Page images
PDF
EPUB

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

preceded the play of "Henry V."

There the Prince appears as a youth of untamable spirits, a lover of wild frolic and low company, addicted to riots, banquets, sports, and rough practical joking. But the close observer perceives even in the picture of his boisterous days the seeds of moral and mental strength and nobility. Even then he promises, when he is "wanted," to cast off his profligacy-his "coat of folly." Even then he shows signs of remorse for idly profaning precious time. Even then he can fight gallantly, can display real kindness of heart, can appreciate the value of justice, can betray on occasion a determination of flint. The death of his father and his consequent call to the highest position in the state rouses to active and abiding life the sense of responsibility which, beneath all his giddy humours and vanities, only awaited fit occasion to assert sway over more superficial and less reputable characteristics. Under the stress of his change of fortune

Consideration like an angel came

And whipped the offending Adam out of him.

Simplicity and humility of mind lie at the root of his nature. Though fully sensible of the heavy burden of his new office, he sets no undue value on his rank. He knows that, as a king, "he is a man as I am, the violet smells to him as it does to me; all his senses have but human conditions; his ceremonies laid by, in his nakedness he appears but a man." In a simple, manly way he is strongly religious: he feels that whether suffering

good or evil fortune he is under the protection of God. But his native geniality and homeliness of temperament give him at the same time the power of thoroughly enjoying life. The high spirits of his younger years are never completely tamed. He can still perpetrate on the impulse an innocent practical joke. In the dark hour preceding the dawn of the most momentous day in his career, on the very eve of the engagement of Agincourt, he can, disguised in a soldier's cloak, set on foot a jest to embroil two comparatively humble followers, and, as soon as the victory is won, he can turn from more solemn pre-occupations to contrive the due fruition of his merry plot. He lacks in the palace the polish usually identified with courts. His rough-and-ready wooing of the French princess, though without offence, savours of uncouthness. But if it lack refinement or delicate courtesy, it abounds in hearty sincerity and the jollity of good-fellowship.

Yet one hardly pleasing trait must be alleged against Henry. Like most typical Englishmen in positions of authority, who in normal circumstances show a natural and easy-going heartiness, he can on occasion develop an almost freezing austerity, he can assume a frigid and terrifying sternness towards those who offend not merely against law and order, but against his sense of dignity or propriety. It is doubtful if he would make a truly sympathetic friend. There may be good warrant for his remorseless condemnation to death of old acquaintances who play with treason, but his harsh and intolerant treatment of the veteran sinner

« PreviousContinue »