Henry V (Dover Thrift Editions)

I disagree. I loved Henry V! I've memorized parts of it because it's just that good. Today Shakespeare's work is almost universally considered some of the best literature written, but he really wrote to entertain and to educate. What more can you ask for?

This edition is not suitable for the kindle, because it is not adapted to use the kindle's capabilities. The paper edition uses end notes, which are cumbersome enough in that format, but the kindle should certainly be set up with electronic links. I know this is doable, because I have purchased items like this. So this Shakespeare Henry V is just another shabby item being peddled by the store. But not to me, thanks.

Once you get past the strange layout (described in other sections), this is a great edition of Henry V. It is easy and fun to read and offers valuable insights (not just for students either). Well worth a flutter.

A very good read! The book contains all the elements of an awesome read: drama, suspense, tension, intrigue - you name it, Henry V has it! I had to read this book for an English Lit class and ended up enjoying it. I would highly recommend it.

Quality of the book's paper is poor. Other friends who ordered this same volume at the same time got it one week sooner and on whiter paper stock, making it more attractive and easier to read. My book's paper is a sort of dull greyish white. And although it arrived within the promised time, I had anticipated a more rapid delivery as is often the case, and as was my friend's experience. Another classic book I bought the same day from another dealer arrived within 3 days.

The new RSC Modern Library Editions of the plays are a quality trade paperback edition of the works of Shakespeare.
“Henry V” in this series has an interesting Introduction by Jonathan Bate. He discusses the ambiguity of the nature of Henry’s character, and how this Henry fits with the Prince Hal of the “Henry IV” plays. A historical view of the real Henry is also intriguing.
I give "Henry V" a 4-star rating compared to other Shakespeare, not to literature as a whole. The Bard is in a class of his own.
Act 1 of this perennial favorite is exposition, letting the audience see Henry receive justification for his impending invasion of France. It may appear to be dull, but read closely. There is a lot there. Also, it ends on a high note with a great exchange between Henry and the French ambassador.
There are numerous highlights of the play, but my mind is especially drawn to Act 4:1 when Henry walks in disguise among his troops on the eve of battle. Shakespeare gives us the perspectives of the leaders and common soldiers during a war, and he arouses our sympathy for both. An interesting thing I observed was how even in war and battle the obsession with class distinction that was a hallmark of that period in English history is pervasive throughout the text, reminding us that Shakespeare was indeed a product of his time. It seems ridiculous to the modern reader, but in context it is not out of place at all. Act 5:2 is another high point for the play where we get to see Henry's blunt, and I think honest, attempt to woo Katherine. It is humorous for its self-deprecation and awkwardness which any person who hates the game of flirtation and dating will understand and appreciate. Some things simply transcend time.
Henry V is the perfect Machiavellian, especially in Act 4:3 when he delivers the iconic "St Crispian's Day" speech. The speech is really a bold faced lie with the king telling the common soldiers who will die in his war that they are "noble" and "his brothers", when really they are shedding blood to increase his power base. Or is he a patriotic hero and a lover of England? Like most good leaders, Shakespeare seems to be saying that he is both. You read this speech and you know you are being manipulated, yet your blood cannot help but quicken.
The best drawn, and really only complex characters in the text are Henry, Fluellen, and perhaps the shady Pistol. Though all three are vastly different: one a consummate politician, one a simple loyal loudmouth, and the last a deceitful and "me first" vagabond, we see that actually these three characters share these qualities with each other, and the only thing that separates them is that one of the qualities is more pronounced in one than the other two. An interesting point being is being made here by the author.
Finally, I love the Chorus who begins each act with begging the audience's pardon for the dramatic license being taken with the historical story, and who then fills in many blanks that the reader does not get to witness first hand. The appeals the Chorus makes to the audience's imagination is what all dramatic literature should strive to do, and I enjoyed this meta-theatrical device.
This edition includes an essay on the performance history of the piece, and interviews with four prominent directors (Kenneth Branagh, Edward Hall, Nicholas Hytner & Michael Boyd). It will be of special interest to those who enjoy exploring the multitude of interpretations “Henry V” lends itself to. The Modern Library edition also includes a scene by scene analysis, which can help point out an image or symbol you might have missed. The edition also includes a nice “Further Readings” list specifically for “Henry V”
Frankly, all of the extra essays allow you to dive into the world of the play, and it is all included in one text.
The RSC Modern Library editions are a nice new trade paperback with worthwhile extras. They are a good addition to the editions of Shakespeare out there. These and the Pelican Shakespeare are my two favorites.

