Henry V

By William Shakespeare and Paul Werstine

The authoritative edition of Henry V from The Folger Shakespeare Library, the trusted and widely used Shakespeare series for students and general readers.

Henry V is Shakespeare’s most famous “war play”; it includes the storied English victory over the French at Agincourt. Some of it glorifies war, especially the choruses and Henry’s speeches urging his troops into battle. But we also hear bishops conniving for war to postpone a bill that would tax the church, and soldiers expecting to reap profits from the conflict. Even in the speeches of Henry and his nobles, there are many chilling references to the human cost of war.

This edition includes:
-Freshly edited text based on the best early printed version of the play
-Full explanatory notes conveniently placed on pages facing the text of the play
-Scene-by-scene plot summaries
-A key to the play’s famous lines and phrases
-An introduction to reading Shakespeare’s language
-An essay by a leading Shakespeare scholar providing a modern perspective on the play
-Fresh images from the Folger Shakespeare Library’s vast holdings of rare books
-An annotated guide to further reading

Essay by Michael Neill

The Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, DC, is home to the world’s largest collection of Shakespeare’s printed works, and a magnet for Shakespeare scholars from around the globe. In addition to exhibitions open to the public throughout the year, the Folger offers a full calendar of performances and programs. For more information, visit Folger.edu.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Simon & Schuster
• Release date: Aug 18, 2015
• ISBN: 9781501126574

William Shakespeare

William Shakespeare (1564–1616) is arguably the most famous playwright to ever live. Born in England, he attended grammar school but did not study at a university. In the 1590s, Shakespeare worked as partner and performer at the London-based acting company, the King’s Men. His earliest plays were Henry VI and Richard III, both based on the historical figures. During his career, Shakespeare produced nearly 40 plays that reached multiple countries and cultures. Some of his most notable titles include Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet and Julius Caesar. His acclaimed catalog earned him the title of the world’s greatest dramatist.

Book preview

About this eBook

This eBook contains special symbols that are important for reading and understanding the text. In order to view them correctly, please activate your device’s Publisher Font or Original font setting; use of optional fonts on your device may result in missing, or incorrect, special symbols.

Also, please keep in mind that Shakespeare wrote his plays and poems over four hundred years ago, during a time when the English language was in many ways different than it is today. Because the built-in dictionary on many devices is designed for modern English, be advised that the definitions it provides may not apply to the words as Shakespeare uses them. Whenever available, always check the glosses linked to the text for a proper definition before consulting the built-in dictionary.

THE NEW FOLGER LIBRARY

SHAKESPEARE

Designed to make Shakespeare’s great plays available to all readers, the New Folger Library edition of Shakespeare’s plays provides accurate texts in modern spelling and punctuation, as well as scene-by-scene action summaries, full explanatory notes, many pictures clarifying Shakespeare’s language, and notes recording all significant departures from the early printed versions. Each play is prefaced by a brief introduction, by a guide to reading Shakespeare’s language, and by accounts of his life and theater. Each play is followed by an annotated list of further readings and by a Modern Perspective written by an expert on that particular play.

Barbara A. Mowat is Director of Research emerita at the Folger Shakespeare Library, Consulting Editor of Shakespeare Quarterly, and author of The Dramaturgy of Shakespeare’s Romances and of essays on Shakespeare’s plays and their editing.

Paul Werstine is Professor of English at the Graduate School and at King’s University College at Western University. He is a general editor of the New Variorum Shakespeare and author of Early Modern Playhouse Manuscripts and the Editing of Shakespeare, as well as many papers and essays on the printing and editing of Shakespeare’s plays.

The Folger Shakespeare Library

The Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C., is a privately funded research library dedicated to Shakespeare and the civilization of early modern Europe. It was founded in 1932 by Henry Clay and Emily Jordan Folger, and incorporated as part of Amherst College in Amherst, Massachusetts, one of the nation’s oldest liberal arts colleges, from which Henry Folger had graduated in 1879. In addition to its role as the world’s preeminent Shakespeare collection and its emergence as a leading center for Renaissance studies, the Folger Shakespeare Library offers a wide array of cultural and educational programs and services for the general public.

