The patriotism of Shakespeare in Henry V

On the face of it, Henry V offers ample evidence to validate the proposition that of all Shakespeare’s chronicle plays, this one is closest to state propaganda and that such proximity denies the less privileged classes a significant place in the nation. One need only cite the near-unanimous commitment to Henry’s cause expressed by the nobility and commoners alike; the curiously muted treatment of those few dissenting voices that do make themselves heard; the play’s protective attitude to its royal protagonist, whom it shields from overt inquiry into his legitimacy of the claim to the English as well as the French throne.

The real King Henry (1387-1422), ascended to the throne of Henry IV in 1413 and two years later invaded France. The play is a patriotic, epic portrayal of a phase in the bloody hundred years war that started with the landing of Henry’s troops near Harfleur and the legendary victory at Agincourt. It describes a medieval campaign led by a chivalrous king, who could do wrong, but not a great deal of it.

The verse found within the play resounds with the rhetoric of nationalistic fervour. It is the very essence of a “Boys Own” adventure story. Full of fighting scenes, and victories by sadly depleted, underfed, and highly stressed forces against insurmountable odds. It is a story to stir the blood, and filled with patriotic speeches that are strangely reminiscent of Winston Churchill’s speeches during World War Two. However, unlike Churchill’s period, England was under no threat of invasion, and in fact, it was the English who were the antagonists as will be seen later.

Once more into the breech dear friends, once more,
Or close the wall up with our British 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,
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 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, ye 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 sheath'd their swords for lack of argument.
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest
That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you!

King Henry praises the fighting merits of his countrymen, and accords them praise in calling them all, both commoner and nobleman alike, “Noblest English”. Having done this, he continues in his praise by praising their ancestry by equating their fathers to Alexander the Great before warning them not to bring shame upon their mothers, the vehicles by which this “nobility” came into the world. He also likens the fighting spirit of his men, not to the Bulldog that would be come the icon to British tenacity in the future, but to the Greyhound; a dog, that was used by both the Egyptians and Romans while out hunting to bring down their quarry.

Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war!
And you good yeomen,
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.

Henry’s challenge is to turn his troops’ small numbers into an advantage, which he does by convincing his men that the battle is more than a mathematical formula that they have all come there to fight for honour, for justice, and for glory. He makes fighting with him at Agincourt sound like a privilege, one that will allow its participants to capture more glory than anything else could. Henry also brings up, once more, the motif of the bond between king and commoner.

Henry’s phrasing implies a realist admission that not everyone with him that day will survive. But its main effort is to make the idea of survival concrete. The scene is domestic and familiar; a far cry from the monologue spoken before Harfleur, and the old veteran is made more convincing by his suggestion that he will exaggerate a little.

History shows that Harfleur had been a victory for the English forces and that the matter had been reported as such in the nation’s capitol, London. Despite this, the siege at could well have been viewed as a defeat. Of the 2,500 men that had sailed with Henry from England, 900 men-at-arms remained. Death and sickness had done what the French could not and decimated his fighting force. The only viable and sensible thing for Henry to have done at that point was to have returned home to England, and a hero’s welcome.

Henry, however, had other ideas. He had the British fighting spirit in his blood, and he was feeling anything but sensible after Harfleur. He was the victor, and for him, the matter was not yet over. All France was before him and total victory was in sight. His intention was to advance to Calais, a journey that would take the battered English through hostile territory, fortified towns, and past hostile castles. The French army had by this time, received the reinforcements they had been expecting and now easily outnumbered the sadly depleted English force by at least six to one.

The first week of the English advance went by with an occasional skirmish, the walled towns along the way surrendering at once, and the Béthune and Bresle rivers were crossed without incident. The first major hurdle the English came across was at the Somme. There was a well known ford at the river mouth known as Blanche-Taque that Edward III had crossed some sixty-nine years before on his way to Crécy, but the French had rendered it impassable with rows of sharpened stakes, while a company of French cavalry defended the approaches.

However, Henry knew that his force was outnumbered by the superior French force. He then did what patriotic and chauvinistic historians and play writes, including Shakespeare himself, overlook; he sued for peace. According to Norwich (1999) Henry saw that there was little or no hope of his offer being accepted, but at least the offer would be a delaying tactic that would give his exhausted troops a much needed rest.

