These two plays have a lot in common with language use. Both the main characters have magnificent talent as speakers. In the beginning, they are both orators and convincing as persuaders. The language is often tricky and not the easiest to pronounce, but it is most effective. However, of the two, Henry V is accessible to the audience, while Lear is couched in symbolism and innuendo. Most audiences can enjoy Henry V even if they miss a word or two, but many of the symbols and hints in Lear go completely over the heads of the audience. The use of language in these two plays is also different, as in Lear it is a misunderstanding that words can equally love and fealty cause the King to disinherit Cordelia, while he gives his kingdom jointly to her sisters and their spouses. The most obvious similarities in the language of the two plays are that it takes a good actor to be able to deliver the lines at all, and a superb actor to be able to deliver them well. The most obvious difference is that Henry’s rhetoric gets better as the play progresses and Lear disintegrates as his mind goes. Language in these plays is most difficult to pronouns well. King Lear starts with the King using very formal language and the speaker thus must have the impeccable skill or his tongue will surely trip on the poetic phrases. Being the language of the time among the educated, the actors of the time would have had little trouble with it. However, it was constructed by Shakespeare to have an impact on the educated audience and to impress them. He wanted to hold their attention and focus them totally on the words and also to make sure that the upper class would understand the symbolism and the often-used double meanings. It is interesting to note that Shakespeare said everything at least twice, rephrased and possibly spoken by different speakers, but each major statement was always repeated. It makes for difficulty if a fast-paced plot is wanted. However, in Elizabethan England, this entertainment was not expected to be fast-paced. The audience would have felt cheated by a fast-moving play. In Henry V, we have a truly magnificent image of a King. He is strong, smart, and daring, but also possesses the ability to strategize and use people’s weaknesses against them. In the speech, he is such a smooth-talking wonder that he turns people’s own words back on them. He does this when the Dauphin sends tennis balls to him to remind him of an incident in his youth, Henry tells the messenger to return his promise to make all France a tennis court to play for the Kingdom and that wives and mothers shall grieve for these balls of the Dauphin as their husbands and sons pay the price. The speech patterns and grammar of King Henry V are so well crafted that they are extremely difficult to deliver without mistakes. However, his oratory is so powerful that it figures strongly in the play as a force he employs in his favor to conquer France. He even charms the woman he would capture so that she goes willingly. One major difference in the actual language used in the two plays is that Henry V speaks in words much easier to understand, using less symbolism, even though his speech is extremely cle