May I Sit in the Scorner’s Seat?: A little cloudy on are history Shakespeare?

After I had finished the play I was impressed with Henry V leadership skills and wanted to learn more about him. Upon more research I found major inconstancy with the play and the actual person of Henry V. “Its just a play” some may say “its design is to entertain”. This may be true but that still doesn’t answer why the play is labeled with the “The Histories” genre. The word “history” comes with the idea of a depiction of a true record of past events.  But the more I look into the history of Henry V the less “history” I see when I read the play and more theatrical dramatization.

The inconsistencies

1.       Henry was considered a play boy to good king which was not the case at all. The reason he was considered a rebel is because him and his father fought. It is believed that they fought over leadership idea’s and politics. Henry V was at war starting at a very young age.

2.       In the play before the last final battle Henry tells his men that “we are a band of brothers” however what he actually said to them before the war is that the nobles would be bought back but the commoners were on their own. He had no intention of trying to get them back if they were caught.

3.       In the last war the French were the ones confident they would win and felt they were in the right not the English.

4.       King Henry is depicted to have Christ like leadership. In the play Henry asks those that betrayed him what he should do to a criminal before they knew that they were spies. The judgment they said Henry uses on them. In the Bible Christ says by the same judgment you shall be judged. There is also the story of the deters were a man owes a ton of money and the king shows mercy but that same person doesn’t show mercy to the people that owe him and in the end his is thrown in prison for his debts. Yet Henry V was a tyrant. When one of his friends tried to gain more rights for the lower classes he was brutally executed to make a statement. Henry V was a war lord not a Christ like King.

5.       After Henry V beat the French it was not a happy ever after as projected in the play. Henry V went back to France many times to beat up on them after the war the play is based on.

I would have no beef with the plays except that they claim to be “the histories”. Sources for the play are actual documented histories. We are told to read up on the politics of that time. In the text book we read for class their is a section on “The Life of King Henry the Fifth” before the play and it talks about the actual Henry V  alluding the audience into thinking the play is a depiction of the actual person.

I believe this incorrect “Histories” gene should be changed so as to not mix up the audience and distort actual history. Even in Henry V encyclopedia about him it says that “Shakespeare’s play’s has defamed him” because how the play has distorted what was the actual history. The play is a destruction of history just like a movies destroy books! By reading the background before play we can hurt are chances of enjoying the it because it claims to be a “histories” yet we see that it’s not. I felt deceived when I discovered how inconsistent with actual history the play was.

I am not alone on this either. Other class members such as  liannaM have noticed this historical mix up. In the text book under the "Shakespeare Criticism" page c, the "Historical Criticism" in Shakespeare’s play’s has the most written about it because it has the most weight behind it. Shakespeare’s biggest critique is “The Histories” genre. If we could change the name of the genre I don’t think it would cause such a problem.