King Henry V

By William Shakespeare

Henry V is a history play by William Shakespeare, believed to be written in 1599. It is based on the life of King Henry V of England, and focuses on events immediately before and after the Battle of Agincourt during the Hundred Years' War.

The play is the final part of a tetralogy, preceded by Richard II, Henry IV, part 1 and Henry IV, part 2. The original audiences would thus have already been familiar with the title character, who was depicted in the Henry IV plays as a wild, undisciplined lad known as "Prince Hal." In Henry V, the young prince has become a mature man and embarks on an attempted conquest of France.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Sheba Blake Publishing
• Release date: May 18, 2015
• ISBN: 9781304157416

William Shakespeare

William Shakespeare was born in April 1564 in the town of Stratford-upon-Avon, on England’s Avon River. When he was eighteen, he married Anne Hathaway. The couple had three children—an older daughter Susanna and twins, Judith and Hamnet. Hamnet, Shakespeare’s only son, died in childhood. The bulk of Shakespeare’s working life was spent in the theater world of London, where he established himself professionally by the early 1590s. He enjoyed success not only as a playwright and poet, but also as an actor and shareholder in an acting company. Although some think that sometime between 1610 and 1613 Shakespeare retired from the theater and returned home to Stratford, where he died in 1616, others believe that he may have continued to work in London until close to his death.

Reviews for King Henry V

[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.

[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. 

[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.

[tysonadams · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

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
As fearfully as doth a galled rock
O'erhang and jutty his confounded base,
Swill'd with the wild and wasteful ocean.
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit
To his full height. On, on, you noblest English.
Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof!
Fathers that, like so many Alexanders,
Have in these parts from morn till even fought
And sheathed their swords for lack of argument:
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest
That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you.
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war. And you, good yeoman,
Whose limbs were made in England, show us here
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'

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

Just finished Henry V...worth the read.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[jhudsui_1 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Is this normal for his historical plays? The actual historical action is only briefly outlined and the majority of the play is devoted to the antics of a pack of buffoonish rogues / camp followers? Also this particular one seems to be dedicated to lionizing a guy for invading a foreign country in a war of conquest.

[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.

[jwhenderson_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I recently attended the Chicago Shakespeare Theater production of Henry V by William Shakespeare. This is one of Shakespeare's more popular plays with brilliant and subtle moments although it falls short of the excellence of the drama in the two parts of Henry IV that preceded it. Shakespeare based his play upon current historical information about the man who was King of England and France almost two centuries earlier. The play focuses on the events leading up to and including the battle of Agincourt in which the English under Henry decisively defeated the French under the Duke of Burgundy. The result was the marriage of Henry to Katherine, the daughter of Charles VI, the KIng of France.The play is notable for the inspiring speech of Henry before the final battle that concludes with the famous lines:"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;For he to-day that sheds his blood with meShall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,This day shall gentle his condition:And gentlemen in England now a-bedShall think themselves accursed they were not here,And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaksThat fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day." (Act IV, Scene iii)The play notes the death of Falstaff and his absence leaves a hole that the comic relief of Bardolph, Pistol, and Nim cannot completely fill. The production I saw portrayed the battle scenes with an over-the-top level of bombast that nearly blew us out of our seats (we held on dearly for from our vantage in the third level we would have had a long fall to the floor below). The best parts of the play for me, and my friends, were the scenes in the second half of the play. The scene where Henry borrows a cloak and goes among the common soldiers, disguised, the night before the Battle of Agincourt was especially effective. Though Henry, as played by Harry Judge, was impressive in Henry's speeches and as leader of the English nobles. The combination of a good cast and production made this an excellent production to end the season at Chicago Shakespeare Theater.

[therebelprince · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

A solid addition to the canon. However, given Penguin's general attitude of inclusiveness, I find it odd that the Katherine/Alice scene - entirely in French - isn't translated. I generally agree with the editorial assumption that words with evident meanings shouldn't be explained, as most readers have access to a dictionary, however this seems to be going too far.

