The “St. Crispin’s Day Speech,” as it is known, is one of the most famous moments in war literature. Obviously the phrase band of brothers has penetrated popular culture, but in fact the whole speech is a masterpiece of rhetoric. After the “little touch of Harry in the night” scene, when Henry learns exactly what his men think of him, of their position, and their prospects in the coming battle, he knows he must give the speech of his life. He must motivate his men, but more than that, he must convince them that they can win, and make them glad they have the opportunity to fight. How does Henry accomplish these goals with this speech? Be specific. Examine every aspect of the speech — the choice of words, the imagery, the phrasing, everything — closely.
The great 18th century military thinker Carl von Clausewitz defined war as “not merely a political act, but also a political instrument, a continuation of political relations, a carrying out of the same by other means,” which is sometimes shortened to an extension of diplomacy by other means. (He also said that all information or data in a war is uncertain and compares that uncertainty to “fog or moonshine,” a statement that has given us the phrase the fog of war.) Although Shakespeare lived two centuries earlier, this definition would clearly not have come as a surprise to him. While this play climaxes in a battle, the issues are actually settled in the diplomatic anti-climax. Consider how the warm and genuinely funny courting scene between Harry and Kate concludes the action of the play. Why does Shakespeare do this? Does he succeed in blending — or maybe successfully juxtaposing would be a better phrase — these two aspects of the plot? Or does the combination remain incongruous?
The subplot involving Pistol, Bardolph, Nym, and the Boy does not have a happy ending. We find that even Mistress Quickly (though the play apparently misprints her name) has met an unfortunate fate. Last class, we discussed how Branagh uses these characters for something other than comic relief. How should we interpret Shakespeare’s treatment of these characters? Why does he end their stories the way he does?
The Chorus is an unusual feature in Shakespeare’s plays. He uses it in just four plays out of the thirty-seven commonly credited to him: Troilus and Cressida, Romeo and Juliet, Henry VIII and this one. Traditionally (and the tradition goes back to Greek tragedy, the origin of theatre in western culture) the chorus’s role is partly to frame the action, partly to instruct the audience. This one begins the play by asking for our understanding and forgiveness that the players are going to try to fit the great events of Henry’s reign into the space of a theatre and the time of a single play. He ends the play by asking for our applause. But I want you to consider the Chorus for a moment as a character. What are his attitudes towards the characters and events of the play? Do they change? Most important, do you think the Chorus speaks for the play? In other words, should we take the Chorus’s word about what we are seeing? Is the Chorus Shakespeare talking to us and telling us how to interpret what we are seeing? Or do you detect any gap — what is called ironic distance — between the play and the Chorus?