King Henry V

by
William Shakespeare

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

read book* *Different edition

King Henry V (Wars of the Roses)

by William Shakespeare, Emma Smith

3.83 of 5 stars 3.83 · rating details · 17,449 ratings · 442 reviews

Kenneth Branagh made his mark as an outstanding Shakespearean actor and director upon the release of Henry V, his first film. Branagh wrote the screen adaptation, starred in, and directed the film to astounding critical and popular acclaim, establishing him as a most gifted and versatile film artist. With a marvelous cast, including Richard Briers, Robbie Coltrane, Judi De...more

Hardcover, 260 pages

Published June 1st 2002 by Cambridge University Press (first published 1599)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Add this book to your favorite list »

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 3,000)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

May 11, 2013 Ben rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: english-lit, historical-fiction, plays

As I finish the second tetralogy's finale, King Henry V , I contemplate Shakespeare's effect on the presentation of history. He devotes nearly half of his theatrical contributions to stories plotted in reality rather than born of his imagination. I have argued before that Shakespeare, blessed with a genius' perspective, sees art not only in the creative arena but in reality. The presentation of the human condition happens among humans and not within the faculties of one's mind. Yet in order to p...more As I finish the second tetralogy's finale, King Henry V , I contemplate Shakespeare's effect on the presentation of history. He devotes nearly half of his theatrical contributions to stories plotted in reality rather than born of his imagination. I have argued before that Shakespeare, blessed with a genius' perspective, sees art not only in the creative arena but in reality. The presentation of the human condition happens among humans and not within the faculties of one's mind. Yet in order to present these conditions to his audience, he carefully embellishes, contrasts and juxtaposes the characters and circumstances that best display them. If we want to know the events and scenarios in which these kings lived and acted, we can read school text books. If we want to know the people, the conditions of their lives, the reasons for their choices, we must turn to Shakespeare and decide if his character interpretations best suit history. Perhaps while in school as a boy in Stratford Upon Avon, he studied his textbooks and imagined the joys, sorrows, regrets, ambitions and malicious conceits in each of these kings which best helped him understand and learn the history of his native land.

In King Henry V, we see the clergy, sparked to cunning by a present bill which would strip much of their wealth, manipulate a king into a conquest of France in order to protect their assets. The king would depend on their funding and would never dream of undermining his own enterprise by passing a bill which would rob his benefactors. Yet Henry V transforms the bitterness of such purposes, born of deceipt and cunning, into a resulting eden of unity and equality, love and justice. If John Falstaff truly ascended to Arthur's bosom, he must feel right at home, as if in Prince Henry's good graces again.

Outside the royal court, Shakespeare presents microchosmic examples of this unity. Almost immediately after the nobles resolve for France, Bardolph mediates between Pistol and Nym and begs of their friendship with his sword. And, most apparently, he devotes Act V to the wooing of Princess Katharine, an effort equalled to that of conquering France on the battlefield. Yet the union of England and France comes with their marriage rather than with Henry's sword. Such a union signifies love and peace rather than dictatorship and enslavement. A marriage of love and justice constitutes a unity and differs from a marriage of dominion enforced by a heavy hand - only the former resounds with true unity as both parties maintain a semblance of themselves whereas the marriage of the heavy hand leaves only one party truly alive. How can one unite with nothing?

Alas, with master craftsmanship, King Henry V guides the circumstances under which he administers his justice and promotes equality. He manipultes Cambridge, Scroop and Grey to pronounce the severity of their own sentence rather than condemn them as one higher and of more import. He allows justice to decide the matter and in so doing thinks himself below justice and equal in human value to the defendant. Consider also how he and Williams, under false pretense, exchange gloves to don in their caps as a mark of their violent bet. Then compare this to the feud between Bardolph and Fluellen over the cultural mark of the leek in Fluellen's cap. Both scenarios pit two men, of social, economic and cultural differences, against each other only to resolve in a sense of equality. Whereas the king's disguise, possibly more appropriate for his character, allows Williams to see him as a social equal, the king again allows mercy and justice to waylay the promised violence rather than crush him as a man with more power. And in this action, Williams feels worthy and of equal import himself. Then Fluellen, a Welshman like the king, not only revels in this common ground, but displays his cultural heritage proudly and feels empowered to squabble with Pistol who would rebuke it.

The king not only preaches lofty poetics to inspire his soldiers to war, but acts equally valiant and just which inspires his soldiers to a level of respect and brotherhood. By disgarding signs of distinction and leaving only their common bonds as men, they find their unity amongst themselves and their equality. On the eve of battle, Henry, once again, wallows among the likes of Bardolph, Poins and Falstaff. Even now the pomp of majesty has failed to intoxicate his spirit. He calls ceremony a pitiable reward for the strains of kingly duty when compared to the simple happiness enjoyed by peasants. He does not abandon that strain and revel in ceremony as Richard II had. He carries the soldier's lives on his shoulders and his father's guilt for Richard's fall on his brow. And all the while he finds a way to disrobe himself of all such pomp and unite himself with his countrymen under common banners of honor, bloodshed and English spirit - inspiring in them a feeling of worth and in him a share in the peasant's simple happiness.

