University of Virginia Library

Reconstruction and Adaptation in Q Henry V
by
Kathleen Irace

In recent years Gary Taylor's analysis of the "bad" quarto of Henry V has sparked new interest in this First Quarto version of the play. Taylor, believing that Q Henry V preserved a deliberate theatrical abridgment, later reconstructed by reporter-actors, incorporated some of the adaptations of the Quarto in his two Oxford editions of Henry V, based primarily on the Folio.[1] Though his decision was courageous, my own analysis of the Quarto shows that his basic assumption was incorrect, for my study shows that the Quarto was reconstructed from the reporters' recollections of a version similar to the Folio, which they apparently abridged as part of a single process of reconstruction and adaptation. