On the topic of war, revered American statesman Benjamin Franklin exclaimed, "There never was a good war or a bad peace." Nonetheless, the war (and its legal context) has been the subject of countless plays, historical narratives, and fictional dramas. The justification of war through antiquated laws and principles is at the heart of the reasoning in Shakespeare's Henry V. Recounting the reign of King Henry V through the Battle of Agincourt, Shakespeare begins his play with a commentary by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Ely, followed by a counseling session in Act I, Scene I between Canterbury and himself Henry. In particular, Canterbury discusses the Salic laws of the ancient Franks, Germanic tribes whose dominion once included France and much of Western Europe. Canterbury reassures King Henry that his claim to the French throne cannot be stopped by the confines of the ancient Salic laws which prohibit lines of succession in Germany through female ancestry. Relying on ecclesiastical support, King Henry accepts Canterbury's legal interpretation of monarchical succession in France as a means to invade and legitimize his great-uncle Edward III's lineage. The beginning of King Henry's campaign against France is the continuation of the brooding conflict now known as the Hundred Years' War, which dates back to 1337. More importantly, King Henry's claim to the throne of France through the defunct Salic Laws is a Shakespeare interpretation of historical events, legal precedents, and 15th-century writings. Theodor Meron, international lawyer and legal historian, interprets Shakespeare's language in Henry V as well as the legal writings available to Shakespeare during his lifetime in his essay for The American Journal of International Law titled “Shakespeare's Henry the Fifth and the Law of War. " About the Canterbury claims, Meron says: Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why violent video games should not be banned"? Get an original essay The modern reader cannot help but marvel at the craftsmanship and of the timelessness of Canterbury's legal arguments: territorially, Salic land does not mean France but a specific area in Germany. The law has been misinterpreted as applying to France since the Salic lands became a French possession under the reign of Charles Magnus, 421 years after the death of the supposed author of the Salic law, the Frankish king Faramondo, his continued viability is in doubt. The French kings themselves succeeded to the crown, in Shakespeare's words, through “the right and title of woman.” They are therefore precluded from invoking the law against Henry. Finally, Henry's claim is strengthened by the Old Testament, which explicitly commands that "[i]f a man die and has no children, then you shall pass his inheritance to his daughter." The biblical argument should not necessarily be seen as exclusively theological; it may have been presented according to the law of nature, or jus natural. (6) Meron's statements carry out the Canterbury Speech in order to spread the legal position of King Henry's conquest and support of the war. Canterbury's reassurance of Henry's cause secures the blessing of the church in England along with the support of the native English inhabitants and nobility. Meron continues his overview of the Canterbury Speech by citing the writings of Holinshed and Hall, noted legal thinkers in the common law tradition known to Shakespeare during the period in which Henry V was being produced (6). Holinshed and Hall appear throughout Meron's essay to make connections between Shakespeare and the legal influence evident in thehis writings. King Henry's desire to have legal momentum through family lineage tips the scales in his decision to advance the conquest of France. Clearly, legal tradition in England plays a huge role in affairs of state, as evidenced by the proceedings at court between Henry and his advisors. Shakespeare's mastery of the international legal principles of Holinshed and Hall contributes immensely to the development of the play's plot and the relationship between the warring monarchs and nobles. War, even in ancient times, needed the support of the population to ensure a peaceful kingdom. For example, Richard II, while fighting in Ireland, was subjected to a coup led by Henry V's father, Henry Bolingbroke. As such, domestic issues related to taxation and the happiness of the nobility can transform any monarch's decision-making. However, the examination of Salic law and Shakespeare's conception of just war constitute the main interests of this article. Understanding the legal context in Shakespeare's writings is critical to separating fact from fiction and making sense of the history of Henry V's reign. Henry's causes for the resumption of hostilities with France are both secular and religious. Meron breaks down the need for both secular and religious reasoning in the following way: In addition to assuring himself of the legitimacy of his claim, Henry needed to be convinced that the war that might be necessary to secure that claim… was founded on a just cause. The question was important for spiritual reasons (the immortality of his soul) and for secular reasons such as the validity of the title he and his troops