For the previous week or so, there had been an almost incessant rain. All day the storm clouds had been gathering, and as evening came, so did the rain. Lying in the open as they were, few of the English would have got much sleep, and fewer still would have realised that the unremitting rain over the past week could be seen as a gift from the Almighty. By the following day, October 25th, St. Crispian’s day, the rain had finally stopped, leaving the recently ploughed fields between the woods of Tramecourt to the east, and Agincourt to the west, a waterlogged mass. There still had been no reply to Henry’s offer, so the English prepared for battle.

In Shakespeare’s play Henry V, the king’s inspirational St. Crispin’s Day speech—so called because the battle is fought on the feast day of St. Crispin, a holiday in the England of the play—is perhaps the most famous passage in the entire play. In this speech, which is meant to bolster the morale of his soldiers before they head into a battle that they are almost certain to lose, Henry demonstrates his customary brilliance with words and astounding charisma, both of which he has displayed so often before.

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 accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhood cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

KJA,

What's your take on the issue of HV having prisoners executed? As I recall that is a real issue, and he does them in -- not exactly noble behavior in our day at least with the Geneva Convention and all.

My question: how can HV be such a wonderboy if he is also a mass murderer of captured soldiers?

In order to fully understand about King Henry V you have to research history a bit. The time he was king was a very bloody time. When a foe was vanquished he was given a choice of swearing fealty to the winner, or death. Many of the French Knights and men at arms had sworn an oath to the French King. If they had sworn a oath to Henry they would have been released. If a victor let the trained knights and men at arms go, without swearing such an oath, he could face them again in battle. This was a common practice not only of the English but the French. If you were on the losing side, such as the French knights and men at arms were, and you swore a oath to Henry you would be executed by the French King afterwards. They were in a "Dammed if they do, and dammed if they don't " condition. This way the kings could always depend upon them to fight to the death for their cause. Not a pretty thing to view from our perspective but reality seldom is. It was a fact of life. Now you know one of the reasons why the 100 years war was so brutal.

Harold Bloom actually speaks at length about Henry V and his way of acting (he doesn´t run quite so much as he does about Falstaff but the old, fat knight is a superior character...). According to Bloom much of the way HV acts had to do with being nothing more than a superb statesman and quite effective King. The point in HV is precisely that: being the best king possible (as corny as that sounds...). Henry V is really a very charismatic man, capable of rousing modern-day readers into a war-like frenzy (who didn´t want to go and kick the frenchmen´s rear ends by the time he got to "...Saint Crispin´s day"?) but he´s not much more than that. He´s, what could be considered, Machiavelli´s "living" thesis that he presents in "The Prince", but Henry V looses all "solidity" if you take him out of his role as king, because he is no more than that. He may be brilliant at it, which is why we are convinced of his cause and cheer him on until the very end, but that´s all he is. Unlike many of Shakespeare´s characters Henry V is really no profound literary mistery (of course, this is not quite the case in Henry IV part I and II: Prince Hal is most definately NOT Henry V).
Also, there is what has already been mentioned: the rules of war have changed quite a bit since Shakespeare wrote his plays. It seems brutal to us now, and that´s why most of us are shocked at the fact that: 1) the french kill the boys and 2) Henry V has the prisoners killed. I think, however, that it was explained quite nicely by someone already: medieval times called for other rules of war and they seem brutal to us now, but were common practice before and the people who first saw this play probably didn´t really question themselves about what we do...

I disagree with the statement that Henry V is a straight-forward patriotic play. Michael Taylor, in the introduction to the Penguin Shakespeare edition of Henry V, says that “For Tudor chroniclers and poets Henry’s prowess had the quality of myth…” (Taylor, 1996, p.9). Henry’s reign had already been dramatised several times before Shakespeare tackled the subject and this mythical status could easily have discouraged him from critical scrutiny of the king. However, not only does Shakespeare address the myth of Henry, but uses it to present a critical view of Henry and war.