Henry V by William Shakespeare is about King Henry V and England's war with France. This was my first of Shakespeare's work that I have read, I read it in class at school, and I loved it. It is about King Henry V going to war with France. Henry V is told by the Bishop of Canterbury that he should go to war with France because it is his birthright and that the Catholic Church will pay for it. At first Henry V doesn't want to go to war without a just reason, doesn't want to unnecessarily risk people's lives. But then the Dauphin (Prince of France) insults Henry V and gives a just reason to start a war. I really loved the statements that were made about class relations and Henry V's speeches. I would recommend this book to anyone reading Shakespeare for the first time. I would really recommend the Folger Shakespeare Library edition because it makes it easy to read with the glossary of the words on the page right next to it.

"Henry V" combines strident jingoism, weak comedy, structural instability, and some of the dullest blank verse in the Shakespearean canon.

It also presents us with a windy, suffocatingly self-satisfied protagonist who bears little resemblance to the saucy, shifting Prince Hal of the "Henry IV" plays. I found it a pain reading "Henry V", except when the king was offstage, when it was even more annoying.

Gentle readers, when I came to read this play, I didn't do so to write a review like this. I studied "Henry V" in college, and under my professor's guiding care found myself impressed with the ambiguity of his reading. Over the years, Henry's speeches before Harfleur and Agincourt have remained in my mind as they have in many others. Writing a review of the gripping if plot-thin "Henry IV Part 2", I called it a bridge between two better plays. So the more I read "Henry V", the more unhappy I was of it not coming up to anything close to what I remembered.

Our play begins with a pair of bishops talking about a pending threat against their churchly holdings that is never resolved or even referenced again. When we first meet Henry, it is to watch him sit passively and be lectured at length about some recondite thing called "the Salique Law." The Henry IV plays had a number of comic supporting players, so "Henry V" raises the merriment by killing them off, and switching the humor to a speech-impaired Welshman who rambles on about the Roman art of warfare.

After watching Henry threaten French women with rape and warn his victims not to be "guilty in defense," he woos the French princess Katharine with some rather unconvincing and labored lovetalk. When she asks if she could love an enemy of France, Henry replies "I love France so well that I will not part with a village of it." This is the sort of smug sanctimoniousness that typifies Henry V's approach to his reign. Shakespeare presents it and everything else about Henry as if he were a mirror of Christian royalty, undercutting the supposed ambiguity so many modern critics speak of.

Act II features a threat on Henry which is resolved when he hands papers to his would-be attackers, thus foiling their plans. Thrilling. Act III features a long scene of two women speaking French, which Shakespeare uses as an excuse to throw in some dirty words. Naughty Will! Act IV, by far the best act in the play, gives us Agincourt and Henry's famous "we happy few" soliloquy which is the play's best moment, but the subsequent battle is rendered in anticlimactic bits and pieces.

The play works only as a finale to a set of much better preceding plays. You need some closure from the storyline of the Richard II/Henry IV "Henriad" cycle, of a throne in unstable jeopardy, and this provides that closure. As a man of action, Henry V stands in marked contrast against the king who began the Henriad cycle, Richard II, lazy and disposed to be preferential. Henry V is a man of action who would sooner kill a friend than fail to accomplish some statecraft.

If you find such a figure admirable, "Henry V" may be a play for you. He sat heavy in my guts, though, and I'm glad to let him go.

This play is one of my favorite plays of Shakespeare. The details of Henry V's campaign in France are of historical import to the present day. The French still revile him, the English still love him. I find this play to be an important example of patriotic fervor and inspiring propaganda in an historical drama.

The scene is of course besotted with the blood of the French, and Henry attempting to gain his just inheritance as King of France, which his Archbishop of Canterbury dutifully tells him is rightfully Henry's. However the fight of the play comes when the French, haughty as ever, insult him. He gets his revenge.

