Is "Henry V" a tragedy?

“for the Deed has either to be Done or not Done

and with Knowledge or without Knowledge” -Aristotle, Poetics

The first four acts of Henry V are a rallying cry for England and its young King. This pervasive mood and the apparent ease with which Henry and his forces invade France give the work the grand air of a glorious, historic epic. After his victories at Harfleur and Agincourt, Henry proceeds to the palace to claim his position as heir to France by marriage to Katherine. What happens in this scene, though, is a subtle reversal and a final sobering reminder to the audience of the actual historic “resolution” of the on-stage drama.

This awkward, “romantic comedy” ending has given scholars much to discuss. The nature of the work changes entirely as Henry is flummoxed by Katherine, who is supposed to be his prized token. Having proven himself in war, Henry is finally in an ultimate advantageous posture over the French, yet is also, for the first time, unable to gain advantage over his “adversary” in the scene, Katherine, because she uses an exaggerated language gap to avoid committing herself to him with her own words.

This apparent reversal of Henry’s fortune, paired with the sobering Epilogue, begs for reexamination of the nature of the work as merely historic. Henry mostly fulfills Aristotle’s definition of the tragic hero. He is a revered figure of social importance but is not portrayed as morally perfect; he is certainly immature, pulling stunts and making false promises that confuse the noble, hawkish image he projects. The drama among his former group of friends and the King’s proxy slaying of Bardolph also contribute to a sense of tragedy, if retrospectively.

Katherine’s default subjection to Harry and her diminished gaiety as her mother offers a sober blessing emphasize that the tragedy extends beyond Harry/Henry/England to encompass the feminine/France/Katherine as well. By the time of performance of Shakespeare’s work, knowledge of Harry’s death would have been commonplace, so it was unnecessary to include it in the play itself; the Epilogue suffices to convey the sour turn in England’s history.

I suggest that, perhaps, Shakespeare has crafted a very subtle tragedy, seeming to fit Aristotle’s definition of a “complex tragedy, the whole of which consists of Reversal and Recognition” (Aristotle, Poetics, Norton, 3ed: 115). The Reversal: Harry’s glory is awkwardly stifled, even with his political “victory,” by the coy feminine chaos in Katherine’s deft use of the language gap; yet Katherine’s defiance and joviality are ultimately stifled by the somber influence of her mother*.  The Recognition: the Epilogue serves as a quick reminder to the audience that the glory of England built up by Henry V was temporary, and closes the work in a way that may have caused a contemporary viewer to question the play, and, perhaps, to question their own nationalism.

*(considering a possible feminist analysis of the work, it is particularly tragic that the only female character more politically powerful than Katherine, her mother, is integral in solidifying Katherine’s subjection to Harry).