From an essay from my daughter's class on the work of The Bard.
The issues with Henry V have different connections to modern events. There is a disturbing similarity between Henry's justifications for war and the Bush Administration's reasons for war with the Iraqis. Like Henry's strange and flimsy inherited claims to France, the Bush administration named questionable links to terrorist's organizations and hidden weapons of mass destruction as reasons for a war. Similar to Henry's speeches about the "honour" of the English, Bush gave speeches about the American's patriotism and unity under god.
Bush: Take a Lesson from Henry V
by Sara Jones, March 21, 2005
Henry V: Morally Ambiguous
War: the inescapable product of human conflict. History is dominated by the discussion of wars; their reasons, justifications, and their outcomes. Literature also finds itself forever fascinated, disgusted, or obsessed with this phenomenon. In Shakespeare's, time like our own, war was an undeniable source of debate. In his history plays, Shakespeare illustrated the art of war and perhaps glorified it or changed its events, but never failed to make audiences think about the nature of war. Indeed his play, Henry V still remains incredibly relevant to modern events. The inevitable atrocities and moral ambiguity of war-time leaders in his Henry V strike a disturbing resemblance to actions of modern nations.
The notion of war as being strictly honorable, having rules for treatment of soldiers, prisoners, and civilians, is not new. Even in the middle ages there were rules for why one should go to war and how war could be conducted. Shakespeare, a poet and writer, but also a loyal subject of the monarchy, attempts to establish Henry V as a leader who addresses both of these issues in his war on France. The first act deals with justifications for going to war. King Henry discusses with his advisors the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Ely about his claim to the throne of France. They explain to him the rules of inheritance and his lineage is traced back to a former queen of France. Although this justification may seem a bit strange to modern audiences, the intrinsically divine nature of the king as accepted by his subjects, seems a worthy justification to Henry. But there is another reason for the war that seems more realistic and less just. The opening of the play shows a discussion between Canterbury and Ely about the value of kingdoms (I.i. 10-15). The war is not simply about rightful claim to a kingdom but also about property and wealth. Although Henry does not use this as his justification it portrays his actions in a less-than-positive light.
Soon after Henry informs the French of his decision to claim their kingdom, the son of King Charles VI of France, le Dauphin, sends a rude response. He sends a gift of tennis balls to Henry mocking his wild youth years. This action by the prince, although petty and childish, insults Henry's honor, and fuels his desire to conquer France:
And tell the pleasant Prince this mock of his
Hath turned his balls to gunstones, and his soul
Shall stand sore chargèd for the wasteful vengeance
That shall fly from them--for many a thousand widows
Shall this his mock mock out of their dear husbands,
Mock mothers from their sons, mock castles down;
[. . . ]
But this lies all within the will of God,
To whom I do appeal, and in whose name
Tell you the Dauphin I am coming on
To venge me as I may, and to put forth
My rightful hand in a well-hallowed cause. (I.ii.281-293)
Henry states that he is justified for his war based on the prince's insults. These reasons may not seem moral to modern audiences.
Nationalism also seems to drive Henry. One of his early speeches to rally the troops in France focuses on the glory of being English.
Then imitate the action of the tiger.
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favoured rage.
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect,
[. . .]
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 called fathers did beget you.
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. . . .(III.i.6-27)
The use of animal images hints at the instinctual drive for humans to fight, but it also seems to point at what Henry feels is a justification for his war. Being English is natural and a gift that should be spread, as if England is the root of all.
For whatever reason a leader goes to war, his conduct remains paramount in the eyes of the people and Shakespeare's audience "regarded justice and mercy as twin attributes of kingship, as of course they were of God himself." (79) Henry was bound by the rules of war and by the expectations of his people and his position to provide justice when necessary and mercy when able. In modern terms this could be understood that civilians or soldiers that surrendered should be shown mercy and spared, and people should only be killed under dire circumstance. However, one of the most striking occurrences in the play is Henry's speech at Harfleur.
