ABSTRACT
True hero and ‘amiable monster’; mirror of all Christian kings and Machiavellian imperialist: more than any other Shakespearean protagonist, Henry V has given rise to interpretations characterised by extreme and contrary perspectives.1 Some critics hold that the positive image of the King which the play projects is to be understood as seductive appearance: the real Henry is a thoroughly sinister figure. Others argue that the positive and the negative perspectives are equally valid and must be integrated to any interpretation of the play which aims at completeness and impartiality; and I would include in this group the dissenter who contends that the opposed views are mutually incompatible and that we are compelled to choose between them.2 A striking feature of readings offered by the second group of critics – readings profoundly affected by the New-Critical dedication to ambivalence, however variously that concept might be phrased – is that the search for subversive ironies is conducted with such enthusiasm and ingenuity that a predominantly negative impression of the warrior king is what emerges.3 Neither group of critics seems prepared to entertain the possibility of an affirmative but complex picture of a hero; one which celebrates greatness while allowing for aspects of character or conduct which we would normally reprehend or rather wish away, but which are somehow intrinsic to heroic achievement or arguably unavoidable in the circumstances in which greatness is achieved. In modern times, England’s great wartime leader, Winston Churchill (and I speak as an Irish nationalist!), would surely fit such a description.
