Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

which the king had between his old habits and affections and his new duties, demands this harshness. We understand from Prince John that, though Falstaff is taken to the Fleet, he is not to be utterly deserted :—

staff's character when he learns the death of | The very struggle, in this moment of trial, Henry IV.-his presumption-his rapacity -his evil determinations: "Let us take any man's horses; the laws of England are at my commandment. Happy are they which have been my friends; and woe to my lord chief justice." When he plants himself in the way of the coronation procession to "leer" upon the King-when he exclaims "God save thy grace, king Hal,"-Henry was compelled to assert his consistency by his severity. Warburton has truly observed that, in his homily to Falstaff, Henry makes a trip, and is sliding into his old habit of laughing at Falstaff's bulk :—

"He hath intent, his wonted followers
Shall all be very well provided for;
But all are banish'd, till their conversations
Appear more wise and modest to the world."

The dramatic action is complete. Henry of Monmouth has passed through the dangerous trial of learning the great lessons of humanity amidst men with whom his follies "know, the grave doth gape made him an equal. The stains of this con

For thee thrice wider than for other men."

He saw the rising smile, and the smothered retort, upon Falstaff's lip,—and he checks him with

"Reply not to me with a fool-born jest; Presume not that I am the thing I was."

tact were on the surface. His heart was first elevated by ambition-then purified by sorrow-and so

[blocks in formation]

CHAPTER III.

KING HENRY V.

nations, 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. 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

' HENRY V.' was first printed in 1600, under | feature of the structure, under other combithe following title :-The Chronicle History of Henry the Fift, with his battell fought at Agin Court in France. Together with auntient Pistoll.' This copy, which differs most materially from the text of the folio, was reprinted in 1602, and again in 1608. The quarto of 1600 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 dovetailed 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

the easy theory of a surreptitious copy. A passage in the chorus to the fifth act proves, beyond doubt, that the choruses formed a part of the performance in 1599; but this does 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 be 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 a passage from the very first scene of the quarto of 1608, and print with it the text of the folio. Open the book where we may, similar examples will present themselves :

QUARTO OF 1608.

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 in us 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 wash'd as pure
As sin in baptism."

FOLIO OF 1623.

Sure, we thank you.

K. Hen.
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

[blocks in formation]

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:
For we will hear, note, and believe in heart,
That what you speak is in your conscience
wash'd

As pure as sin with baptism."

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

"Canterbury. God and his angels guard shorter play, which had been previously pro

your sacred throne,

And make you long become it!

duced, and, perhaps, hastily written for some temporary occasion. We further believe

that the text of these quartos was surrep-| shrunk from a subject which appeared to titiously obtained from the early playhouse copy, and continued through three editions to be palmed upon the public,—the author and his co-proprietors in the Globe Theatre not choosing 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 :

[ocr errors]

"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. 66 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 of 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.

"Shakspere," says Frederick Schlegel, "regarded the drama as entirely a thing for the people, and, at first, treated it throughout as such. He took the popular comedy as he found it, and whatever enlargements and improvements he introduced into the stage were all calculated and conceived according to the peculiar spirit of his predecessors, and of the audience in London." This is especially true with regard to Shakspere's Histories. In the case of the 'Henry V.' it appears to us that our great dramatic poet would never have touched the subject, had not the stage previously possessed it in the old play of 'The Famous Victories.' 'Henry IV.' would have been perfect as a dramatic whole, without the addition of 'Henry V.' The somewhat doubtful mode in which he speaks of continuing the story appears to us a pretty certain indication that he rather

* Lectures on the History of Literature,' vol. ii.

him essentially undramatic. It is, however, highly probable that, having brought the history of Henry of Monmouth up to the period of his father's death, the demands of an audience, who had been accustomed to hail “the madcap Prince of Wales" as the conqueror of Agincourt, compelled him to "continue the story." That he originally contemplated lending to it the interest of his creation of Falstaff is also sufficiently clear. It would be vain to speculate why he abandoned this intention; but it is evident that, without the interest which Falstaff would have imparted to the story, the dramatic materials presented by the old play, or by the circumstances that the poet could discover in the real course of events, is our belief, therefore, that, having hastily were extremely meagre and unsatisfying. It met the demands of his audience by the first sketch of Henry V.,' as it appears in the capacity which the subject presented for quarto editions, he subsequently saw the being treated in a grand lyrical spirit. Instead of interpolating an under-plot of petty passions and intrigues,-such, for the most part, as we find in the dramatic treatment of an heroic subject by the French poets,he preserved the great object of his drama entire by the intervention of the chorus. Skilfully as he has managed this, and magnificent as the whole drama is as a great national song of triumph, there can be no doubt that Shakspere felt that in this play he was dealing with a theme too narrow for his peculiar powers. His drama, generally, was cast in an entirely different mould from that of the Greek tragedy. The Greek stage matic :was, in reality, more lyrical than dra

"Thence what the lofty grave tragedians taught In Chorus or Iambic, teachers best

Of moral prudence, with delight received
In brief sententious precepts, while they treat
Of fate, and chance, and change in human
life;

High actions and high passions best describing."

The didactic lessons of moral prudence, the

66

brief sententious precepts,-the descriptions | of high actions and high passions,—are alien from the whole spirit of Shakspere's drama. The Henry V.' constitutes an exception to the general rules upon which he worked. High actions" are here described as well as exhibited; and "high passions," in the Shaksperean sense of the term, scarcely make their appearance upon the scene. Here are no struggles between will and fate; no frailties of humanity dragging down its virtues into an abyss of guilt and sorrow,--no crimes, no obduracy,-no penitence. We have the lofty and unconquerable spirit of national and individual heroism riding triumphantly over every danger; but the spirit is so lofty that we feel no uncertainty for the issue. We should know, even if we had no foreknowledge of the event, that it must conquer. We can scarcely weep over those who fall in that "glorious and well-foughten field," for "they kept together in their chivalry," and their last words sound as a glorious hymn of exultation. The subject is altogether one of lyric grandeur; but it is not one, we think, which Shakspere would have chosen for a drama.

And yet how exquisitely has Shakspere thrown his dramatic power into this undramatic subject! The character of the King is altogether one of the most finished portraits that has proceeded from this masterhand. It could, perhaps, only have been thoroughly conceived by the poet who had delineated the Henry of the Boar's Head, and of the Field of Shrewsbury. The surpassing union, in this character, of spirit and calmness, of dignity and playfulness, of an ever-present energy, and an almost melancholy abstraction,-the conventional authority of the king, and the deep sympathy, with the meanest about him, of the man,was the result of the most philosophical and consistent appreciation by the poet of the moral and intellectual progress of his own Prince of Wales. And let it not be said that the picture which he has painted of his favourite hero is an exaggerated and flattering representation. The extraordinary merits of Henry V. were those of the individual; his demerits were those of his times. Stand

ing now upon the vantage-ground of four centuries of experience, in which civilization has marched onwards at a pace which could only be the result of great intellectual impulses, we may, indeed, say that, if Henry V. was justly fitted to be a leader of chivalry,

fearless, enterprising, persevering, generous, pious, he was, at the same time, rash, obstinate, proud, superstitious, seeking after vain renown and empty conquests, instead of making his people happy by wise laws and the cultivation of sound knowledge. But Henry's character, like that of all other men, must be estimated by the circumstances amidst which he moved. After four centuries of illumination, if we find the world still suffering under the dominion of unjust governors and ambitious conquerors, we may pardon one who acted according to his lights, believing that his cause justified his attempt to seize upon another crown, instead of wearing his own wisely and peacefully. At any rate, it was not for the poet to regard the most popular king of the feudal times with the cold and severe scrutiny of the philosophical historian. It was for him to embody in the person of Henry V. the principle of national heroism; it was for him to call forth "the spirit of patriotic reminiscence." There are periods in the history of every people when their nationality, lifting them up almost into a frenzy of enthusiasm, is one of the sublimest exhibitions of the practical poetry of social life. In the times of Shakspere such an aspect of the English mind was not unfrequently presented. Neither in our own times have such manifestations of the mighty heart been wanting. But there have been, and there may again be, periods of real danger when the national spirit shows itself drooping and languishing. It is under such circumstances that the heart-stirring power of such a play as 'Henry V.' is to be tested. Frederick Schlegel says, "The feeling by which Shakspere seems to have been most connected with ordinary men is that of nationality." But how different is his nationality from that of ordinary men. It is reflective, tolerant, generous. It lives not in an atmosphere of falsehood and prejudice. Its theatre is war and con

