I’d$like$to$start$with$a$“what$if”$ques5on:$what$if$the$Shakespeare$plays$we$know$today$were$not$like$the$plays$that$his$contemporaries$knew?$What$if$some$of$those$most$famous$moments$in$Henry$V$were$not$part$of$the$first$performances$and$thus$not$part$of$the$Elizabethan$playgoers’$experience.!Certainly$this$changes$our$understanding$of$the$recep5on$of$the$play,$and$it$might$even$change$our$understanding$of$how$plays$were$performed$and$printed$and$what$readers$and$playgoers$expected.$$

1$

First$of$all,$I$should$briefly$note$that$Shakespeare’s$plays$come$down$to$us$in$two$“authorita5ve$forms.”$I$need$to$say$first$of$all$that$the$word$authorita5ve$needs$some$qualifica5on,$for$there$is$no$evidence$that$Shakespeare$ever$approved$or$supervised$the$early$prin5ng$of$his$works.$What$is$more,$no$manuscripts$of$the$plays$exist,$so$we$really$don’t$know$if$what$we$have$is$what$Shakespeare$wanted.$Our$problems$don’t$stop$there.$The$early$printed$texts$don’t$always$agree.$Some$of$the$plays$were$printed,$oPen$at$least$a$year$aPer$they$were$performed,$a$form$known$as$quarto,$a$small$book$form$designed$for$reading$aPer$seeing$the$play.$In$1623,$seven$years$aPer$Shakespeare’s$death,$the$plays$were$gathered$together$by$some$of$his$friends$and$printed$together$in$a$larger,$single$volume$that$has$come$to$be$known$as$the$first$folio.$Here’s$the$problem;$the$first$folio’s$versions$of$the$plays$don’t$always$correspond$with$the$quartos’$version.$Some$plays,$like$King$Lear,$look$quite$different$from$quarto$to$folio.$Some$quartos$have$taken$on$the$moniker$“bad$quartos”$since$efforts$in$the$early$twen5eth$century$to$scien5fically$arrive$at$the$text$of$Shakespeare.$The$problem$thickens,$though,$for$there$are$other$“texts”$of$the$play$that$don’t$not$survive,$especially$the$text$that$the$companies$would$have$used$as$a$script$or$promptbook,$though$even$these$terms$are$a$bit$anachronis5c.$No$such$documents$survive,$and$things$get$even$more$complicated$in$light$of$the$various$things$we$know$about$how$plays$moved$from$author$to$stage$to$quarto.$John$Webster,$the$Jacobean$playwright,$makes$clear$that$the$printed$versions$of$his$plays$do$not$represent$actual$performance$texts$but$rather,$as$he$says,$the$poems$of$play,$$

2$

So$how$does$Henry$V$fit$into$this$complicated$web$of$texts?$The$play$was$probably$first$performed$in$the$very$late$1590s.$The$consensus$is$1599.$The$first$quarto$was$produced$one$year$later$in$1600.$The$second$quarto$appeared$in$1602$and$the$third$appeared$in$1619,$with$the$false$da5ng$of$1608.$All$three$versions$are$fairly$similar,$and$nothing$like$the$version$that$appears$in$the$1623$folio.$I$plan$on$sharing$a$few$of$the$major$differences$with$you$shortly.$But$here$is$the$main$issue:$even$though$there$are$two$versions$from$Shakespeare’s$life5me,$the$version$in$the$folio$has$been$the$only$version$of$the$play$performed.$Since$the$early$twen5eth$century,$the$three$quartos$were$piled$on$the$trash$heap$of$bad$quartos,$dubbed$so$either$because$bibliographers$assumed$they$were$the$products$of$faulty$memory$or$piracy.$$$$New$theories,$however,$are$emerging.$What$if$these$soacalled$bad$quartos$aren’t$necessarily$bad$but$reflec5ve$of$how$plays$were$significantly$altered$for$performance?$What$if$the$quartos$of$the$plays$were$how$they$were$performed?$What$if$the$folio,$on$other$hand,$represented$something$more$in$line$with$Webster’s$concept$of$the$maximal$text,$something$designed$for$reading$rather$than$performing?$Several$scholars$have$presented$this$theory$as$of$late,$but$what$is$notable$is$that$all$produc5ons$s5ll$turn$to$the$folio$text$for$Henry$V.$While$some$companies$have$abempted$to$recuperate$bad$quartos$like$that$of$Hamlet,$Henry$V’s$quartos$have$remained$absent$from$the$stage$even$if$they$might$be$the$closest$thing$we$have$to$a$record$of$early$performances.$$$$

