KING HENRY V., BY WILLIAM SHAKSPERE. THE FIRST QUARTO, 1600, A FACSIMILE (FROM THE BRITISH MUSEUM COPY, C. 12, g. 22.) BY CHARLES PRAETORIUS, PHOTOGRAPHER TO THE BRITISH MUSEUM, ETC., ETC. WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY ARTHUR SYMONS. LONDON: PRODUCED BY C. PRAETORIUS, 14 CLAREVILLE GROVE, HEREFORD SQUARE, S.W. 1886. iii INTRODUCTION. § 1. THE date of Henry V. is determined by an allusion in the chorus of Act V. (Il. 30-34): "Were now the general of our gracious empress, As in good time he may, from Ireland coming, To welcome him!" This is doubtless a reference to the Earl of Essex, who was sent over to Ireland in command of a large force against the rebel Earl of Tyrone in March, 1599. As Essex returned, not exactly “bringing rebellion broached on his sword," in September of the same year, the passage must have been written between the date of his departure and that of his return. A reference in the Prologue to "this wooden O," that is, the Globe Theatre, a large circular or polygonal building," erected in 1599, further points to that year as the date of the play's production. And Meres, who mentions Henry IV. in his Wit's Treasury, 1598, makes no allusion to Henry V. 66 § 2. The first edition of the play is the Quarto "printed by Thomas Creede, for Tho. Millington and John Busby," and published in 1600. The second edition, "printed by Thomas Creede, for Thomas Pauier," 1602, is a mere reprint of the first. The third, "printed for T. P. 1608," is likewise printed from Quarto 1, but differs from it by a frequent rearrangement of the lines and an occasional alteration or addition of words. These changes, which are, however, of comparatively slight importance, will be marked in the margin of the facsimile of Quarto 3. Unlike many of the Quartos, those of Henry V. have no value as regards correction of the Folio text. Three lines from them (Q. 1., II. i. 79, IV. iii. 43, and IV. v. 16) have been received, as Mr Daniel notes, into many modern editions. But it is doubtful whether even these three lines have any real authority. The Quarto text is a little less than half the length of the Folio; it is without the choruses; the first scene of Acts I. and III, and the second of Act IV. are missing; the fourth and fifth scenes of Act V. are transposed; many of the finest speeches are wanting or largely curtailed; the French of the English-lesson and wooing scenes is turned into a medley bearing no resemblance to any possible language speakable by man; all the prose is printed as if it were verse; and the verse is frequently displaced and distorted. There is thus obviously no question as to the entire superiority of the Folio over the Quarto text. The question which arises, a question of no small importance, is-Does the Quarto represent the play as Shakspere first wrote it, and did he subsequently revise and enlarge it from this state to the state in which we find it in the Folio; or is the Quarto merely a fraudulent and imperfect per-version of the original Folio text? § 3. The more general opinion among the editors of Shakspere leans to the latter hypothesis. Knight very strongly, and some others with more or less confidence, contend that the Quarto represents, however imperfectly, Shakspere's first sketch of the play. But until the appearance of Mr P. A. Daniel's Introduction to Dr Nicholson's Parallel Text Edition (New Shakspere Society, 1877), the question was still open; no proof had been established on either side. Mr Daniel, however, has shown, on such strong presumptive evidence as to be virtually proof, that the Quarto is not the author's first sketch, but is an imperfect edition of a shortened acting version of the already existing Folio text. As Mr Daniel's arguments seem to me conclusive, and in need of no further strengthening, I have (with his kind permission) endeavoured to give the substance of them here. They will be found at length in the Introduction above referred to. "The opinion I have formed," says Mr Daniel, " from a careful examination, line for line, of both texts is, that the play of 1599 (the Folio) was shortened for stage representation; the abridgement done with little care, and printed in the Quarto edition with less, probably from an imperfect manuscript surreptitiously obtained, and vamped up from notes taken during the performance, as we know was frequently done. Indeed it is quite possible that the whole of the Quarto edition was obtained in this manner; and the fact that it is printed from beginning to end as verse would seem to lend some support to this conjecture. The fact also that the publishers of the Quarto were Millington and Busbie, and their successor Pavier, may of itself be taken as evidence that these plays are of doubtful authenticity." This opinion Mr Daniel proceeds to support by two instances: "these being," in his opinion, "indisputable, will also," he presumes, "be considered sufficient; for if in a single case it can be clearly 1 I venture to think quite probable. Such errors as "godly" for "idly,” "the function" for "defunction," &c., and the extraordinary hash of the French scenes, point rather to misunderstanding of spoken than of written words.-A. S. proved, not that the Quarto is merely deficient in, but that it actually omits any portion of the Folio version, judgment may be allowed to pass on other places where the evidence is not of so convincing a character."` The two instances are Act I. sc. ii. (Quarto, 11.` 47-55, Folio 11. 67-91) and Act IV. sc. ii. (Folio). The first occurs in the passage where the Bishop of Canterbury is detailing the arguments in favour of Henry's claim to France. In Mr Daniel's words: "Hugh Capet also' says the Quarto. Why also? There is nothing in the Quarto to account for this adverb. We turn to the Folio, and find that it is the case of King Pepin to which the Quarto refers, but which it omits. But this is not all; in the Folio, after the case of Hugh Capet, there is next cited the case of King Lewes, who justified his possession of the crown as being descended from 'The daughter to Charles, the foresaid Duke of Loraine.' The Quarto, which also has this line, makes no previous mention of the foresaid Duke of Loraine. Again here is proof of omission. But still this is not all: the Quarto further, by its injudicious omissions, actually makes Hugh Capet, who deposed and murdered Charles of Loraine, fortify his title to the throne with the plea that he was descended from the daughter of this very Charles, confounding at the same time this daughter of Charles of Loraine with the daughter of Charlemaine; and then, rejoining the current of the Folio, with it, it sums up all the three cases of kings who claimed in 'right and title of the female,' of two of which it has no previous mention. I have not overlooked the fact," adds Mr Daniel, "that in this summing up the Quarto turns King Lewes into King Charles, but this I look upon as a mere blunder, of no significance either for or against my argument; it might be noticed as an instance of corruption on the part of the Quarto, but has nothing to do with the question of omission with which I am principally concerned." Mr Daniel's second instance of omission is that of Act IV. sc. ii. The scene represents the French camp on the morning of Agincourt, and ends, with perfect appropriateness, "Come, come away; The sunne is high, and we out-weare the day." This scene is totally absent from the Quarto. But at the end of Act III. sc. vii., representing the French camp on the previous night, and including the period of time between midnight, or just before (see 1. 97), and 2 a.m. (see l. 168), occurs the couplet so appropriate in the morning scene, so comically inappropriate here |