932 shakespeare, William
the English are not only better than the French, but
three times better. This definition of Englishness can
also be witnessed among the French nobility. One of
the French nobles recounts an English idea, saying
“They bid us, ‘To the English dancing-schools, / . . .’
/ Saying our grace is only in our heels, / And that we
are most lofty runaways” (3.5.32–35). The insult is
that the French soldiers are so skilled at fleeing, they
are suited to teach English children how to dance.
Though it is spoken by a Frenchman, this sentiment
is directed at an English audience and casts the
English as superior to the French.
After the conflict has been resolved through
the agreement that Henry will marry the French
princess Catherine and their son will inherit both
thrones, this national opposition is no longer func-
tional since the two nations are no longer at war.
Henry looks toward a new national foe to glorify
himself and his nations. While courting Catherine,
he asks, “Shall not thou and I, between Saint Denis
and Saint George, compound a boy, half-French
half-English, that shall go to Constantinople and
take the Turk by the beard? Shall we not? What
sayst thou, my fair flower-de-luce?” (5.2.193–197).
Having conquered France, Henry turns his attention
to the Ottoman Empire as the new conquest. And
by invoking nation through each country’s patron
saints and referring to Catherine as the French
national emblem (fleur-de-lis), Henry demonstrates
the centrality of nation to their relationship.
Nation and nationalism in Henry V is not
completely unambiguous. At the siege of Harfleur,
Henry threatens to commit atrocities against civil-
ians—particularly children and the elderly—if the
French do not surrender. Though he does not actu-
ally commit these actions, many critics feel that they
cast doubt on Henry’s character and his war with
France. Additionally, while overall the conflict with
France suggests a unified national identity, there are
four captains in Henry’s army who undermine this
coherence. Henry’s army features an English captain
(Gower), a Welsh captain (Fluellen), a Scottish cap-
tain ( Jamy), and an Irish captain (MacMorris), who
together represent the four major national identi-
ties on the British Islands. In 1599, when Henry V
was written, only Wales was peacefully subject to
English rule. In fact, many scholars feel that Henry V
may be commenting on a recent Irish rebellion and
attempts to quell it. During Henry’s day in the 15th
century, none of these areas were under firm control.
A recent rebellion against Henry’s father had come
from Wales, and in Henry V they are concerned that
going to France will open England to incursions
from Scotland. The four captains reflect ambivalent
relationships between these identities rather than
British unity. They maintain, for instance, distinct
identities through their speech. Fluellen refers to
Jesus as “Cheshu,” and Jamy and MacMorris speak
with accents which are represented through variant
spellings. For instance, Jamy says, “It sall be vary gud,
gud faith, gud captains bath” (3.3.43).
Furthermore, when the captains are together,
they bicker. In the midst of the siege of Harfleur,
Fluellen wants to discuss “disciplines of war” with
MacMorris. Despite MacMorris observing that they
should be focusing on the siege, Fluellen continues,
saying “there is not many of your nation—.” Mac-
Morris takes offense, replying, “Of my nation? What
ish my nation? Ish a villain and a bastard and a
knave and a rascal? What ish my nation? Who talks
of my nation?” (3.361–363). MacMorris’s ultimate
meaning is not clear; however, he is defensive of
Fluellen presuming to discuss his nation as a whole
and to define anything about its inhabitants. Both
Fluellen’s reference and MacMorris’s response sug-
gest very much divided national identities.
Christopher L. MorrowreSponSIbILIty in Henry V
Before assuming the title role in Henry V, Prince
Henry (or Hal as he was called) played a prominent
role in the two plays devoted to the reign of his
father, Henry IV, Parts 1 and 2. Both previous plays
depicted not a studious prince preparing for kingship
but a wild youth more interested in carousing with
his friends, including the wildly popular Falstaff,
leading other characters, including his father, to
question whether he would be able to take respon-
sibility as king. Henry V, in many ways, engages the
theme of responsibility through Henry’s ability to
take responsibility, his assignment of responsibility,
and the responsibility of kings generally.
From the very beginning, Henry’s past causes
concern over his ability to take responsibility for