Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 February 2021
The relation between the first Folio and the first Quarto text of Shakespeare's Henry V has long been a subject of discussion. In 1874, Daniel, in his edition of the play for the New Shakespeare Society, argued that the Quarto is a stage abridgment of the Folio version. Some years later Brinsley Nicholson attempted to refute Daniel. His arguments have not met with much acceptance, perhaps because of an underlying assumption that a fuller and, on the whole, much better text implies revision and expansion from the shorter, poorer one,—an assumption certainly open to challenge with reference to Shakespeare texts.
page 722 note 1 “The Relation of the Quarto to the Folio version of Henry V,” Trans, of lie New Shakespeare Soc'y, 1880-82, pt 1, pp. 77-102. Compare the Fumes* Variorum edition of the play, and the summaries of arguments on the text in Hereward Price, The Text of Henry V, 1920.
page 722 note 2 “The Relation of the First Quarto Version to the First FoBo Version of Shakespeare's Henry V,” Philological Quarterly, VI, no. 3 (1927), 225-34.
page 723 note 3 In Shakespeare Reprints, ed. Wilhelm Victor.
page 725 note 4 The change was made as early as 1598. Southampton's wile wrote to him July 8, 1599 of Falstaff as of a real contemporary (Cecil Papers, CI, 16); but the application is not clear. The only likely descendant from the Oldcastle family as an object of satire in Falstaff is Henry Brooke, eighth Lord Cobham, captain of forces of a shire at times when the whole group of Essex followers could have an opportunity to observe his not too great blood thirstiness at the siege of Ostend Cobhaus' military record in general would contrast amusingly with those of Essex and of Sir Charles Percy, a worthy descendant of Hotspur and a great admirer of Shakespeare and his plays. Halliwell (-Phillips), Tke Character of Falstaff, gives an account of the objections made to the use of the name Oldcastle.
page 725 note 5 “Shakespeare's Richard IIand the Essex Conspiracy,” PMLA, XLII (1927), 686-720.
page 725 note 6 Chamberlain sent a copy to Carleton then, with a comment on the objections raised to it (Chamberlain's Letters, Camden Soc'y, p. 47.)
page 725 note 7 S. P. Dom., 1598-1601, vol. CCLXXV, art. 37.
page 726 note 8 Cal. S. P. Dom., 1598-1601, p. 435.
page 728 note 9 W. B. Devereux, Lhct and Letter! of Ike Deeereux, Earls of Essex, II, 43.
page 729 note 10 Correspondence of James VI and Sir Robert Cecil, Camden Soc'y, 1860, p 101
page 729 note 11 Ckronidcs, 1808 III, 58 ff.
page 733 note 12 Compare Lord Henry- Howard's use in an account of the Essex conspiracy: “All the partisans of the last tragedy resorted to Southampton without impeachment and new practises were set on broach” (Secret Correspondence of Hailes, Letter HI; in Charlotte Slopes, Henry, Third Earl of Southampton, pp. 248-49).
page 734 note 13 Haifieid MSS, vol LXXXIII, no. 82. Cf. W. B. Devereux, Lives and Letters ef the Devercux, I, 139; and cf. also a letter of Cecil to Winwood, Mar. 7, 1601, Winwood, Memorials, I, 301.
page 734 note 14 Hatfield MSS, LXXXIII, no. 82. Compare Camden, Elizabeth, p. 607.
page 734 note 15 S. P. Dem., 1598-1601, voL CCLXXVIII, art 44. (Feb. 12, 1601.)
page 735 note 16 S. P. Dom., 1580-1605, vol. XXXIV, art. 20, tentatively dated? Nov. 1599. I think this date is probably too early.
page 735 note 17 Sydney Papers, II, 129.
page 735 note 18 Declarations of Practices and Treasons of the Earl of Essex, p. 9. Cf. Calendar ef Carew MSS, 1589-1600, p. 343.
page 736 note 19 Declarations of ......,Treasons, p. II. Cf. Hatfield MSS, vol. LXXXIII.
page 737 note 20 W. B. Devereux, of. cit., II, 15.
page 738 note 21 S. P. Dom., 1598-1601, voL CCLXXVHI, art 54 (Feb. 13, 1601). On the religious assemblies at Essex' and Southampton's bouses, and on the entertainment of men of religion in Essex' household, see W. B. Devercux, op. cit., and C. C. Stopes, Life ef Henry, Third Earl ef Southampton, passim.
page 738 note 22 Genealogies in plays would be a livelier subject then than now, if only because “dangerous.” Elizabeth always tried to hush discussion of the succession. Even King James, as late as Feb. 19,1624, addressing the two Houses on the lack of any parliament for two years, desired them to “beware of genealogies and curious questions” and not to “let any stir them up to law questions.” (Campbell, Liees of the Chancellors, III, 156.)
page 740 note 23 Is it possible that the lines mean “and in Southampton linger your patience on,” that is, trust to the Earl of Southampton's plan? This is only a tentative suggestion and has reference to the confession of a conspirator (Danvers) that, if Essex' enemies were to triumph, Southampton planned a temporary exile of Essex, himself, and a few other* in France. (See p. 728, supra.)
