Perfect illustration of Beta Fe, Ni, Se in action

[Expat]

Having thought this through a little more, I realise that, in my opinion, I would only go to war for a morally righteous cause. Even then, I might have problems with my conscience - what right, if I were a leader, do I have to send people to die? The only thing that I could think of would be if the cause demanded it.

The example that springs to mind is one that I have already mentioned, which is when the races of Middle-Earth put aside their difference to fight against a common evil, and march "against the armies of Mordor" to "fight for the freedom of Middle-Earth".

Trouble is, there are very rarely good vs. evil cases in the world. I remember once thinking that the only way I would have a clear conscience in war would be to be a medic of some kind; but, even then, if I save a man's life, he goes and kills 10 enemy soldiers and then gets killed himself, does that not mean that I have the lives of 11 men on my head?

The only answer I can give is to quote Sherman: War is hell.

[guest32456]

The only answer I can give is to quote Sherman: War is hell.

I can't comment, as I've never been in a war.

But, for me, the idea of having to forego my spiritual interests (because I would be using my time for other things), and being forced to take away the most precious possession that anybody possess - his or her life - that would certainly be hell to go through. Especially if it were not for a righteous or compassionate cause.

[Expat]

Well, since medieval kings were God's representatives on Earth - and I think a great many of them did believe that - to make sure that France was ruled by her rightful king, in that case Henry V - would have been a righteous cause, from his point of view.

[guest32456]

Well, since medieval kings were God's representatives on Earth - and I think a great many of them did believe that - to make sure that France was ruled by her rightful king, in that case Henry V - would have been a righteous cause, from his point of view.

True, but:

1) Shakespeare seems to be deliberately taking advantage of this, especially if, like Branagh does, we take an anti-war slant - the Agincourt battle-scene seems to emphasise the horrors of war. I also wonder whether Shakespeare, by having the case for France proposed by the Archbishop, who has other motives for going to war, is subverting the idea of a 'righteous war'.

2) The Branagh version seems to imply that Henry is aware of the hollowness of his claim. When the Archbishop explains the problems concerning Salique, he finishes and declares that, this being clear (and all laugh), then Henry is the rightful king of France. The fact that the council is laughing at this joke implies some sort of knowledge of hollowness.

But, hey, I'm no Shakespeare expert

[guest32456]

PS - Good point about Oliver Stone

[Expat]

True, but:

1) Shakespeare seems to be deliberately taking advantage of this, especially if, like Branagh does, we take an anti-war slant - the Agincourt battle-scene seems to emphasise the horrors of war. I also wonder whether Shakespeare, by having the case for France proposed by the Archbishop, who has other motives for going to war, is subverting the idea of a 'righteous war'.

2) The Branagh version seems to imply that Henry is aware of the hollowness of his claim. When the Archbishop explains the problems concerning Salique, he finishes and declares that, this being clear (and all laugh), then Henry is the rightful king of France. The fact that the council is laughing at this joke implies some sort of knowledge of hollowness.

But, hey, I'm no Shakespeare expert

Henry V - the play - is (I guess deliberately) ambiguous. Yes, you have those references to the bishops pushing for the war, but later they are not mentioned again. And that bit where they list the legal arguments for Henry's claim to the French throne is made to be funny, but in fact, if you read it, the arguments are historical (basically that the Salic Law argument was bullshit). By the end of the play, I don't think anyone remembers those things (which may have been Shakespeare's intention).

And throughout Henry is clearly portrayed as a model of the warrior king, even if war, itself, is shown as something less than nice.

Likewise, the play ends with Henry's victory - but also with the Chorus commenting that it all came apart under Henry VI.

So, I think it's a mistake to read it only one way.

[guest32456]

Henry V - the play - is (I guess deliberately) ambiguous. Yes, you have those references to the bishops pushing for the war, but later they are not mentioned again. And that bit where they list the legal arguments for Henry's claim to the French throne is made to be funny, but in fact, if you read it, the arguments are historical (basically that the Salic Law argument was bullshit). By the end of the play, I don't think anyone remembers those things (which may have been Shakespeare's intention).

And throughout Henry is clearly portrayed as a model of the warrior king, even if war, itself, is shown as something less than nice.

Likewise, the play ends with Henry's victory - but also with the Chorus commenting that it all came apart under Henry VI.

So, I think it's a mistake to read it only one way.

Good points all round, Expat.

To be honest, though, I can't see why I find it difficult to see Henry as "a model of the warrior king". I think it's because I dislike the notion of a warrior-king itself, because of the lack of morality and spirituality I instinctively associate with it.

I also can't see why I find it difficult to see the war as possibly being righteous - maybe my response to the play is based on my instinctive emotional response and not any logical argument. For example, the play ends with a victory, true, but I find myself drawn to how the victory itself seems hollow even without the Chorus's words - the children are dead, Henry toys coldly and almost sadistically with the traitors, he hasn't fully dealt with the moral issues of war, and, despite his dignified and brave language, no substantial victory for the greater good has been won. The idea of a divine right of kings is, arguably, taking one Bible verse and using it to justify so much more than it was originally intended to do - and who cares if the Salic Law is rubbish and you gain the kingship of France if you cause so many to suffer and lose your soul in the process? (And now I'm running out of arguments)

I understand your arguments, Expat, and part of the staying power of Shakespeare is how he writes ambiguous plays ... but, nonetheless, Henry V provokes this reaction in me.

I guess maybe Shakespeare's plays are what you make of them - "for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" (Hamlet II.ii)

[UDP]

Yep. I think Oliver Stone is IEI, and the historical Alex was SLE -- but Ollie portrayed him as a sort of EIE-IEI hybrid, so the "posturing" you are seeing is the higher focus on Fe than on Se.

Ugh. I see flashes of the speech of certain people that make me roll my eyes and wonder to myself "my goodness, these people can't be taken in by this (person's) way of speaking...".