Babula, William. "Whatever Happened to Prince Hal?: An Essay on Henry V." Shakespeare Survey 30 (1977): 47-59.

Contends that during the course of the play, Henry learns the importance of moderation, honesty, and peace, thereby attaining a maturity that he lacks at the start of the drama.

Berry, Ralph. "Henry V: The Reason Why." In The Shakespearean Metaphor: Studies in Language and Form, pp. 48-60. Totowa, N. J.: Rowman and Littlefield, 1978.

Argues that Henry is no ideal king, but rather an extremely successful politician with an unusual talent for making "all that he wishes or does" appear inevitable.

Brennan, Anthony S. "That within Which Passes Show: The Function of the Chorus in Henry V." Philological Quarterly 58, No. 1 (Winter 1979): 40-52.

Details the role of the Chorus and compares the prologues with the content of each act.

Coursen, Herbert R., Jr. "Henry V and the Nature of Kingship." Discourse XIII, No. 3 (Summer 1970): 279-305.

Asserts that Henry V is an ingenious politician who, in the course of becoming a successful monarch, has lost the ability to "play the part of mere man even if he wishes to."

Erickson, Peter B. '"The Fault / My Father Made': The Anxious Pursuit of Heroic Fame in Shakespeare's Henry V" Modern Language Studies X, No. 1 (Winter 1979-80): 10-25.

Proposes that Henry V's "double roles as ideal king and ideal warrior" produce a divisive "struggle between compassion and aggression" and a conflict between his "feelings of pity and anger" that is never fully resolved.

Gurr, Andrew. "Henry V and the Bees' Commonwealth." Shakespeare Survey: An Annual Survey of Shakespearian Study and Production 30 (1977): 61-72.

Discusses Shakespeare's alteration of the fable of the bees as a parallel between a beehive and human society.

Hart, Jonathan. "Shakespeare's Henry V: Towards the Problem Play." Cahiers Elisabethians, No. 42 (October 1992): 17-35.

Concentrates on "the ways irony of theatre, structure and words, as well as a close examination of … Henry's debate with Bates and Williams help create the generic friction that makes this history play a problem play."

Holderness, Graham. "Chronicles of Feudalism: Richard II, Henry IV Part One and Henry V." In Shakespeare's History, pp. 40-144. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1985.

Views Henry as "a feudal overlord" rather than a Renaissance monarch and declares that the king's achievement "is not a peaceful and harmonious commonwealth, but a barren military triumph."

Manheim, Michael. "New Thoughts to Deck Our Kings: Henry V." In The Weak King Dilemma in the Shakespearean History Play, pp. 161-82. Syracuse, N. Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1973.

Maintains that the character of Henry is intentionally portrayed as "successful, admirable and heroic" as well as Machieavellian.

Merrix, Robert P. "The Alexandrian Allusion in Shakespeare's Henry V." English Literary Renaissance 2, No. 3 (Winter 1972): 321-33.

Analyzes "the structural and thematic relationship" of Fluellen's comparison of Henry and Alexander to the play as a whole. Merrix concludes that Shakespeare's intention was to satirize Henry by juxtaposing him with the classical figure who represented for Medieval and Renaissance writers "unbridled ambition" and "the grievous consequences of rash actions.

Pierce, Robert B. "Henry V." In Shakespeare's History Plays: The Family and the State, pp. 225-40. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1971.

Suggests that in this play such thematic issues as "the inheritance of virtue, the family as a symbol of unity, and public disorder as a threat to the family" regularly appear in the public rhetoric of the French and English leaders.

Sen Gupta, S. C. "The Second Tetralogy." In Shakespeare's Historical Plays, pp. 113-50. London: Oxford University Press, 1964.

Views Henry V as a decisive man of action who seldom questions his own assumptions, analyzes the bases of his claims, or considers "the subtler implications of his conduct."

Soellner, Rolf. "Henry V: Patterning after Perfection." In Shakespeare's Patterns of Self-Knowledge, pp. 113-28. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1972.

Argues that Henry V exemplifies the four cardinal virtues which Renaissance Christian humanists held were requisite in a good man: "fortitude, justice, prudence, and … temperance."