EDITORS

BARBARA A. MOWAT

Director of Research emerita

Folger Shakespeare Library

PAUL WERSTINE

Professor of English

King’s University College at Western University, Canada

From the Director of the Folger Shakespeare Library

It is hard to imagine a world without Shakespeare. Since their composition more than four hundred years ago, Shakespeare’s plays and poems have traveled the globe, inviting those who see and read his works to make them their own.

Readers of the New Folger Editions are part of this ongoing process of taking up Shakespeare, finding our own thoughts and feelings in language that strikes us as old or unusual and, for that very reason, new. We still struggle to keep up with a writer who could think a mile a minute, whose words paint pictures that shift like clouds. These expertly edited texts are presented as a resource for study, artistic exploration, and enjoyment. As a new generation of readers engages Shakespeare in eBook form, they will encounter the classic texts of the New Folger Editions, with trusted notes and up-to-date critical essays available at their fingertips. Now readers can enjoy expertly edited, modern editions of Shakespeare anywhere they bring their e-reading devices, allowing readers not simply to keep up, but to engage deeply with a writer whose works invite us to think, and think again.

The New Folger Editions of Shakespeare’s plays, which are the basis for the texts realized here in digital form, are special because of their origin. The Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C., is the single greatest documentary source of Shakespeare’s works. An unparalleled collection of early modern books, manuscripts, and artwork connected to Shakespeare, the Folger’s holdings have been consulted extensively in the preparation of these texts. The Editions also reflect the expertise gained through the regular performance of Shakespeare’s works in the Folger’s Elizabethan Theater.

I want to express my deep thanks to editors Barbara Mowat and Paul Werstine for creating these indispensable editions of Shakespeare’s works, which incorporate the best of textual scholarship with a richness of commentary that is both inspired and engaging. Readers who want to know more about Shakespeare and his plays can follow the paths these distinguished scholars have tread by visiting the Folger either in person or online, where a range of physical and digital resources exist to supplement the material in these texts. I commend to you these words, and hope that they inspire.

Michael Witmore

Director, Folger Shakespeare Library

Contents

Editors’ Preface

Shakespeare’s Henry V

Reading Shakespeare’s Language: Henry V

Shakespeare’s Life

Shakespeare’s Theater

The Publication of Shakespeare’s Plays

An Introduction to This Text

Characters in the Play

The Life of Henry V

Text of the Play with Commentary

Act 1

Prologue

Scene 1

Scene 2

Act 2

Chorus

Scene 1

Scene 2

Scene 3

Scene 4

Act 3

Chorus

Scene 1

Scene 2

Scene 3

Scene 4

Scene 5

Scene 6

Scene 7

Act 4

Chorus

Scene 1

Scene 2

Scene 3

Scene 4

Scene 5

Scene 6

Scene 7

Scene 8

Act 5

Chorus

Scene 1

Scene 2

Epilogue

Longer Notes

Textual Notes

Henry V: A Modern Perspective

by Michael Neill

Further Reading

Key to Famous Lines and Phrases

Commentary

Act 1

Prologue

Scene 1

Scene 2

Act 2

Chorus

Scene 1

Scene 2

Scene 3

Scene 4

Act 3

Chorus

Scene 1

Scene 2

Scene 3

Scene 4

Scene 5

Scene 6

Scene 7

Act 4

Chorus

Scene 1

Scene 2

Scene 3

Scene 4

Scene 5

Scene 6

Scene 7

Scene 8

Act 5

Chorus

Scene 1

Scene 2

Epilogue

Editors’ Preface

In recent years, ways of dealing with Shakespeare’s texts and with the interpretation of his plays have been undergoing significant change. This edition, while retaining many of the features that have always made the Folger Shakespeare so attractive to the general reader, at the same time reflects these current ways of thinking about Shakespeare. For example, modern readers, actors, and teachers have become interested in the differences between, on the one hand, the early forms in which Shakespeare’s plays were first published and, on the other hand, the forms in which editors through the centuries have presented them. In response to this interest, we have based our edition on what we consider the best early printed version of a particular play (explaining our rationale in a section called An Introduction to This Text) and have marked our changes in the text—unobtrusively, we hope, but in such a way that the curious reader can be aware that a change has been made and can consult the Textual Notes to discover what appeared in the early printed version.

