In his essay, Rabkin tries to respond to the multiple conflicting interpretations of the character of Shakespeare's Henry V, which he defines as "the problem of Henry V" (58). Rabkin argues that Henry has been seen by critics as both an "exemplary Christian monarch" and "a coarse and brutal highway robber" (58). Rabkin argues that Shakespeare "created a work whose ultimate power is precisely the fact that it points in two opposite directions, virtually daring us to choose one of the two opposed interpretations it requires of us" (34). As a metaphor to explain his argument, Rabkin uses the psychoanalysis's Rorschach test in which one patient sees a rabbit, while another sees a rabbit. Rabkin describes Henry V as a "rabbit-duck." (35). Rabkin argues against the polarized either/or critical mentality in order to pursue a more inclusive both/and interpretation.
Like Greenblatt, Rabkin argues that our analysis of Henry V is intricately tied into our analysis of its place within the Henriad cycle. In laying the groundwork for his analysis, Rabkin describes 1 Henry IV as a "a comic universe in which Hal need never reject Falstaff in order to reach his father's side in the nick of time; it entices us with the hope of a political world transformed by the life of comedy." (38). Rabkin's analysis of 1 Henry IV as a political comedy helps to frame the relationships of power and the theme of subversion in a very specific theoretical context. Also, the author argues that this framework informs and anticipates our reading of Henry V (44).
In Section 3 of his essay, Rabkin explores the significance of the Saint Crispian Day soliloquy which allows the reader to see in Henry's speech "the epitome of what the cycle has taught us to value as best in a monarch, indeed in a man" (48). However, Rabkin explains how his analysis has grown to acknowledge how Henry embodies much more than simply the qualities of a comic hero and see "the terrible subversiveness with which Shakespeare undermines the entire structure" (49).
In Section 4, Rabkin argues how Henry V promotes a much darker worldview than the lighthearted and optimistic tone of 1 Henry IV. Not only can Henry be seen as a savior of England's glory on the battlefield, but Rabkin also cites examples of Henry's much darker side, seen through destruction in France as well as the King's "coarse wooing of his captive princess" (56).
Rabkin concludes his essay by arguing that Shakespeare's play should be read through the prism of "both/and" rather than the traditional "either/or" critical dichotomy. Rabkin argues that the play's ambiguity results from Shakespeare's own ambiguity on the subject, and the playwright's struggle to capture both sides of the monarch's legacy. The play reflects both the good and bad qualities of the monarch, thus reflecting the good and the bad side of all political leaders. Rabkin argues that Shakespeare's own ambiguity about the character of Henry V reflects "the simultaneity our own deepest hopes and fears about the world of political action" (62).