Accordingly, the play’s “patriotic rhetoric” actually exposes the evilness of warfare, and Henry’s actions as king are nothing more than “pure Machiavellian policy” (Mebane). A nearly opposite position is taken by John Mark Mattox in “Henry V: Shakespeare’s Just Warrior.” According to him, instead of presenting Henry as a manipulative, Machiavellian politician, Shakespeare actually portrays the king as a “hero who pursues noble aims in a way that does not offend Christian moral sensibilities” (Mattox). Other critical interpretations of Shakespeare’s portrayal of nationalism in Henry V tend to range between these extremes. Few critics, though, have examined Henry’s remarkable success at unifying a diversity of often hostile nationalities and social classes as one nation striving for a common cause, at least judging from this author’s research. Henry’s ability to manipulate his subjects through rhetoric, though, has been extensively examined, but usually these efforts occur within the context of Henry’s supposed “pure Machiavellian policy” (Mebane).
Employing a broad new historicist approach and referring to a cultural materialist reading strategy, this paper will argue that ‘it is Falstaff and Hotspur who consistently resist monarchical order and pose different challenges to royal authority’ and monarchical identity to determine that stagecraft and statecraft coalesce in Shakespeare’s play to offer the audience an alternative historiography to the conventional Elizabethan ‘world–picture’ where ‘English unity or nationhood’ was correlated with a hereditary divinely ordained legitimated monarchy. Traditional criticism of Shakespeare’s history plays (Tillyard, Cambell and Dover Wilson) have presented the play’s as offering a cohesive historical script which articulated a political, morally orthodox ordered ‘Elizabethan world picture’ (Holderness 1992, p. 2) where monarchical power and kingly authority were correlated with divine legitimation, political stability and a united kingdom – ‘the Tudor myth’ (Holderness 1992, pp. 3–4). According to Dollimore the Tudor myth was an ‘ideological legitimation of an existing social order’ (2005, p.5). A new
Mary Shelley’s prose fiction novel, Frankenstein (1818) and Ridley Scott’s science fiction film, Blade Runner 1982), view the change in value of the pursuit of knowledge that leads to the moral ramifications of the creators Victor and Tyrell. Both texts accentuate the audacity of man playing God, in juxtaposition to the creations humane acts, leading to the questioning of what it means to be human. Shelley challenges the values of the Enlightenment era in the 1800s, forming Victor’s ambition to pursue the secret of life, whilst Scott criticizes the abuse of capitalism in the 1980s, deeming Tyrell’s drive for commodification. Although they were composed two centuries apart, both texts treat similar thematic concerns. By comparing their approaches to such ideas, however, it is evident that context affects meaning in complex ways, as both Frankenstein and Blade Runner reflect the values and anxieties of their times.
John Locke versus Niccolo Machiavelli Despite their contradictions on “sovereignty”, John Locke and Niccolo Machiavelli (two philosophers of the Renaissance era) shared one conspicuous concern, and that is their concern for the betterment of society. It is plain to see that both philosophers did have common ways of thinking regarding what a ruler should and should not do. It is ‘how’ a ruler should behave in order to win sovereignty of his state that led to a divergence in their opinions. I certainly am inspired with the Lockean way of thinking, but I am not sure how realistic such a way of thinking is when applied to our modern times. The ‘Lockean Liberalism’ is a paradox only in theory.
Paine says “And however our eyes may be dazzled with show, or our ears deceived by sound, however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and reason will say, ‘tis right” (Paine). Though the language is made to play on the reader’s emotions, it illustrates the negative aspects of continued alliance with England. Paine uses his idealism to convince people that things need to change and even though England has a long and illustrious history we mustn’t look back towards them for answers but instead towards the
Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.” He then goes on to say “Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil”. According to Paine if people acted morally, government would not be necessary, but since people are imperfect, government is necessary to protect life and liberty. In his documents paine propagandes that the only way for America is to rebel.
In a scholarly journal by Hugh Madean, ‘In disguise in Elizabethan drama’, disguise is described as ‘the substitution, overlaying or metamorphosis of dramatic identity, whereby one character sustains two roles, this may involve deliberate or involuntary masquerade, mistaken or concealed identity, madness or possession’. This is an important idea since Shakespeare takes this technique and uses it to add another dimension to the play, in the sense that it helps to distinguish what the characters are going through. Many say that this Shakespeare giving a social criticism of the nobility, illustrating how finery and expensive garments do not make a different to the inert nature of a person, instead it is portrayed throughout actions and sentiments. Clothing in King Lear can be contrasted with nakedness as much as pretence of appearances can be contrasted with truth or reality. For Lear, Kent and Edgar clothing is of great significance as they have all had to add an element of disguise into their lives for different reasons as clothing is the simplest to change.
He argued that they lack the power to act so they are weak. According to Hamilton (1788), they possess “merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments” (p.256). Hamilton (1788) pointed out that the court may sometimes be biased but, “the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter” (p. 256). In respect to the interpretation of the law, Hamilton (1788) believed that the constitution is “a fundamental law…” (p.257) and, “if there be an irreconcilable variance between the two, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents” (p.257). He is indirectly saying; court’s rulings give back power to the people.
It describes a God that is personal, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. Theodicy is one criticism against the second premise of this argument, which attempts to try and explain why an all-PKG allows evil to exist (Sober, pg. 111). Theodicy claims that some evils are necessary as they have the property of being “soul-building”. Soul-building evils are meant to force human beings to live through adversity and in turn strengthen our characters (Sober, pg.
He decides to try and change his destiny by being a good person. In broad terms he turns to a life with integrity. That for him was not an easy task because he knows, consciously, that he is naturally an evil person. Steinbeck makes sure this struggle is evident because it is the most representative struggle between good and evil in the novel. In East of Eden, Steinbeck makes Cal the main victim of the struggle between good and evil by emphasizing thou mayest.