In the following essay, Corum offers a “homosocial” reading of Henry's character in Henry V, analyzing phallic desire as a motivating force in the play.

In the following essay, Hart contends that Henry V contains many aspects found in Shakespeare’s problem plays, most notably its unstable genre, which includes elements of tragedy, comedy, and satire.

In the following essay, Eggert asserts that Henry V is an example of the way the Elizabethan stage was used to support patriarchal power.

In the essay that follows, Wentersdorf explores the reasons why none of the principals on stage in Act II, scene i refers to the real motive behind the Southampton conspiracy: to make Cambridge or his son king of England. The critic points out that all the assembled nobles know that Cambridge's title to the English crown is as strong as Henry's—and at least as justifiable as Henry's right to the throne of France—but it's not in the self-interest of any of them to r...

Below, Leggatt considers possible readings of the play, its depiction of war, and its portrait of political authority. He invokes the need for audiences to be engaged as well as skeptical, particularly with respect to appraising Henry, whom the critic sees as a man motivated by obedience—the same virtue that Canterbury cites as the means of keeping all parts of an ideal nation working in harmony for a common purpose.

In the following review, Lane attempts to show that Kenneth Branagh's 1989 film version of Henry V softened the elements of class conflict and concerns regarding the justifiability of war that appear in Shakespeare's play.

In the following essay, Hedrick studies how Shakespeare masterfully joined history, politics, and love in Henry V, focusing in particular on the courtship between Henry V and Katherine in the play's final act.

Robin Headlam Wells, University of Hull "O for a Muse of fire!" What more appropriate way to begin an epic celebration of England's greatest warrior-king than an invocation to Mars, the baleful god of war with 'famine, sword and fire' straining like leashed greyhounds at his heels (Prol. 1-8)?1 Praised by his contemporaries as the flower of knighthood,2 the historical Henry V was the epitome of English chivalry; and chivalry is essentially a martial i...

In the following essay, Thorne concentrates on the political world of Henry V, maintaining that the work demonstrates an ambivalent relationship to the traditional ideological tenets of the English chronicle history play.

In the following excerpt, Moseley describes the principal characters and plot structure of Henry V, emphasizing thematic elements in the drama associated with the heroic role of Henry.

In the following essay, Danson calls attention to analogies between king and Chorus, suggesting that both the play and its principal character require an impartial, even sympathetic appraisal. Henry and the Chorus are both performers, the critic remarks, adept at creating images and self-images, myths and legends, and together depicting a king who is noble but flawed and who must make painful choices.

Janet M. Spencer, Wingate University "The figure who exceeds the law as its master and the one who exceeds it as transgressor," Christopher Pye explains of Henry V and the traitors Cambridge, Grey, and Scroop, "are indeed bound by an unspoken—perhaps unspeakable—knowledge about the origins of power."1 In Shakespeare's Henry V, Henry takes great pains to conceal his capacity to exceed the law by seeking religious legitimation of, or by displacing mo...

In the following essay, Mossman examines parallels between Henry in Shakespeare's Henry V and Alexander in Plutarch's Life of Alexander.

In the following essay, Scoufos examines Falstaff's “undramatic and overly hasty demise” in Henry V.

In the following essay, Robinson examines Shakespeare's manipulation of English historiography in Henry V through a thematic evocation of fraternal conflict and reconciliation, and generic blending of tragedy and comedy.

In the following essay, Womersley investigates the topical significance of Shakespeare's complex and ambiguous treatment of the French in Henry V.

In the following excerpt, Jensen presents an overview of Henry V from the point of view of politics, concentrating on Henry's rhetorical appeal to English audiences. The critic contends that with this play Shakespeare sought to render “a king worthy of our admiration both for his unflinching realism and for his righteousness.”

In the following essay, Shaughnessy surveys stage and film versions of Henry V from the postwar period, evaluating the ways in which the interpretative principles of postmodernism increasingly informed these productions.

In the essay below, Kastan argues that Henry's moral certitude prevents him from questioning the justice of his cause or permitting anyone else to challenge it. The critic maintains that the king is convinced that God is on his side and that the war against France is legally as well as divinely sanctioned, and so he ignores or suppresses any suggestion of moral ambiguity or complexity.

In the following review, Buhler studies the treatment of Catholicism and British national identity in Laurence Olivier's 1944 film adaptation of Henry V. Buhler argues that in the film, Olivier sought to use both Catholic ritual and Shakespeare's text as sources of national strength and unity.

