Battle of Shrewsbury (1403), whereas Holinshed assigns it to the year 1412. As the dramatic balance of the play depends largely on the rivalry of Prince Henry and Hotspur, Shakespeare was obliged to advance somewhat the age of the former and to represent the middle-aged Hotspur as a mere youth.1 According to Holinshed (Chronicles, ed. 1808, iii. 4), Prince Henry in October, 1399, was twelve years old. Born in August, 1387, he was at the time the play opens fourteen years old. But even if he had been then the young man that Shakespeare portrays, he would not have been a coeval of Henry Hotspur, who was born in May, 1364. It is true that, young though he was, Prince Henry was present at the Battle of Shrewsbury where he did yeoman service. The battle was fought in July, 1403, but even as early as November, 1400, the Prince appears to have been entrusted with a position of military responsibility in North Wales when his father was obliged to abandon his campaign against Glendower and to return to England (Dict. Nat. Biog., xxvi. 436). In III. ii. 32, 33, the King refers to the expulsion of Prince Henry from the Privy Council: Thy place in council thou hast rudely lost, Which by thy younger brother is supplied. Shakespeare is here following Holinshed, who relates that the Prince "once to hie offence of the king his father, . . . had with his fist striken the cheefe iustice for sending one of his minions (vpon desert) to prison, when the iustice stoutlie commanded himselfe also streict to ward, & he (then prince) obeied. The king after expelled him out of his priuie councell, banisht him the court, and made the duke of Clarence (his yoonger brother) president of councell in his steed" (Holinshed, Chronicles, ed. 1808, iii. 61). Probably Holinshed's authority for the story of the Prince's flouting the Chief Justice was Sir Thomas Elyot (The Governour, 1531). It is noteworthy, however, that Elyot does not state that the Prince actually struck the Chief Justice, or that he was deprived of his place in the Council. The account of the incident in The Governour runs : 1 III. ii. 103. "The moste renomed prince, kynge Henry the fifte, late kynge of Englande, durynge the life of his father was noted to be fierce and of wanton courage. It hapned that one of his seruantes whom he well fauored, for felony by hym committed, was arrayned at the kynges benche; wherof he being aduertised, and incensed by light persones aboute hym, in furious rage came hastily to the barre, where his seruant stode as a prisoner, and commaunded hym to be ungyued and sette at libertie, where at all men were abasshed, reserued the chiefe iustice, who humbly exhorted the prince to be contented that his seruaunt mought be ordred accordyng to the auncient lawes of this realme, or if he wolde haue hym saued from the rigour of the lawes, that he shuld optaine, if he moughte, of the kynge, his father, his gracious pardone; wherby no lawe or iustice shulde be derogate. With whiche answere the prince nothynge appeased, but rather more inflamed, endeuored hym selfe to take away his seruaunt. The iuge consideringe the perilous example and inconuenience that moughte therby ensue, with a valiant spirite and courage commaunded the prince upon his alegeance to leue the prisoner and departe his waye. With whiche commandment the prince, being set all in a fury, all chafed, and in a terrible maner, came up to the place of iugement-men thinkyng that he wolde haue slayne the iuge, or haue done to hym some damage; but the iuge sittyng styll, without mouynge, declarynge the maiestie of the kynges place of iugement, and with an assured and bolde countenance, hadde to the prince these words folowyng: Sir, remembre your selfe ; I kepe here the place of the king, your soueraigne lorde and father, to whom ye owe double obedience, wherfore, eftsones in his name, I charge you desiste of your wilfulnes and unlaufull entreprise, and from hensforth gyue good example to those whiche hereafter shall be your propre subiectes. And nowe for your contempt and disobedience, go you to the prisone of the kynges benche, where unto I committe you; and remayne ye there prisoner untill the pleasure of the kyng, your father, be further knowen. With whiche wordes beinge abasshed, and also wondrynge at the meruailous grauitie of that worshipful Justice, the noble prince, layinge his waipon aparte, doinge reuerence, departed and wente to the kynges benche as he was commaunded. Wherat his seruants disdainyng, came and shewed to the kynge all the hole affaire. Wherat he a whiles studienge, after as a man all rauisshed with gladness, holdyng his eien and handes up towarde heuen, abrayded, sayinge with a loude voice, O mercifull god, howe moche am I, aboue all b other men, bounde to your infinite goodnes; specially for that ye have gyuen me a iuge, who feareth nat to ministre iustice, and also a sonne who can suffre semblably and obey iustice?" (Elyot, The Governour, bk. II. ch. vi.). The story, even as told by Elyot, is perhaps apocryphal. Hardyng, a fifteenth century writer, in his metrical Chronicle, published by Grafton in 1542, is silent as to the cause of the Prince's disgrace :— The king discharged ye prince fro his cousayle, -Hardyng, Chronicle, ch. ccix. Whether mythical or not, the incident of