Henry V

Written by William Shakespeare

Narrated by Samuel West, Timothy West, Cathy Sara and Full Cast

This widely-studied play is one of the best sellers of the Shakespeare canon. This production is the seventh Shakespeare play in the series undertaken by Naxos AudioBooks in conjunction with Cambridge University Press.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Naxos Audiobooks
• Release date: Nov 1, 2000
• ISBN: 9789629546878

William Shakespeare

William Shakespeare is the world's greatest ever playwright. Born in 1564, he split his time between Stratford-upon-Avon and London, where he worked as a playwright, poet and actor. In 1582 he married Anne Hathaway. Shakespeare died in 1616 at the age of fifty-two, leaving three children—Susanna, Hamnet and Judith. The rest is silence.

Reviews for Henry V

[maxernst11 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

1599, meest klassieke tragedie, bron is Plutarchus; perfecte tekst (bijna helemaal rijm), later verketterd als schooltekstBrutus is de hoofdrolspeler, maar Caesar beheerst wel de handeling. Brutus is een idealist die ten onder gaat door een gebrek aan praktisch doorzicht; het tegendeel is Cassius, maar toch meer medevoelen met hem; Antonius is de gehaaide opportunist, demagoog. Brutus? motieven: II,1 (p 820)Moord III,1Verheven pathetiek van Marcus Antonius na de moord, p 826, 827 (maar wel vals)Redevoeringen bij begrafenis III,2 vormen het hoogtepunt, vooral die van Antonius (p 828-29): opruiend door details over de dood van Caesar en een verwijzing naar zijn testament, tegelijk vriendelijk ten aanzien van de samenzweerders.

[nicolesch-1 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

I actually really enjoy Shakespeare. Especially King Lear (of the few I've read so far) I just didn't like Henry V as a character, which severely stunted my ability to enjoy the play. Only the Saint Crispin's Day Speech stopped me from giving this just one star.

I'm not altogether certain that I'm understanding the historical context, but it seems to me that Henry's war does not have just cause. Simply because he has a doubtful claim to France's throne, and the prince of France--the Dauphin--insulted him? My dislike of Henry's war, and therefore Henry himself may be helped along by the fact that the responsibility of Joan of Arc's unfair death seems to be evenly divided between him and Charles VII, the king of France whom Joan served.

I'm not a pacifist, but I agree with J.R.R. Tolkien; "War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." (Somewhere, and I cannot for the life of me remember where, I read sort of summary of Tolkien's feelings on war; that he felt that war was evil, but sometimes necessary to protect the good things in life)

I think the reason that Henry's first speech bugs me is because he is manipulating his countrymen into fighting an unjustified war. Henry started this war because he wanted to be king of France as well as England, and because the Dauphin insulted him. This means that the English are trying to take over a country, while the French are defending their homeland. When I'm presented with this scenario I will almost always side with the defenders, rather than the attackers. I think that the French had a reason to fight; to protect their homeland, but I don't think the English did, and Henry whipping them into a bloodthirsty frenzy to be sure that they wouldn't show mercy was wrong. Returning to the Tolkien theme, sometimes showing pity can save your world, as with Bilbo sparing Gollum.

Henry has ethos because he is a figure of authority. He is the king. One thing that I think gives the speech extra pathos and ethos, and it may be the only time that I see logos in it, is when Henry does appeal to them not to let the fallen Englishmen have fallen in vain. If they lost the war then those people would have died for nothing. This is the way that I feel about the Vietnam War. America pulled out just when we could've won. Of course I am looking back on it, without having lived through it, so maybe I shouldn't be one to judge what the right decision was at the time.

It's not just Henry V that I dislike though. The Archbishop of Canterbury urged Henry into this war, and might very well have been responsible for Joan of Arc's false heresy sentence and death. And the French Dauphin. Regardless of how Henry was in his youth, it was wrong of him to insult him, especially since Henry was in a position of power so that he could start a war over an insult.

So I guess the two main reasons why I don't like the speech or Henry is because of my feelings about the reasons for the start of the war, and because of the feeling of manipulation.

This speech is more rousing by far than the previous one. Henry made this speech when he was outmatched, cold, sick, hungry, desperate and afraid... and so this speech had a ring of truth to it. Henry was asking his men to fight for their lives. I actually felt inspired by this speech. I do thing that Henry had some character growth in act IV. He faced his own guilt in his discussion with Williams. He defended himself, which I found annoying, but then when he was alone he had an eloquent soliloquy that I felt truly showed that, despite his defending his own actions, showed that he had taken some of what Williams said to heart.

