ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub
[graphic][ocr errors][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[graphic]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

[Henry V. and his Court.]

INTRODUCTORY NOTICE.

STATE OF THE TEXT, AND CHRONOLOGY, OF KING HENRY V.

HENRY V. was first printed in 1600, under the following title, The Chronicle History of Henry the Fift, with his battell fought at Agin Court in France. Together with auntient Pistoll. As it hath bene sundry times played by the Right Honourable the Lord Chamberlaine his Servants. London: printed by Thomas Creede for Thomas Millington and John Busby.' This copy, which differs most materially from the text of the folio, was reprinted in 1602, and again in 1608.

We have pointed out, in our foot notes, the more important additions which the folio copy contains, as compared with the quartos. The reprint of the quarto of 1608, in Steevens's collection of twenty plays, runs only to 1800 lines; whilst the lines in the folio edition amount to 3500. Not only is the play thus augmented by the additions of the choruses and new scenes, but there is scarcely a speech, from the first scene to the last, which is not elaborated. In this elaboration the old materials are very carefully used up; but they are so thoroughly refitted and dove-tailed with what is new, that the operation can only be compared to the work of a skilful architect, who, having an ancient mansion to enlarge and beautify, with a strict regard to its original character, preserves every feature of the structure, under other combinations, with such marvellous skill, that no unity of principle is violated, and the whole has the effect of a restoration in which the new and the old are undistinguishable. Unless we were to reprint the original copy, page by page, with the present text, it would be impossible to convey a satisfactory notion of the exceeding care with which this play has been recast. The alterations are so manifestly those of the author working upon his first sketch, that we are utterly at a loss to conceive upon what principle some of our editorial predecessors have reconciled the differences upon the easy theory of a surreptitious copy. Malone, for example, says," The fair inference to be drawn from the imperfect and mutilated copies of this play, published in 1600, 1602, and 1608, is, not that the whole play, as we now have it, did not then exist, but that those copies were surreptitious; and that the editor in 1600, not being able to publish the whole, published what he could." Again, Malone says: "The quarto copy of this play is manifestly an imperfect transcript procured by some fraud, and not a first draught or hasty sketch of Shakspere's. The choruses, which are wanting in it, and which must have been written in 1599, before the quarto was printed, prove this." Now, to our minds, the choruses and all the other passages not found in the quarto, prove precisely the contrary. The theory of Steevens as to the cause of the difference of the two copies, is this:-"The elder was, perhaps, taken down, during

the representation, by the contrivance of some bookseller, who was in haste to publish it; or it might, with equal probability, have been collected from the repetitions of actors invited to a tavern for that purpose. The second and more ample edition (in the folio, 1623), may be

that which regularly belonged to the play-house." Admitting this theory to be correct (and it is certainly neither improbable nor impossible), why, we would ask, could not we have had from the copy of the amanuensis, or the recitation of the actor, something of the choruses, however mutilated and imperfect; but of these the quarto copies present us not a line. Why not, also, the first scene between the two bishops; the scene between Macmorris and Jamy; the speech of Henry before Harfleur; and his solemn address after the interview with the soldiers, of which the quartos present us not a line? It would have been quite as easy for the bookseller's man to have taken down, or the player at the tavern to have recited, these parts of the play, as well as those which the quartos do present to us. Why, upon such a theory, was the editor not able to publish the whole, and published only what he could?

[ocr errors]

A passage in the chorus to the fifth Act proves, beyond doubt, that the choruses formed a part of the performance in 1599; but they do not prove that there was not an earlier performance without the choruses. The first quarto was printed in 1600, after the choruses were brought upon the stage; but because they are not found in that first quarto, it is asserted that the copy from which that edition was printed was “not a first draught or hasty sketch." Malone and Steevens appear to us to have fallen into the mistake that a copy could not, at one and the same time, be a piracy and a sketch. According to their theory, if it is procured by fraud it must be an imperfect transcript." Is it not much more easy to believe that, after a play had been thoroughly remodelled, the original sketch which existed in some playhouse copy might be printed without authority, and continue so to be printed; rather than that an imperfect transcript should be printed, and continue to he printed, in which the most striking and characteristic passages of the play were omitted? But the question of "imperfect transcript " or " hasty sketch" may, to our minds, be at once disposed of by internal evidence. We will take two passages from the very first Scene of the quarto of 1608 and print parallel with them the text of the folio. We make no particular selection of these passages; for, open the book where we may, similar examples will present themselves :

QUARTO OF 1C0S.

Bishop. God and his angels guard your sacred throne,
And make you long become it!

King. Sure we thank you; and, good my lord, proceed
Why the law Salique which they have in France,
Or should or should not stop us in our claim:
And God forbid, my wise and learned lord,
That you
should fashion, frame, or wrest the same.
For God doth know how many now in health
Shall drop their blood, in approbation
Of what your reverence shall incite us to.
Therefore take heed how you impawn our person,
How you awake the sleeping sword of war:
We charge you, in the name of God, take heed.
After this conjuration, speak, my lord:
And we will judge, note, and believe in heart,
That what you speak is washed as pure
As sin in baptism.