We can call this war an imperial conquest, and surely the history books describe it thus. But like a parent reading a storybook aloud to their children, enacting the voices and characters from the page, Shakespeare resurrects a character, the man behind the historical events, and therefore lends meaning and empathy to those long dead. King Henry V may have inspired a renewed sense of worth in us and revived our sense of humanity within the monarchs.

I miss Falstaff. But in closing my reading of the second tetralogy, I credit him for this king. Their times together cultivated a benign monarch who never forgot his naturally common bonds with his base countrymen.(less)

2 likes · like · see review

Mar 09, 2012 Pete daPixie rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: dramatics, history-tudor

It is not easy for me to award high star ratings to texts of plays, even those from the pen of William Shakespeare. The Oxford Shakespeare series transforms the simple lines of the drama into something much greater. 'Henry V' is revealed in all it's glory as almost every line of dialogue is presented with explanations of the Elizabethan politic mindset, the historical sources and sixteenth century colloquialisms.
On stage or film set this play has become a monumental work. Right from the opening...more

2 likes · like · see review

Jun 07, 2012 David rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Even for those whose introduction to Shakespeare has afforded them a positive experience -- thanks, perhaps, to a solid production of "Macbeth" or "Midsummer's Night's Dream" -- I think there's some trepidation about the history plays. I was no exception, feeling that my complete ignorance of the British monarchs would leave me unable to understand or enjoy the stories as told by Shakespeare.

I felt that way until my wife and I started seeing productions at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. Altho...more Even for those whose introduction to Shakespeare has afforded them a positive experience -- thanks, perhaps, to a solid production of "Macbeth" or "Midsummer's Night's Dream" -- I think there's some trepidation about the history plays. I was no exception, feeling that my complete ignorance of the British monarchs would leave me unable to understand or enjoy the stories as told by Shakespeare.

I felt that way until my wife and I started seeing productions at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. Although I'd previously seen "Richard III," "Henry VIII" and even the rarely performed "King John," what really clinched it for me was the story of Prince Hal becoming King Henry V, which is magestically told in "King Henry IV, Part I," King Henry IV, Part II," and "Henry V." We've seen the first two. They are extraordinarily rich plays: They're exciting, they're surprisingly funny, and at times deeply moving. The trilogy includes one of the most emotionally devastating moments I've seen in any of the Bard's histories: Henry V's rejection of Falstaff at the end of "Henry IV, Part II." I read the first two prior to seeing the shows, and I've now finished reading "King Henry V." It's a terrific play, thanks largely to the unique role played by the Chorus, whose introduction to each act allows Shakespeare to keep a tight focus on only the most crucial action -- the debate over whether to go to war, the conspiracy, the siege of Harfleur, the Battle of Agincourt ("We few, we happy few, we band of brothers") and finally, the King's wooing of the French Princess Katherine.

One can see, right from the opening lines of the Chorus, that even Shakespeare himself was in awe of the material that brings the trilogy to a close, the Battle of Agincourt: "O for a Muse of fire that would ascend the brightest heaven of invention, a kingdom for a stage, princes to act, and monarchs to behold the swelling scene!" Storytelling doesn't get any bigger than that. Neither do any of the Bard's characters; If you count the lines spoken in all three plays, Prince Hal/King Henry easily has the most dialogue of any Shakespearean character. Sorry, Hamlet.

I know that "Henry V" is widely regarded as the most "patriotic" of Shakespeare's histories; there's good reason why Lawrence Olivier got out of the British Navy during World War II so he could mount a film adaption. He had already been asked by Churchill to deliver the Saint Crispin Day speech on the radio to rally the troops. But nothing is so simple in Shakespeare, and having now read it, what I'm struck by is the fantastic complexity and depth ... the attitudes expressed by many types of characters about war, power, even class, of all things. There is also the death of Falstaff: Why did Shakespeare choose to have this larger-than-life character die offstage? Especially after having promised at the end of "Henry IV, Part 2" that he would return? Did Shakespeare feel that Falstaff, like Mercutio in "Romeo and Juliet," threatend to take over the play? That he would upstage the star? Or that he was so larger than life that there was no way to do his death scene justice? Who knows?

These are the sorts of questions that make Shakespeare, for me, so stimulating. We have no journal writings or memoirs in which the greatest writer in the English language provides insights to these and a thousand other questions. We just have the plays, which raise the questions. For this reader, that's more than enough. (less)

2 likes · like · see review

Dec 31, 2012 Klytia rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: favorites

A me l'Henry V fa venire voglia di invadere la Francia.
Un po' perchè i nobili francesi, soprattutto il Delfino, vengono presentati furbescamente da Shakespeare come degli stupidotti che alla vigilia della battaglia si mettono a parlare dei loro cavalli, un po' come farebbero gli uomini d'oggi con le loro macchine, ma soprattutto perchè re Henry è presentato come un vero leader, pieno di carisma per il quale vale la pena combattere e morire.

