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.
Table of Contents
I. Shakespeare’s Henry V: Glorification or criticism of war?
II. The legitimation of war
II.1. “jus ad bellum”: The medieval concept of the “just war”
II.2 “jus in bello”: Chivalric rules of behaviour in war
III. Critical aspects in Henry V: The atrocity and futility of war
IV. Patriotism and nationals stereotypes
V. Conclusion
VI. Literature
Objectives and Research Focus
This paper examines the dual nature of war representation in Shakespeare's Henry V, specifically analyzing whether the play serves as a glorification of conflict or a critical subversion of military ideals. The research seeks to determine how Shakespeare integrates medieval legal and moral doctrines—such as "just war" theory—to both legitimize the protagonist's actions and simultaneously reveal the hypocritical and destructive realities of warfare.
- The intersection of medieval "just war" doctrine and Renaissance political thought.
- The tension between patriotic rhetoric and the reality of war atrocities.
- The use of national stereotypes as a tool for character construction and narrative framing.
- The critique of power politics and the limitations of chivalric codes in practice.
Excerpt from the Book
II.1 “jus ad bellum”: The medieval concept of the “just war”
In medieval Europe economic needs, power politics and personal ambitions of rulers were not acceptable as official grounds for warfare. According to Christian philosophy and theology, war should, at least officially, only serve a single aim: to restore God’s prescribed order on earth if no other remedies could be found. In order to prove the justness of a war certain criteria of legitimation in both “jus ad bellum” and “jus in bello” had to be fulfilled (Russell, Just War.). A great deal of the language of war in the play is devoted to these criteria:
1.) The first necessity is to make clear that the enemy has broken fundamental laws, while the other warring party takes the part of God’s worldly arm which corrects the wrongs and restores the order: In official situations Henry talks less about his personal war aims, but rather accuses the French of urging him to go to war. The Archbishop of Canterbury has to give his expert’s opinion on the complex genealogical and legal situation. The result is that the Salian law does not apply to France so that Henry can justly claim his divine right to the French throne. Whereas the illegal usurpation of the French king must be brought to an end.
Summary of Chapters
I. Shakespeare’s Henry V: Glorification or criticism of war?: Explores the interpretative conflict between reading the play as a piece of wartime propaganda or as a critical, ambiguous reflection on heroism.
II. The legitimation of war: Outlines the historical and theological framework of the "just war" doctrine applied to Henry's campaign in France.
II.1. “jus ad bellum”: The medieval concept of the “just war”: Details the moral criteria required to initiate a conflict, focusing on divine right and the restoration of order.
II.2 “jus in bello”: Chivalric rules of behaviour in war: Discusses the ethical conduct expected on the battlefield and how these rules often collapse under the pressure of real military necessity.
III. Critical aspects in Henry V: The atrocity and futility of war: Analyzes specific instances where the play undermines its own heroic narrative, highlighting the disconnect between rhetoric and reality.
IV. Patriotism and nationals stereotypes: Examines how the construction of national identities through stereotypes functions to maintain the play’s patriotic momentum.
V. Conclusion: Summarizes the argument that the play transcends simple glorification by revealing the inherent hypocrisies of medieval war doctrine.
VI. Literature: Lists the academic sources used to substantiate the analysis of Shakespeare's historical drama.
Keywords
Shakespeare, Henry V, Just War, Jus ad bellum, Jus in bello, Chivalry, War, Legitimation, Patriotism, Nationalism, Medieval Law, Theology, Heroism, Agincourt, Literary Criticism
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this paper?
The paper explores the representation of war in Shakespeare’s Henry V, focusing on the tension between the official glorification of the monarch and a critical, often skeptical, undercurrent regarding the moral legitimacy of war.
What are the primary themes discussed?
The core themes include the medieval "just war" doctrine (jus ad bellum and jus in bello), the role of religion in politics, the contrast between noble rhetoric and soldiers' reality, and the use of national stereotypes.
What is the main objective of the analysis?
The goal is to demonstrate that Shakespeare did not merely produce a propaganda piece; instead, he embedded critiques that expose the hypocrisy of political and military leaders who justify their actions through moral doctrines.
What methodology does the author apply?
The author applies a literary analysis grounded in historical context, using medieval and Renaissance legal and religious doctrines to evaluate the actions and justifications of characters within the play.
What does the main body of the text examine?
The main body breaks down the criteria of "just war" against the play's events, analyzes specific examples of war atrocities, and discusses the function of national identity and stereotypes in the conflict between England and France.
Which keywords best describe this research?
Key terms include Shakespeare, Henry V, Just War, Chivalry, Patriotism, War Legitimation, and literary criticism of historical drama.
How does the play depict the Church's involvement in war?
The author argues that the Church is depicted as having profane, self-interested motivations for supporting the war, acting to distract from political threats to its revenue rather than out of pure religious concern.
Is the "just war" doctrine effective in the play?
According to the author, the doctrine is rhetorically present but fails to humanize warfare effectively, as the standards are frequently disregarded when the situation requires brutal military tactics, such as at Harfleur or Agincourt.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Thomas Gräfe (Autor:in), 2003, The legal and moral legitimation of war in Shakespeare’s 'Henry V', München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/155127
