Discussion of Henry V is too often concerned solely with the character of its eponymous hero. Buoyed by the rich psychology of the resembling contrasts that infuse pairs of characters in 1 and 2 Henry IV, critics may be disappointed by the transmutation from prince to king. Una Ellis-Fermor declares 'it is in vain that we look for the personality of Henry behind the king, there is nothing else there', and she concludes that Henry has become 'a dead man walking'. Evaluation of Henry becomes inextricably entangled with unease about definitions of the heroic and disquiet about patriotic fervour. Michael Billington's assumption that 'We see more productions of Titus Andronicus than of Henry V these days' because the 'latter's undeniable patriotism' embarrasses us may reflect how Henry V has been misrepresented in recent years. Although discussion of character and of the military ethic have dominated the critical debate, the antipathy that the play can prompt may stem from a mistaken assumption about its focus. The priority in Henry V is not with exploring character but rather in the play's profound consideration of the theatrical construct. Shakespeare's investment in his choric architecture insists upon an intellectual engagement with the process whereby a creative partnership can be forged between stage and audience. The speech which opens Henry V presents in the form of an uncompromising direct address to its audience Shakespeare's dramatic manifesto.