would acquire to the spoils of war; their enjoyment of combatant privileges; their protection by the laws of war; and as a consequence of these considerations, its ability to recruit troops and sustain their morale. (7) Despite his demagogic status in England, Henry was aware of the need to have constant reinforcements and the support of his nobles if he was to succeed throughout the campaign. Henry's father, Henry IV, succeeded to the throne partly due to Richard's lack of support for his costly wars with Ireland. Henry was therefore always aware of the popular opinion of his government; his support was strong among the English people and nobility, thus allowing a smooth transition from peacetime to war. Jus gentium, Latin for “law of nations,” is an underlying legal principle that is a precursor to our understanding of the United Nations (“Jus Gentium”). France and England in the play are linked in their understanding of the law that binds all nations. Meron argues that scholars writing about the idea of ​​jus gentium in Shakespeare's time see property claims as “defensive, not aggressive warfare” (8). Essentially, the line of English Plantagenet kings find themselves seeking rightful possession of France defensively. Today's interpretation of the law might lead one to think the exact opposite of what scholars would have seen faced in 16th century England. In Act 2, Scene IV of the play, Exeter, as ambassador for Henry's party, enters King Charles' court to convey Henry's final message before the battle begins. Exeter gives King Charles one last opportunity to abdicate the throne and asserts Henry's claim through locus standi: "That you strip yourself and lay aside / The loan glories that by heaven's gift, / By law of nature and law of nations" (2.4. 78-80). By asserting the “right of the nations,” Exeter ensures that King Charles is fullyaware of the reasons for the invasion of England and do not hesitate to convey the message. Although both sides claim the same legal principles, the Shakespearean play lends us the views of Henry and company regarding the legitimacy of the invasion. The Exeter Speech directly references the common law principle of jus gentium that Meron discusses in his essay, which was a topic of discussion in the works of Holinshed and Hall in Shakespeare's time. Title to the lands of France is the ultimate goal of Henry's campaign. From a legal perspective, Henry's main concern with justifying his campaign is the recognition of his campaign's claims worldwide. If unfair or unjust reasons were to emerge, Henry's claims would come under serious attack from other European leaders and could potentially jeopardize his entire cause. Aware of the implications of an offensive attack on France, King Henry instructs the Archbishop of Canterbury before delivering his speech very sternly and quickly, commanding him: "Therefore take heed how you impair our person / How you awaken the our sleeping sword of war; / We bid thee in the name of God take heed” (1.2.21-23). the lineage of the Plantagenet dynasty and its connection to the French monarchy Henry understands the severity of the unjust war and its potential effects on the stability of the English throne is imminent in an invasion of France and must be considered justifiable in the minds of the English and Europeans. Canterbury's translation of the Plantagenet lineage is responsible, in Henry's mind, for being the catalyst for the invasion of France with the aim of bringing the entire country under English rule. The war between France and England was continuous for over a hundred years and was interrupted only briefly before Henry V's invasion thanks to a series of truces. Meron elaborates on the political climate between France and England to show the impact of previous engagements and the history of the Hundred Years' War: In reality, Henry's invasion of France in August 1415 did not begin a new war but continued that war which was legally still ongoing. existing. The Hundred Years' War was renewed with the collapse in 1369 of the Treaty of Brétigny (1360) after France's rejection, or “defiance,” of Edward III's ultimatum. Since then the conflict had only been interrupted by truces which, according to medieval doctrine, suspended but did not put an end to the war. Since the truce only suspended fighting for an agreed upon period of time, by law it was not even necessary to declare war once it was over. (14)A state of war continued to exist before and after Henry's invasion of France. Henry's uncompromising stance in maintaining a truce with France is clearly a historical norm between the two countries that does not emerge directly in the play but is important for understanding the events leading up to Shakespeare's Henry V. Henry Bolingbroke's deposition of Richard II along with Richard's conquests in Ireland left a void in hostilities between France and England that would escalate during Henry V's conquest. Henry's desire to restore Plantagenet rule in France was a legacy of Edward III, not Richard or his father. After Henry's victory at Agincourt and his impending marriage to Catherine of Valois, King Charles VI delivers a remarkable speech in Act 5, scene 2 of the play in the presence of Lancastrian King Henry, his daughter.