« ZurückWeiter »
His brandish'd sword did blind men with his beams;
Exe. We mourn in black: why mourn we not in blood:
Win. He was a king, bless'd of the King of kings.
Win. Gloster, whate'er we like, thou art protector,
Glo. Name not religion, for thou lov'st the flesh ; And ne'er throughout the year to church thou goʻst, Except it be to pray against thy foes. Bed. Cease, cease these jars, and rest your minds in
Let's to the altar :-Heralds, wait on us.-
Enter a Messenger.
corse ? Speak softly, or the loss of those great towns Will make him burst his lead, and rise from death.
2 When at their mothers' moist eyes babes shall suck ;] This is the line as it stands in the folio, 1632 : that of 1623 has moisten’d for “moist,” giving a redundant syllable in a line where no dissyllable can be read in the time of a monosyllable. Besides, the full meaning of the poet is obtained by “ moist ;” and here and elsewhere in this play the corrections, if not from authority, have been made generally with great judgment by the editor of the second folio.
– a Nourish of salt tears,] Pope substituted marish, i.e. marsh, for “ rish,” which is the word in the first and in all the other folios. In fact, no change is required ; and had it been a misprint for marish, the editor of the second folio, who had corrected the preceding line, would not have been likely to pass it over. “ Nourish,” as Malone and Steevens proved by various quotations anterior to the time of Shakespeare, was only another form of the word nourice, or nurse ; and a word of two syllables was required.
4 Than Julius Cæsar, or bright--) So printed in the original, as if the entrance of the messenger had interrupted the conclusion of the sentence. Malone was of opinion that the transcriber of the MS. could not read the name, and therefore omitted it ; while Johnson proposed to fill the blank with Berenice, which would ill suit the measure, unless the last two syllables were to be pronounced as one.
Glo. Is Paris lost? is Rouen yielded up? If Henry were recall’d to life again, These news would cause him once more yield the ghost.
Exe. How were they lost? what treachery was us’d?
Mess. No treachery; but want of men and money. Among the soldiers this is muttered, That here you maintain several factions ; And whilst a field should be despatch'd and fought, You are disputing of your generals. One would have lingering wars with little cost; Another would fly swift, but wanteth wings; A third man thinks, without expense at all', By guileful fair words peace may be obtain'd. Awake, awake, English nobility ! Let not sloth dim your honours new-begot: Cropp'd are the flower-de-luces in your arms; Of England's coat one half is cut away.
Exe. Were our tears wanting to this funeral, These tidings would call forth her flowing tides.
Bed. Me they concern ; regent I am of France.Give me my steeled coat! I'll fight for France. Away with these disgraceful wailing robes ! Wounds will I lend the French instead of eyes, To weep their intermissive miseries.
Enter another Messenger.
5 A third man thinks, without expense at all,] “ Man” is from the folio, 1632 ; and it is necessary, unless we suppose Shakespeare intended “third” to be pronounced as a dissyllable. That it was not usually so pronounced, we have the evidence of the editor of the second folio.
The duke of Alençon flieth to his side.
Exe. The Dauphin crowned king ! all fly to him! O! whither shall we fly from this reproach?
Glo. We will not fly, but to our enemies' throats.Bedford, if thou be slack, I'll fight it out.
Bed. Gloster, why doubt’st thou of my forwardness? An army have I muster’d in my thoughts, Wherewith already France is over-run.
Enter a third Messenger. 3 Mess. My gracious lords, to add to your laments, Wherewith you now bedew king Henry's hearse, I must inform you of a dismal fight, Betwixt the stout lord Talbot and the French.
Win. What! wherein Talbot overcame? is't so?
3 Mess. 0, no! wherein lord Talbot was o'erthrown: The circumstance I'll tell you more at large. The tenth of August last, this dreadful lord, Retiring from the siege of Orleans, Having full scarce six thousand in his troop, By three-and-twenty thousand of the French Was round encompassed and set upon. No leisure had he to enrank his men; He wanted pikes to set before his archers; Instead whereof, sharp stakes, pluck'd out of hedges, They pitched in the ground confusedly, To keep the horsemen off from breaking in. More than three hours the fight continued ; Where valiant Talbot, above human thought, Enacted wonders with his sword and lance. Hundreds he sent to hell, and none durst stand him; Here, there, and every where, enrag'd he slewe. The French exclaim'd, the devil was in arms;
enraged he slaw.] So the old copies, to which we adhere ; although, as the Rev. Mr. Barry suggests, it was a very easy misprint for fler. “ Slew shows that Talbot was not only “ here, there, and everywhere,” but that he made his presence known by the slaughter of the enemy.
All the whole army stood agaz'd on him.
Bed. Is Talbot slain ? then, I will slay myself,
3 Mess. 0, no! he lives; but is took prisoner, And lord Scales with him, and lord Hungerford : Most of the rest slaughter'd, or took, likewise.
7 If sir John FastLFE–) Mis-spelt Falstaffe in the old copies, but not of course intended for the humorous knight, who figures in “Henry IV." parts i. and ii., and who died in “ Henry V.” The text relates to the historical sir John Fastolfe, who, as Fuller complains (Worthies, 1662, p. 253), had been misrepresented on the stage, as “ a Thrasonical puff,” when in fact he was valiant as any of his age.” However, Hall and Holinshed assert that he was degraded for cowardice, although subsequently, “ upon good reason alleged in his defence, restored to his honours.” 8 He being in the vaward, plac'd behind
With purpose to relieve and follow them,] The “vaward” is the advanced body of the army, (see Vol. ii. p. 447,) and this passage has been hitherto thought a contradiction, inasmuch as the “ vaward” could not be “behind.” But the meaning of Shakespeare seems to be, that what was usually the “ vaward” of the army had in this instance purposely been “plac'd behind,” in order to “ relieve and follow" the rest. Sir John Fastolfe, perhaps, ordinarily led the “ vaward ;” but in this case, he and his troops, for some reason, had been placed by Talbot in the rear. This explanation seems to remove a difficulty felt and expressed by most of the commentators. Monck Mason, to reconcile the matter, supposed that the army was attacked in the rear; and observes, “When an army is attacked in the rear, the can becomes the rear in its turn.” There seems no occasion for any conjecture of the kind.