Henry V was a heroic figure who led the greatest land campaign England had conducted up to that time. I see Shakespeare's play as subversive to the glory of war and to a spirit of patriotism or reverence.

The first scene in the play concerns two bishops discussing a gift to King Henry. The church had enormous properties and encouraged the rich to remember the church in their wills as gold greased the path to high status in the afterlife. Most wealth stayed in the church.

War is expensive, and a king planning war looks over his kingdom for funds. The clerics knew that the extensive holdings of the church tempted him and did not want to lose any of their wealth. A gift large enough to satisfy the king would be preferable to having most or all of their wealth confiscated.

At the start of the play Shakespeare bypassed any appeal to patriotism and emphasised the immense wealth of the church. Those planning a war must finance it and those who suffer the burden will try to minimise it.

In Act II Scene III Falstaff, the dissolute friend of Henry V’s youth is dying offstage. Speaking of him the woman caring for him said:

“Nay, sure, he's not in hell: he's in Arthur's bosom, if ever man went to Arthur's bosom ... So a' cried out 'God, God, God!' three or four times. Now I, to comfort him, bid him a' should not think of God …

The woman meant Abraham’s bosom but confused that with the legendary King Arthur. Shakespeare showed the confusion of an ignorant believer. One area where she wasn’t confused was the uselessness of calling for God. People at death’s door may be encouraged to think of God to ease their way out of life. Falstaff’s carer realised that such thoughts were useless in his case and encouraged their suppression.

Possibly, that’s the way Shakespeare felt.

Writing in a religious and patriotic time he had to mask his feelings much as those writing under Soviet and other authoritarian rule had to do.

Hey davidf,

I am reading right at this moment Harold Bloom's Where shall wisdom be found?.

"Shakespeare is the Godlike author that James Joyce and Goethe hoped to approximate, the alienated Creator who pares his fingernails even as his creation is ruined by its own riches. We only have one such author, who out Yahwehs Yahweh, which remains the scandal that is Shakespeare."

It would be Bloom's opinion, I would think, that Shakespeare scaled such heights of universalism that left the need "mask his feelings" superfluous.

It might be easier to think of him as taking caution when required rather than writing subversively for its own sake.

An author of that time, like Shakespeare and with the necessary talent, may well have been able to surreptitiously let his feelings be known without actually writing them thus.

Perhaps he was the first, albeit more subtle, Dawkins of his age or merely a dramatist with an eye for a colourful array of characters with various opinions.

Interesting site here on the issue of Shakespeare and religion by author Aldous Huxley.

http://www.sirbacon.org/links/huxley2.htm

DavidF - " Writing in a religious and patriotic time he had to mask his feelings much as those writing under Soviet and other authoritarian rule had to do."

I'm afraid that I question this initial statement quite robustly. Remember that Elizabeth herself was an extremely intelligent and educated woman who, according to all accounts, lapped up the New Learning and enjoyed open discussion. Things did change with James, granted, but the Henry plays were written before his time.

While, in Shakespeares time, only 10% of the entire population was able to read or write, that ten per cent comprised the Queen and some members of her Court: the law-makers, the policy-makers, the rule-enforcers and, of course, the poets and playwrights.

Reading texts contemporary to Shakespeares we find both men and women questioning religion, social mores, women's place in society: in fact many of the issues with which we concern ourselves to-day.

As for the common people - the audiences - something that should always be kept in mind is that, despite the horrific religious persecution prior to Shakespeare's time, the seam of paganism was still a concurrent theme in all parts of England.

To compare this period to the stifling authoritarianism of Soviet rule simply doesn't wash with me.

Pelican - Am familiar with Huxley's article but, remember it was written before the question of John Shakespeares Catholicism came to light. Its a good article though, and would love to discuss it in more detail in light of current scholarship.

Dear david f,

I agree with you in part.
The play does present an idealized portrait
of England's Henry V.

Shakespeare filled Henry V with patriotic passages,
especially the king's famous address to his troops
at Harfleur:

"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more."
The speech concludes, "The game's afoot/ Follow your
spirit; and upon this charge/ Cry "God for Harry!
England and Saint George!"

It does appear that Shakespeare seems to glorify war,
however on closer examination, the heroics are set
against a background of political treachery
and empty honour.
Comic scenes mock the vanity of the royal court.

These scenes are meant to serve to remind audiences
that monarchs and their councils plan wars, but
ordinary people must fight and die in them.

I don't think Shakespeare was "subversive." I think
his plays reflect Elizabethan society. Elizabethans
were keenly aware of death and the brevity of life.
They lived in constant fear of plague. When an epidemic
struck, they saw victims carried off to common graves.
Yet, death and violence also fascinated them. Many
flocked to public beheadings of traitors, whose
heads were exhibited on poles. They also watched
criminals being hanged et cetera.

Elizabethan literature therefore mirrored the violence
and death so characteristic of English life. Shakespeare
catered to his audience. He wrote most of his plays
for audiences from a broad social background. He catered
to their tastes.

csteele wrote: "Shakespeare is the Godlike author that James Joyce and Goethe hoped to approximate, the alienated Creator who pares his fingernails even as his creation is ruined by its own riches. We only have one such author, who out Yahwehs Yahweh, which remains the scandal that is Shakespeare."

It would be Bloom's opinion, I would think, that Shakespeare scaled such heights of universalism that left the need "mask his feelings" superfluous.

Dear csteele,

Bloom refers to the way Shakespeare has come to be regarded. In his lifetime he was not regarded as a Godlike author nor was he regarded as scaling heights of universalism.

Robert Greene, a contemporary, wrote: “Yes trust them not: for there is an upstart Crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his Tygers heart wrapt in a Players hyde, supposes he is as well able to bombast out blanke verse as the best of you: and being an absolute Johannes factotum, is in his owne conceit the onely Shakescene in the countrey.”

“Shakescene” is clearly Shakespeare. The phrase “upstart Crow” refers to his country origins. “Beautified with our feathers” means that he uses other writer’s words. “Tygers heart wrapt in a Players hyde” is a parody of a line in Henry VI part III. The Latin phrase, Johannes factotum, meaning jack-of-all-trades, suggests that he was at the same time engaged in all sorts of theatrical jobs: actor, poet, playwright and perhaps manager as well.

At this time I am trying to read all the works of Shakespeare and if I live long enough will probably do it again. Great poetry, wit and humanity. I would rather discuss him in preference to most of the topics on olo.

I appreciate those who responded very much and hope to learn more from your insights