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
è for...more

1 like · like · see review

Apr 14, 2010 Jake rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: drama

Thanks to Kenneth Branagh, this Henry history play was the cool Shakespeare movie when I was in high school. Eat your heart out Franco Zeffirelli. Mr. Branagh acted and directed his butt off. There were lots of arrows flying between England and France. The French were portrayed as snobs, a testament to the Bard’s high research standards. The original score was majestic. Did I mention the cool arrows?

Honestly, I’m still not sure why England and France were fighting—something about tennis balls b...more

6 likes · like · see review

May 04, 2008 Jordan rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

"For God, Harry, and St George!"

Lord, what a play. Shakespeare is often times enjoyable, but I love to refer to this as the ultimate coming of age story. Every young man in the world deserves to see this performed.

The play is really, in my opinion, a cluster of insecurities facing young men. From his mockery at the hands of the Dauphin, to his proving his worth in combat, to the pressure put on him as king, the judgments he is forced to make, and maybe even a little romance, you will see Harry...more

5 likes · like · see review

Jul 12, 2007 Joseph rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: erybody

Shakespeare is a monster I guess. I used to be all types of caught up on the inspirational speeches...."we few, we happy few, we band of brothers"....but it is pretty clear that Shakespeare was smarter than that.....

Now I can't get away from the quarrel between Williams and King Henry on the eve of the battle:

BATES: He may show what outward courage he will, but I believe, as cold a night as 'tis, he could wish himself in Thames up to the neck; and so I would he were, and I by him, at all adventu...more

1 like · like · see review

Jan 29, 2009 Valerie rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Recommended to Valerie by: Audrey Stanley

Shelves: cypresslibrary, shakespearian-plot-line

My favorite reading of this book was as part of small (10 people maybe class) with a bunch of my best college friends and Professor Audrey Stanley. We wandered around campus, declaiming the lines instead of just reading them, and then we would discuss the text and the context. It was the most marvelous class. I'd always liked Shakespeare, but I didn't really get Shakespeare until I took that class.

1 like · like · see review

May 21, 2013 Charles rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: drama, historical-fiction, plays, shakespeare, war, comic, classics

Henry the Fifth is up there next to 'Macbeth' and 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' as one of Shakespeare's all-time best, in my opinion. Although it is a history play, it has a sublime blend of humour, philosophy and thematic concerns, including love, religion and nationalism/patriotism.

Confession. When I first read the play I had no idea about 1) Henry IV Part One and Two or 2) 'The Hundred Years' War', or the battle of 'Agincourt' for that matter. I'm not British, and that ancient part of English H...more Henry the Fifth is up there next to 'Macbeth' and 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' as one of Shakespeare's all-time best, in my opinion. Although it is a history play, it has a sublime blend of humour, philosophy and thematic concerns, including love, religion and nationalism/patriotism.

Confession. When I first read the play I had no idea about 1) Henry IV Part One and Two or 2) 'The Hundred Years' War', or the battle of 'Agincourt' for that matter. I'm not British, and that ancient part of English History I knew next to nothing about. Thomas Heywood, in his 'An Apology for Actors', said that the main 'object'(aim) of History Plays was to teach history to those who had never read the chronicles. At first, I did not think that this was necessarily true. However, when one reads this play, despite some historical inaccuracies which I believe on the whole to be minor, s/he does gain an insight into that period of proud English history. What I mean is that I think that it is irrelevant how many casualties there were on both sides on the whole, what Shakespeare captures is the essence and the substance behind the war and its variety of characters.

Another example is that Shakespeare completely left out the role of the archer in Agincourt, even though it is a fact that they played a major part in the English victory. Why? S. was never concerned with the facts of military adventurism, but its consequences on the individual soldier (and the king). S.'s insight goes beyond the battle. After all, this is why many people love reading Bernard Cornwell for he follows a similar pattern (who also wrote a book called 'Azincourt', the French spelling of the word 'Agincourt'- I thought the victors chose the name of the battle?). I rally admired the part where King Henry, dressed up as a common soldier, reflected that the poorest labourer in his kingdom was far better off than the king himself, for he gets to enjoy the peace and quiet which many others shed their blood to maintain. This is so true, even today nobody appreciates the role of those in authority (who, voluntarily, share the nation's burden).

Another interesting detail is that I believe this was one of the most amazing battles ever won in military history. The French were playing 'home', they vastly outnumbered the English and they were 'fresh'. "And some people still refuse to believe in the power of prayer"-The Vicar in 'Keeping up Appearances'. This war was not just a battle of kings, it was also a symbolic battle of nations. They both believed in the same God, but the English, from the outset, deserved the victory, whatever what one might think. When the English stopped deserving France, a certain 'Joan of Arc' had a divine revelation to save France and its people from the English, and although she was burned and her ashes raked many times, her martyred image helped save her nation (again, whatever your religious belief, this is an accepted fact).

In my opinion, Shakespeare handled his source material with an outstanding wit and capacity. The aim of his play is not merely didactic, but to entertain as well and this is what makes him a literary hero in my books.

(less)

like · see review

Mar 25, 2013 Kirsty rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: read-2013, best-of-2013, plays, shakespeare, omnibus-editions, personal-challenges-2013

I must admit that I didn't find the Shakespearean histories which I had to read at school overly exciting, so I began this with a slight sheen of reluctance. However, any apprehension dissipated as soon as I read the brilliant RSC introduction in my beautiful Collected Works.