the Prince's boxing the Chief Justice's ear was a legend current in the 16th century, and it is presented in a scene in The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth. See pp. 1 ff. post. On the whole, Shakespeare's account of Prince Henry's wildness is amply warranted by Holinshed, who, summing up the Prince's character, declares that "he was youthfullie giuen, growne to audacitie, and had chosen him companions agreeable to his age. But yet... his behauiour was not offensiue or at least tending to the damage of anie bodie; sith he had a care to auoid dooing of wrong, and to tedder his affections within the tract of vertue".1 In his account of Prince Henry's valour at the Battle of Shrewsbury, Shakespeare goes beyond Holinshed. It was natural that the heroic young Prince should do heroic deeds. Holinshed ascribes the victory to the personal prowess of the King, but in the play the father, as a warrior, is overshadowed by the son. The Prince's challenge to Hotspur to meet him in single combat (v. i. 83 ff.) seems to have no historical warrant. The slaying of Hotspur is attributed to Prince Henry by Holinshed and by Shakespeare, but as a matter of fact it is unknown by whose hand Percy fell. The Prince's rescue of the King has no foundation in Holinshed. 1 See p. xlvii post. These are the main points in which Shakespeare diverges from or is misled by Holinshed. The commentary to the play supplies references to the Chronicles, as well as some minor historical details to be found in Capgrave, Hardyng and other chroniclers. One short passage from Holinshed, not quoted with the extracts at the end of this Introduction, may be cited here. It is interesting as being Shakespeare's authority for Glendower's boast that he was "trained up" at the English court (III. i. 122 post). "This Owen Glendouer was sonne to an esquier of Wales, named Griffith Vichan: he dwelled in the parish of Conwaie, within the countie of Merioneth in North Wales, in a place called Glindourwie, which is as much to saie in English, as The vallie by the side of the water of Dee, by occasion whereof he was surnamed Glindour Dew. "He was first set to studie the lawes of the realme, and became an vtter barrester, or an apprentise of the law (as they terme him) and serued king Richard at Flint castell, when he was taken by Henrie duke of Lancaster, though other haue written that he serued this king Henrie the fourth, before he came to atteine the crowne, in roome of an esquier " (Holinshed, Chronicles, ed. 1808, iii. 17). II. Daniel, Civil Wars.-It is possible, Professor Moorman thinks,1 that Shakespeare may have consulted the History of the Civil Wars by Daniel, a narrative poem of which the first four books were published in 1595. Professor Moorman points out, in support of this opinion, that several of Shakespeare's divergences from Holinshed are also to be found in Daniel's work, itself probably based on Holinshed's Chronicles. (a) Daniel agrees with Shakespeare in describing Hotspur as a young man at the date of the Battle of Shrewsbury : There shall young Hotspur, with a fury led, 34. (6) Daniel, like Shakespeare, adds to Holinshed's account of the battle the dramatic incident of the Prince's rescue of his father: 1 See his edition of 1 Henry IV. in "The Warwick Shakespeare ". Hadst thou not there lent present speedy ayd (c) According to Shakespeare, Glendower was not present at the Battle of Shrewsbury,' whereas Holinshed, although he does not mention Glendower, says that the Welsh came to the aid of the Percys and took part in the battle (see p. xlii post). Daniel here agrees with Shakespeare :— The joining with the Welsh (they had decreed) Stopt hereby part; which made their cause the worse. -1bid. iv. 36. III. Chevy Chase.-Shakespeare may have been indebted for some suggestions to the ballad of Chevy Chase. There are three points of connection between the play and the ballad. In the first place Shakespeare prefixes to the names Percy and Douglas the honorific "the" customary in the north. In the ballad Douglas and Percy are so designated. See I. iii. 261 and note. Secondly, the Prince's challenge to Percy to meet him in single combat is paralleled in Chevy Chase, i. 73-80. Thirdly, the Prince's lament over the corpse of the slain Hotspur (v. iv. 87-101) has its analogue in the Percy's address to the dead Douglas in Chevy Chase, ii. 58-62. IV. The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth.-(i) It is elsewhere noted (p. xxii post) that Shakespeare found in The Famous Victories the name Sir John Oldcastle. (ii) He derived, moreover, from this play a few general ideas for the comic plot of Henry IV. Notably, the highway robbery has its counterpart in The Famous Victories. In The Famous Victories the Prince is portrayed as a riotous young man, who haunts taverns, and is associated in acts of highway robbery with noted thieves. (iii) Both plays contain the interview between Prince Henry and the King (pp. xlvxlvii post). (iv) Reference has already been made to the account given in The Famous Victories of the Prince's striking the Lord Chief Justice (pp. 1 ff. post). (v) The tavern scene (II. iv. 375 ff.), in which Falstaff and the Prince act the little play of father and son, may have been suggested by 1 See note to IV. iv. 18. |