[mrslee_1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Don't look for an educated review here, I've barely touched the surface having only read the play one time. I tried to watch two versions of this, but they did not catch my fancy. I enjoyed the reading of it though, and intend to read the second part very soon. Action, intrigue, a bit of comedy/farce. Good stuff.

[booksfordinner · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Folger editions are my fave.

[dmyates-1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

I thoroughly enjoyed reading part 1. Shakespeare has a way with words that few authors do. I loved his interpretation of Falstaff and the humor he assigned to this character. The war scenes were brilliantly done. By the end of the book, Prince Henry has done what he vowed he would - become a prince his father could be proud of. Fun, fun read.

[stillatim · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I was a bit worried that I wouldn't get it, since I always have trouble with any books or movies which mix the funny and the serious. But I had no problems with this (unlike, say, The Tempest). Looking forward to part II and Henry V.

"But thoughts, the slaves of life, and life, time's fool
And time, that takes survey of all the world,
Must have a stop." Hotspur, V 4 80-82.

"Why? She's neither fish nor flesh; a man knows not where to have her."
"Thou art an unjust man in saying so. Thou or any man knows where to have me, thou knave thou." Falstaff & Mrs Quickly, III 3 126-129.

[trilliams · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

It doesn't have the famous speeches of Henry V, but it has the action, the humor, Hotspur, and... FALSTAFF. I can only imagine some Elizabethan Chris Farley got rich off this part. It would only make sense.

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

This play was the second in a series of 8 which together formed Shakespeare’s masterful saga of 'History' plays chronicling the turbulent final century of the Plantagenet Dynasty from the deposition of Richard II in 1399 to the death of Richard III at Bosworth field in 1485.

Altogether, they have all the high drama of an epic saga with their vivid accounts of treachery, ambition, power, betrayal, feuding and war in an age of bloody upheaval.
If all this sounds gloomy and depressing, there are also colourful well-developed and memorable characters including the 'man mountain' plump and usually tipsy John Falstaff and the heroic Henry V as well as plenty of courage, chivalry and deeds of daring-do with a smattering of romance and humour.

Whoever said Shakespeare was boring? It should be said, however, that I could not fully appreciate these plays by simply reading them- they had to be seen as well. They are not, after all, novels, and reading through them in the way one would a book can be a tedious experience.

In this play King Henry IV struggles to maintain his position and power in the face of rebellion from the influential, passionate, impetuous and headstrong Henry Hotspur young son of the powerful Earl of Northumberland who joins with the King's enemies.
Alongside the threat of rebellion and civil war King Henry strives with his own wayward son Prince Hal (the future Henry V) who spends most of his time in seedy taverns and the company of ne'er-do- wells such as John Falstaff.

As events come to a head, Hal promises to prove himself worthy of his father's respect, and ultimately the position and authority of his future Kingship on the battlefield.

[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.

[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.

[coach_of_alva · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Shakespeare recreates a famous battle on an Elizabethan stage with great speeches, a fascinating and very realistic look at the common soldiery, and a chorus that begs the audience to use its imagination.

[aliceanna-1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

The best of this play is the spurring to action of a few against many. The underdog plays well (although the whole divine right of kings stuff pales for the modern reader).The king seems to have no relation whatever to the boy he once was. Only Pistol and Bardolph serve to remind us of those days.

[alcracka · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Another great one! If I remember right, the second part of Henry IV is not as great...I'll have to kinda slog through it on my way to Henry V, which at this point is like having sex with your wife. Henry V, not slogging through 2 Henry IV, I mean. I've read Henry V like fifty times and seen the movie at least five - my mom really liked that thing. That and Amadeus. Remember back when VCRs were for watching old movies instead of new ones? ("No, because I'm not a million years old like you." "Get off my lawn.") Anyway, after thinking about it for six and a half sentences, the sex / Henry V comparison doesn't make any sense, so never mind.