I'm sure that almost everyone will recognise 'Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more' and 'We few, we happy few, we band of brothers'. Both phrases originated in Henry V. As well as recognising a few quotes thro...more

1 like · like · see review

Feb 12, 2013 Melissa rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: play

I’ve loved Shakespeare’s work for a long time, but I’ve always struggled with his Histories. I enjoy seeing them performed live, but when I read them it’s easy for me to get lost in a sea of soldiers and forget who is who. This play is preceded by Richard II, Henry IV, Part 1 and Henry IV, Part 2, and the last two feature our illustrious title character, Henry V.

This particular play rises above the other histories in my opinion because it’s more about the transformation of one man than about war...more

like · see review

Jan 27, 2013 Ben rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I wavered between rating this book with 3 and 4 stars -- 3.5 would be more fitting. It tells the story of Henry V's transformation from a wild and unruly youth, surrounded by the likes of Sir John Falstaff, to his rise to glory as King of England and conqueror of France. As the Archbishop of Canterbury says at the play's onset: "The courses of his youth promised not. The breath no sooner left his father's body,/But that his wildness mortified him,/Seemed to die too: yea, at that very moment/Cons...more

like · see review

Dec 30, 2012 Alan rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I have argued, with support from a couple of my senior Shakespeareans at SAA, that Henry V is the comedy Shakespeare promised at the end of 2 Henry 4, epilog: "to continue the story, with Sir John [Falstaff] in it. But after the actor who played Falstaff disappeared (Will Kemp--probably to tour Germany), Shakespeare created a very different kind of comedy, a reconciliation of conflicting nationalities in the usual comic resolution, however preposterous: marriage. And in a thoroughly modern (even...more

like · see review

Dec 13, 2012 Kate Jacobson rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: classics, favorites, read-in-2012

Although I have been reading a lot of Shakespeare lately, I will begin this review by saying that I strongly believe that in order to really appreciate a Shakespeare, you should watch some sort of adaptation around the same time you read it. My review of Henry V, therefore, it tempered by the fact that I watched (and adored) The Hollow Crown: Henry V while reading it, which probably bumped by review up by a good half a star.

The history's are almost undoubtedly my favourite texts of Shakespeare....more

like · see review

Aug 06, 2012 Becky rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: plays

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

like · see review

Jun 25, 2012 Lisa rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: notducknothare

It is a dicey thing to say you have "read" something when
a) the thing you have supposedly "read" is a play and
b) you have "read" it by sitting on your butt in a theatre while the stage gets pounded on an awful lot, for approximately three hours and at times the French is far easier to understand than the English, maybe because the French dialogue was expressly written for a British audience.

I then have to humbly state that, based on what I understood, the play fell flat for me in several parts...more It is a dicey thing to say you have "read" something when
a) the thing you have supposedly "read" is a play and
b) you have "read" it by sitting on your butt in a theatre while the stage gets pounded on an awful lot, for approximately three hours and at times the French is far easier to understand than the English, maybe because the French dialogue was expressly written for a British audience.

I then have to humbly state that, based on what I understood, the play fell flat for me in several parts - neither did I need to hear some supposedly funny soldier bid a supposedly funny farewell to his wife, nor a French youth gush about the beauty of his horse for some five minutes flat, just to enable a wee bit of double entendre (involving horses).

Henry, you know, on the whole makes me think "so there was a time when guys like this were actually useful wielders of the battle axe", because mostly, Henry V appears like the cross between someone who might play on the Emglish national team and Jamie Oliver, a bit like a cuddly rottweiler.

Summing up the plot to oneself makes it seem much like a string of compulsory anecdotes that have successfully been worked into a storyline, while the author has not enjoyed it much, pretty much like the musketeer's campaigning in La Rochelle in "the three Musketeers"(which I always thought incredibly dull, if historically accurate):
*Henry V learns he is betrayed by part of the inner circle of his entourage-he quickly unfriends them and tells them by synchronized mini-text that they are about to have their heads chopped off, "yours faithfully, Henry"
*Henry V gets sent a cask of tennis balls from France and is not pleased
*Henry V picks an impromptu fight with a soldier who does not know he is the king, and whose suspicion is seemingly unaroused by the ermine trimmed glove he receives as a token
*Henry V decides to kill all prisoners, but only because some extremely dastardly French soldiers have slain the innocent boys that have come with the army to keep watch over the soldier's bunnies and clavicords (centuries later Mel Gibson's "patriot" would steal a page or two from this playbook)
*turning social ineptness into a charm, Henry sort of woos the French princess Catherine, so they can get married and the French King does not feel like a total loser leaving his lands to him, what with the Dauphin conveniently killed.

At other times the play was funny. That is all. (less)

like · see review

May 28, 2012 Richard rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

2nd fave by Willy.

