13

Henry exhorts his men to attack the city of Harfleur (Henry V - Act 3, Scene 1)

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;"

(Henry V - Act 3, Scene 1)

Wouldn't closing the 'breach' be entirely counterproductive to his aims (e.g. to get into the city)?

Valorum
  • 4,753
  • 26
  • 40

4 Answers4

27

By starting the second line with “or”, the king indicates that this is the worse of two alternative actions: closing up the wall with English dead would of course be good for the defenders of Harfleur and bad for the English.

Samuel Johnson suggested that there might originally have been an “either” that has been lost:

Or close the wall, &c.] Here is apparently a chasm. One line at least is lost, which contained the other part of a disjunctive proposition. The King’s speech is, Dear friends, either win the town, or close up the wall with dead. The old quarto gives no help.

Samuel Johnson (1766). The Plays of William Shakespeare, volume 6, p. 47. Dublin: A. Leathley.

However, most commentators think that the “either” is already stated clearly enough in the first line of the speech, for example:

I do not perceive the chasm which Dr. Johnson complains of. What the King means to say, is,—Re-enter the breach you have made, or fill it up with your own dead bodies; i.e. Pursue your advantage, or give it up with your lives. Mount the breach in the wall, or repair it by leaving your own carcases in lieu of the stones you have displaced: in short—Do one thing or the other.

George Steevens (1773). Quoted in Isaac Reed, ed. (1813). The Plays of William Shakespeare, volume 12, pp. 366–367. London: J. Nichols.

Alternatively, we can interpret the king’s appeal as, “attack the breach again, or all we will have achieved is to fill it with the dead bodies of our comrades.”

There have been some other, less plausible, suggestions. Henry Halford Vaughan considered the possibility that “close” was a misprint for “scale”:

The command, therefore, would be either “Once more mount the breach, my friends, or scale up the unbreached wall itself, by the dead bodies of our slain countrymen.” ‘Scale’ and ‘close’ have precisely the same letters, the same in number varied only by the very trivial difference between ‘a’ and ‘o’. […] This amendment is rendered all the more probable from the fact that, according to the old copy, the stage direction for this scene is: ‘Enter the King, Exeter, Bedford, and Gloucester. Alarum: scaling ladders at Harfleur.’ Modern copies say ‘soldiers with scaling ladders.’ It would therefore be an apt and stirring command, ‘No ladders are necessary, my friends; either mount the breach once more, or scale with the dead bodies of Englishmen.’

Henry Halford Vaughan (1881). New Readings & New Renderings of Shakespeare’s Tragedies, volume 2, pp. 73–74. London: C. Kegan Paul.

I quote Vaughan not because I think his theory is remotely likely, but to show how far some commentators have had to reach to resolve the difficulty in the line.

Gareth Rees
  • 55,828
  • 5
  • 142
  • 288
  • 9
    Isn't it like the common expression "do it or die trying"? Of course no one wants to die trying, which would be "counterproductive"; the expression is just a dramatic way of saying "spare no effort." Here it's a little different because men will be dying even in the best case, but I see no reason to suppose Henry wants to "close up the wall with our English dead." – user14111 Dec 11 '22 at 02:06
  • 1
    @user14111: "Do or die trying" is Steevens' interpretation, and I agree that it seems the most straightforward. – Gareth Rees Dec 11 '22 at 09:08
7

There is a saying in modern English "Do or die", it means do some thing or die trying to do it. Here death is understood to be not a viable option.

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; Or close the wall up with our English dead.

This is the same sentiment only amplified, storm the fortification or die in the attempt, to such an extent that our corpses are piled as high as the wall.

Jasen
  • 171
  • 3
  • "Do or die", though, means "do it, because your life depends on it", rather than "do it or die trying". That is, the saying is associated with a last chance, a critical action, etc., rather than with perserverance. "Do it or you will die" rather than "do it or try until you die". But the main point of your answer, regarding Henry's speech, is still reasonable. – Jason C Dec 11 '22 at 23:08
  • @JasonC I think the vast majority of Americans would interpret 'do or die' as the second of your alternatives. It's "with your shield or on it" - it doesn't imply that you'll die if you don't, only that the not-dying option is shameful or horrible. – James Moore Dec 12 '22 at 22:36
  • @JamesMoore Here in Northeast USA, I don't know anybody who would interpret it that way. That said, I think most people wouldn't think so much about it, since both make sense in almost all of the same contexts, and generally it just boils down to "try really hard". I can't think of a common situation where it would matter. However, the adjective form e.g. "I am in a do-or-die situation" does not work with the "do it or die trying" interpretation, as that interpretation implies some amount of control over the situation. It conveys an inescapable choice, rather than a willful motivation... – Jason C Dec 12 '22 at 22:46
  • ... Henry's soldiers were not in a situation of inescapable choice -- philosophically maybe, but technically there was an option to flee, surrender, etc. Whereas if one were dangling off a cliff on a rope that was slowly breaking, with no time to climb, and the only escape was to swing to a nearby ledge, that's a do-or-die situation: Swing to the ledge, or die. – Jason C Dec 12 '22 at 22:50
  • (It's used in sports a lot as well; "it's do-or-die" in a playoff game = the only outcomes are win the game, or lose the chance to make it to the finals; and I'm certain most Americans, at least the ones I know, would definitely interpret it that way in that context! "Do it or die trying" would be more accurately conveyed by the recentishly popularized idiom, "get 'er done!") – Jason C Dec 12 '22 at 22:53
1

He is offering two alternatives:

  1. They can storm and win.
  2. They can storm, fail, and die so plentifully that they fill up the breach. But at least they would have tried to win.

In either case, their only action is to attack. They should not worry about the consequences so much as their duty to at least try to win.

Mary
  • 6,055
  • 1
  • 11
  • 33
0

Yes. When he says "Once more into the breach ... or close the wall up", he does not mean that these are two alternative, viable strategies. He is saying that they must have the courage to assault the breach again, and that if they don't, it would be as if they sealed the wall back up and left their dead behind, killed for nothing.

He is not contrasting two viable strategies. He is contrasting what he wants them to do with an exaggerated statement of what they would be accomplishing if they don't do it. It's like saying, "Study hard in college or you may as well just put your tuition money in pile and set it on fire." You aren't encouraging the listener to set his tuition money on fire. You're saying that if he doesn't do what you suggest that it would be no different than such a foolish action.

Jay
  • 269
  • 1
  • 2