Virtual Grub Street: The List of the French Dead in Shakespeare’s Henry V.

In a recent discussion (i.e. comment thread) it was stated that the 1623 folio text of Shakespeare’s Henry V contained a “ludicrously long list of the French dead”. This was offered as proof that the 1600 1^st Quarto, with its shorter list, had to be, in fact, a later edition. The claim was essentially that, in plays, lists taken from historical documents go from longer, in earlier versions, to shorter, in later.

Such sweeping statements do us the favor of sending us back to our books. The list of the French dead was, to my recollection, long enough to sound a bit more medieval than Tudor. I remembered the point to be as valid of the 1^st Quarto as the 1^st Folio though I couldn’t recite the names in either. Just how long was each?

It turns out that the list in the 1^st Folio is indeed longer. The list in the 1^st Quarto is 12 names long. In the 1^st Folio, 15. On this basis alone, the matter comes down to one’s definition of the word “ludicrous”.

But, as is almost always the case, closer inspection reveals other dynamics. In this particular instance, the details of the lists reveal that the number of names have nothing to do with the earlier or later construction of the list.

The commenter claims that the playwright would have had to “track down the old French history text” in order to add the few additional names in the Folio Henry V. Shakespeare, however, did not find the names on his list of the French dead in an “old French history text”.

For all the names do, in fact, come from Enguerrand de Monstrelet’s 15^th century French chronicle, it was the English Chronicler Edward Hall who copied a portion of the much, much longer list, into his The Vnion of the Two Noble and Illustre Famelies of Lancastre & Yorke, Beeyng Long in Continual Discension For The Croune Of This Noble Realme (1548). Possibly having access to the Paris edition of Antoine Vérard, c. 1503. It is also possible that he actually had the 1512 or 1518 extended editions before him. Or even one of the manuscript editions distributed late in the 15^th century.

But Shakespeare did not find the names on his list from Hall’s Chronicles either. For all the names do, in fact, come from Hall’s Chronicle, it was the English chronicler Raphael Holinshed who copied a portion of Hall’s considerably longer list into the 1577 and 1587 editions of his Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland. This we can tell because Holinshed was in the habit of using Hall as a source and all of the names on his list are listed in Hall’s longer list under the same heading and in the same order.

If we compare the names in Holinshed and the Folio edition of Henry V, in the order they are listed, the matter becomes clear.

Holinshed 1587	Folio 1623

1. Charles lord de la Breth, high constable of France 2. Iaques of Chatilon, lord of Dampier, admerall of France 3. the lord Rambures, master of the crossebowes 4. sir Guischard Dolphin, great master of France 5. John duke of Alanson 6. Anthonie duke of Brabant 7. Edward duke of Bar 8. the earle of Neuers	1. Charles Delabreth, High Constable of France, 2. Iaques of Chatilion, Admirall of France, 3. Lord Rambures, The Master of the Crosse-bowes, 4. Sir Guichard Dolphin, Great Master of France, 5. Iohn Duke of Alanson, 6. Anthonie Duke of Brabant, The Brother to the Duke of Burgundie, And 7. Edward Duke of Barr:
the erles of -Marie, -Vaudemont, -Beaumont, -Grandpree, -Roussie, -Fauconberge, -Fois, and -Lestrake	of lustie Earles, -Grandpree and -Roussie, -Fauconbridge and -Foyes [Fois], -Beaumont and -Marie, -Vandemont and -Lestrale

Qty of individual names: 16	Qty of individual names: 15

Even Hall’s mistake is copied dutifully into both Holinshed and Henry V. In his hurry the chronicler misremembered that the “conte [Earl] of Lestrake” was not in his list for the French dead at Agincourt but rather at the battle of Cravant, under Henry VI, in 1423. It is quite possibly Shakespeare himself who gets rid of the very un-French “k” in the name, spelling it L-e-s-t-r-a-l-e.

These are the kinds of anomalies that occur when copying texts time and again. A false name in Hall. Misspellings that sometimes lead to misunderstandings. Etc.

Also the source of anomalies is the manuscript that arrives to the printer being slightly damaged. The typesetter was not a copy editor. He simply did his best to set the letters there before him. If he needed to make a guess it had to be quick and done with and on his way.

This seems to be the cause of problems in the 1^st Quarto if Henry V. The same manuscript was used to set the 1603 and 1608 Quartos. Among the many textual reasons we know this is the presence at the head of the list of the dead earls, in each quarto, of the phrase “Of Nobelle Charillas”. If we break it down we can see a text something along the lines of “[--]ar[-]ll[-]s,” that started out as “Earles” before it was blotted. The poor typesetter was probably daunted by what he thought was an unfamiliar French word.

But this is not all. There are fewer names and two of the names there appear in no other known version of the list. Here the typesetter’s impression of the damaged text resulted in the names “Gerard” and “Verton”. Gerard being a particularly common French name, it appears several times in the various Agincourt lists of Monstrelet but on no occasion does it belong to a dead earl. “Verton” would seem to appear on no list of any sort relating to Agincourt or any other French battle or matter.

In conclusion, Shakespeare did not have his list of the French dead at Agincourt from an “old French history text”. He clearly kept his copy of the Holinshed Chronicles at hand at all times and could check the only source he consulted with ease. The manuscript from which the quarto editions of Henry V were printed was not the only copy. Each was subject to unique mistakes of the copyist, revision for the conditions in which it was played at a given time, and damage/blotting that introduced errors through the copying and typesetting process.

The 1600 1^st Quarto of Henry V is close enough to the details of Holinshed’s original list that it is clear that it was copied from Holinshed. The 1623 list — it is equally clear — was copied from the same list. The earliest manuscript copy of each started out, in the late 1580s, with the same list. The differences reflect not their chronological order but their divergent paths through the theater world.