3$

So$here$is$the$point$that$I$am$arguing:$the$folio$version$of$the$play,$the$one$used$for$the$performance$you$have$seen$or$will$see,$represents$the$poem$of$the$play,$the$maximal$text,$the$one$meant$for$private$reading—though$every$director$and$company$cuts$something$from$this$rather$long$play.$The$quarto$of$the$play,$the$one$you’ll$likely$never$see$performed,$is$ironically$a$whole$lot$like$the$way$the$play$that$would$have$been$performed$in$1599.$One$of$the$most$notable$pieces$of$evidence$that$I$think$shows$us$the$poten5al$that$the$quarto$is$a$lot$like$the$Elizabethan$and$Jacobean$performances$is$the$notable$claim$on$the$5tle$page$of$the$first$quarto$that$the$play$is$produced$$$$[SLIDE$ANIMATION]$$$$As!it!hath!bene!sundry!/mes!playd!by!the!Right!honorable$the!Lord!Chamberlaine!his!Servants.$$$

4$

So$here$is$what$is$different$in$the$quarto.$The$play’s$lines$are$nearly$cut$in$half,$from$3,253$lines$to$1,629$lines.$The$prologue,$epilogue,$and$chorus$are$all$cut.$Several$scenes$are$completely$absent.$And$I$think$most$notably,$Henry’s$very$long$speeches$are$nearly$cut$in$half.$This$is$notable,$I$would$argue,$because$so$much$aben5on$has$been$placed$on$those$speeches,$both$for$their$rhetorical$affect$and$for$what$they$reveal$about$the$character$of$the$king.$$$$[SLIDE$CHORUS]$$$To$begin,$there$is$no$chorus,$so$there$is$none$of$the$setup$of$the$theatre$as$the$scaffold$for$the$play$that$figures$so$prominently$in$the$familiar$version.$so$in$the$quarto,$we$don’t$hear:$O$for$a$Muse$of$fire,$that$would$ascend$The$brightest$heaven$of$inven5on,$A$kingdom$for$a$stage,$princes$to$act$And$monarchs$to$behold$the$swelling$scene!$Then$should$the$warlike$Harry,$like$himself,$Assume$the$port$of$Mars;$and$at$his$heels,$Leash'd$in$like$hounds,$should$famine,$sword$and$fire$Crouch$for$employment.$$

5$

Another$notable$omission$from$the$beginning$of$the$play$is$the$absence$of$the$two$archbishops.$Two$things$change$if$the$archbishops$are$missing.$First,$the$refuta5on$of$Salic$law$takes$on$a$different$color.$No$longer$are$the$archbishops$manipula5ng$Henry$to$avoid$the$confisca5on$of$their$lands$and$wealth.$Second,$Henry’s$character,$that$is$his$personality$and$manner$as$a$king,$are$no$longer$first$described$through$the$exposi5on$of$the$bishops.$Rather,$all$that$we$know$about$Henry$doesn’t$come$from$what$is$said$when$he$isn’t$around$but$what$we$know$about$his$evolu5on$throughout$the$tetralogy$of$plays$and$his$own$words$in$this$play.$It$is$hard$to$say$why$this$par5cular$scene$is$cut,$but$I$think$it$removes$some$of$the$interpre5ve$ques5ons$raised$by$having$two$archbishops$set$into$mo5on$a$war$because$they$are$worried$the$king$will$raid$their$coffers.$$

6$

Act$III$presents$the$next$interpreta5ve$crux,$for$it$is$here$that$the$warlike$Harry$truly$emerges,$calling$his$men$“once$more$unto$the$breach”$exhor5ng$them$to$act$like$great$warriors$of$the$past$and$to$“disguise$fair$nature$with$hardafavored$rage.”$In$other$words,$Henry$is$calling$on$them$to$play$the$part$of$warrior.$Like$a$director,$he$tells$his$men$to$“lend$the$eye$a$terrible$aspect.”$For$me,$this$recalls$the$chorus$at$the$beginning,$and$what$emerges$as$a$major$theme$of$the$play,$that$the$ac5on$of$the$play$is$always$reminding$us$of$the$connec5on$between$the$performances$on$stage$and$the$performances$in$real$life,$that$is$a$metadrama5c$reminder$that$playing$a$part$on$stage$is$not$unlike$playing$a$part$in$arenas$of$poli5cs$and$war$and$love.$I’d$like$to$backtrack$to$the$beginning$of$the$play,$the$version$most$of$you$know,$the$one$that$comes$down$to$us$in$the$folio.$$

7$

Remember$that$the$chorus$is$absent$from$the$play.$Lost$then$is$the$trope$of$the$metadrama5c$or$theatrum$mundi$(world$as$theatre),$calling$aben5on$to$the$rela5onship$between$poli5cal/military$performance$and$theatrical$performance.$$$

8$

Finally,$one$of$the$most$important$soliloquys$of$the$play,$the$one$in$Act$IV$in$which$Henry$seems$to$have$an$existen5al$crisis$is$absent$from$the$quarto.$The$speech$is$long,$but$it$is$the$one$moment$we$see$beyond$Henry’s$bold$rhetoric$and$see$a$king$bearing$great$responsibility$and$ques5oning$what$it$is$that$makes$him$a$king,$other$than$ceremony.$Again,$this$conclusion$that$ceremony$is$what$separates$Henry$from$everyone$else,$reprises$the$metadrama5c$trope$of$the$play.$Henry$is$King$because$he$wears$the$trappings$and$plays$the$part.$The$Henry$we$see$in$the$folio$is$far$more$complex,$far$more$vulnerable,$and$far$more$conscious$of$his$role$on$the$kingdom$for$a$stage.$

9$

So$here$is$the$point:$every$performance$of$Henry$V$is$based$on$the$folio$text;$however,$with$the$length$of$the$play,$every$performance$has$to$cut$something.$Therefore$every$performance$is$different;$for$this$and$other$reasons,$it$is$its$own$text,$unlike$any$other.$What$we$have$in$the$quarto$from$1600$is$a$text$cut$for$performance$in$1599,$a$performance$that$Shakespeare$likely$implicitly$authorized$by$being$part$of$the$performance$company$that$put$the$play$on.$$$$$Here$is$what$I$think$is$worth$no5ng,$and$I$assume$experienced$directors$will$concur:$there$are$certain$parts$of$the$play$that$are$really$off$limits$from$cuqng.$Certainly$“o$for$a$muse$of$fire”$and$“once$more$into$the$breach”—some$of$the$most$famous$lines$of$the$play$we$know,$would$be$off$limits$from$cuqng.$Henry’s$confessional$soliloquy$is$a$wonderful$moment$that$shows$Henry’s$frail5es$and$doubts$and$complex$iden5ty.$However,$the$quarto$includes$none$of$these$“untouchable”$moments.$$

10$

My$ques5on$for$you$is,$how$does$the$play$change$without$the$chorus,$without$the$archbishops$pulling$the$strings$behind$the$scenes,$without$Harfleur$speech$calling$for$the$soldiers$to$play$their$parts$well,$and$without$Henry’s$existen5al$soliloquy$on$the$trappings$of$kingship?$Without$material$like$this,$how$is$the$Henry$V$of$the$quarto,$a$play$much$like$the$one$performed$in$1599,$a$play$with$different$emphases,$invi5ng$different$interpreta5ons$from$the$one$we$know?$$$

11$

12$