After looking at the differences between the Quarto and Folio versions of Henry V’s speech to the governor, the audiences watching these scenes must have been watching a different show completely based on the ways that Henry was portrayed as a leader and a man. The full speech depicts Henry as an incredibly smart leader, whereas the shorter Quarto version doesn’t show Henry’s same grasp of language and its uses. It’s obvious that in the Folio version of the speech an audience would see Henry as a merciless but strong leader. Henry consistently uses language to manipulate whoever he is talking to into seeing either his side, or into making all situations seem like it is the fault of others. In the lines, “What is’t to me, when you yourselves are cause,/If your pure maidens fall into the hand/Of hot and forcing violation?” (3.3), he was essentially telling the Governor that it will be the fault of his own if Henry and his men slaughter the town and rape the women. Henry understood that he and his men may not be able to backup his speech if the Governor did not back down, so he hyperbolizes his language in order to force the hand he wants to have played. Shortly after he changes the diction, but uses the same tools when he said, “Therefore, you men of Harfleur,/Take pity of your town and of your people…” (3.3) and does once more with the last two lines, “What say you? will you yield, and this avoid,/Or, guilty in defence, be thus destroy’d?” (3.3). Between all of these lines, Shakespeare uses imagery to create vulgar scenes of death, the assault of women and desecration of the town in order for Henry’s power as a speaker and leader to be shown to the Governor. An audience watching this speech should be able to tell that the guilt and cruelty of the speech is what convinces the Governor to give up the town, not in the politely political way we read in the history of the negotiation. The last two lines, “What say you? will you yield, and this avoid,/Or, guilty in defence, be thus destroy’d?” (3.3) were also used in the Quarto speech, however most of the speech was left out. I would argue that an audience watching this version of the play wouldn’t have the same thoughts about Henry as a leader, nor would the Governor’s response to back down make as much sense. Henry’s speech doesn’t feel as full, authoritative, or dramatic as we and audiences of the time would have known Shakespeare’s plays to be. Looking at the different speeches done in theater side to side would be interesting to watch. If the shorter speech was used, I wonder if Henry’s body language would need to be capitalized on and used as a way of gaining the authority and power that the speech lacks compared to the long version. I’m curious to see how our campus’ version of Henry V does this scene and whether or not (if the use the shorter speech) they emphasize Henry’s body language as a way to make up for the full speech and language.
-Maddie Ouderkirk (Blogging Circle 6)
I wholeheartedly agree with your statement that the Quarto didn’t manage to capture the same eloquence as the Folio. I remember reading through both versions in class and being utterly shocked by how removing a few lines changed so much of the reading experience. When I was discussing the Folio with my partner, we kept talking about how threatening Henry’s speech sounded given the references to hellish imagery. The quarto version, however, left both of us feeling very underwhelmed. Compared to the absolute terror emanating from the longer version, the Quarto felt very matter-of-fact in its directness. In my opinion, it’s not bad. It just takes away from the grandeur Henry brings in the Folio.
Maddie,
I fully agree with your point on how the Quarto version always seemed like it had something missing. It was almost like it held a quarter of the entertainment value compared to the full version (no pun intended). Henry V was shown to be a manipulative man, however the cold persona he puts on is exactly that; a persona. As you pointed out, the army he had was few in numbers, and given that he was going to war with a nation that is more armed with warriors, he couldn’t take the brute force route. Humorously, he won his final battle off of brute force. Now whether that was because of their skills, or the placebo effect of receiving a legendary speech, Henry V managed to be successful yet again! Also, the Folio and Quarto versions lived up to their stereotypes. The Quarto was written in prose, which is typically a straight forward format. The depiction of Henry V in that version was similarly cut and dry, just like prose typically are. Alongside that, the Folio version was more poetic, which also represented the intricate twists and turns that poetry symbolizes. Great job!
You make great points about how each experience for the audience was different. I was unaware of these differences in the texts before learning about them in class. The speeches that Henry gives are extremely important to his character and if the speeches are shortened or changed, we do not see the same type of eager King. I definitely believe that Henrys speeches are more convincing with length, yet I agree that his body language would have to be a lot more pronounced in the shorter version to be as successful. I am also curious how the college will present Henry and his words.
I agree completely and you make excellent points. I find it strange that he chose this speech to alter and condense, but I think the best reasoning that I could come up with and you touch on it as well is that it changes Henry’s character type. This speech is very telling as to what King Henry is like as a leader and a person. Perhaps Shakespeare wrote different versions to serve as different directions future directors may want to take with the play. If they want to make him very eloquent and terrifying, they use the longer, folio version. If they want something a bit more curt, they go with the quarto. But you bring up body language and I think the way they perform it is most telling to Henry’s character type.
Maddie!
You bring up some great points, and I agree! These two versions are so vastly different it is amazing that they are apart of the same play. As you said, the reader is getting two different sides of Henry and it is interesting that this speech was altered the way it was. The longer, more vulgar speech was definitely more convincing and made an impression on the reader.I love how you brought body language into play here, because as a reader we do not see body language. During a play, the audience is able to see this aspect so I wonder, if the shorter version was performed and correct body language was used, if it would have the same effect as the longer speech. I also wonder how a director chooses which speech to use! Great post!