Editing Henry V (play) (section)

===Views on warfare===
[[Image:Battle of Agincourt, St. Alban's Chronicle by Thomas Walsingham.jpg|thumb|left|The Battle of Agincourt from a contemporary miniature]]

Readers and audiences have interpreted the play's attitude to warfare in several different ways. On the one hand, it seems to celebrate Henry's invasion of France and military prowess. Alternatively, it can be read as a commentary on the moral and personal cost of war.<ref>{{cite book|last=Berry|first=Ralph|title=Changing Styles in Shakespeare|year=2005|publisher=Routledge|location=Abingdon, England|isbn=0-415-35316-5|page=67|chapter=Henry V|quote=The concern of productions in the contemporary era…is bringing the darker, more sceptical passages into a living relation with the more heroically straightforward.}}</ref> Gathered, Shakespeare presents warfare in all its complexity.

The American critic Norman Rabkin described the play as a picture with two simultaneous meanings.<ref>Rabkin, Norman. ''Shakespeare and the Problem of Meaning''. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981: 62.</ref> Rabkin argues that the play never settles on one viewpoint towards warfare, Henry himself switching his style of speech constantly, talking of "rape and pillage" during Harfleur, but of patriotic glory in his St Crispin's Day Speech.

Some scholars have connected the [[Nationalism|nationalistic]] glorification of warfare with contemporary military ventures in Spain and Ireland. The Chorus directly refers to the looked-for military triumphs of the Earl of Essex, in the fifth act. Henry V himself is sometimes seen as an ambivalent representation of the stage machiavel, combining apparent sincerity with a willingness to use deceit and force to attain his ends.<ref>[[Stephen Greenblatt|Greenblatt, Stephen]]. "Invisible Bullets". ''Glyph'' 8 (1981): 40–61.</ref>

Other commentators see the play as looking critically at the reason for Henry's violent cause.<ref>[[Reginald A. Foakes|Foakes, R. A.]] ''Shakespeare and Violence''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003: 105.</ref> The noble words of the Chorus and Henry are consistently undermined by the actions of Pistol, Bardolph, and Nym. Pistol talks in a bombastic [[blank verse]] that seems to parody Henry's own style of speech. Pistol and his friends, thus, show up the actions of their rulers.<ref>Watts, Cedric and John Sutherland, ''Henry V, War Criminal?: And Other Shakespeare Puzzles''. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 200: 117</ref> Indeed, the presence of the [[Eastcheap]] characters from ''Henry IV'' has been said to emphasise the element of adventurer in Henry's character as monarch.<ref>Spenser, Janet M. "Princes, Pirates, and Pigs: Criminalizing Wars of Conquest in Henry V". ''Shakespeare Quarterly'' 47 (1996): 168.</ref>

The play's ambiguity has led to diverse interpretations in performance. Laurence Olivier's 1944 film, made during the [[Second World War]], emphasises the patriotic side, ignoring the fact that the enemy of the play, the French, were in fact allies in that conflict,{{efn|Olivier's movie paradoxically attempts to create patriotic fervour in a war against Germany where the French were Britain's allies by celebrating a past heroic English victory over those very allies.}} while Kenneth Branagh's [[Henry V (1989 film)|1989 film]] stresses the horrors of war. A 2003 [[Royal National Theatre]] production featured Henry as a modern war general, ridiculing the [[Iraq War|Iraq invasion]].