If not [surrender]--why, in a moment look to see
The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand
Defile the locks of your shrill-shreaking daughters,
Your fathers taken by the silver beards
And their most reverend heads dash'd to the walls,
Your naked infants spitted upon pikes . . . (III.iii.33-37)
Thomas Meron says of his speech that one would be "hard pressed to offer a more terrifying catalogue of violations of the law of war" (76). But he points out that Henry's threats "cannot be judge by modern international norms, which in any case are often violated" (77). Henry is bound by necessity. His forces are small and in need of a haven to gather their forces. He also makes it appear that his threats are empty:
Open your gates. Come, uncle Exeter,
Go you and enter Harfleur; there remain,
And fortify it strongly 'gainst the French.
Use mercy to them all . . . (III. iii. 134-137)
Henry tells his men to show mercy if they surrender, although history cannot be certain whether he truly said this or intended to follow it if Harfleur had shown resistance. To this point Henry's actions have been relatively just and moral, even by modern standards. Henry gives Charles' forces several chances to surrender but is finally forced into combat against the French who outnumber his forces by as much as five to one. Henry's actions in this final battle are the biggest topic of debate. During combat, many French prisoners are taken. Henry hears of a heart-wrenching tale where one cousin crawls to another cousin's body so that they may be dead together and he seems to lose it. He orders that the prisoners be executed.
But, hark! what new alarum is this same?
The French have reinforced their scatter'd men:
Then every soldier kill his prisoners:
Give the word through. (IV.vi. 35-38)
Henry then hears word that the French have come into the English camp and executed innocent page-boys. Using this as justification, Henry reissues his order to kill all prisoners. This moment is the darkest for Henry. While this is an obvious violation of the modern rules of war, the French's actions seem like justification for Henry. Without their violations it seems even Shakespeare's audiences would have found Henry's actions extremely immoral. Meron suggestions that "Shakespeare modified the story, apparently to cast Henry's order in the best possible light." (157) The French most likely only killed those who put up opposition in the camp which by most standards could be considered acceptable conduct in war.
Henry V, although written centuries ago, still deals with questions of morality being dealt with today. During and following World War II, the play was used frequently to tout British victory against the Nazi's. Like Henry's triumph against overwhelming odds, the Allies were able to defeat the Axis despite moments where it appeared impossible. The issues with Henry V have different connections to modern events. There is a disturbing similarity between Henry's justifications for war and the Bush Administration's reasons for war with the Iraqis. Like Henry's strange and flimsy inherited claims to France, the Bush administration named questionable links to terrorist's organizations and hidden weapons of mass destruction as reasons for a war. Similar to Henry's speeches about the "honour" of the English, Bush gave speeches about the American's patriotism and unity under god.
More terrifying still is the eerie similarity in suggestion for treatment of the terrorists or anyone possibly involved in the 9/11 attack on the United States. In letters from officials within the Bush Administration, it was suggested that rules agreed on by the major nations after WWII at the Geneva Convention, do not apply to "terrorists". The justification here was that the Taliban was not subject to these rights because they were not "a government, but a militant, terrorist-like group" (118). Like Henry V had French prisoners executed, eventually using their alleged atrocities as justification, the Bush Administration came up with a loose excuse for holding prisoners indefinitely, torturing them, and violating all their rights as humans under the Geneva Convention.
While Henry faced little opposition from his subjects as a King, there was some evidence that his subjects disapproved of his actions. Three of his subjects, one of whom was a close friend, planned to betray him from the beginning and put an end to his war. Bush similarly faced protest and great opposition to his war. But neither man was to be stopped in their fight. Can either war ever be deemed justifiable by everyone? It is doubtful. Will Bush's conduct be glorified in plays like King Henry V? Also doubtful. And will we learn from the morally ambiguous actions of these leaders and prevent future wars from violating the rights of man? Henry V didn't teach the Bush Administration anything about war-time conduct and it's doubtful the next war will be any different. But at least we'll still have Laurence Olivier'sHenry V on DVD to inspire us.
Works Cited:
Meron, Theodor. Henry's Wars and Shakespeare's Laws. Oxford: Clarendom Press, 1993.
Ratner, Michael and Ellen Ray. Guantanamo: What the World Should Know. Chelsea Green, 2004.
Shakespeare, William. "Henry V." ed. Mowat et. al. New York: Washington Square Press, 1995.