Current ways of looking at the plays are reflected in our brief prefaces, in many of the commentary notes, in the annotated lists of Further Reading, and especially in each play’s Modern Perspective, an essay written by an outstanding scholar who brings to the reader his or her fresh assessment of the play in the light of today’s interests and concerns.

As in the Folger Library General Reader’s Shakespeare, which the New Folger Library Shakespeare replaces, we include explanatory notes designed to help make Shakespeare’s language clearer to a modern reader, and we hyperlink notes to the lines that they explain. We also follow the earlier edition in including illustrations—of objects, of clothing, of mythological figures—from books and manuscripts in the Folger Shakespeare Library collection. We provide fresh accounts of the life of Shakespeare, of the publishing of his plays, and of the theaters in which his plays were performed, as well as an introduction to the text itself. We also include a section called Reading Shakespeare’s Language, in which we try to help readers learn to break the code of Elizabethan poetic language.

For each section of each volume, we are indebted to a host of generous experts and fellow scholars. The Reading Shakespeare’s Language sections, for example, could not have been written had not Arthur King, of Brigham Young University, and Randal Robinson, author of Unlocking Shakespeare’s Language, led the way in untangling Shakespearean language puzzles and generously shared their insights and methodologies with us. Shakespeare’s Life profited by the careful reading given it by S. Schoenbaum, Shakespeare’s Theater was read and strengthened by Andrew Gurr and John Astington, and The Publication of Shakespeare’s Plays is indebted to the comments of Peter W. M. Blayney. Special thanks are also due to Professors Raija Koski and Janine Chapuis-Enhorn of King’s College for their great help with the French in Henry V. We, as editors, take sole responsibility for any errors in our editions.

We are grateful to the authors of the Modern Perspectives; to Leeds Barroll and David Bevington for their generous encouragement; to the Huntington and Newberry Libraries for fellowship support; to King’s College for the grants it has provided to Paul Werstine; to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, which provided him with a Research Time Stipend for 1990–91; to R. J. Shroyer of the University of Western Ontario for essential computer support; and to the Folger Institute’s Center for Shakespeare studies for its fortuitous sponsorship of a workshop on Shakespeare’s Texts for Students and Teachers (funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities and led by Richard Knowles of the University of Wisconsin), a workshop from which we learned an enormous amount about what is wanted by college and high-school teachers of Shakespeare today.

Our biggest debt is to the Folger Shakespeare Library: to Michael Witmore, Director of the Folger Shakespeare Library, who brings to our work a gratifying enthusiasm and vision; to Gail Kern Paster, Director of the Library from 2002 until July 2011, whose interest and support have been unfailing and whose scholarly expertise continues to be an invaluable resource; and to Werner Gundersheimer, the Library’s Director from 1984 to 2002, who made possible our edition; to Jean Miller, the Library’s Art Curator, who combs the Library holdings for illustrations, and to Julie Ainsworth, Head of the Photography Department, who carefully photographs them; to Peggy O’Brien, Director of Education, and her assistant, Molly Haws, who continue to give us expert advice about the needs being expressed by Shakespeare teachers and students (and to Martha Christian and other master teachers who used our texts in manuscript in their classrooms); to Jessica Hymowitz, who provides expert computer support; to the staff of the Academic Programs Division, especially Mary Tonkinson, Lena Cowen Orlin, Jean Feerick, Amy Adler, Kathleen Lynch, and Carol Brobeck; and, finally, to the staff of the Library Reading Room, whose patience and support are invaluable.

Barbara A. Mowat and Paul Werstine

Henry the Fifth, King of England, and France, Lord of Ireland.

From John Taylor, All the workes of . . . (1630).

Shakespeare’s Henry V

Henry V is Shakespeare’s most famous war play, perhaps because it represents war in such a variety of ways and thereby tests whatever understanding of war we may bring to it. Some of the play glorifies war, especially the play’s Choruses and Henry’s speeches urging his troops into battle: Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, / Or close the wall up with our English dead! During this first engagement between the invading English army and the French at Harfleur, Henry tells his men that they can never be more truly and gloriously the sons of their fathers than in making war. The play’s Chorus urges us to join the invasion by grappling our imaginations to the sterns of Henry’s ships as they set sail for France, and then to join with the Chorus in praise of Henry on the eve of his greatest battle, Agincourt: Praise and glory on his head! Repeatedly the Chorus glorifies the warlike king, calling him the mirror, or paragon, of all Christian kings and this star of England.