King. Call in the messenger sent from the Dauphin,
And by your aid, the noble sinews of our land,
France being ours, we'll bring it to our awe,
Or break it all in pieces:

[ocr errors]

FOLIO OF 1623.

Canterbury. God and his angels guard your sacred throne,

And make you long become it!

K. Hen.

Sure, we thank you.
My learned lord, we pray you to proceed:
And justly and religiously unfold,
Why the law Salique, that they have in France,
Or should, or should not, bar us in our claim.
And God forbid, my dear and faithful lord,
That you should fashion, wrest, or bow your reading,
Or nicely charge your understanding soul,
With opening titles miscreate, whose right
Suits not in native colours with the truth;
For God doth know, how many, now in health,
Shall drop their blood in approbation

Of what your reverence shall incite us to:
Therefore take heed how you impawn our person;
How you awake the sleeping sword of war;
We charge you in the name of God, take heed:

For never two such kingdoms did contend

Without much fall of blood; whose guiltless drops

Are every one a woe, a sore complaint,

'Gainst him whose wrongs give edge unto the swords That make such waste in brief mortality.

Under this conjuration, speak, my lord;

And we will hear, note, and believe in heart,

That what you speak is in your conscience wash'd

As pure as sin with baptism.

K. Hen. Call in the messengers sent from the Dauphin.
Now are we well resolv'd: and,-by God's help,
And yours, the noble sinews of our power,--
France being ours, we'll bend it to our awe,

Either our chroniclers shall with full mouth speak
Freely of our acts, or else like tongueless mutes,
Not worship'd with a paper epitaph.

Or break it all to pieces: Or there we'll sit,
Ruling in large and ample empery,

O'er France. and all her almost kingly dukedoms;

Or lay these bones in an unworthy urn,
Tombless, with no remembrance over them:

Either our history shall with full mouth
Speak freely of our acts; or else our grave,
Like Turkish mute, shall have a tongueless mouth,
Not worship'd with a waxen epitaph.

Can any one doubt that this careful elaboration, involving nice changes of epithets, was the work of the author himself? Would the amanuensis or the reciter have given us some passages so correctly, and altogether omitted others, making substitutions which required him to reconstruct particular lines, so that the rhythm might be preserved? In the prose passages, the same process of change and elaboration may be as clearly traced.

Our belief then is, that the original quarto of 1600 was printed after the play had appeared in its amended and corrected form, such as we have received it from the folio of 1623; but that this quarto, and the subsequent quartos, were copies of a much shorter play, which had been previously produced, and, perhaps, hastily written for some temporary occasion. We further believe that the text of these quartos was surreptitiously obtained from the early play-house copy; and continued through three editions to be palmed upon the public,-the author and his co-proprietors in the Globe Theatre not choosing, as we shall subsequently show, that the amended copy should be published.

The single passage in the play which furnishes any evidence as to its date, is found in the chorus to the fifth Act:

"Were now the general of our gracious empress

(As, in good time, he may,) from Ireland coming,
Bringing rebellion broached on his sword,
How many would the peaceful city quit,
To welcome him?"

The allusion cannot be mistaken. "About the end of March" (1599), says Camden, "the Earl of Essex set forward for Ireland, and was accompanied out of London with a fine appearance of nobility, and gentry, and the most cheerful huzzas of the common people." Essex returned to London on the 28th September of the same year. This play, then, with the choruses, must have been performed in the summer of 1599. Without the choruses there is nothing to show that it might not have been performed earlier. Francis Meres, however, does not mention it in his list of 1598. We know from the epilogue to the second Part of Henry IV., that Henry V. followed that play; and we consider, that as it stands in the quartos, it was somewhat hastily written, that the pledge might be redeemed which was given in that epilogue,—“ our humble author will continue the story."

The old play of The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth,' which we have fully noticed in the Introduction of Henry IV., presents us with the battle of Agincourt, and some scenes between Henry and Katharine; but, amongst the rude and undramatic dialogues of this play, we can find no passage which offers the slightest resemblance to Shakspero, excepting the following:

[ocr errors]

"Henry V. What castle is this, so neer adjoyning to our camp?
Herald: And it please your majestie,

'Tis call'd the Castle of Agincourt.

King. Well then my lords of England,

For the more honour of our Englishmen,

I will that this be for ever call'd the battle of Agincourt.

In the fifth Act of Shakspere's play, Katharine says to Henry, "Is it possible dat I should love the enemy of France?" In The Famous Victories,' she says, "How should I love thee, which is my father's enemy?"

In calling attention to the variations between the text of the quarto editions of this play, and of the folio, it may be well for us here to express our opinion as to the question which must arise in this and in other cases, whether the quarto editions published before the folio of 1623 were issued with Shakspere's authority or sanction, either direct or delegated. In the instance of Romeo and Juliet we shall have again to express our conviction that, although the frequent occurrence of typographical

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »