The first of these suggested locations can be found in the first act of the play, more specifically, the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury. In order to portray Henry V as a hero-saint and exemplar of Christian piety, it is imperative that the justification of war be void of nefarious motivations. The opening scene is of supreme importance as we see the unravelling of a darker interpretation of ‘this star of England’. We are introduced to the scheming between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Ely, their thoughts preoccupied with a parliamentary bill that aims to seize all church lands. An unacceptable reality, their solution is to essentially bribe the King. In return for the protection of the Church against seized revenue, …show more content…
The Archbishop’s argument is based on the repudiation of the Salic law currently operating in France, a law which excludes females from dynastic succession, (‘No woman shall succeed in Salic land’). Henry implores the Archbishop to ‘justly and religiously unfold’ his claim to the throne so he may exercise it with a clear conscience. The King requires a clear explanation of his claim but clarity and brevity is a luxury when Canterbury begins his exposition. Comprising of over sixty lines, the speech is presented on the modern stage as something of an embarrassment, technical, ineloquent and described by Arthur Humphreys as ‘unrivalled for tediousness’. (Dutton, 2005, pg. 185). The Archbishop’s explanation is reduced to comedy, constantly forgetting things, getting confused over genealogies and finally ending with the grossly ludicrous assertion that Henry’s claim is ‘as clear as a summer’s sun’. It is as if the Archbishop of Canterbury has given himself permission to behave absurdly and illogically, proving it difficult to take his long, rather unlettered explanation with a modicum of seriousness rendering the entire scene sardonic if not