page 741 note 24 See the account by the Chancellor, Egerton, in W.B. Devereux, op. cit., II, 142.
page 742 note 25 Charlotte C. Stopes, Life of Henry, Tkird Earl of Southampton, pp. 248-49. There is e lesser possibility that the traitor referred to might be a domestic of good family treated as confidant by Essex, a Gabriel Montgomery, saidby Thuanus to nave revealed all the doings at Essex House (W. B. Devereux, op. cit., II, 136-37). But Montgomery seems personally too insignificant.
page 742 note 26 Sidney Papers, II, 132. The “libels” continued and were again ordered suppressed. (Ibid., II, 146.)
page 742 note 27 Cal. S. P. Dom., 1598-1601, p. 365.
page 742 note 28 Sidney Papers, II, 153. Cf. also a letter from John Daniel to Cecil, Oct. 13, 1599 (Ibid.) and one from F. Woodward to R. Sidney concerning sedition, special guards, and slander of Elisabeth and the Council over Irish matters (Ibid., II, 147). The libels continued through February, 1601 (Ibid., II, 169).
page 742 note 29 I do not know that there was any foundation for that rumor at this time. S. R. Gardiner has established the selling out to Spain in the reign of James (History of England, 1603-1616,1836, appx. 3, with which compare Letters of Coal, Camden Sodety, 68.)
page 743 note 30 Richard Simpson (in Trans, of the New Shakespeare Soc'y, ser. 1, pt. 2, 1874, pp. 416-19) suggested that Shakespeare was looking forward to a union of these four countries and France under the English crown. This obliged him to substitute Scotland for France for the alliance at the end of the play. But this is not justifiable, as dread of Scotch partition of England is expressed elsewhere in the play.
page 743 note 31 W. B. Devereux, op. cit., II, 29 and 40.
page 745 note 32 Hatfield MSS, LXXXIV, no. 19; original autograph, reprinted in Correspondence of Kini James VI of Scotland witk Sir Root. Cecil.... Camden Soc'y. 96 ff.
page 745 note 33 Salisbury MSS, IX, 307-308.
page 746 note 34 News from Flandera after the Earl't death indicates that “som few of the States” knew Essex' designs “and should have concurred to his assistance.” (C. C. Slopes, Life of Henry, Third Earl of Southampton, p. 222.)
page 747 note 35 The progress of the plans may be traced in the letters in W. B. Devereux, op. cit, II, 132 ff. and in Spedding, Works of Bacon, II, 338-, in the deposition of Sir Ferdinando Gorges in Criminal Trials, ed. D. Jardine, 1847, vol. I, and in Howell, Slate Trials, and in the full account of the Essex trials, S. P. Dom., 1598-1601, passim.
page 747 note 36 Extracted by Birch from the Advocates' Library st Edinburgh; cited in W. B. Devereux, op. tit., II, 135. Cf. also Calderwood, History of tke Kirn cf Scotland, VI, 102.
page 748 note 37 On Elizabeth's tentative policies toward France, see Col. 5. P. Dam., 1595-1597, pp. 202-203 et passim.
page 748 note 38 W. B. Devereux, op cit., II, 132.
page 750 note 39 S. P. Dom., 1598-1601, vol CCLXXII.
page 750 note 40 Ibid., vol CCCLXXII, art. 91.
page 751 note 41 S. P. Dom., 1598-1601, voL CCLXXV. Pcesibly the Dr. Bruce accredited to Queen Elisabeth June 10/20, by Zamoiski, Chancellor of Poland iSeiitbury MSS, X, 177). It is of tome interest to note that it was reported May 26, 1600, that “a book has lately been made in Paris in defense of the King of Scots tide to the crown of England,” 5. P. Dem., 1598-1601, vol CCLXXIV, art. 149.
page 751 note 42 Flanders Correspondence, S. P. Dom., 1598-1601, vol. CCLXXIIL
page 751 note 43 S. P. Dom., 1598-1601, vol. CCLXXIII.
page 751 note 44 Ibid., voL CCLXXVII.
page 752 note 45 This repeats a message of April 3, from Petit to Halins, Ibid., vol. CCLXXIV, art 81.
page 752 note 46 Correspondence of ....Cecil, Camden Soc'y, pp. 11-12.
page 752 note 47 Salisbury MSS, X, 166-67.
page 753 note 48 S. P. Dom., 1598-1601, and C. C. Stopes, Life of Henry, Third Earl of Southampton, and W. B. Devereux, Lives and Letters of the Devereux.
page 754 note 40 Sidney Papers, II, 90.
page 754 note 41 Ibid., II, 135. A large proportion of the Essex following appear in the list of the audience at Gray's Inn Revels, 1594-95. See Gest Grayorum.
page 754 note 51 Haifieid MSS, V, 487.
page 754 note 52 Sidney Papers,, II, 86.
page 755 note 53 Sidney Papers, II, 176.
page 755 note 54 S. P. Dom., 1600-1601, vol. CCLXXV, art. 146