The play’s Chorus performs the part of 'mythical voice', telling the popular and patriotic story of Henry and Agincourt. Take, for example, the Chorus’s comment at Act III (1-35). Here, Henry’s army sails for France, and the Chorus tells us that England is left “Guarded with grandsires, babies, and old women, / Either past or not arrived to pith and puissance” (III. 20-21). This is the heroic image of Henry and his army – leaving to fight, their homes undefended. However, we know from Act I, Scene 2, that Henry is advised to “Divide your happy England into four; / Whereof take you one quarter into France…” (215-216). Therefore, three-quarters of his army remain in England to defend against the Scots. Similarly, at Act II the Chorus describes the call-to-arms, saying “Now all the youth of England are on fire…” (II. 1), giving the impression that all are in favour of the war, rallying willingly to Henry’s banner. However, once again the dialogue contradicts this. The Chorus is followed by a scene with Nym, Bardolph and Pistol fighting amongst themselves, criticising the king who has forsaken Falstaff, “kill[ing] his heart” (II.1, 84). Throughout the play the dialogue and Chorus contradict one another. The popular, mythical Henry (the Chorus’s Henry) is at odds with Shakespeare’s Henry, the Henry of the play who is far removed from the legendary character.

This critical view of Henry is reinforced in two scenes in particular. Both are on the eve of Agincourt, where Henry and his soldiers make camp, awaiting daylight when they will face the French and almost certain death. In the first scene, a disguised Henry tours the camp, falling in with three soldiers (Court, Blunt and Williams). It is Williams who is most critical of the king, giving us the common soldier’s view of warfare:

…some swearing, some crying for a surgeon,
some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon
the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.
I am afeared there are few die well that die in a battle…
(IV.1, 134-137).

Williams is conscious that where a soldier may be killed, Henry may be spared, held prisoner for ransom. Although Henry denies that he (the King) would let this happen, Williams makes the valid point that “when our throats are cut he may be ransomed, and / we ne’er the wiser” (IV.1, 187-188). Ultimately Henry has no answer to Williams’s argument and the discussion degenerates into argument and challenges. This leads us to the second scene (Act IV, Scene 1) which subjects Henry to critical scrutiny – self-scrutiny in the form of a prayer.

All through the play Henry has been searching for legitimacy. He is anxious that the war is legal, going to lengths to have Canterbury explain the Salic law. He even gains his assurance that if the war is not legitimate then “The sin upon my [Canterbury’s] head…” (I.2, 97). As Simon Eliot points out in Shakespeare, Aphra Behn and the Canon, “Henry is eager to find justification…by placing the responsibility for negative consequences on others’ shoulders…” (Eliot, 2002, p.46). In Act IV, Scene 1, we learn why Henry searches for legitimacy. He fears the consequences of his father’s usurping of the crown. As Eliot puts it, “Henry IV carried the stain of killing God’s anointed king. Henry V fears that he has inherited that stain” (Eliot, 2002, p.45). Henry’s fears are vocalised in his prayer:

…think not upon the fault
My father made in compassing the crown!
I Richard’s body have interred new,
And on it have bestowed more contrite tears
Than from it issued forced drops of blood.
(IV. 1, 285-290).

The critical aspect of these scenes are again underscored by the ‘popular’ view of the eve of Agincourt as told by the Chorus, where argument and self-doubt are not mentioned, but only that there was “A little touch of Harry in the night” (IV.1, 47).

I think the important thing to remember about the character of Henry is that he is an actor. He tailors speeches and assumes specific characteristics according to the particular situation.

When he is outside Hartfluer and giving his troops that oh so patriotic speech they have already been driven back, the seige is not going well. Henry tailors the speech to the circumstances, it is deliberately designed to be a morale booster. Similarly, this "mirror of Christian kings" later goes on to threaten the govenor of Hartfluer with destruction of the city, the murder of its children and the rape of its women. Henry deliberately assumes the role of blood thirsty tyrant in an act of psychological warfare, designed to make the govenor surrender the city. His other patriotic speech before Agincourt is also specifically designed to rouse his troops.

I think the message Shakespeare was trying to get across is that in the real world a king has to assume many parts. To his subjects and enemies he must appear strong and uncorruptable (hence Henry's reluctance to assume responsibility and his unwillingness to take any credit for the victories), but at the same time he must use any method to achieve his goals (hence the patriotic appeals to his troops, his creating the role of the simple 'soldier king' and his assuming a disguise to gauge the feelings of his troops). A king (or even a modern day leader) must keep their hands clean while wading in the filth.

