Shaping the Prince: Machiavellian Statecraft and Kingship in Henry V

• Main Authors: Hsuan-jen Chou, 周軒任
• Other Authors: Dr. Hui-zung Perng
• Format: Others
• Language: en_US
• Published: 2010
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/28847387782088137879

碩士 === 國立彰化師範大學 === 英語學系 === 98 === The thesis intends to reconsider the last play of Shakespeare’s second tetralogy Henry V in terms of Niccolò Machiavelli’s treaties on statecraft and kingship. Chapter one begins with a review of important study of Henry V in the twentieth century. Traditionally, the play is seen as a patriotic one which is intended to arouse the interest of the English audience. However, the play can be viewed as one that examines Henry’s skills of statecraft and kingship in uniting England and conquering France in terms of Machiavellian doctrines. Chapter two concentrates on Machiavelli’s theories of statecraft and kingship. Different from his contemporary, Machiavelli believes that his treaties on rulership is practical and feasible. He asserts that a king should seek political expediency to further his end of ruling his nation. For political expediency, a king should have virtu that makes him competent. First, a king should understand the part of human nature that appears to be variable, selfish, shallow and nearsighted. Then a king should imitate the lion and the fox. The former means being brave and the latter means being cunning. Machiavelli further contends, however controversially, that war is a means of peace. He argues that a king should understand the importance of war and prepare for war in peace time. In addition, a king should employ cruelty to such a degree that he will not breed people’s contempt and hatred. Chapter three examines Henry’s Machiavellian statecraft and kingship in the text. Henry understands well Machiavellian notions of political expediency. At the beginning of the play, he transforms himself into a competent king. Then he instigates a war against France, intending to capture the French throne through the matrilineal inheritance. On the surface, the war is about the succession problem. In fact, the war is Henry’s strategy to unite the whole England and distract those who covet his throne. Chapter four centers on Henry’s art of war—he understands the skill of mercy and cruelty in the battlefield to rule his soldiers and subdue the French. Henry adopts mercy to win his soldiers’ support and boost their morale; meanwhile, he executes outlaws who infringe battlefield orders. For the French, Henry first makes use of cruelty to them to make them yield. Then he appeases them with mercy. The thesis concludes with the conviction that Henry shows himself as a Machiavellian king in his statecraft and kingship. The play echoes the other second tetralogy: what is good in the political world is not the same as that in our everyday world. A competent king sometimes has to do what is morally nasty in his statecraft and kingship in the political realm.