Comments on: ‘St Crispin’s Day’ speech with translation

By: Colin Allan

Colin Allan — Fri, 22 Apr 2022 13:55:04 +0000

I have never heard a better example of why Shakespeare was such a good poet. The ” translation ” is frankly rubbish as he doesn’t need translation. The original is a stirring speech and anybody who has an elementary understanding of English would appreciate. Clearly the teaching of English in schools needs improvement.

By: Leslie

Leslie — Wed, 02 Mar 2022 21:34:36 +0000

In reply to Richard. Thank you, Richard, for this observation. Your correction is supported by Henry's discussion of a soldier's virtue prior to entering the field of battle in Act 4 Scene 1, so this makes much better sense.

By: Doug Pruner

Doug Pruner — Mon, 17 Jan 2022 02:24:59 +0000

In reply to Juan Marse. I don't know Branagh's motivation, but Laurence Olivier's film was clearly a bit of very high quality WWII pep talking, especially The Speech.

By: Doug Pruner

Doug Pruner — Mon, 17 Jan 2022 02:22:08 +0000

In reply to Bee Wenger LVN.

Now there’s another all-out “offensive” mounted, against the whole world. If you were in the original then you’re no doubt past call-up age for this one. (Started after your post of course.) Did you volunteer anyway?
If so, you have my thanks. Hang in there.
I was recently in Raymond Murphy VA hospital for eye surgery, and the cleanliness requirements alone were disruptive.

By: Doug Pruner

Doug Pruner — Mon, 17 Jan 2022 02:10:50 +0000

In reply to THOMAS DUGGAN.

Thomas, I submit “all people” is correct. The relevant quote, from Santayana, is, ‘Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.’
Why “condemned”? It implies to me that repeating ones past always involves an unhappy past. Consider WWI. Blood and guts on a huge scale; huge collateral damage in the form of civilian casualties.
Twenty years later, nationalism again produced WWII, huger all around.
Today?

On 12/9/2020, the date of your post, we were just finishing about 5,000,000 pandemic deaths worldwide, without a shot being fired. Most observers are of the opinion that it was made worse by rampant nationalism. In many countries.

Also in 2020, and not just in the US, changes of leadership were being conducted by ballot or bullet. IOW men were choosing men to run the shows in a time when most problems are man-made. Does that make sense?

By: Doug Pruner

Doug Pruner — Mon, 17 Jan 2022 01:55:45 +0000

In reply to Marcelo. Aw, man + takes all the fun away! Seriously, I agree. Most of not all of WS's bawdy double entendres we're in comic exchange. Prominent are the drunken porter at the gate in Macbeth and Juliet's nurse, while dressing her charge. Your reply missed a chance to say "sophomoric".

By: THOMAS DUGGAN

THOMAS DUGGAN — Wed, 09 Dec 2020 12:00:29 +0000

VERY GOOD PEOPLE SHOULD LEARN THE LESSIONS OF THE PAST

By: David Pellerin

David Pellerin — Sun, 09 Aug 2020 18:29:18 +0000

The one battle that I have been reading about lately (I’m familiar enough with the other two) is the Battle of Leyte Gulf. In that battle, which actually featured 4 separate engagements, there was a battle off the Island of Samar in the Philippines, which most closely resembled the 1415 and the 1854 battles in that one force was threatened by a force of superior size. Thirteen American Navy vessels against 23 vessels of the Imperial Japanese Navy. The American side consisted of 6 Carrier Escorts (smaller than a full sized Aircraft Carrier, unarmored and carrying less planes, 3 Destroyers, and 4 Destroyer escorts, smaller than a Destroyer also unarmored, slower, and armed with 5″ guns, (as were Destroyers), smaller caliber anti-aircraft guns, and 3 torpedo launchers (Destroyers carried 10 launchers).
Opposing this force was the Center Force of Japan, 4 Battleships, including The Yamato (the biggest battleship in the world at that time, armed with 18″ guns, among others) 6 Heavy Cruisers, 2 light cruisers, and 11 destroyers. At the end of the battle, the Americans were able to turn back the Japanese fleet (with the loss of 2 carrier escorts, 2 destroyers, and a Destroyer escort). I just found that remarkable that the three battles occurred on the same month and day, and they all featured “David vs Goliath” type situations and in 2 of the battles, the underdog prevailed!

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 05 Aug 2020 21:54:12 +0000

Sorry, your interpretation of this passage is incorrect: “The man who sheds his blood with me shall be my brother; however humble he may be, this day will elevate his status”. It has nothing to do with the man being humble or having his status elevated.

The speech reads: “For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition”.

“Be he ne’er so vile” means that even if the man is vile, even if he is the worst-of-the-worst, “This day shall gentle his condition”. This day shall make him acceptable to us/it will make up for or compensate for his actions.

It’s all about redemption for bravery, for standing with your brothers and having that action compensate for all your other failings…

By: Al Dumas

Al Dumas — Fri, 31 Jan 2020 15:49:34 +0000

I would suggest that the historical as well as the Shakespearean Henry V had little fear that he would lose the battle of Agincourt. His speech had, I propose, three distinct purposes. But first, as to the battle defenses that Harry had set up: for forcing of the French to make the advance down the very long muddy approach flanked on both sides with protective forests for his archers, and the dead end capped with horse spikes and the comparative lack of French protection for the horses. This spelled doom for both mounted and ground troops. And as the bodies piled up, there was no room for retreat, the compression of the wide lines by the flanking forests into waves of advancing men with only minutes left to live guaranteed that. Reportedly, some French died not from their wounds, but from drowning in the water, muck, and blood at the bottom of the crush.
Harry had maximized the effectiveness of his archers and turned the cavalry’s and the French men-at-arms numbers into severe disadvantages. Harry had been to war before, as early as his late teens, and suffered a painful wound. No, he and/or his military advisors had, at least in their military studies, been to this rodeo before, and knew exactly what to do to win this battle! Despite his desperate killing of French prisoners when fresh French elements appeared on the field, I believe he had a strong suspicion that in the end, the day would be his.
But his troops didn’t. And Harry again seized a potential weakness and turned it to his long-term advantage. Henry V certainly did not have the full confidence of the realm as did his father. Prior to his “conversion” he had much the same reputation as the present Prince Harry, or perhaps worse. Taking his father’s deathbed advice, he over-reacted to the Dauphine’s arrogance, and started this campaign to weld the kingdom together behind him. But what he really needed, in this still very Catholic England, was a sign of God’s favor. What would be better than a miraculous victory against overwhelming odds? Later in the play, he actually reminds everyone, that this victory was God’s doing. God Himself was his ally! But for the short term, he had to convince first his nobles and then his ground troops. What motivated his nobles? Honor and the attendant influence. His commoner ground troops (mostly archers)? Bragging rights, and brotherhood with the king himself! And Harry throws in a few epitaphs with godly references (not barracks language) for good effect.
How much of Shakespeare’s rendition was fact. Who knows? Shakespeare certainly used the best historical reference of the day. But thankfully, he was never one, either, to let facts stand in the way of a good story.