quest; but it does not hold up war and conquest as fitting objects for nationality to dedicate itself to, except under the pressure of the most urgent necessity. Neither does it attempt to conceal the fearful responsibilities of those who carry the principle of nationality to the last arbitrement of arms, nor the enormous amount of evil which always attends the rupture of that peace, in the cultivation of which nationality is best displayed. Shakspere, indeed, speaks proudly as a member of that English family

"Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof;" but he never forgets that he belongs to the larger family of the human race. When Henry tells the people of Harfleur,

"The gates of mercy shall be all shut up," and draws that most fearful picture of the horrors of a sacked city, the poet tells us, though not in sententious precepts, that nationality, when it takes the road of violence, may be driven to put off all the gentle attributes of social life, and, assuming the "action of the tiger," have the tiger's undiscriminating bloodthirstiness. When Henry, on the eve of the battle, walks secretly amidst his soldiers, the poet makes him hear that truth which kings seldom hear, and which, however the hero, in this instance, may contend with it, cannot be disguised or controverted:" If the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make; when all those legs, and arms, and heads, chopped off in a battle, shall join together at the latter day, and cry all-we died at such a place; some, swearing; some, crying for a surgeon; some, upon their wives left poor behind them; some, upon the debts they owe; some, upon their children rawly left. I am afeard there are few die well that die in battle; for how can they charitably dispose of anything when blood is their argument?" Again, when Henry has won France, what a France does the poet present to the winner!

"All her husbandry doth lie on heaps,
Corrupting in its own fertility.

Her vine, the merry cheerer of the heart,
Unpruned dies: her hedges even-pleach'd,

Like prisoners wildly overgrown with hair
Put forth disorder'd twigs: her fallow leas
The darnel, hemlock, and rank fumitory,
Doth root upon; while that the coulter rusts,
That should deracinate such savagery:

The even mead, that erst brought sweetly
forth

The freckled cowslip, burnet, and green clover,
Wanting the scythe, all uncorrected, rank,
Conceives by idleness; and nothing teems
But hateful docks, rough thistles, kecksics,
burs,

Losing both beauty and utility:

And as our vineyards, fallows, meads, and hedges,

Defective in their natures, grow to wildness; Even so our houses, and ourselves, and children,

Have lost, or do not learn, for want of time, The sciences that should become our country; But grow, like savages,-as soldiers will, That nothing do but meditate on blood,— To swearing, and stern looks, diffused attire, And everything that seems unnatural." Thoughts such as these, coming from the great poet of humanity and wisdom, are the correctives of a false nationality.

It is scarcely necessary for us to trace the conduct of the dramatic action of 'Henry V.' in connexion with its characters. In the

inferior persons of the play-the comic characters-the poet has displayed that power which he, above all men, possesses, of combining the highest poetical conceptions with

the most truthful delineations of real life. In the amusing pedantry of Fluellen, and the vapourings of Pistol, there is nothing in the slightest degree incongruous with the main action of the scene. The homely bluntness of the common soldiers of the army brings us still closer to a knowledge of the great mass of which a camp is composed. Perhaps one of the most delicate but yet most appreciable instances of Shakspere's nationality, in all its power and justice, is the mode in which he has exhibited the characters of these common soldiers. They are rough, somewhat quarrelsome, brave as lions, but without the slightest particle of anything low or grovelling in their composition. They are fit representatives of the "good yeomen, whose limbs were made in England." We

« AnteriorContinuar »