This day is called the Feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day and comes safe home
Will stand a-tiptoe when this day is named
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall see this day and live t' old age
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours
And say, "Tomorrow is Saint Crispian."
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars
And say, "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages
What feats he did...more

like · see review

May 23, 2012 Nicole Green rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Henry V has to be my favourite of the Shakespearean Histories. It's set right at the time of the Hundred Years' War, a war I have studied intimately, and it also tells the story of King Henry V of England, as the synopsis reveals. I love English history and even though Shakespeare may have taken some liberties with the characters in this play and some of the more plot relevant actions that occur, most of it is based on history and it's great. There is so much you can learn from reading Shakespea...more

like · see review

May 21, 2012 Andrew Wright rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: owned

This play has obvious detractions. By its very nature a war play is prone to jumping around in geography and jumping forward in chronology, thus necessitating a chorus to come in and remind you that the play's fake and explaining some of the boring exposition stuff. Thematically it doesn't have too much going on, except for one big thing. HOW COOL IT IS TO BE BRITISH!

Seriously this play makes me want so badly to come from that rainy little island. How did those pasty bread boilers consistently k...more

like · see review

Mar 31, 2012 Kathleen rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: shakespeare, plays, 16th-century, audio-drama

Some quotes I bookmarked:

-----------------------------------------------------------

KING HENRY V

Sure, we thank you.
My learned lord, we pray you to proceed
And justly and religiously unfold
Why the law Salique that they have in France
Or should, or should not, bar us in our claim:
And God forbid, my dear and faithful lord,
That you should fashion, wrest, or bow your reading,
Or nicely charge your understanding soul
With opening titles miscreate, whose right
Suits not in native colours with the...more

like · see review

Mar 21, 2012 Matt rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

With nationalistic fervor and hero worship, Shakespeare appeals to some of the basest qualities in the audience. But that doesn‘t prevent it from being a great play. Henry V fulfills the transformation of the wayward Prince Hal seen in Henry IV into warrior king and champion of Agincourt. The rejection of Falstaff is cemented and his punishment of Bardolph leaves no ambiguity that the boyish Hal has cast aside his boyish ways and is now a monarch.

Absolutely, the St. Crispin Day's speech is the h...more

like · see review

Feb 04, 2012 Esdaile rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: renaissance-drama, politically-committed, theatre

Henry V is an immense work of course and a play to be seen not merely read (but that is true of all Shakespeare plays). It is,in more ways than one, an incomplete work. When I say "in more ways than one" I mean this: structurally, the play is lop-sided but also the play had the potential to offer a new political vision. The last scenes with the French queen seem to me to work bathetically and to be a poor end after the high point of the battlöe scenes of Agincourt. It seems likely to me that som...more Henry V is an immense work of course and a play to be seen not merely read (but that is true of all Shakespeare plays). It is,in more ways than one, an incomplete work. When I say "in more ways than one" I mean this: structurally, the play is lop-sided but also the play had the potential to offer a new political vision. The last scenes with the French queen seem to me to work bathetically and to be a poor end after the high point of the battlöe scenes of Agincourt. It seems likely to me that someone else other than Shakespeare had a hand in the last scenes, some of it is thrid rate writing (not that Sahkespeare was necessarily incapable of third-rate writing) The final scene desperately neeeds rewriting, (en passant, the punning on the word "foot versus French fouter" suggests that the writer really spoke French). What I mean by "new political vision" is foreshadowed in the lines of Act V Scene II, "Shall not thou and I, between Saint Denis and Saint George, compound a boy, half French half English, that shall go to Constantinople and take the Turk by the beard?" A Christian alliance against the Turk or more than an alliance, the restoration of the Angevan Empire, the return of France to England and England t France, this is monumental! It remains in this play however(and in history!), as nothing more than an ehco, an attenuated ideal, a piece of wishful thinking, a vision of a dreamer. In this play it is entirely overshadowed by the propagandas of the whole and the propaganda is one of nationalist heroics and a hard to justify attack on France by English kings whose far from disinterested lawyers interpret Salic law for their own aggressive ends. The use of Salic law as a pretext for war is a pretext of the kind beloved by tyrants down the ages. The Romans were past masters of the art. I confess that I am not uncomfortable with Shakespeare's history plays, or at least not with that part of them which cry out so very loudly against the French. It would interest me to know whether the account in this play of the French massacring the children at the back of the English army "expressly against the law of arms" is based in historical fact. Be that as it may, Shakespeare sees nothing wrong with cutting the throat of every Fremnch prisoner, which I should have thought was also "expressly against the law of arms". In Henry's rousing and well known speech, "we few, we happy few, we band of brothers.." there is promise of the comradship of arms "gentling the condition" of every English soldier on the battlefield "be he ne're so vile" but when the role call of the dead is made after the battle of Agincourt the herald announces, ""Edward Duke of York, the Earl of Suffolk,Sir Richard Ketley, Davy Gam esquire,; None else of name; and of all other men but five and twenty." In the Brannach film (I cannot recall how it is in the Olivier film) the mentioning of the cutting of the throats of the prisoners is cut out. Obviously the writer's inclusion of what today would be called an English "war crime" attenuated the propaganda effect, and this is propaganda and was used as such during the Second World War in the film Henry V starring Lawrence Olivier. One can almost be envious. In earlier times, people were convinced of the righteousness of their cause down to the marrow of their bones, none of the effeminite shillyshallying of today, that discomfort and misgiving which this writer feels confronted with Shakespearean nationalist propaganda. One last point relevant to the authorship debate-sofar as I know anyone who has been a soldier confirms if they know this piece, wheoever else Shakespeare was or was not, he must have gone to war in his time. He has an instinctive grasp of the military. This man served under colours and heard "the blast of war" blow in his ears, and, it must be said, seems to have relished the experience, all the horror, mayhem and suffering of war notwithstanding.(less)

like · see review

Nov 22, 2011 Bob rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Picked up a handful of these Signet Classic editions off my building's trade shelf, especially useful for the the supplemental scholarly material, in this case the segment of Raphael Holinshed's 1587 "Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland" which shows how Shakespeare got all the tricky historical background (including a lot of explanation that he places directly in his dialog without paraphrase) from that reference work and then got on to shaping the characters.
The play is a bit unruly, w...more

like · see review

Nov 01, 2011 James rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I went and saw Anonymous the other day and was surprised that I liked the film, especially since I find the central thesis of the film utterly repugnant. But then, having watched the film, I realized something. I wondered what if the whole point of the film, which tries to overturn what is essentially an unassailable fact, that Shakespeare wrote the plays traditionally attributed to him, and not the Earl of Oxford (who in the film is played by the same guy who is Hugh Grant's flat mate in Nottin...more I went and saw Anonymous the other day and was surprised that I liked the film, especially since I find the central thesis of the film utterly repugnant. But then, having watched the film, I realized something. I wondered what if the whole point of the film, which tries to overturn what is essentially an unassailable fact, that Shakespeare wrote the plays traditionally attributed to him, and not the Earl of Oxford (who in the film is played by the same guy who is Hugh Grant's flat mate in Notting Hill, but a completely different, rather somber, eloquent fellow in this film) or Marlowe or Francis Bacon or any other elitist stand in for a very obscenely pretentious hypothesis, which simply fails to acknowledge that genius comes in all forms, and is not something intractably reserved for the upper classes--that maybe the point of this very excessively revisionist plot was to say something about truth: that truth is tied to the stories we tell and, more to the point, how well they are told. I enjoyed this film in spite of myself. And left with all these strange things happening in my mind, the sheer allure of the premise taking on its own impressive luster, I suppose, once I'd been relaxed into a half-credulous viewing. And let me tell you: there's some strange stuff--atrociously incestuous ties, courtly intrigue, etc.--that goes on in the film, with very little of it having to do with Will Shakespeare, who's portrayed as a bumbling, illiterate oaf.

Anyway, I felt in the mood for Shakespeare and so I picked up Henry V again. It's been a while, and I can't help thinking how much better both parts of Henry IV are in comparison. Yet this play still brings to fruition the promise of young Hal, the ironic student of Falstaff's socratic tomfoolery--who completely comes to terms, in this installment, with his destiny and leaves behind the dissolute world of pubs and ne'er-do-wells, and becomes the great warrior king. Personally, this one doesn't have enough humor, and what humor it has feeds off of the legacy of Falstaff, who haunts the play, especially the beginning when he dies, brokenhearted backstage. This play's almost purely about politics. And we're supposed to take note of Harry's new set of virtues and his capacity to relate to his men and also be a full on commander. It's impressive, and Shakespeare is, in the end, the greatest writer humanity has ever produced, so one must read and savor, and learn and be edified by the wondrous verse that slips in and out of charging metaphors and charming word play. But, personally, I prefer the Falstaffs, the Hamlets, the Richard the IIIs, and even the King Lears in comparison to the fully grown, mature Prince Hal. And perhaps that is Shakespeare's point. The great leader has to become something more than we expect, even if that means a slightly colorless personality. (less)

1 like · like · see review

Aug 05, 2011 Trevor rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: literature

What I thought would happen in this play – the fourth in the sequence of ‘prequels’ Shakespeare wrote to his three Henry VI plays and Richard III – was that young Hal, now King Henry V, would show he had come of age, finally become a real hero and fulfilled his promise from Henry IV part I – “And like bright metal on sullen ground, / My reformation, glitt’ring o’er my fault / Shall show more goodly, and attract more eyes, / Than that which hath no foil to set it off.” All this I had expected – a...more What I thought would happen in this play – the fourth in the sequence of ‘prequels’ Shakespeare wrote to his three Henry VI plays and Richard III – was that young Hal, now King Henry V, would show he had come of age, finally become a real hero and fulfilled his promise from Henry IV part I – “And like bright metal on sullen ground, / My reformation, glitt’ring o’er my fault / Shall show more goodly, and attract more eyes, / Than that which hath no foil to set it off.” All this I had expected – and in some ways that is what happens as you skim across the surface of this play. A young king goes off and creates one of the most astonishing military victories in history – the play estimates ten thousand French to only twenty-five English dead. A somewhat one-sided affair by any estimation. Given that the English were also outnumbered five to one and yet this was still such a rout – you might expect (and I did expect) this play to be a kind of nationalistic blood-fest and yo-ho back-slap. I expected Henry to be glorified and lauded and made nearly godlike.

And in part it is just that. The famous speeches in this – “Once more into the breech” and the remarkably moving “We few, we happy few, we band of brothers” could hardly fail to lift spirits and to almost make you believe while expecting to be slaughtered that, “gentlemen in England, now a-bed, / Shall think themselves accursed they were not here”.

The problem is that I’m almost certain Shakespeare isn’t at all fond of young Hal – even as he has becomes King Henry and I think that despite his having a Chorus sing his praises, to the point where “the warlike Harry, like himself, / Assume the port of Mars.” The problem is that Henry takes his country into a war – but in the play Henry more or less blames the Archbishop of Canterbury for deciding him on this course. He warns Canterbury that he must be completely upfront with him and make it clear why he (Henry) has a right to become King of France, as it will be that if Canterbury incites Henry to war with France on false grounds then the blame for all of the blood that will be spilt will fall on Canterbury’s head. This is bitterly ironic. Not least because later in the play Henry disguises himself as a common soldier and goes about chatting with various other soldiers before the battle of Agincourt –this kind of deception is a bit of a constant theme to his character. One of the soldiers he chats with says that if the king’s reasons for going to war are not just that it will be the king that will pay for it come judgement day. Hard to argue against that - and as Henry’s soldiers are just following their duty you would think that if anyone was to blame for the war you would have to blame the leader who got them to fight in the first place – but Henry tells the soldier he is wrong and that the king won’t be responsible at all. His argument is hardly convincing or even to the point and is followed by Henry literally setting up this soldier for a kind of practical joke to come to light at the end of the play.

This play really ought to have been about one of England’s greatest victories and one of England’s greatest heroes, but Henry still comes across as an arse. We are promised more Falstaff at the end of Henry IV part 2 – and we don't get any more of him in this play at all, although, we get reports of him pining and then dying just before Henry sets off for France and immortality. Henry’s treatment of Falstaff is not really worthy in any sense. His treatment of Bardolph – who is executed in this play for looting after being Henry’s acquaintance throughout the previous two plays is also troubling. Not that Bardolph didn’t deserve to be punished, but he is sent here to be hanged without a second thought – it is quite remarkable. Like I said, it is hard to really warm to Henry.

There are lots of jokes involving confusion caused between French not speaking English and English not speaking French and many of these jokes are quite sexual at times. The scene at the end of the play with Henry telling the king of France’s daughter he wants to marry her – despite her not speaking any English and him speaking no French, had a very deep and uncomfortable irony to it. His professed love rings a very hollow and sounds very much more like politics than like love at first sight. Her saying effectively, I’ll do what I’m told to do and then him making sexual jokes with Burgundy immediately after this and in front of her father and mother might even be considered by some to be a little tasteless, even in Elizabethan times.

I must try to track down the Olivier and the Branagh versions of this to watch at some stage. Maybe I just need to see this with Henry shining as radiantly as the sun, who knows?
(less)

4 likes · like · see review

Jul 22, 2011 David Sarkies rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: historical

I originally read this play because it was set during the Hundred Years War and I wanted to use it as a primary source. Unfortunately it is not a primary source, since it was written 150 years after the events depicted, and the essay was about the English Parliament's influence on the war, which this play has nothing to do with. This is another example of why I would love to go back and redo those classes to see how well my essays come out now that I know a lot more. I am still surprised that I...more I originally read this play because it was set during the Hundred Years War and I wanted to use it as a primary source. Unfortunately it is not a primary source, since it was written 150 years after the events depicted, and the essay was about the English Parliament's influence on the war, which this play has nothing to do with. This is another example of why I would love to go back and redo those classes to see how well my essays come out now that I know a lot more. I am still surprised that I managed to pass the essay.
This play is a piece of propaganda. It depicts Henry V as a hero. Well, to the English people he is a hero as he revived the flagging war against France with a number of decisive victories, the greatest being Agnincourt, the battle which the play is focused. The play forms part of Shakespeare's War of the Roses cycle which begins with Richard II and ends with Richard III.
I won't go into too many details about whether Henry V deserves his title as a hero, because, as mentioned, to the English he is, he defeated the French and almost conquered France (though this was really an extension of the Norman Conquest, because when the Normans conquered England, they retained their capital and Rouen, and as the nation developed, the Norman lands became part of England). Further, this play focuses only on Agnincourt, the lead up to the battle, the battle itself, and it aftermath. Also in this play we see Shakespeare's rather crude humour with the French Princess attempting to learn English (and failing). The play ends with Henry taking his prize, the French Princess.
Really, there isn't all that much to this play. It is simply a retelling of history by the victors, and even though the French did end up kicking the English out of France, England still ended up as the victors, and were able to write the history of the war to suit their own purposes. It was only because of the intervention of God, through Joan of Arc, that the English lost, though it is interesting to note that England probably could never have controlled France, simply because every bit of France that they took, there would always be more France to take, and the further they move, the more dispersed their forces became and thus the more difficult it become to put down rebellions.(less)

like · see review

Feb 12, 2011 Tyson Adams rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

It just doesn't get any better than this!!

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon; let the brow o'erwhelm it
A...more

like · see review

Apr 09, 2010 Billie Pritchett rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Young Prince Henry of Wales from Henry IV grows up to be Henry V, king of England, and goes to war with France because he can. Fans of this play argue that Henry is a model king, because he judges people on their character and considers himself one of the people, among other things. However, Henry is no ideal I admire, namely because he goes to war for no reason. Being an equal opportunity critic, one would have to say that then as now no war should be fought unless it is just, and, just wars be...more

like · see review

Mar 17, 2013 Shayma'a rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: مسرح

صدق من قال : يمكن لشكسبير أن يكون سيء ، سيء جداً و لكن عندما يكون جيد فأنه جيد جداً جداً جداً

أسباب تجعلك لا تقرأ لشكسبير :
--------------------------

- الكتابة ليس بها أي شيء تقدمي أو أفكار ثورية أو فلسفة مستقلة ، تفيدنا في وقتنا الحالي إلا اللهم في مواضع غاية في الندرة، و بالرغم من أن ما قدمه شكسبير في وقته لم يكن قد قدمه أحد من قبله إلا أن تلك الميزة قد فقدت رونقها مع الوقت

- اللغة صعبة و منهكة حتى و هي مترجمة ، فأنه يستخدم الكثير و الكثير و الكثير من التشبيهات الضرورية و غير الضرورية ، بل أنه أح...more

like · see review

Aug 03, 2012 Ebooks Open rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

A favourite Shakespeare text and history play is highly recommended reading/viewing of the events surrounding the Battle of Agincourt throughout the period of the Hundred Years' War. Whichever name you refer to him as: Henry, Harry, Hal - he is the great leader of men whom Shakespeare 'instills' with memorable verse such as "Once more unto the breach, dear friends..." and the inspirational 'St. Crispin's Day speech' ("the band of brothers"). An intriguingly entertaining part of the play is when...more

like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 99 100 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend it | Stats | Recent status updates

combine
Other Editions (259)

More editions...

Genres

Classics

705 users

Plays

573 users

Drama

287 users

Literature

85 users

Historical Fiction

82 users

Plays > Theatre

73 users

Poetry

41 users

Academic > School

41 users

European Literature > British Literature

35 users

Academic > College

21 users

See top shelves...

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About William Shakespeare

William Shakespeare (baptised 26 April 1564) was an English poet and playwright, widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist. He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon" (or simply "The Bard"). His surviving works consist of 38 plays, 154 sonnets, two long narrative poems, and several other poems. His plays have been tr...more William Shakespeare (baptised 26 April 1564) was an English poet and playwright, widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist. He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon" (or simply "The Bard"). His surviving works consist of 38 plays, 154 sonnets, two long narrative poems, and several other poems. His plays have been translated into every major living language, and are performed more often than those of any other playwright.

Shakespeare was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon. Scholars believe that he died on his fifty-second birthday, coinciding with St George’s Day. It is an interesting idea that English writer is so closely identified with the Patron Saint of England!

At the age of 18 he married Anne Hathaway, who bore him three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith. Between 1585 and 1592 he began a successful career in London as an actor, writer, and part owner of the playing company the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later known as the King's Men. He appears to have retired to Stratford around 1613, where he died three years later. Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive, and there has been considerable speculation about such matters as his sexuality, religious beliefs, and whether the works attributed to him were written by others.

Shakespeare produced most of his known work between 1590 and 1613. His early plays were mainly comedies and histories, genres he raised to the peak of sophistication and artistry by the end of the sixteenth century. Next he wrote mainly tragedies until about 1608, including Hamlet, King Lear, and Macbeth, considered some of the finest examples in the English language. In his last phase, he wrote tragicomedies, also known as romances, and collaborated with other playwrights. Many of his plays were published in editions of varying quality and accuracy during his lifetime, and in 1623, two of his former theatrical colleagues published the First Folio, a collected edition of his dramatic works that included all but two of the plays now recognised as Shakespeare's.

Shakespeare was a respected poet and playwright in his own day, but his reputation did not rise to its present heights until the nineteenth century. The Romantics, in particular, acclaimed Shakespeare's genius, and the Victorians hero-worshipped Shakespeare with a reverence that George Bernard Shaw called "bardolatry". In the twentieth century, his work was repeatedly adopted and rediscovered by new movements in scholarship and performance. His plays remain highly popular today and are consistently performed and reinterpreted in diverse cultural and political contexts throughout the world.

According to historians, Shakespeare write 37 plays and 154 sonnets throughout the span of his life. Shakespeare's writing average was 1.5 plays a year since he first started writing in 1589. There have been plays and sonnets contributed to Shakespeare that were not authentically written by the great master of language and literature.
(less)

More about William Shakespeare...

Books by William Shakespeare

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About Henry V

24 trivia questions
2 quizzes

More quizzes & trivia...

Quotes from Henry V

“[Thine] face is not worth sunburning.” — 173 people liked it

“From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.” — 155 people liked it

More quotes…

title link	preview: King Henry V
avg rating	preview: King Henry V Goodreads rating: 3.83 (17449 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3066672-king-henry-v?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]/assets/nocover/111x148.png[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3066672-king-henry-v?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]King Henry V by William Shakespeare[/url]

King Henry V (Wars of the Roses)

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website