But when the Chorus is offstage we hear other voices of war that are far less alluring. We hear bishops conniving for war so that they can postpone a bill in Parliament that would heavily tax the Church’s wealth. Then we hear soldiers in a tavern enthusiastic for war, not in the hope of winning glory, but in the expectation of reaping profits (To suck, to suck, the very blood to suck). Even in the impressive speeches of Henry and his nobles threatening the French, there are many chilling references to the human cost of war, to the widows’ tears, the orphans’ cries, / . . . the privèd maidens’ groans for dead combatants, as well as to the horrors awaiting the non-combatants: the filthy and contagious clouds / Of heady murder, spoil, rape, and infanticide.

After you read this range of different voices that make up the text of Henry V, we invite you to read A Modern Perspective on the play written by Professor Michael Neill of the University of Auckland, contained within this eBook.

Henry V’s French Descent

Reading Shakespeare’s Language: Henry V

For many people today, reading Shakespeare’s language can be a problem—but it is a problem that can be solved. Those who have studied Latin (or even French or German or Spanish) and those who are used to reading poetry will have little difficulty understanding the language of Shakespeare’s poetic drama. Others, though, need to develop the skills of untangling unusual sentence structures and of recognizing and understanding poetic compressions, omissions, and wordplay. And even those skilled in reading unusual sentence structures may have occasional trouble with Shakespeare’s words. More than four hundred years of static intervene between his speaking and our hearing. Most of his immense vocabulary is still in use, but a few of his words are not, and, worse, some of his words now have meanings quite different from those they had in the sixteenth century. In the theater, most of these difficulties are solved for us by actors who study the language and articulate it for us so that the essential meaning is heard—or, when combined with stage action, is at least felt. When reading on one’s own, one must do what each actor does: go over the lines (often with a dictionary close at hand) until the puzzles are solved and the lines yield up their poetry and the characters speak in words and phrases that are, suddenly, rewarding and wonderfully memorable.

Shakespeare’s Words

As you begin to read the opening scenes of a play by Shakespeare, you may notice occasional unfamiliar words. Some are unfamiliar simply because we no longer use them. In the opening scenes of Henry V, for example, you will find the words casques (i.e., helmets), fain (i.e., gladly), severals (i.e., details), and naught (i.e., worthless). Words of this kind are explained in notes to the text and will become familiar the more of Shakespeare’s plays you read.

In Henry V, as in all of Shakespeare’s writing, more problematic are the words that we still use but that we use with a different meaning. In the opening scenes of Henry V, for example, the word nicely has the meaning of subtly, floods is used where we would say rivers, dishonest where we would say unchaste, and happy where we would say fortunate. Such words will be explained in the notes to the text, but they, too, will become familiar as you continue to read Shakespeare’s language.

Some words are strange not because of the static introduced by changes in language over the past centuries but because these are words that Shakespeare is using to build a dramatic world that has its own space, time, and history. In Henry V, within the larger world of early-fifteenth-century Europe that the play creates, Shakespeare uses one set of words to construct Henry V’s court (and then his royal pavilion on the battlefield); a second set to fashion the court of the King of France and the French camp; yet a third to mark King Henry’s former tavern companions who are now following him to war; and, finally, a fourth to present Henry’s captains, who are drawn from Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, as well as from England.

Henry V’s court is built through early references in the play to chivalry, esquires, exhibitors, commonwealth affairs, the cause of policy, the main intendment of the Scot, and ambassadors’ embassies (or messages), as well as to the earlier history of Edward III and Edward the Black Prince. The French court shares with the English court some reference to their common history of past English victories over France; but the language of the French court is richer, with names exotic to English speakers—the Dukes of Berri and of Brittany, / Of Brabant and of Orléans—and with an ornamental style of expression in such phrasing as means defendant and our quick blood, spirited with wine, and, especially, with its use of French words—les dames d’honneur, les seigneurs de France, and "Ô Dieu vivant"—words that we translate rather literally in the Commentary.

