean nobleman’s life.
The first part of the play ended after the battle in Shrewsbury had ended which saw the death of Hotspur that greatly affected the rebels since the forces of the King prevailed. Henry, on the other hand, was very pleased with the outcome since it gave him an opportunity to execute Thomas Percy who was among his chief enemies. Meanwhile, the prince boasted about his Kingship mercy which was meant to praise valour since he had taken Douglas in prison thus ordering the rival to release him without any ransom. The war was still carrying on with the king battling the Archbishop for joining forces with Northumberland as well as Glendower and Mortimer which set the stage for the second part(Quarmby, 2012, p. 39).
The second part commenced with a voyage towards Kingship which Hal embarked on with Falstaff being his main reflection. Unlike the first part, Falstaff and Hal led very different characters with entirely different stories in life since they met briefly on minimal occasions. The play started adopting a mournful characteristic through the focus that was placed on Falstaff during his old days which coincided with the life of a sick king(Bickley, 2016, p. 52). This was due to the drinking and criminal activities which he engaged in across the underworld in London. Initially, he appeared to have adopted a new character after the prince had assigned him to a young character role. This forced Falstaff to enquire from doctors who conducted a urine analysis whereby the doctor informed him that his urine appeared to be healthier than the patient.
In this part, Hal remained to be an associate in London by living a low life which seemed unsuitable for anyone aspiring to be a King. King Henry IV became disappointed by the prince despite several reassurances to the court that his son would eventually change to suit in the King’s office. Another rebellion against the king was launched which was being led by Hal’s brother, Prince John, although it was defeated during its initial stage. Later on, the King fell ill and it was apparent that he would eventually succumb to the condition. Hal started proclaiming he to be the King soon as his father had left the throne and as a result, it seriously devastated his father’s health since he was only in need of leadership. Hal assumed the title of King Henry V after his father succumbed to the illness(Shakespeare, 2016, p. 49). After taking over the throne, Falstaff returned to meet the prince but to his disappointment, he refused to associate with him in addition to the total reformation that left the lawbreakers imprisoned which they did not expect.
King Henry V
In these play, King Henry V portrayed the characters which most of the people among them his rivals did not understand since he was very unpredictable. The scene commences with a trip which he decided to embark on that was destined for France. On his voyage, Cambridge Earl together with other associates planned on assassinating him but all in vain since Hal was already informed and to their surprise, he decided not to punish them. After successfully seizing Harfleur, Hal spoke one of Shakespeare’s famous speeches(Quarmby, 2012, p. 55).
One of the momentous victories in the battle led by the young king prevailed in the battle of Agincourt whereby he roamed around the camp at night in a disguised form so as to make his soldiers alert. He managed to overcome the opponent using his army and as a result, he attempted to woo the princess of France despite their difference in language. Just like all the other plays done by Shakespeare, the play displays a minimal comic character which appears in most activities or sometimes in form of comments(Quarmby, 2012, p. 61). Among the other history plays that were done by Shakespeare include that of King Henry VI, Richard III as well as that on Henry VIII. All display the comedy and tragedy characteristics which are meant to give a clear definition of the Leaders of England during that period.
References
Bickley, P., 2016. Shakespeare and early modern drama: text and performance. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, London.
Burnett, M.T., 2015. Shakespeare and world cinema. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Hertel, R., 2014. Staging England in the Elizabethan history play: performing national identity. Ashgate, Farnham.
Quarmby, K.A., 2012. The disguised ruler in Shakespeare and his contemporaries. Ashgate, Farnham, Surrey; Burlington, VT.
Shakespeare, W., 2016. King Henry IV, Part 2. Bloomsbury publishing Plc, London.
