History

The histories we read in class included two plays: Richard III and Henry V. Both plays were about kings and the rule of England, but were extremely different. We are introduced to two totally opposite characters in each play, both kings searching for two different things. While Richard III seeks revenge, Henry V seeks glory. As we read both plays, differences between the two characters reveal themselves to make a great comparison between works.

Passage/Language Comparison

Richard III and Henry V share so many differences, especially in the way they speak to the people of England and their armies before battle. The following passages, from Act 5 Scene 3 of Richard III and Act 4 Scene 3 of Henry V are both excerpts from both kings speeches to their armies before battle.


KING RICHARD III

Conscience is but a word that cowards use,
Devised at first to keep the strong in awe:
Our strong arms be our conscience, swords our law.
March on, join bravely, let us to't pell-mell
If not to heaven, then hand in hand to hell.
...
What shall I say more than I have inferr'd?
Remember whom you are to cope withal;
A sort of vagabonds, rascals, and runaways,
A scum of Bretons, and base lackey peasants,
Whom their o'er-cloyed country vomits forth
To desperate ventures and assured destruction.

------------------------------------------------

KING HENRY V
What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin:
If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires:
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
...
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

The difference between the overall tone and attitude of each character is very apparent just by reading each passage. Richard starts off by speaking about conscience and how it is their enemy and a word that cowards use. Clearly, if a king and his army even need a conscience then they are obviously not in battle for the right reason. Richard is just reflecting his guilt about the innocent people he killed earlier in the play to his soldiers. Also, instead of speaking of the importance of the battle and trying to motivate them, he insults the French by calling them "A sort of vagabonds, rascals, and runaways, A scum of Bretons, and base lackey peasants". You can insult the enemy all that you want, but it won't help to encourage an army or anyone in the end. Richard isn't in battle for the right reasons, therefore he has no way to tell his army what the right reason is.

Henry's speech to his soldiers about Saint Crispin's day, is opposite to what Richard's is. The whole speech is about glory and honor, doing what is right for England, living in that moment, and stating the fact that all of the soldiers are equal, including the king. Henry speaks to his army from the heart and tells them the truth, rather than convince them to fight like Richard did. Instead of fighting for revenge like Richard has, Henry is fighting to prove himself, his country, and his ancestor's name. This is one of the major differences between the two characters. They both display their attitudes entirely different, which effects the language of the play. While both plays contain lengthy speeches and words of battle, Henry speaks of glory and doing what is right while Richard's tactics are based solely on revenge.

Genre/Topic/Theme Comparison
The two most conflicting aspect of the two plays is how each character goes about getting what they want. It is similar to the difference of good and evil. Evil, is of course, Richard. To get to the thrown, he lies, kills, and manipulates others. His trail to the thrown consists of a line of murder. Richard murders his brother the Duke of Clarence, the king, the king's children, his own wife, and many others that have helped him in the past. Richard is completely two faced; he will say anything to get someone on his side and then turn his back and plot to kill them. He uses others and disposes of them when he is done with him, like his wife Lady Anne. All the while, Richard has no conscience and feels no guilt over his actions until the scene where all the ghosts of people he kills revisit him the night before battle. Still, a man that can commit all of these sins and murders without conscience and truly a horrible person. All of these traits describe an evil man, which is exactly what Richard is. He lies to and kills others while concealing his real self to all of England.

Good is Henry. He is the hero of the play and uses truth, devotion, and motivation to prove himself as a King as well as to get what England deserves in France. Throughout the play, Henry is clear on what his intentions are. He tells his enemies exactly what he wants and what he will do if he doesn't get it. His ruthless tactics and focused personality allows him to succeed in the end and win the thrown of France that he deserves. Henry is committed to being King and will do anything it takes to prove himself to the people that don't believe in him. He is also inspirational to his soldiers and provides them with hope and encouragement when they are at their lowest. He does what he does solely for his country along with glory and honor. He is completely open about what he wants rather than hiding it like Richard does.

The characteristics of good and evil are very apparent in each play. Shakespeare uses evil with Richard and good with Henry to show the different types of people there can be. I like the fact that Henry succeeds while Richard fails. It shows that good defeats evil in the end, which is the message Shakespeare portrays with the contrast of each play.

Personal Reflection/Comparison
I enjoyed both of these plays very much. Both were entirely different. Richard III showed the path of an evil villain eventually ending in destruction while Henry V showed the feats a king goes through to prove himself to his people. Although I loved how Henry proves himself and wins the battle in the end, I definitely enjoyed reading Richard more. You can't help but love to read about a villain, it's the truth! Richard is the man you love to hate. All of the crimes and betrayal Richard commits is so crazy and entertaining to think that someone could do such a thing to others. To see the inside of Richard compared to what he showed himself to others was an interesting outlook on what was happening. I also loved the scene where the ghosts of people Richard killed come back to tell him "Despair and die!", because that is what he deserved to hear. He needed to see the damage he had done and finally feel guilty for everything.

Each play dealt with good vs. evil, and both had great endings. While Richard finally met his defeat after all of the crimes he committed, Henry is triumphant and wins his battle as well as the honor he desired. It surprised me that plays about history could be so exciting and contain major themes.