Interesting discussion. Thanks for posting it.

Zippy. :)

Another point which occurred to me is on Henry ordering the execution of the prisoners.

The troops could make their fortune by going to war and in the play the prisoners are to be ransomed - sold back to their families for a hefty sum of money (hence William's assertion that the king could be ransomed). By ordering the execution of the prisoners Shakespeare is actually showing contemporary audiences how great a king Henry is. Those prisoners are worth a fortune, but when it looks like there may be a turn in the battle in favour of the French, he orders them killed, putting the lives of his troops before money.

Cheers

Zippy.

'we few, we happy few, we band of brothers...'

it's my fave play & make me proud to be english *sniff*

It is a great play, and there is nothing wrong with patriotism. Those that abhor patriotism seem to be self loathing.

Patriotic, certainly. Propaganda? Personally, I'm inclined to think not. Englishmen of the Tudor era (and before and after that era) had what strikes me as a sense of frank celebration of national achievements. They seem to have lacked our postmodern....how shall I express it..."profound insecurity" about such things? They didn't second-guess themselves a tenth as much as I sometimes think we do. On the other hand, there were a number of things I wish they had second-guessed. Ah well, as for the stuffing, we are all mortal. But does celebration equal propaganda? Surely not, for propaganda seeks to persuade, whereas celebration seeks simply to enjoy that concerning which one is already persuaded.

Una, very observant on your part. I cheer you on....

Joe:

:p

Henry was probably motivated in his war with France not by salic laws but by some insecurity at his inheriting the crown from a usurper and wished to prove his right to rule by achieving victories in France, a sure sign of God's approval (see his prayer of contrition on the eve of Agincourt). Wars were massively destructive to the theatre of war, however, so that the greatest achievement of his great grandfather, Edward III, in the previous century, was in ensuring that the battles took place in France rather than in England; and Henry emulated the practice.

The wars were the legacy of the fractured politics of France which was split into several states not always loyal to the French king in the Ile de France. Eg. Normandy and Aquitaine had had strong historical links to the English throne, Calais had been coerced by Edward III into English sovereignty in the previous century and Brittany had given only sporadic assistance (amazingly, Savoy was not united with France until 19th century). In the context of the warrior mentality of the time, little thought in England was given to improvement of internal government but rather to the temptation of winning reputations in wars with it's nearest neighbour as well as to retrieval of former possessions.

Henry V is the most iconic of Shakespeare's plays for the representation of English grit and spirit (but Hamlet is probably a more famous play than Henry V because it explores greater psychological depths).

HV is replete with very fine heroic speeches attributed to the resolute Henry in adversity thereby providing audiences with a roseate glow of the outnumbered but plucky Englishman and Welshman (Scotland was not to be united with England politically until 1707) achieving victories with very little weaponry except longbows and courage (probably the authority for all later under equipping of British armies).

Of all the speeches in the play, however, I prefer the seldom vaunted brief speech of the Duke of Burgundy at the peace conference after Agincourt which deplores the devastations of war and extols the necessity for renewal. It is extremely difficult even to read but I refer readers to the Olivier film of 1944 for Valentine Dyall's definitive rendering (although Harold Innocent in Branagh's 1989 film is a close second).

Shakespeare achieved wonders in his poetic representations of the action and in his conflation of events in the speeches by the Chorus; but particularly in the psychological insights to Henry's mind as a man under extreme pressure to achieve or else see his army massacred and himself dishonoured. His readiness to seek fame in France and his decisiveness in condemning the treachery of Scroop, etc indicate his strength of character in rejecting his misspent youth; and his assent to Bardolph's hanging indicates his acceptance of the burdens of office.

Shakespeare did not neglect the heroism of the French but his text contrasts their effete behaviour with the dogged heroism of the English. Only Montjoy is given true nobility. The casualty list after Agincourt is absurd; but his audience probably wallowed in pride on hearing it.

PS I have never understood why Henry, having conquered the French, left Charles VI in place. I suspect Henry's fate would have been sealed had the French king campaigned victoriously in England.