The Saint Crispin's Day Speech is really interpretable, however, so I'm going to compare four different interpetations, and how the different recitations affected me. I like to listen to the plays while following along, and in the fully casted AudioGo, Arkangel recording, the actor spoke quietly, as though the speech was personal, mainly for Gloster, Bedford, Exeter, Westmoreland and the other officers. The result of this was that when Montjoy came, I felt Henry should have given in to save his men's lives. Of the three film-versions of the speech I watched on Youtube, Tom Hiddleston's performance most closely echoed that of the audiobook. He seemed to be speaking mainly to his high officers, but he had a lot more feeling in his words than the actor in the recording. He had a lot of sadness in his voice, like he was preparing to die, and coming from him, it didn't seem so unreasonable that he would not accept the French request for his ransom. Lawrence Olivier actually seemed to be addressing all his men, but to me at least, he didn't seem to have a lot of emotion, so I didn't find his version of the speech very compelling, though I did like it better than the audiobook. He was at a disadvantage to the other film versions, though, because Lawrence Olivier's version of the speech was the only one that didn't have music accompanying it. It's incredible, what a good soundtrack can do to add or bring emotion. The last version I'll look at is Kenneth Branagh's. This version was my favorite (once I got over the fact that Gilderoy Lockhart was wearing bright red and blue livery) but the majority of the comments on Youtube seem to disagree with me, prefering Olivier's version. I liked this version because I felt that, played by Branagh, King Henry was addressing his entire army, but at the same time, trying just as hard to give himself courage. Branagh had the most emotional performance of all of them. I could hear his courage, and his desperation. The music, by Patrick Doyle, added to the emotion, it sounded hopeful almost to the point of triumph, yet without undermining the feeling of urgency. With Branagh, not only did I not feel that Henry should have handed himself over, I actually felt that if he had tried, his troops wouldn't have let him do so, and I liked that about this performance. Though I do prefer all of the the film versions to the audio, it is obnoxious to me that all three of them cut out parts of the speech, especially the newer Branagh and Hiddleston versions.

Henry's war was still unjust, but now, because he had truly faced the hardships of war, and heard the complaints of some of his people, and, just maybe, started to take some of the blame for himself, I felt much more inspired. The reasons for the war were unfair, but the reasons for that one battle were acceptable.

As with the last speech, this one's main components are pathos and ethos, but there is quite a bit of logos to the speech, and the three elements are balanced much better than before. Henry has more ethos than he did before, because, not only is he king, but he too is about to enter a battle he doesn't expect to win. This gives him much more credibility. Instead of simply ordering his men to go into battle, he is going with them. With pathos Henry brings hope to a situation that seemed hopeless. "If we are mark'd to die, we are enow/To do our country loss; and if to live,/The fewer men the greter share of honour." Henry also gives them the desire to tell their children stories about this day; "This story shall the good man teach his son;/And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,/From this day to the ending of the world,/But we in it shall be remembered." There is also logic in this speech, because if they fight they will probably die, but if they don't fight the certainly would, after all, they were described as many being sick, and the French were blocking them from going somewhere to rest.

I think that my preference of this speech can be traced to the desperate situation that Henry's men face. This is the kind of speech I would expect to hear from the defenders, rather than the attackers. But then, right now the French are attacking. Henry is still to blame for the whole situation, but this time, he and his men are defending something--their lives. I did not find this speech to be manipulating, because this time, Henry's men know exactly what they are up against.

I still don't like Henry, or the war he started, but I do like the Saint Crispin's Day Speech.


PS. This review is made up of patched together answers I made in discussion posts for an online class. The questions for the discussion posts were mostly regarding Henry's two motivational speeches in Act III. Scene I, and IV. Scene III.

[jmcgarry2011 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I finished this edition today. This edition has the text on the right side, and the explanation on the left side. I saw this at the Great River Shakespeare Festival in Winona, MN. They used most of the text, which some the essays have said is unusual. The stage was bare, except for occasional tables and chairs. It was performed in a "wooden O" on stage. I think this fits in with Shakespeare's original productions. The book also had the translations of the French scenes, which definitely helped. I could follow a little bit, but not entirely. When I read the book, I could really understand what Katherine was saying, which made it even more of comic relief. I also couldn't help but think of all the times the English and the French fought over the years, especially here in America, but that now that's gone. There's the Chunnel connecting England and France, and next year's Tour de France will start in England. Amazing how times change.

[booksbooks11 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

What a wonderful way to present Shakespeare. An audio book with added commentary explaining the more difficult language, all the historical context and how the people of Shakespeare's day would have reacted to each part. Absolutely fabulous, I can't wait to get into the other ones they've published.

[tiffanyak_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This is a play I chose to read for my Play Analysis paper for my Intro. to Drama class. The language is extremely powerful and memorable, the characters are compelling, and the play itself is exceptional. I definitely highly recommend it for anyone with any interest at all in drama. It is, without question, one of the greatest examples of the genre ever written. As to the edition itself, I found it to be greatly helpful in understanding the action in the play. It has a layout which places each page of the play opposite a page of notes, definitions, explanations, and other things needed to understand that page more thoroughly. While I didn't always need it, I was certainly glad to have it whenever I ran into a turn of language that was unfamiliar, and I definitely appreciated the scene-by-scene summaries. Really, if you want to or need to read Shakespeare, an edition such as this is really the way to go, especially until you get more accustomed to it.

[wealhtheowwylfing · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

The first Shakespeare I ever read. I am wildly in love with Marc Antony (odd, because I actively despise him in [book: Antony and Cleopatra]).

[therebelprince · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Just a marvelous edition - the new Arden Shakespeares really are incomparable. The editions as a whole are designed more at the serious academic, but their "Julius Caesar" will cater for people of all levels.

[soylentgreen23 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I hadn't read Shakespeare since school when I decided to give this, one of his historical plays, a chance. At first I struggled to get into it, but then, by using the voices of the characters from the TV show 'A Game of Thrones', I found that I could make it all more dramatic and interesting, and from that point on it was plain sailing.

[bertiemch · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

My favorite Shakespeare play about Henry' V's victory at Agincourt. Henry is a complicated character who appears innocent but is actually a master manipulator. Great speeches including the famous "we happy few, we band of brothers" one.

[meredithgreene_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

As with all Shakespeare we take the tedium with a grain of salt and brave the assault of pithy words and lyrical verses. It is admittedly difficult in a modern world of movies, sound bites and 24-7 news feeds to sit down and delve into WS's works. That said, I can find no fault in this masterpiece; it is my favorite of his works.I believe there is no other hero as poignant as good King Harry, whose decision to leave behind his prior mis-deeds and take on the mantle of responsibility prove his courage, strength and wisdom. Thankfully, Shakespeare chose to write this story replete with historical fact as well as a heavy admiration for the man himself. William Shakespeare makes it fairly obvious that Henry the Fifth was one of his childhood heroes; the voice and descriptions show well that the writer was honored to craft the epic tale. Not only did he do so, but he managed to peddle around freely with his fantastic knack for describing characters via their dialog. The ability to credibly pan to 'flashback', so to speak, is rare in any piece, let alone a written one.The beginning scene of priests locked in whispered discussion is perhaps a bit of a mire to wade through, but once you've read it about 6 times it begins to seem more on the 'brilliant' end of the scale. It definitely shows the impact of religion on royalty and also the frank differences between priests today and then. Then again, some monks used to be renowned fighters/archers/blacksmiths and often aided the ruling monarch in leading troops or in battle tactics.My favorite scene is of course the famous 'brother' speech, for he that sheds his blood with me this day, shall be my brother... ah, the glory of battle for king and country. Yes, such days are done, but the lessons learned and honor earned forthwith remain priceless. This is also the finest tale of brain VS brawn as far as historical battles go; the very first time a hunting weapon, the Welsh longbow (made specifically from the Yew tree) was used in battle. Few at that time knew of it's special secret: it was the first armor-piercing weapon. The French found this out rather painfully of course. The play did exaggerate the few number of English dead (it was more like 1300) but the amount of dead French was pretty darn close. As far as pure patriotic power of the pen, this play takes the cake. It makes one wish they could have stood in the group and yelled, “For England and the King!” Ah, to have such leaders now...The scenes with Catherine are a sweet diversion and, like life, spiced with just a touch of humor. (This is especially played up in the film)It is safe to say this piece of great literature has spawned much creativity and also acted as an anchor for historical action movies. Ridley Scott, for instance, is much influenced by this play. I am of obviously skipping over Kenneth Branah here, but if you have no seen his version of Henry the V, then you must rent it tonight. Even for a movie done in the late 80's it is breathtakingly well done.

[publiusdb-1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Just finished Henry V...worth the read.