The Crispin's Day Speech is one of Shakespeare's most iconic. It is the evident response by every underdog in every fight ever since. I find the English glazing over the eventual loss of France as one of the great side steps, that always comes in pieces of patriotic propaganda. Why is it that just when the English King triumphs in battle, the French King somehow has a beautiful daughter to prance in front of his would-be conqueror?

As literal history, of course this play is wanting. As high historical drama it is probably Shakespeare's best.

The material to understand this late-medieval conqueror is more abundant than one realizes: not only detailed chronicles, State documents and accounts of his wars, but personal anecdotes and financial records. And Hutchison makes good use of it, working not from secondary but from primary sources, giving a detailed, perceptive and highly readable account of a remarkable individual. If he works to contrast the Henry of history with the Henry of Shakespeare, that is understandable and indeed right, since it is through the plays - and especially through Laurence Olivier's unforgettable film - that most of us have become aware, if at all, of the fame and success of this usurper's son. Hutchison treats his subject with a sympathy that does not stop short of admiration, giving just and honourable due to all his remarkable qualities - able politician, bold and independent mind, excellent organizer, and finally, as everyone knows, superlative soldier. Yet his final verdict is inevitably negative: Henry stiffened the social situation of England, threw the country into a war which it did not have the resources to maintain, and which - but for his genius - would have ended in disaster early on (there is something very telling about the frenzied rejoicing which greeted his victories); brutalized his followers, degraded the rule of warfare, and, in the end, presided over the spiritual impoverishment and material ruin of two great countries, as the great age of Chaucer and the Roman de la Rose died out in a sea of blood and even the military glory of Henry gave way, not so much to the splendid but brief phenomenon of St.Joan of Arc, as to the crooked and cruel practical politics of Louis XI, the establishment of brutal royal tyranny in France and the collapse into civil war in England. Like that of all conquerors - think of Alexander of Macedon, of Gengis Khan, of Napoleon, Wallenstein, Gustavus Adolphus, Charles XII of Sweden, Hitler - Henry's ultimate legacy was purely one of collapse and negation: he achieved nothing except a blaze of unconstructive glory.

Written by Shakespeare for Queen Elizabeth I amidst a time of Irish rebellion, Henry V more than adequately serves its intended purpose of galvanizing nationalistic fervor. It proved itself to be an unwavering and unfaltering impetus of patriotism in Shakespeare's day, during WWII, and still today it continues to resonate and reverberate this provocatively telling tale of the most gloriously revered monarch in English history.
Henry V's stirring orations prior to the victorious battles of Harfleur("Once more unto the breach") and Agincourt("We few, we happy few, we band of brothers") astonish and inspire me every time I read them. Simply amazing. Having read Henry IV Parts I&II beforehand, I was surprised Shakespeare failed to live up to his word in the Epilogue of Part II in which he promised to "continue the story, with Sir John in it." The continuing follies of the conniving Bardolph, Nym, & Pistol and their ignominious thieving prove to be somewhat of a depricating underplot which nevertheless proves to act as a succinct metaphor for King Harry's "taking" of France.
Powerful and vibrant, the character of Henry V evokes passion and unadulterated admiration through his incredible valor & strength of conviction in a time of utter despondency. It is this conviction and passion which transcends time, and moreover, the very pages that Shakespeare's words are written upon. I find it impossible to overstate the absolute and impregnable puissance of Henry V, a play which I undoubtedly rate as the obligatory cream of the crop of Shakespeare's Histories. I recommend reading Henry IV I&II prior to Henry V as well as viewing Kenneth Branagh's masterpiece film subsequent to reading the equally moving work.

The final play in Shakespeare's so-called first tetralogy, this is Shakespeare's 'action movie' play in many ways, and is better suited to a stage or film than an audio production. King Henry V is here played by the same actor (Jamie Glover) who played Hal in Arkangel's Henry IV (see my reviews of those), and now as king he alters his voice appropriately. He doesn't deliver the fiery war speeches with appropriate intensity ("Will you yield, and this avoid?" etc.), but is great in the scene where he walks unknown among the troops on the night before the battle.