In recent years, there has been scholarly debate about whether or not Henry V can be labeled a [[War crime|war criminal]].<ref>Watts, Cedric and John Sutherland, ''Henry V, War Criminal?: And Other Shakespeare Puzzles''. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.</ref> Some denounce the question as [[anachronistic]], arguing that contemporary legal terminology cannot be applied to historical events or figures like those depicted in the play.<ref>Condren, Conal. "Understanding Shakespeare's Perfect Prince: Henry V, the Ethics of Office and the French Prisoners" in ''The Shakespearean International Yearbook'', ed. Graham Bradshaw, Tom Bishop, and Laurence Wright, Ashgate, 2009, pp. 195–213.</ref> However, other scholars have supported the proposed viewpoint. For instance, Christopher N. Warren looks to [[Alberico Gentili]]'s ''De armis Romanis'', along with ''Henry V'' itself, to show how early modern thinkers (including Shakespeare) were themselves using juridical approaches to engage with the past.<ref>Warren, Christopher. "[https://www.academia.edu/15626254/Henry_V_Anachronism_and_the_History_of_International_Law Henry V, Anachronism, and the History of International Law]" in ''The Oxford Handbook to English Law and Literature, 1500–1625''.</ref> As a result, Warren argues, the question of whether Henry V was a war criminal is not only legitimate, but also "historically appropriate".<ref>Warren, Christopher. "[https://www.academia.edu/15626254/Henry_V_Anachronism_and_the_History_of_International_Law Henry V, Anachronism, and the History of International Law]" in ''The Oxford Handbook to English Law and Literature, 1500–1625''. p. 27.</ref>

In a rhetorical display intended to intimidate the Governor of Harfleur into surrendering the city to the English, Henry denies personal responsibility for his soldiers' actions if battle is resumed{{snd}}"What rein can hold licentious wickedness / When down the hill he holds his fierce career?"{{snd}}and describes in graphic detail the violence they will do to the townsfolk if his demands are not met:

<blockquote>The gates of mercy shall be all shut up,

And the flesh'd soldier, rough and hard of heart,

In liberty of bloody hand shall range

With conscience wide as hell, mowing like grass

Your fresh, fair virgins and your flowering infants.

:—Act III, Scene iii.</blockquote>

On the other hand, Henry is portrayed as a great leader, as he keeps his temper when insulted: "we are glad the Dauphin is so pleasant with us". He also admits to his past mistakes: "did give ourselves to barbarous licence" and is shown to have great confidence: "I will rise there with so full a glory that I will dazzle all the eyes of France".

A mock trial of for the crimes associated with the legality of the invasion and the slaughter of prisoners was held in [[Washington, DC]] in March 2010, drawing from both historical record and Shakespeare's play. Titled ''The Supreme Court of the Amalgamated Kingdom of England and France'', participating judges were [[Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States|Justices]] [[Samuel Alito]] and [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]]. The outcome was originally to be determined by an audience vote, but due to a draw, it came down to a judges' decision. The court was divided on Henry's justification for war, but unanimously found him guilty on the killing of the [[Prisoner of war|prisoners]] after applying "the evolving standards of the maturing society". Previously, the fictional Global War Crimes Tribunal ruled that Henry's war was legal, no noncombatant was killed unlawfully, and Henry bore no criminal responsibility for the death of the POWs. The fictional French Civil Liberties Union, who had instigated the tribunal, then attempted to sue in civil court. The judge concluded that he was bound by the GWCT's conclusions of law and also ruled in favour of the English. The Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion, thus leaving the matter for the Supreme Court's determination.<ref name="mock-trial-cspan">{{cite web | url=http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/221111 | title=Judgment at Agincourt | date=16 March 2010 | publisher=C-SPAN | access-date=10 July 2010 | archive-date=17 October 2012 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121017093319/http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/221111 | url-status=dead }} Link to video.</ref><ref name="mock-trial-cd">{{cite web | url=http://dctheatrescene.com/2010/03/18/high-court-rules-for-french-at-agincourt/ | title=High Court Rules for French at Agincourt | publisher=DC Theater Scene | first=Tim | last=Treanor | date=18 March 2010 }}</ref><ref name="mock-trial-lawj">{{cite journal | last=Jones | first=Andy | title=High Court Justices, Legal Luminaries Debate Shakespeare's 'Henry V' | url=http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202446381186 | journal=[[National Law Journal]] | date=8 March 2010}}</ref>