[larrellharris · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Summary:This book was about the comedies, tragedies, histories, and romances about Ancient Heroes, bloody wars, and magical creatures. This was a book of power and drama. The theme was set in black and white.Personal Reaction:My personal reaction to this story was that how could one man rule the way Caesar did in Rome and lead his army to countless victories.Classroom Extension:I would use this book in my class to teach children on the power that one individual can have over others.

[alanwpowers · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

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 modernist) touch, the spirit of comic reconciliation pervades the play through its linguistic playfulness. This is Shakespeare's only play using national accents: French, Welsh, Scottish, Irish and of course English. I would speculate that the "Great Britain" only enshrined around a century later (1705?) was initiated under James I, and here in Shakespeare's Henry the Fifth, previewed. The comic interlude of Fluellen and Jamy, etc, features the strong Scottish and Welsh accent, where for instance Fluellen says, "Alexander the Pig." He is corrected, "Don't you mean Alexander the Great?" F, "The great, or the pig, are all one reckonings..."Later in the play, the King "claims kin" with F's despised Welsh minority; "For I am Welsh, you know, good countryman" (4.7.105). And Fluellen may speak English "funny," but he is an excellent soldier, and very knowledgeable about the history of warfare, especially Roman. Well, all this is available in Fran Teague, Acting Funny in Shakespeare, which I heartily recommend with self-interest.

[sly_wit · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Julius Caesar is the first Shakeaspeare I ever read (in English I). I didn't remember much of it when I picked it up again in preparation for a performance at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival in Ashland, but was pleasantly surprised by how modern and relevant it seemed.

[bookworm12_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

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. Obviously there is war and a bloody one at that, but it’s also about Henry (Prince Harry) coming to terms with his responsibility and leadership. He must grow up and leave the boy from the Henry IV plays behind. The lives of so many men are in his hands and without his leadership all will be lost. This is fully realized in one of the most famous monologues in the English canon. We’ve heard the “band of brothers” line thrown around for years, but when you hear the full speech, on the cusp of battle, it’s incredibly moving and powerful. Here’s one small bit… “This story shall the good man teach his son; And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by, 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.”Think about what he is actually saying there. This huge moment in history, the Battle of Agincourt, is so important that the men who weren’t here will wish they were. They won’t consider themselves real men because they were unable to fight in this battle. What an incredible thing to say to your men before rushing in to battle! I also really love the scene with the French princess, Katharine, and Henry at the end of the play. It’s one of the only moments in a very serious story that is a bit light and witty. BOTTOM LINE: It is a classic for good reason. While I struggle with Shakespearean histories, others love them. I don’t think it’s the best place to start with his work, but it’s certainly an essential piece. I think I will probably enjoy it more with each re-read as the language and action becomes even clearer. Also, I would highly recommend the 1989 film version starring and directed by Kenneth Branagh. I watched it after finishing the book and it was really excellent. I have always been impressed with Branagh’s Shakespearean films. I particularly love his version of Hamlet and Much Ado About Nothing. 

[katieloucks · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

did an adaptation of a scene of this! love it!

[glennbell_1 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Not very interesting and uses obsolete language as in all Shakespeare's books/plays. This one recounts a battle between England and France. Not recommended.

[shanaqui_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

I think everyone knows parts of this play: "Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears." The first part of it is maybe not so well known, but I think most people know something of Mark Antony's speech after Caesar's death. I think this might be my favourite Shakespeare play so far -- possibly partly due to already loving to read about Caesar, but also because of the strength of the rhetoric in it.

I have actually seen parts of this performed -- the speech I referred to, actually -- and when I'd read it, I looked on youtube for performances of my favourite parts. I'd go see this play in a heartbeat.

So, anyone remember why I disliked Shakespeare before...? I do wish schools wouldn't shove Romeo and Juliet down people's throats: it's far from my favourite.

[dinadansfriend · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Wonderful rhetoric, good characterization, I believe this writer will have a successful career! The portrait of the king is a wonderful presentation about the good things of one man rule. I seem to have watched it more than I read it, but still five times, and ready to do it again. My favourite speech is "Upon the King...". Aside from the pageant-style Henry VIII, Shakespeare is ready to move on to more personal drama, and this is his last historical play.Internl evidence places this play in the period of late May, 1599.

[leslie398 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Overall, I found this an exciting play with some of Shakespeare's most rousing speeches. On the minus side, it is a tad long and some of the scenes (such as Princess Katherine learning English) could have been eliminated or shortened to make for a tighter play.