The comic interludes are a bit flat compared to the Henry IV plays (Falstaff's presence is sorely missed), but the scene where Princess Katherine tries to learn English and finds it obscene is very funny. And despite my own distrust of the nation state, it's impossible not to be moved by the feeling of the English being underdogs, as vividly evoked by the Chorus (Brian Cox). When this was set, the nation state was still in its infancy though - and not in its dotage as currently.

Shakespeare's rendering of Henry V's invasion of France culminating in the battle of Agincourt is a patriotic ode intended to rouse feelings of loyalty to the crown. His Henry is the consummate leader who inspires his vastly outnumbered army to one of the greatest military triumphs in English history. The play makes effective use of a chorus to open each scene and Shakespeare through that device directly addresses the audience to set up the action and to very pointedly ask for their suspension of disbelief to envision such vast numbers of participants and the grandeur of the battle setting enclosed within the stage area.

The French are portrayed as overconfident in their own military strength as well as being guilty of underestimating the resolve of Henry and his army. There are many poignant scenes but I am always particularly taken with the how Shakespeare has Henry moving anonymously among his troops on the eve of battle.

While the play may be propagandistic it is one of my favorite of the History plays and is an enjoyable read every time I pick it up.

This new edition of Shakespeare's most celebrated war play points to the many inconsistencies in the presentation of Henry V. Andrew Gurr's substantial introduction explains the play as a reaction to the decade of war which preceded its writing, and analyses the play's double vision of Henry as both military hero and self-seeking individual. Professor Gurr shows how the patriotic declarations of the Chorus are contradicted by the play's action. He places the play's more controversial sequences in the context of Elizabethan thought, in particular the studies of the laws and morality of war written in the years before Henry V. He also studies the variety of language and dialect in the play. The appendices summarise Shakespeare's debt to his dramatic and historical sources, while the stage history shows how subsequent centuries have received and adapted the play on the stage and in film. The above was written by my friend, Abe.

What strikes me most is the play's faceted nature. In *Henry V*, Shakespeare is like a jeweler, cutting through the action of war -- the true subject of this play -- to fashion an aesthetic object whose every scene brings out a different aspect of war. It seems to me impossible to maintain that the play has a comforting moral unless one freeze the view upon a single facet. Rotate the jewel, and the thing looks otherwise. (It follows that directors who cut minor scenes are bound to seriously distort the play.) The inspirational character of the "St. Crispin's Day" speech and the cheerful charm of the wooing of the Princess Katharine, for example, cannot be maintained in the mind when surrounding scenes are contemplated. What does the famous paean to honor amount to when scarcely two hundred lines later King Henry cooly orders his men to commit an atrocity? ("Then every soldier kill his prisoners.") How amusing is Katharine's enforced consent when we recall that in III,iii our noble king told the good people of Harfleur: "What is't to me, when you yourselves are cause,/If your pure maidens fall into the hand/Of hot and forcing violation . . . in a moment look to see/The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand/Defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters." Henry's pre-battle prayers and post-battle thanks to God are offset by the fact that the very first scene of the play implies that the Archbishop of Canterbury's support for the expedition to France is the result of a deal to sabotage an anticlerical bill in the House of Commons in exchange for funds from the Church to finance the war? Henry is above all a master of conniving and rationalization. Even his praiseworthy attempt to mingle with the common soldiers (the only action that calls forth much praise from the Chorus) is marred by a stupid prank he cannot resist contriving, thereby humiliating a simple soldier named Michael Williams. The king thinks he can make good this indignity by giving Williams money. He is wrong. Frankly, these antics are in poor taste -- though such tastes are part of what makes the young king appealing to many, no doubt. Forcing a kiss from Katharine at the end of the play is much in the same vein. The fact is, the royal Harry is not only a war criminal but also something of a boor, even if he has reformed since his "Prince Hal" days. Do I exaggerate? Read or reread *Henry V* and see if you do not agree.