I found myself losing focus sometimes during 1 Henry IV, and I'm not sure whether it was the context - I had little free time this weekend and I found myself reading it in small bites, sometimes while the wife watched cooking reality shows. Not a great way to read Shakespeare - or maybe it was that it's been a while since I read a bunch of Shakespeare in quick succession, and my Shakespeare muscles have gone all flabby. We'll see.

Where Richard II was very faithful to the actual history, Shakespeare departs more readily from the strict truth of things in the Henry IV plays. He throws a lot more stuff in from non-historical characters, Falstaff being the obvious one, possibly because he needs some padding to make this into two different plays; I'm not sure why he did two plays, but maybe I'll get it more after the second one. (I've read all this before, but it's been a while so I don't remember how 2 Henry IV ends.) The dramatic arc in this first part works perfectly, anyway; the climactic (and completely fabricated) duel between the young Henry V and Hotspur makes a great Act V.

Interesting, by the way, that Henry V is at least co-lead with Henry IV in this first part, and he's clearly the main character in the second. Just sayin'. I wonder whether we'd see these plays differently if 2 Henry IV had been called 1 Henry V. I think Henry IV gets less attention than Henry V in part because it's two plays, which makes people more anxious about reading them. More commitment, y'know? But if you take 1 Henry IV on its own...well, it's not as good as Richard II, but it's very good.

I'm rambling badly, aren't I? Truth is I have work to do and I don't want to do it. But okay, I should get to it. See you soon for 2 Henry IV.

Saccio's book, by the way, is great. Fun to read, really informative. My pattern has been to read the chapter about the play, then the play, then my Riverside Shakespeare's intro to the play; it's working out nicely. There's a lot of flipping between books involved, though; I'm going to buy a physical copy of Saccio today so I can reference it better. Paging around on a Kindle totally sucks.

[shanaqui_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I think I like Henry V best of all the kings. I suppose it helps that he isn't an usurper (or at least, he didn't begin the rebellion or kill Richard II -- I'm not sure whether the son of an usurper is still an usurper), and that I've followed his development through three plays.

He gets pretty good speeches, too. I have the nebulous beginnings of an essay idea, perhaps, in consequence: something about the theatricality of the kings. Theatre within theatre, comparisons between theatre and kingship... Might be able to find some more critical material now I have an idea.

[ncgraham_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

After a bad experience with Richard II, I was starting to worry that Shakespeare’s history plays weren’t for me, when Henry IV, Part I came along to save me from that delusion. This is a wonderful play, perhaps one of my favorites of Shakespeare's now. It balances so many different elements—the court, the tavern, the rebel camp, the pathos, the humor, the discourse on honor. And it presented me with characters I could truly care about.Faltstaff is often put forward as one of Shakespeare’s greatest creations, and understandably so. The old, fat, roguish knight has a towering presence even on the page, and I could sympathize with his fatherly love for Prince Hal and his fear that the boy will eventually turn on him. Henry IV, who was emotionally distant in Richard II (like most everyone), has some wonderful moments of vulnerability, even breaking into tears in Act III scene 2. And despite the fact that he’s the antagonist, I found Hotspur oddly likable. He’s brazen and impetuous—there must be Scots blood in there somewhere—and in spite of his constant avowals that he does not have “the gift of tongue,” he’s quite eloquent:“But I tell you, my lord fool, out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.”Methinks the noble lord doth protest too much.Actually, the only character who I had trouble liking was Hal himself, the protagonist. I learned this story through an old Wishbone episode, which whitewashed the character somewhat, so I was surprised to pick up the play and discover just how cunning and scheming he is. His dissoluteness and eventual redemption are not genuine, but staged to bring about a certain end; in the meantime, he manipulates the people around him with Machiavellian dexterity. I find that more and more I am placing a premium on honesty, both in books and in real life, and that may be why I prefer some of the other characters over the prince. Falstaff’s attempts at fibbing and playacting are generally unconvincing to those around him—he is inexpert—and I don’t think Hotspur could every bring himself to tell a barefaced lie, which may be one of the reasons I find him so lovable.This is where we ended our perusal of the history plays in my Shakespeare class, but I plan to continue with this particular tetralogy before PBS airs new adaptations of all four plays later this year. Because I enjoyed Henry IV, Part I so much, I’m looking forward to reading more about these characters.

[catfantastic_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Henry IV is not the most accessible of Shakespeare's plays. The histories do require at least a brief background in, well, history, to make them comprehensible. So I would recommend reading, at the very least, some encyclopedia articles on the historical Henry IV (and Richard II, the ruler he overthrew) before tackling this play. With a bit of background information in hand, the play becomes easier to understand.This is the story of Henry IV dealing with the tumultuous mess of a kingdom that he made when he overthrew the previous ruler, Richard II. Even more importantly, it is the story of his son, the prince, coming of age and coming into his role as future ruler of a not-quite unified land. The plot shifts focus between three central groups of characters: The king (Henry IV) is troubled by guilt because he overthrew Richard II, rather than inheriting the throne from him legitimately. He thinks a pilgrimage/crusade to the Holy Land would help him feel better, but alas there's no time for that with all the rebellions he needs to quash in his own kingdom. His unresolved feelings of guilt also lead him to react angrily and defensively against the nobles who sided with him when he overthrew the old king, so he's quickly running out of friends. The king is also troubled because his son seems like a useless punk, and not a valiant knight.Prince Henry (nicknamed Hal) is the king's son. Hal likes drinking and partying and hangs out with a bunch of guys who enjoy robbing people after dark (mostly for the LOLs.) Chief among Hal's disreputable friends is a fat, ridiculous, old knight named Falstaff. Falstaff's over-the-top behavior provides the comic relief for the play. Unfortunately, a lot of the humor is meant to derive from puns that play with words no longer in common usage. It's hardly Shakespeare's fault that we don't use phrases like "trunk of humors" or words like "bolting-hutch" anymore, but that doesn't stop the "funny" parts from getting a bit torturous. Anyways, the point is that Hal needs to grow up, distance himself from the drunken pranks of Falstaff and his ilk, and take on the mantle of knighthood.The third group of characters are, of course, the rebels trying to overthrow King Henry IV. Their leader is Worcester (Thomas Percy) and their ranks include Mortimer, (the guy who would have been next in line for the throne under Richard II's reign), Glendower (leader of the Welsh, rumored to be a sorcerer), Douglas (leader of the Scots), Northumberland (who had been a friend and ally of Henry IV, originally) and Northumberland's son, Hotspur. Hotspur is the same age as Hal (in the play, not in reality) and Shakespeare sets him up as Hal's arch nemesis and a mirror of what Hal might become.Everything heads to a climax at the dramatic Battle of Shrewsbury. King Henry offers peace, but Worcester, who fears he will take all the blame for the rebellion, neglects to pass this information on. In the ensuing battle many die, especially all of the poor, starving beggars Falstaff recruited, and loyal knights who disguise themselves as the king to serve as decoys. At one point, Hal saves his father's life, thus convincing the king that his son isn't so worthless, after all. The play opens with Henry IV wishing that Hal could be more like Hotspur, and fittingly concludes with Hal killing Hotspur and thus taking on his role as warrior and knight. Annoyingly, Falstaff (who has been playing dead for the duration of the battle) tries to take the credit for slaying the enemies' most powerful knight, and Hal, out of kindness, allows him the lie. Since this is only Part 1 of a two part story, there remain some unresolved conflicts at the end of the play, mostly the fact that Glendower failed to materialize at the battle and thus Henry's supporters still have another villain to face.