Summary of findings:

The first article expresses Henry V as the perfect king.  The second claims Henry V, the play, can stand on its own.  The Third is about Henry V and his quiet regard towards the legitimacy of his throne.  And the fourth deals with Henry V as a commercial enterprise.

Klein, Holger & Wymer, Roland.  "Henry V and the chivalric revival."  Shakespeare and History 37 (1996):  119-149. Annotation by Shawn McGrath.

 In the article by Holger Klein and Rowland Wymer it discusses the chivalry of Henry V that was caused by the decisions he made while king and by the legacy he left behind after he died.  Henry V was said to be England's
greatest warrior-king and praised by his contemporaries as the, "flower of knighthood".  The historical Henry V was the epitome of English chivalry and by chivalry it is meant that he had a code of values that glorified military
prowess as the supreme achievement. In the play of Henry V Henry epitomizes this chivalric ideal.  He is a man inspired by heroics.  Shakespeare writes, "his god is a 'God of battles' (4.1.285); and when he invades France he
comes / In thunder and in earthquake, like a Jove" (2.4.100).  "Henry's rhetoric is exhilarating; his courage in battle is exemplary; his piety seems indisputable and his honour bright" (Klein & Wymer, 121).  By the final scene of the play any lingering doubts about the legitimacy of his claims to France are easily forgotten as the French king and queen seem happy with England and the terms of the proposed alliance.  Therefore, what
reason is there to doubt the integrity of this chivalric king?  In relation to the historical Henry, the same holds true.  Even though an early death meant that his political vision of a joint kingdom united under English rule
would never be realized, it added to his heroic and chivalric reputation.

Salomon, Brownell.  “Thematic Contraries and the Dramaturgy of Henry V.” Shakespeare Quarterly 31:3   (1980):  343-356. Annotation by Kate Street.

Salomon argues that Henry V stands on its own, and does not need to be put into the context of the four-play series.  We should concentrate on the play itself, and the author does this by giving us a scene-by-scene analysis. Salomon wishes to prove that Henry V’s “individual scenes are organically interconnected, unified by a single conceptual framework” (344).  This framework supposedly consists of “two thematic contraries:  private cause versus public good” (344).  Rather than looking at the characters like Pistol, Nym, and Bardolph as foils, Salomon sees them as those interested in private cause, which is contrasted against the royalty’s endeavor of public good. Salomon sees the opening scene with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Ely as a scene focused on private cause, contrasting with 1.2 dealing with the King and the public interest.

So, the argument between Pistol and Nym in 2.1 is analyzed as a petty argument dealing with private cause, when really these characters should be going to France for the public good – not fighting over a woman.  Salomon views the scenes with Pistol and Nym as “a world of selfish opportunism” (347). Salomon also points out that later in the play we will see selfish characters like Pistol defeated, or at least embarrassed by the public good.

In conclusion, Salomon asserts that the “act division plays no part at all in the design of the plays; that their basic dramatic unit is the scene; that there is a conscious design in the internal organization of the scenes” (355).  Salomon sees the characters interested in public cause “begin a diagonal descent to repudiation and defeat almost from the beginning of the play.  Intersecting that downward vector is the upward diagonal that represents the justification and growing success of King Henry and like-minded supporters” (356).

Wentersdorf, Karl P.  “The Conspiracy of Silence in Henry V.”  Shakespeare Quarterly Volume 27, Issue 3 (Summer, 1976): 264-287. Annotation by Dave Thompkins.

1) Concerning the Southampton conspiracy episode, there is no reference to the fact that two of the plotters were men of authority as well as rank: Scoop was Lord Treasurer and Grey (cousin of Hotspur) was a member of the
Privy Council
2) This episode was one of a long series of plots created by disputes over the succession to the English throne
3) The Southampton conspiracy in Henry V is part of a much larger dynastic struggle, which begins with the Oxford plot to kill the usurper Henry IV and restore Richard II
4) Strikingly, the characters involved in the Southampton plot remain SILENT regarding the family ties and political motives of the Earl of Cambridge--Nowhere in Henry V is there any reference to obvious motives of
the plotters in accepting help from France
5) While modern play-goers would be unable to grasp the genealogical details and significance of the status and actions of the Earl of Cambridge, an audience in Shakespeare's day would have known the general background of the Southampton conspiracy
6) Henry's silence is understood in so much as if he were to mention the plotter's intention to make Mortimer king, he would draw attentions to the gratuitously weak legality of his own claim to the throne
7) The role of the Earl of Cambridge and his men in their attempt to overthrow the established monarch is analogous to that of Henry V and his noblemen challenging the French
8) Henry V completes Shakespeare's exploration of the true role played by the house of Lancaster in precipitating the War of the Roses

Aaron, Melissa D.  “The Globe and Henry V as Business Document.”  Studies in English Literature 1500-1900 40.2 (2000): 277-292. Annotation by Clint Bryson.

Melissa D. Aaron argues that texts, such as Shakespearean works, were property owned by a company.  Aaron, citing Stephen Orgel and his essay “What is a text” claims that, in Shakespeare’s case, it was the Lord Chamberlain’s Men that had as much right to it as did Shakespeare himself.  She also states that dramatic texts can be looked at in respect to their “function as an owned, saleable commodity.” She states that in order to understand the full potential of any text it must be examined in regard to its “economic value and impact.”
How did Henry V and the Lord Chamberlain’s Men fair against the London marketplace?  Aaron examines the timing of 2 Henry IV and Henry V, and claims that the Lord Chamberlain’s Men may have planned to release multipart plays to ease the change to a new location, The Globe.  But she goes on to claim that because The Globe may not have been finished Henry V may have been opened at the Curtain.  If that was the case Aaron suggests that that would explain the apologetic wording and tone of the prologues.  She also states that the actor who always played Falstaff may have left the company prior to Henry V being written, which may be why he is killed offstage and left out of Henry V.  By not having the promised new theatre and well-liked Falstaff to open the new Henry V the text turned out to be a much less financial success then the company had wished.  She summarizes by stating the “text reflects aesthetic decisions and the political temper of the times, bus also commercial realities, such as the danger of losing the audience or consumers through cast attrition, change of location, or simple boredom.”

Rabkin, Norman.  “Rabbits, Ducks, and Henry V.” Shakespeare Quarterly, Volume 28, Issue 3 (Summer, 1977), 279-296. Annotation by Kim Gattshall.

Rabkin argues that while Shakespeare’s greater plays leave the reader “knowing we should be perplexed” Henry V is often critiqued as being a “consistent whole” with no great mystery leaving the audience wondering.  The crux of this simplistic view of the play is that few critics agree on an interpretation.  Interpretations range from the play being a presentation of an ideal monarch, to Henry being a Machiavellian militarist who proves to be a ruthless hypocrite.  In an earlier paper Gombrich describes these opposing views as either a rabbit or a duck.  You read Henry V one way and you see the rabbit, you read Henry V the other way and you see the duck.  Gombrich contends it is not possible to read Henry V both ways at one time. Rabkin argues Henry V is a rabbit-duck.  The audience would have been aware of Henry V as a continuation of the earlier Henry IV series.  Rabkin offers the opinion that Shakespeare’s power is in pointing the audience into two directions and daring us to choose while it is possible that both are true.  Therefore, Henry V is meant to be read as both the ideal monarch (the duck) and the militarist (the rabbit).