Henry V remains today as the most heroic of English Kings. The battle of Agincourt in English legend engenders patriotic emotions the way that we Americans reflect upom Washington and his army at Valley Forge. Superb leadership overcomes great adversity.
While many scholars have not judged Henry V as one of Shakespeare's more successful plays, I found Shakespeare's portrayal of Henry V fascinating and intriguing, a complicated and contradictory character. With each rereading of Henry V, I value it more.
Was he indeed "the mirror of Christendom and the glory of his country" or a cruel, calculating king willing to risk the lives of his devoted followers? On one level Shakespeare portrays the former (particularly in the voice of the Chorus), but on another level he leaves me puzzled, unsure of Henry's motives.
In the first act we see two bishops manipulate Henry V for their purposes, but on closer reading we wonder whether Henry is actually manipulating the bishops to gain justification for war against France. Shakespeare's genius allows us to interpret events in a multitiude of ways, and we find ourselves rereading Henry V again and again to rethink our previous conclusions.
If you are new to Henry V, I highly recommend reading the Cambridge School Shakespeare edition. I particularly like its use of the "facing page" format with the Shakespeare on the right page and context information, explanations, and analysis on the left. It's a little more expensive, but you will find the slight increase in cost quite worthwhile.

King Henry and his band of brothers stand against France at Agincourt. Twas' the night before St Crispin's day and a ridiculously small army of Englishmen were getting ready to move against the throne of France. And on the next day, against long odds, they won.

Henry the Fifth is a complex character who gets the development he richly deserves after being treated with less respect in the Henry IV plays. On the eve of battle he moves among his troops disguised as one of them to get a sense of their morale and fears. And before the battle, he addresses those fears with his, now famous, "We few, we merry few" speech. Henry V has come a long way from Prince Hal, the immature and spoiled scion of Henry IV, and this play really showcases the wit, humor, and gravity of this roll.

I still don't really see why the Bard bothered with as little development of King Charles' daughter Katherine. Her character was given only trivial development, creating a rather vapid and insipid character, when she could have added much depth to the play. On the other hand, Shakespeare could have passed on any character development and created a similar character for her. So this was either too much or too little effort on Katherine, but definately not the right amount.

Despite this, I enjoyed this play, but would recommend seeing or reading Henry IV pt I & II before enjoying it.

E. M. Van Court

Point: King Henry of England braves the French in the battle of Agincourt to successful conquer the land and take Katharine as his bride.

Path: Written around 1600 Shakespeare carefully inserts major and minor characters throughout his play, bringing both comic relief, and truthful contemplation to the reader's attention.

Sources: From my understanding, Shakespeare based much of the play upon Raphael Holinshed's Chronicles. Holinshed was one of the contemporary historians, and available to Shakespeare. He also uses his understanding of the English spirit, and the disagreements common among the Welsh, Irish, French and English.

Agreement: Well written, exciting, and stirring presentation of this moment in history. One cannot help but be stirred by the famous St. Crispin's Day Speech, and also the speech given At the siege of Harfleur.

Favorite Quote: The greatest sound comes from the hollow jar.

It would be worth another read and I would recommend it.

I looked long and hard (and asked many a scholar) for the "perfect" Shakespeare publication that I might purchase to study "King Henry V" (for a experiential education requirement, I had undertaken the translation of Henry V into American Sign Language). The Arden Shakespeare came highly recommended by everyone, and has lived up entirely to all its rave reviews.
I will never buy Shakespeare from another publisher. While these books may be slightly more expensive than a "mass market" edition, I believe that if you are going to take the time to read and understand Shakespeare, it is well worth the extra dollar or two. The Introduction, the images, and plethora of footnotes are irreplaceable and nearly neccessary for a full understanding of the play (for those of us who are not scholars already). The photocopy of the original Quatro text in the appendix is also very interesting.
All in all, well worth it! I recommend that you buy ALL of Shakespeare's work from Arden's critical editions.

This play more than any others in the histories glorifies Englishmen and England. His characters in this one are larger than life, but each has their own limitations and flaws. The play covers the time of the Battle of Agincourt when the French King Charles was so sure of victory that he sent a messenger to Henry to ask him to give up and to pay a ransom before the battle. On the eve of the Battle of Agincourt, the English were outnumbered five to one, Henry's troops were on foreign soil and riddled with disease. The scenes where Henry dons a disguise and goes out amongst his troops to bolster their confidence are great. The English managed to triumph in this battle where all was stacked against them mostly because of Henry's leadership. This is such a sweeping story that it is hard to condense in a few words, the plot of the play, but it is a wonderful example of Shakespeare's skills as a writer.