[amerynth · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I liked Shakespeare's "Henry V" a lot.... it has a few great speeches and the action moves along nicely. The play picks up shortly after Henry V ascends to the throne of England and follows him to France for the Battle of Agincourt. The play skips around from place to place a bit, which might be a bit jarring if not for the chorus smoothing over the rough edges. I understand this was one of Shakepeare's later historical plays -- fit in to cover the period between others -- and it shows as the writing is pretty tight and the story well-paced.

[lieslmayerson · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Are you allowed to not like anything by Shakespeare? So many great, enjoyable Shakespeare reads, but this is not one of them in my opinion. Definitely offers value from a literary and historical perspective, but I honestly would choose many other of his works above this.

[joy_f-1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

When I initially attempted to read this, I couldn't understand what was going on, but after careful study and rereading, I was very proud to see I could comprehend it. I found it exciting and dramatic!

[jonbrammer-788089 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Not my favorite Shakespeare play, but mainly because this is one where the Bard was more concerned with moving the pieces around than creating those great Shakespearean moments of pathos. His audience-goers would have all been familiar with the details of Caesar's death, along with its central irony: that Octavius Caesar becomes the dictator that Brutus and Cassius were trying to stop by murdering Julius.

Contemporary audiences don't necessarily know this context, and I would have liked to see more character development: at the end of the play, I didn't have a good handle on the personalities of the conspirators.

After another reading, I agree with some commentators that what is key is the skill of the Roman orators and their attempts to convince each other (and themselves) of the justice of their cause. Especially interesting is the use of (and lapses in) iambic pentameter.

[heggiep · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This was a re-read from high school days. While certainly a classic, filled with memorable passages, it's hard to give a play a high reading rating. The joy and wonder of it is in its performance.

[pgchuis · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This was great fun, although it was quite hard keeping all the characters straight in my mind because so many of them had unfamiliar Roman/Latin names.

[kristelh_15 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Reason to read: Shakespeare Category Challenge, ROOTThis was actually enjoyable to listen to. Some great lines that are very familiar and of course the story is as well. Caesar, Anthony, Brutus, the Ides of March. One should probably read this one in March..

[bell7_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This is one of two of Shakespeare’s better-known plays that I somehow missed in high school and college (the other is [King Lear], which I have yet to read). Despite the title, most of the action centers around Brutus, his decision to throw in with the conspirators, Caesar’s death, and the aftermath.Perhaps the most famous lines in this play come from Mark Antony, mourning Caesar’s death and allowed by the conspirators to eulogize, as long as Antony does not blame them for the act. He does so, brilliantly getting the plebeians on his side while he talks about his friend, all the while repeating variations of “But Brutus says, he {Caesar} was ambitious; / and Brutus is an honorable man.” A couple of other phrases I was delighted to discover were “it is Greek to me” and “give up the ghost,” neither of which I realized were so old. I read it in one sitting, as is my wont, with a fair amount of help from the notes. I have the “Wordsworth Classics” edition which, instead of having notes on the opposite page or footnotes, had them in the back, so I had to keep a finger there and keep glancing back and forth. The glossary was separate and alphabetically rather than by line number, which was irritating, but despite that I mostly followed the meaning on my own from the context.I would include the play among the history plays rather than calling it an all-out tragedy. Certainly there is a lot of death, but unlike [Hamlet] where audiences have sympathy for the main character yet everybody dies, no one comes out completely sympathetic in [Julius Caeser]. The conspirators are not great people, yet Antony and the others taking over government after Caesar’s death can also be ruthless and bicker among themselves. All in all, it’s rather unsettling and as modern as any current book with unlikable characters. The introduction to my edition discusses this and also has some pointed things to say about politics that could have been written today rather than 2004: “To this day, human beings are, all too often, sacrificed pointlessly on the altar of one political ideology or another. Again and again, men of slogans and ambition seduce and delude their more decent auditors; the many are swayed by the hypocritical rhetoric of the few. Repeatedly, violence generates yet more violence.” Not much has changed since 1599 - or 44 BCE, for that matter.

[angelalam-300700 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

I am doing some preliminary research and decided to start with Shakespeare.

[datrappert · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

One of Shakespeare's greatest and most accessible plays. Marc Antony's speech is one of Shakespeare's best, especially as it follows what would otherwise seem a pretty good speech by Brutus. Cutthroat politics goes back a long way....