On the subject of war, revered American statesman Benjamin Franklin exclaimed: “There never was a good war or a bad peace. » Nevertheless, the war (and its legal context) has been the subject of countless plays, historical accounts and fictional dramas. The justification of war by outdated laws and principles is at the heart of the reasoning in Shakespeare's Henry V. Chronicling the reign of King Henry V through the Battle of Agincourt, Shakespeare begins his play with a commentary from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Ely, followed by a lawyer's session in Act I , scene I between Canterbury and Henry himself. In particular, Canterbury discusses the Salic laws of the ancient Franks, Germanic tribes whose ruling domain once included France and most of Western Europe. Canterbury reassures King Henry that his claim to the French throne cannot be stopped by the limitations of ancient Salic laws prohibiting lines of succession in Germany by female ancestry. Relying on ecclesiastical support, King Henry accepted Canterbury's legal interpretation of monarchical succession in France as a means of invading and legitimizing the lineage of his great-uncle Edward III. The start of King Henry's campaign against France is a continuation of the dark conflict now known as the Hundred Years' War, which dates back to 1337. More importantly, King Henry's claim to the French throne through the late Salic Laws is Shakespeare's interpretation of historical events, legal precedents and writings of the 15th century. Theodor Meron, international lawyer and legal historian, interprets the language of Shakespeare's Henry V as well as the legal writings Shakespeare had during his lifetime in his essay for the American Journal of International Law entitled "Shakespeare's Henry V and the Law of Law." war ". » Regarding Canterbury's claims, Meron says: Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay The modern reader cannot help but marvel at the craftsmanship and timelessness of Canterbury's legal arguments: territorially, the Salic Land does not mean France but a specific area of ​​Germany. The law has been wrongly interpreted as applying to France. Since the Salic lands became a French possession during the reign of Charles the Great, 421 years after the death of the alleged author of Salic law – the Frankish king Pharamond – its continued vitality has been in doubt. The kings of France themselves rose to the crown, in the words of Shakespeare, thanks to the “right and title of woman.” They are therefore forbidden to invoke the law against Henry. Finally, Henry's claim is reinforced by the Old Testament, which explicitly commands that "[i]f a man dies and has no son, then shall ye pass his inheritance to his daughter." » The biblical argument need not be seen as exclusively theological; it may have been presented under the law of nature or natural juice. (6) Meron's statements unfold the Canterbury Speech to broadcast the legal status of King Henry's conquest and the continuation of the war. Canterbury's assurance of Henry's cause ensured the blessing of the Church of England as well as the support of the locals and the English nobility. Meron continues his overview of the Canterbury Speech by mentioning the writings of Holinshed and Hall, prominent legal thinkers in the common law tradition known to Shakespeare at the time of Henry V's production (6). Holinshed and Hall appear throughout Meron's essay in order to draw connections between Shakespeare and the influencelaw evident in his writings. King Henry's desire for legal leverage through family lineage tipped the scales in his decision to continue the conquest of France. Clearly, legal tradition in England plays a huge role in state affairs, as evidenced by the legal proceedings between Henry and his advisors. Shakespeare's mastery of Holinshed and Hall's international legal principles contributes enormously to the development of the play's plot and the relationships between the warring monarchs and nobles. War, even in ancient times, needed the support of the population to ensure harmonious rule. For example, Richard II, while fighting in Ireland, fell victim to a coup led by Henry V's father, Henry Bolingbroke. Thus, 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 the Shakespearean conception of just war constitute the main concerns of this article. Understanding the legal context of Shakespeare's writings is imperative to separating fact from fiction as well as making sense of the history of Henry V's reign. The reasons given by Henry V for the resumption of hostilities with France are to 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 had to be convinced that whatever war might be necessary to secure that claim... was based on a just cause. The issue 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 result of these considerations, its ability to raise troops and support their morale. (7) Despite his demagogic status in England, Henry was aware of the need for constant reinforcements and the support of his nobles if he was to succeed throughout the campaign. Henry's father, Henry IV, was able to ascend to the throne in part due to Richard's lack of support in his costly wars with Ireland. Henry was therefore always conscious of popular judgment of his reign; 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 on the idea of ​​jus gentium in Shakespeare's time view the reclamation of property as a "defensive, non-aggressive war" (8). Essentially, the Plantagenet line of English kings found themselves seeking their rightful ownership of France defensively. Interpreting the law today might lead one to think exactly the opposite of what scholars would have seen in 16th-century England. In Act 2, Scene IV of the play, Exeter, as the ambassador of Henry's party, enters the court of King Charles to deliver 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 legal status: "That you strip yourselves and set apart / The glories borrowed by the gift of heaven, / By law of nature and the law of nations" (2.4. 78-80). By affirming the "right of nations",Exeter ensures that King Charles is fully aware of the reasons for invading England and does not hesitate to deliver his message. Although both sides claim the same legal principles, the Shakespearean play lends us the view of Henry and company regarding the legal status 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 in justifying his campaign is global recognition of his claims. If irregularities or unfair reasons were to surface, Henry's claims would come under major attack from other European leaders and could potentially jeopardize his entire cause. Aware of the implications of an offensive attack on France, King Henry directs the Archbishop of Canterbury before delivering his speech in a very stern and hasty manner, ordering him to: "Be careful then how you immobilize our person / to the way you wake our sleeping sword. of war; / We charge you in the name of God to take heed” (1.2.21-23). Responsibility for the war in Henry's mind rests with Canterbury's legal interpretation in establishing the lineage of the Plantagenet dynasty and its links to the French monarchy. Henry understands the seriousness of an unjust war and its potential effects on the stability of the English throne. Massive blood loss on both sides is imminent in the event of an invasion of France and must be considered justifiable in the minds of the English and Europeans. The Canterbury translation of the Plantagenet line bears responsibility, 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 ended only briefly before Henry V's invasion through a series of truces. Meron expands on the political climate between France and England to show the impact of previous engagements and the history of the Hundred Years' War: In fact, Henry's invasion of France in August 1415 did not trigger a new war but continued the war which, legally, still existed. The Hundred Years' War was renewed with the collapse in 1369 of the Treaty of Brétigny (1360) after France's rejection, or "challenge", of Edward III's ultimatum. Since then, the conflict has only been interrupted by truces which, according to medieval doctrine, suspended the war, but did not end it. Since truces only suspended fighting for an agreed period, there was no legal need to even declare war when they ended. (14) A state of war continued to exist before and after Henry's invasion of France. Henry's uncompromising stance on maintaining a truce with France is clearly a historical norm between the two countries that does not appear directly in the play, but is important for understanding the events leading up to Henry V's Shakespeare. The deposition of Richard II by Henry Bolingbroke as well as Richard's conquests in Ireland left a void in the hostilities between France and England which would be exacerbated during the conquest of Henry V. Henry's desire to restore the reign of Plantagenêt in France is an inheritance from Edward III, not from Richard or his father. After Henry's victory at Azincourt and his impending marriage to Catherine of Valois, King Charles VI delivered a remarkable speech in).