The title is taken from the book and William could not have been speaking of himself when he wrote this, he had plenty to say. It is hard to write a review about the best book in the English language.
I once saw, in the credits of a particularly poor Shakespeare film (and most are), the astounding words of - 'written by William Shakespeare, additional material by The Films Director' I forget his name now - but it struck me as strange that you would even mention youself in the same sentence as Shakespeare when discussing credits for writing. Something like 'written by Shakespeare - ruined by the Films Director' would have been more appropriate. Anyway - if you haven't read this book by the time you are 50 - then I can only envy you - I would pay a Kings Ransom to find an undiscovered Shakespeare play.
'The drama is full of singularly beautiful detached passages: for example, the reflections of the King upon ceremony, the description of the deaths of York and Suffolk, the glorious speech of the King before the battle, the chorus of the fourth act, remarkable illustrations of Shakespeare's power as a descriptive poet. Nothing can be finer, also, than the commonwealth of bees in the first act. It is full of the most exquisite imagery and music. The art employed in transforming the whole scene of the hive into a resemblance of humanity is brilliant'.

Just who is the secretive Henry V...what does the V stand for? Victor, Vaughn, Vincent or even Vanessa?

No, seriously, I know that V means 5 in French or some other 'silly' language.

So, my real question about this book is...what happened to parts 1,2,3 and 4 of this series....and will there be a sixth installment?

I wish writers would not start a series of books with the fifth one....start from the beginning! It all gets muddled
up.

Mr Shakespeare,if you are reading this, then please, please can you e-mail me where I can buy your books so I can get the other books in the Henry series. Thanks.

I can understand how other reviewers would scoff at this play as not one of Shakespeare's greatest works, but it is still a play worthy of merit. The play explores Henry's campaign in France, culminating at the battle of Agincourt, where he defeated a much larger French army. The difficulty of this play lies in the fact that Shakespeare asks us to "imagine" all of the actions of a bloody, gruesome war within the confines of a stage like the Globe. This is not an easy feat, and I'm not sure that Shakespeare is able to relate the epic nature of the medieval battlefield on the stage.

I would definitely recommend reading this play for the crisp, and often funny, Shakespearean dialogue and the powerful monologues given mostly by Henry himself. The Crispian's day monologue is one of the most memorable in Shakespeare and is still required memorization for many British school children.

However, if you just want to hear the best parts and avoid the drawn out nature of _reading_ drama (something Shakespeare wouldn't have dreamed of), go see the play at a good local theatre or check out Kenneth Branagh's movie version, which is extremely watchable.

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

It has been great! listening to Shakespeare acted out or watching it is far better for those who find it hard to wade through reading it cold. Once the love is developed reading it cold is fun. But you have to start them somewhere and this is just wonderful. Whether you are just learning or already love Shakespeare this is delightful. We love the Saint Crispin's Day speech.

Kenneth Branagh's first try at directing was magic. Not only did he bring his visual thoughts to the screen, but he also brought his acting talents. The few who got the chance to see this young man on stage knew the talent was there. For the millions who had not even heard the name Kenneth Branagh, Henry V was our first meeting with this brilliant man. Watching Kenneth bring King Henry to life again was magical. Through this movie, you cry, laugh, and are hopefully deeply moved by the threat of war between England and France, the wit of Falstaff and Henry himself, the moving speeches Henry gives the day and the night before the battle, and beautiful wooing scene between Henry and Princess Katherine. Being one of Shakespeare's greatest plays, and having one the greatest actors of our time play the leading role, makes Henry V a masterpiece that will be enjoyed by millions for many years to come. END

I, like many English education majors, read this because of it being a requirement for either a British literature class or for a Shakespeare class. Don't get me wrong, this was performed for political purposes, putting Shakespeare on a thin line for his time, in matters of him entertaining the royal family. For today's audience, its storyline is stretched out, making the plotting feel out of sync. If you enjoy it, this is for you.