Henry V, by William Shakespeare

I first remember hearing about this play, at least indirectly, as a child.  Although I did not grow up reading (or watching) Shakespeare’s historical plays, since I did not come from a family that was particularly interested in theater, the lines of this particular play, especially Henry V’s efforts to encourage English soldiers in war in France, have been very commonly cited.  Once, when I was in summer camp in the rainy Lake District of England, my counselor (who was himself a theater buff and an English literature student in university) and I came up with a camp skit that slightly changed lines from this particular play as a way of showing our own unity as campers in a rainy environment.  What I’m saying is that among Shakespeare’s history plays I probably have the most positive feeling about this one from a personal nostalgic level, both because of my Anglophilism when it comes to their foreign wars as well as my own personal memories of the fine rhetoric and excellent poetry of Shakespeare’s writing in this play, and that is certainly a very positive perspective that makes this play an enjoyable one in general as a reader.

The text of this play follows the format of the RSC Shakespeare series as a whole and is a bit longer than 200 pages.  The book begins with an introduction that discusses the theater of the war and the falsity and theatricality of warfare and propaganda for warfare, as well as the question of ceremony and what authority looks like without it, and issues of Irish nationalism.  After this follows some comments about the text, key facts, and the script to the play itself, which takes up about 120 pages or so, a bit longer than the two parts of Henry IV.  After this there is a synopsis of the two parts of Henry IV that are before this play as well as a discussion of how Henry V has been played in the RSC and beyond.  Interestingly enough, the play has generally been popular although (as is common in literature in general) it is often played with topicality in mind concerning whatever contemporary war is going on, so it was popular for World War II in order to encourage patriotism but viewed in a more ironic fashion.  The book then ends with the usual discussion of Shakespeare’s theater career, a chronology of his works, and notes on the history and rulers of England during the time.

In viewing a play like this one, the reader has to consider to what extent our interpretation of the play depends on where we stand.  It is clear both that Shakespeare was deeply interested in having his plays allow for characters, even unsympathetic ones, to tell their own story, and to show the darker sides of even characters that are often considered admirable.  There is sufficient ambiguity in these plays for us to reveal who we are by what we choose to celebrate and what we abhor.  Do we celebrate Henry’s sense of justice or clemency?  Do we cringe at the sexual jokes that Princess Catherine is made to say as part of the jokes that were clearly aimed at an audience that then, as now, loves such humor?  Do we praise the Irishman speaking on behalf of his own country and condemn Henry V for using a foreign war to help encourage domestic peace?  How do we feel when our own leaders do the same thing?  This play is certainly ambivalent, but it is easy to feel that way when one has to consider so many perspectives.