In the tavern peopled by Bardolph, Nym, Pistol, Hostess Quickly, and the Boy, we enter yet another world; it is a place constructed of an odd medley of language: shaked of a burning quotidian-tertian, thou prick-eared cur of Iceland, that’s the humor of it—including even some broken French: "Couple à gorge." Still more unusual is the language used to stage the Welsh, Scots, and Irish captains who serve under Henry V: Kill the poys and the luggage, ay’ll de gud service, By Chrish, la, ’tish ill done. However strange such expressions appear at first, the words and phrases that create these language worlds will become increasingly familiar to you as you read further into the play.

Shakespeare’s Sentences

In an English sentence, meaning is quite dependent on the place given each word. The dog bit the boy and The boy bit the dog mean very different things, even though the individual words are the same. Because English places such importance on the positions of words in sentences, on the way words are arranged, unusual arrangements can puzzle a reader. Shakespeare frequently shifts his sentences away from normal English arrangements—often to create the rhythm he seeks, sometimes to use a line’s poetic rhythm to emphasize a particular word, sometimes to give a character his or her own speech patterns or to allow the character to speak in a special way. When we attend a good performance of the play, the actors will have worked out the sentence structures and will articulate the sentences so that the meaning is clear. In reading for yourself, do as the actor does. That is, when you become puzzled by a character’s speech, check to see if words are being presented in an unusual sequence.

Look first for the placement of subject and verb. Shakespeare often places the verb before the subject (e.g., instead of He goes we find Goes he) or places the subject between the two parts of a verb (e.g., instead of We will go we find Will we go). In Henry V, we find an inverted subject-verb construction in the Chorus’s "should the warlike Harry . . . assume" (instead of the warlike Harry should assume) as well as in "Are now confined two mighty monarchies." Canterbury’s "Then go we in to know his embassy" is another example of inverted subject and verb.

Such inversions rarely cause much confusion. More problematic is Shakespeare’s frequent placing of the object before the subject and verb (e.g., instead of I hit him we might find Him I hit). Canterbury’s The Gordian knot of it he will unloose is an example of such an inversion (the normal order would be He will unloose the Gordian knot of it). Another example is King Henry’s His present and your pains we thank you for, where the normal order would be We thank you for his present and your pains.

Inversions are not the only unusual sentence structures in Shakespeare’s language. Often in his sentences words that would normally appear together are separated from each other. (Again, this is often done to create a particular rhythm or to stress a particular word.) Take, for example, Canterbury’s his wildness, mortified in him, / Seemed to die too; here the phrase mortified in him separates the subject (his wildness) from its verb (seemed). Or take King Henry’s lines: or else our grave, / Like Turkish mute, shall have a tongueless mouth, where the normal construction our grave shall have a tongueless mouth is interrupted by the phrase like Turkish mute. Canterbury uses a similar construction when he says King Pepin, which deposèd Childeric, / Did, as heir general, being descended / Of Blithild, which was daughter to King Clothair, / Make claim and title to the crown of France, where the basic sentence elements (King Pepin did make claim and title) are separated by several interrupting phrases. In order to create for yourself sentences that seem more like the English of everyday speech, you may wish to rearrange the words, putting together the word clusters (his wildness seemed to die, our grave shall have, King Pepin did make claim). You will usually find that the sentence will gain in clarity but will lose its rhythm or shift its emphasis.

Locating and rearranging words that belong together is especially necessary in passages that separate basic sentence elements by long delaying or expanding interruptions—a structure that is sometimes used in Henry V. When the Bishop of Canterbury is justifying his offer of so much Church wealth to King Henry, he uses such an interrupted construction:

For I have made an offer to his Majesty—

Upon our spiritual convocation

And in regard of causes now in hand,

Which I

Reviews for Henry V

[eglinton_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Bombast, stirring speeches, dubious English adventurism in France, the camaraderie of “we happy few”: one sees how the simple, direct valour and honour of this Henry embodies so much of the English character and self-assurance. The Chorus has some memorable lines too, as does the Archbishop of Canterbury, seeming to scheme at the outset, but then dropped from this uncharacteristically straightforward plot. I’m still not clear though, despite the Archbishop’s long attempt at explanation, whether Henry’s claims in France were indeed “with right and conscience” valid or not. No matter now; legend and a heroic leader do the trick.

[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!'

[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. 

[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.

[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.

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

Just finished Henry V...worth the read.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[composingcomposer · 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.

[sean191 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

It's Shakespeare, so pretty much everyone dies.

