still accorded by their English descendants to Waterloo. Agincourt was, for the Elizabethan, the latest battle on land that had signally glorified the nation; it was still a common theme of lyric and epic, and about the time that Shakespeare wrote "Henry V." it drew from the pen of his friend and fellow-native of Warwickshire, Michael Drayton, the finest of England's martial ballads. It was natural, therefore, that Shakespeare should design his drama to revolve round this inspiring combat. The battle is not actually presented in the text of the play, but circumstances attending its progress fill the fourth act. The first, second, and third indicate the events which brought it about. The last act completes the story by setting forth the terms of the highly honourable and profitable treaty of peace which issued from the victory.

In order to make the successive situations perfectly clear to the spectator and to emphasise the main features of each, Shakespeare had recourse to a device which was well known to the classical drama of Greece and Rome, but was only occasionally employed by him or his contemporaries. At the opening of each act he introduces a character in the part of prologue, or "chorus," or interpreter of the coming scene. "Henry V." is the only! play of Shakespeare in which every fresh act is heralded thus. Elsewhere two of the five acts, as in "Romeo and Juliet," or one only of the acts, as in the second part of Henry IV.," is introduced by a "chorus." Nowhere, too, is such real service rendered to the progress of the story by the "chorus" as in " as in "Henry V.," nor are the speeches so long.

66

The deliverances of the "chorus "in "Henry V." are moreover characterised by exceptional solemnity and sublimity of phrase, by a lyric fervour and philosophical temper which sets them among the greatest of Shakespeare's monologues.' Through each runs an almost passionate appeal to the spectators to bring their highest powers of imagination to the realisation of the dramatist's theme. Thereby Shakespeare makes no mere apology for such defects of scenic machinery as characterised the Elizabethan theatre. He is reminding his hearers that, though scenery can do much to aid the illusion which is essential to the success of representation of life in the theatre, it cannot do all. The imaginary forces of the audience, "the quick forge and working house" of their thought, must always be brought into action before great drama achieves its full effect. Perhaps the finest of the five choruses is the fourth, in which the aspect and the temper of the opposing French and English camps on the night before the battle of Agincourt are contrasted with marvellous vividness. The last chorus bridges over the interval of four and a half years that historically intervene between the victory of Agincourt and the final peace between France and England which was sealed by the betrothal of Henry V. to Princess Katherine. The main topic of the fifth utterance of the "chorus” is unnoticed in the actual progress of the

1 The admiration that the prologues in " Henry V." evoke in the mind of every true lover of Shakespeare is well attested by the fact that the great actormanager, Garrick, when he produced the play at Drury Lane some century and a half ago, was proud to speak them himself; he took no other part in the performance.

play; it is the King's triumphant entry into London after the battle. With an eye to events passing in his own environment, the dramatist compares the homecoming of the historic hero and conqueror, Henry V., with the anticipated home-coming of a contemporary hero, Queen Elizabeth's favourite, the Earl of Essex. London's reception of the conquering Harry was likely to be re-enacted, Shakespeare suggests, on the Earl of Essex's approaching return to the city from the obstinately disputed war in Ireland.

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 story of the play Shakespeare derived from Holinshed's chronicle, and in the main current of the piece he followed Holinshed closely. At times he adopted verbatim the chronicler's language. But such episodes as lent themselves to pronouncedly dramatic treatment, Shakespeare, of course, developed and vivified as his genius dictated. Holinshed records the facts of Henry V.'s reign with reasonable accuracy. Shakespeare's derivative picture is therefore substantially faithful. But Holinshed is not wholly free from error; later researches have shown, for example, the falsity of his report that it was the Archbishop of Canterbury who stirred up the King to make war on France. Shakespeare, too, did not scruple to add at will to Holinshed's errors some new ones of his own. Holinshed assigns

to an unnamed" one of the host" that aspiration, on the eve of Agincourt, for reinforcements, which is set by Shakespeare in the mouth of Westmoreland, and draws from the King so spirited and eloquent a rebuke. The pusillanimous wish, according to the best evidence, came actually from the lips of one Sir Walter Hungerford. Westmoreland, whom Holinshed mistakenly brings to Agincourt, was at the time in Scotland. Shakespeare follows the chronicler also in the error of associating the Duke of Exeter, who was likewise absent, with the battle, but it is on his sole responsibility that Shakespeare joins to these noblemen the King's brother, the Duke of Bedford, who at the time was acting as regent in England.

More than one contemporary dramatist of small ability had already dealt with Henry V.'s career and victory at Agincourt, and Shakespeare, after his wont, did not disdain to supplement his debt to Holinshed by borrowing hints from their less competent pens. The scenes of Pistol's encounter with the French soldier and Henry V.'s courtship of Princess Katherine are based on episodes in an older play-a popular play, by a crude, anonymous hack, called "The Famous Victories of Henry V." Nevertheless, Shakespeare can fairly claim that all the humbler characters of his drama-Fluellen, Pistol, Williams, and the rest—though possibly suggested by features of the old piece, are practically original creations.

Shakespeare's "Henry V." is as far as possible removed from what is generally understood by drama. It

is without intrigue or entanglement; it propounds no problems of psychology; its definite motive is neither comic nor tragic; women play in it the slenderest part; it lacks plot in any customary sense. In truth, the piece is epic narrative, or rather heroic biography, adapted to the purposes of the stage. The historical episodes political debate, sieges, encampments, battles, diplomatic negotiations — with which the scenes deal, are knit together by no more complex bond than the chronological succession of events, the presence in each of the same dramatis persona and the predominance in each of the same character-the English King, in whose mouth the dramatist sets nearly a third of all the lines of the play. A few of the minor personages excite genuine interest, and there are some attractive scenes of comic relief, but these have no organic connection with the central thread of the play. Shakespeare's efforts were mainly concentrated on the portraiture of "this star of England," King Henry, whom he deliberately chose out of the page of history as the fittest representative of the best distinctive type of English character.

When the play opens, the King is in his twentyseventh year, in "the very May morn of his youth." Holinshed describes his person as of singular attraction; "of stature and proportion tall and manly, rather lean than gross, somewhat long-necked, and black-haired, of countenance amiable; eloquent and grave was his speech and of great grace and power to persuade."

Henry had already figured prominently in the two parts of Shakespeare's "Henry IV.,” which immediately