In the following excerpt from a chapter in which he challenges historicist and materialist readings of Henry V, Bradshaw argues that members of an Elizabethan audience would have responded in a variety of ways to the play's presentation of history. Depending on their principles, their personal interests, and their political sympathies, the critic contends, some would have embraced the Chorus's version of events and Henry's justifications of the war, but others would have noticed the pl...

In the following essay, Babula studies the maturation process Henry undergoes in Henry V. The critic notes that as Henry progresses his language moves from artifice to honesty.

In the following essay, Brownell affirms the unified design of Henry V by presenting a scene-by-scene analysis of the drama in relation to its theme of “private cause” versus “public good.”

In the following essay, Ivic contends that the conflicts portrayed between the Irish, Welsh, Scottish, and English characters in Henry V emphasized the fragmented nature of the nation, and explains that England's anxiety concerning its national and cultural identity is symbolized in Shakespeare's King Henry.

In the essay below, Hammond contends that the Chorus's description of the play and its protagonist is intended to contradict what we see in other parts of the drama. Duality is essential to Henry V, the critic asserts, and its disparate perspectives force us to consider both the complexities of heroism and the question of theatrical verisimilitude.

In the following essay, Slights probes the historical context of Henry's conscience in Henry V, including his mediation between personal judgment and social obligation as King of England.

In the following essay, Steinsaltz contends that in Henry V the English language is “intimately entwined with the life and honor of the English nation” and that the play is not merely “a representation of England's triumph over France, but … the humiliation and tumultuous trouncing of the French language, which had subjugated their native English for so long.”

In the following essay, Cohen studies the use of violence in Henry V, arguing that in this play, violence is used politically by a monarch "in the service of order and success."

In the following essay, Hall highlights the complexities of Henry V's principal themes: order versus disorder, the nature of warfare, and the requirements of kingship.

In the following essay, Stříbrný maintains that while Shakespeare's depiction of Henry V reveals the king's hypocrisy and opportunism, Shakespeare nevertheless intended to portray Henry's war against the French as justifiable and the English victory at Agincourt as a triumphant overcoming of tremendous odds.

In the following essay, Hopkins demonstrates that France's position as “the Other” is portrayed in ambivalent terms throughout Henry V, commenting that France and the French, while still a place and a people to be conquered, are discussed by Henry as known and familiar, not strange or foreign.

In the essay below, Cubeta evaluates the secondhand account of Falstaff's death in Henry V (II.iii) with particular reference to fifteenth- and sixteenth-century religious writings on how one should prepare for final judgment. Noting that Falstaff has always been more interested in the art of living than the art of dying, Cubeta relates the spiritual ambiguity of the fat knight's death to the moral ambiguity of his life.

In the following essay, Wilcox comments on Henry's character through an analysis of Katherine, demonstrating how Katherine's personality and role within the play are used to salvage Henry's image.

Battenhouse, Roy. “Henry V in the Light of Erasmus.” Shakespeare Studies 17 (1985): 77-85. In this essay, Battenhouse evaluates Henry V in terms of the principles set forth by the sixteenth-century Catholic humanist Erasmus in his Praise of Folly and The Education of a Christian Prince, contending that Shakespeare presents Henry as a monarch who repeatedly evades personal responsibility and only counterfeits the role of ideal Christian king.

In the essay below, Brennan views the Chorus as representing one side of a dialectical argument about the nature of war and national leadership. The critic believes that the Chorus's definition of war as a glorious undertaking and the grim perspective provided by the common soldiers are mediated by Henry's perception of the limitations and responsibilities of power.

In the following essay, Newman analyzes the way language is used to represent social and gender differences in Henry V.

In the following essay, Dean suggests that the structure of Henry V is a combination of two dramatic forms (“chronicle” history and “romance” history), highlights Shakespeare's sophisticated characterization of King Henry V, and explores the dynamic relationship of the drama's main plot and subplots.

In the following essay, Levin argues that contemporary ironic readings of Henry V—those that generally suggest that Shakespeare's dramatic presentation of King Henry is unfavorable—have tended to “appropriate” the work rather than properly interpret it.

In the following essay, Champion details the transformation of Nell Quickly in the Henry plays from a mere sketch to “a full-sized portrait.”

In the following essay, Walch argues that the Chorus helps us distinguish the political ideology represented in the play from the protagonist and the play itself Far from being an objective reporter of events, the critic contends, the Chorus is a propagandist who underscores the discrepancy between mythology and history, and highlights the use of ideology as a mechanism of power.