[scottcholstad · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Not Shakespeare's best, but then even his lesser works are better than 99% of the rest out there. Not my favorite, but still recommended.

[msnikki · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Great Play, could easily see this as a modern re-telling set in the Italian Mob or as hotile financial take over...I see Macbeth the same way.But betrayal is a hell of a thing.

[petroglyph_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I liked this one. There is some good banter at the beginning, the speeches over Caesar’s body are wonderful, and the scenes set at the battle of Philippi felt appropriately hopeful or despondent. Caesar is a bit of a non-entity, though, and I’d have wanted a little more friction between Mark Antony and Octavian Caesar. But a very enjoyable play on the whole.

[rfewell_3 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

I read this play during my Sophomore year of high school. I loved it! "Et tu, Brute!" I thought of it again because I'm reading "A Long Way Gone", and this play is referenced frequently.

[cbl_tn · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

“Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears. Et tu, Brute. Beware the ides of March.” I'm a little embarrassed to admit that this is all I knew of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar up to this point in my life. There's so much more to this play. Shakespeare captures the tension and drama of the last years of the Roman Republic and the role of Julius Caesar's ambition in hastening its end. The L.A. Theatre Works audio production is outstanding. The cast includes Richard Dreyfuss, Kelsey Grammar, Stacy Keach, John De Lancie, and JoBeth Williams. I will listen to this recording again. Next time I will plan to do my listening when I'm able to follow along in the printed text.

[mstrust · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Cassius is quickly able to plant the idea of overthrowing Julius Caesar in the mind of Brutus, a man who claims to love Caesar. Cassius and Brutus gather a group of the Caesar's friends, who they join together to murder the leader, then tell each other that they did the man a favor and will be remembered for their courage in removing a tyrant. But then Marcus Antony gives a clever eulogy at the funeral, which causes the public to question the motives of the assassins, the conspirators no longer trust one another and Brutus finds his position threatened.A good example of how power corrupts, as even the good guy, Antony, tries to manipulate his friends to gain more for himself.

[locriian · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

My favourite part of this play is the "Antony is an honest man" speech. Excellent.

[bibliophile26 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I read this due to my interest in HBO's Rome series (which has been cancelled after only 2 seasons - why TV gods, WHY???). Anyway, as an English major I read tons of Shakespeare, so it wasn't a challenging read for me and I found my mind analyzing language/passages as I would have been required to do in school. Let's just say the history plays have never been my favorites; maybe knowing the ending spoils the play?

[ausie7 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

This is the best William Shakespeare that I have ever read. I haven't read much but this one was really appealing to me. Even though I knew the ending, I couldn't put the book down until the end.

[shawnd_72 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

"Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look." This was one of Shakespeare's more excellent books in my opinion. While historical it wasn't as bad as one of the Richard books--it had a timeless story without being too historical or too political, especially British-ly political. One of the original eponymous tragedy, a story of a man's success and betrayal. A wonderful masterpiece and underrated.

[lyzadanger · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Forgive me that it took me eight months to finish Shakespeare's shortest play. I kept picking it up, reading the first act, and then forgetting. It's strange reading about Roman history through compound filters: dramatization, Shakespearean England, what we know of the Roman Republic, modern norms. One gets so twisted around that nary an eyebrow is raised in Act 2 when Caesar asks "What is't o'clock?" (Brutus: "Caesar, 'tis strucken eight.") Such a tangle that it might not jump immediately to mind that there were probably not a whole lot of chiming clocks in the first century BC. We've got Centurions herein acting like they're on Queen Elizabeth's court. Strange.This play is brief. Brief enough that it doesn't feel like a story so much as a string of exchanges. Brutus (who refers to himself in the third person and thus puts me in the mind of Tarzan or other deep-voiced simpleton) seems instantly swayed to subterfuge. Caesar is full of lofty exaltations but kind of amounts to nothing when you think about it. Marc Antony does show a bit of craftiness, and Cassius is devious. I do like the way Casca responds to Cassius' invitation to dinner and I hope I can use it myself sometime: "Ay, if I be alive, and your mind hold, and your dinner worth the eating."I do feel like that sometimes.

[sweetsarah_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Wow that Brutus was one sneaky guy he just wanted to be like Caesar. and then the scene when they killed Caesar was like WOW