Provides new contexts for Shakespeare's play 'Henry V'. The result is an account of how Shakespeare's and other 'histories' dramatically articulated complex medieval and Renaissance attitudes to warfare and the conduct of nations and individuals in time of war.

Seminar paper from the year 2003 in the subject English Language and Literature Studies - Literature, Bielefeld University (Fakultät für Linguistik und Literaturwissenschaft), course: Shakespeare’s History Plays, language: English, abstract: Das Referat behandelt die rechtliche und moralische Legitimation des Krieges in Shakespeares History Play Henry V, um damit zu klären, ob es sich um ein "affirmative play" oder ein "problem play" handelt.

Chivalry, one of Shakespeare's central themes, retains its pertinence and topicality in our rules for international humanitarian law and the conduct of war. Against a background of Medieval and Renaissance sources as well as Shakespeare's historical and dramatic realms, Professor Meron considers the ways in which law, chivalry, morality, conscience, and state necessity are deployed in Shakespeare to promote a society in which soldiers behave humanely and leaders are held to high standards of civilized behavior. In doing so, he illustrates the literary genealogy of such contemporary international humanitarian concerns as the treatment of prisoners and of women and accountability for war crimes.

Seminar paper from the year 2012 in the subject Didactics for the subject English - Literature, Works, grade: 1,00, Staatliche Berufliche Oberschule Fachoberschule / Berufsoberschule Kaufbeuren, language: English, abstract: “King Henry V” has always been considered as Shakespeare’s most patriotic play, one could even argue his most nationalistic play. “King Henry V” appears to be the story of the ideal English king who is brave, charismatic, honourable and pious or as Shakespeare puts it, he is “the mirror of all Christian kings” who fights for what is righteously his and leads his “band of brothers” to victory against impossible odds. However, to truly understand Shakespeare’s motivations, we have to take a look at the tumultuous time in which the play was written. Under the reign of Elizabeth I., England had either been at war or at the constant threat of one for decades. It was a time of frequent conspiracies to overthrow the queen and bloody rebellions. In this context the play can be seen as an attempt to raise the morale and to rally the English around a common cause. This interpretation becomes plausible given the fact that the play’s popularity increased whenever England was threatened, for example in both world wars and the Napoleonic wars. Nevertheless “King Henry V” is not just simple wartime propaganda, it’s an ambiguous play which can be interpreted both as a glorification of war or alternatively as a subtle critique of the cruelty and futility of war. It lies entirely in the eye of the beholder. Someone with a patriotic point of view might identify himself with the virtuous Henry or admire that - although weakened by plague and famine - the English soldiers and their king defeats a superior French army, whereas a more critical reader might question the legitimacy of waging a war of aggression in the first place. Furthermore particularly modern readers feel disgusted by the killing of the unarmed prisoners at the battle of Agincourt. Nowadays it would be considered a war crime and even back then it was considered inhumane. On the one hand Shakespeare seems to show the ideal monarch and an English nation united in victory, on the other hand he shows the ugly face of war with all his atrocities and inhumanity. In the following essay I will show both, the patriotic and a more critical perspective and the reason why Shakespeare implemented both of them in his play.

'Shakespeare loves loose ends; Shakespeare also loves red herrings.' Stephen Orgel Loose ends and red herrings are the stuff of detective fiction, and under the scrutiny of master sleuths John Sutherland and Cedric Watts Shakespeare's plays reveal themselves to be as full of mysteries as any Agatha Christie novel. Is it summer or winter in Elsinore? Do Bottom and Titania makelove? Does Lady Macbeth faint, or is she just pretending? How does a man putrefy within minutes of his death? Is Cleopatra a deadbeat Mum? And why doesn't Juliet ask 'O Romeo Montague, wherefore art thou Montague?' As Watts and Sutherland explore these and other puzzles Shakespeare's genuius becomes ever more apparent. Speculative, critical, good-humoured and provocative, their discussions shed light on apparent anachronisms, perfromance and stagecraft, linguistics, Star Trek and much else. Shrewd andentertaining, these essays add a new dimension to the pleasure of reading or watching Shakespeare. 'Few modern academics are doing quite so much as Professor Sutherland to connect the "common reader" with great books' Independent