In the following essay, Griffin analyzes three different film versions of Henry V and attempts to prove that “films can be just as plural, just as interrogative, as theatrical performances.”

In the following review, Steyn discusses both the 2003 National Theatre staging of Henry V directed by Nicholas Hytner and Mark Wing-Davey's 2003 Delacorte Theater staging of Henry V in New York's Central Park. Steyn criticizes both productions, noting that “Nicholas Hytner may be anti-war, but Mark Wing-Davey is anti-Shakespeare.”

In the following excerpt, Wright and LaMar provide an overview of Henry V, including its historical background, sources, stage history, and text.

In the following essay, Richardson claims that Henry V features Shakespeare's depiction of a cynically modern and amoral state.

In the following essay, Harrington contends that the moral ambiguity of Henry V lends itself to both pro-war and anti-war productions of the play.

In the following essay, Uhlmann analyzes the structure and style of Prince Hal's “I know you all” soliloquy in Henry IV, Part 1 (I.ii). He suggests that Shakespeare constructed this monologue in the form of an extended sonnet to convey to the audience its significance as a revelation of the prince's true nature.

In the following review, Kane-Lavin praises the 2003 Hudson Valley Shakespeare Festival staging of Henry V, directed by Terrence O'Brien. Kane-Lavin notes that the production demanded that the audience reconsider “war, its consequences, and its relatively short-lived benefits.”

In the following review of the 2001 Henry V at the Stratford Shakespeare Festival in Canada, Nance concentrates on stage and costume design, particularly its contribution to this production's multifaceted wartime setting.

In the following review, Goodland praises the 2003 Jean Cocteau Repertory staging of Henry V, directed by David Fuller. Goodland examines the production's focus on the moral issue of war crimes—particularly the scene in which Henry orders his soldiers to kill their prisoners—and notes that “Fuller admirably refuses to simplify this moment.”

In the following review, Jackson details the somber wartime setting and cynical mood of Edward Hall's 2000 production of Henry V at Stratford-upon-Avon.

In the following review, Morse comments favorably on director Jean-Louis Benoit's stylized, comedic, and nonpolitical 2000 French-language staging of Henry V.

In the following review of Mark Wing-Davey's 2003 Delacorte Theater staging of Henry V in New York's Central Park, Brantley dismisses Wing-Davey's “flashy, flabby” production and contends that the director “devised a Henry V that shirks from seriousness on the unavoidable subjects of war and patriotism.”

In the following review of Terrence O'Brien's Henry V for the 2002 Hudson Valley Shakespeare Festival, Klein praises Nance Williamson's excellent work as the Chorus, but otherwise finds the project “misguided” in its depiction of King Henry.

In the following review, Macaulay praises the 2003 National Theatre staging of Henry V directed by Nicholas Hytner, especially the production's “triumph of colourblind casting” and Penny Downie as a “modern, female conception” of the Chorus; however, the critic notes that the “nowness” of the production “tips over a few times into the too-gimmicky.”

In the following review of the 2002 Shakespeare & Co. production of Henry V directed by Jonathan Epstein, Taylor observes that gratuitous stage business, comic nonsense, and an overall lack of directorial cohesion defined this deeply flawed staging of the play.

In the following review of Mark Wing-Davey's 2003 Delacorte Theater staging of Henry V in New York's Central Park, Sommers lauds Liev Schreiber's portrayal of Henry V as a “ceaseless pleasure to observe” but finds the production overall to be overly elaborate.

In the following excerpted review of the 2003 National Theatre staging of Henry V directed by Nicholas Hytner, Clapp credits the production for breaking from Laurence Olivier's highly influential 1944 film adaptation. Unlike Olivier's pro-war “heroic romance,” Clapp notes, Hytner's production was “much darker” and “more divided.”

In the following review, Lemon offers a mixed evaluation of Mark Wing-Davey's 2003 Delacorte Theater staging of Henry V in New York's Central Park. Although Lemon praises Liev Schreiber's “passionate” and “balanced” portrayal of Henry V, he notes that the production avoided risks.

In the following review of Mark Wing-Davey's 2003 Delacorte Theater staging of Henry V in New York's Central Park, the critic praises Liev Schreiber's “magical, subtle” portrayal of Henry V, but criticizes Wing-Davey's production as cynical and unbalanced.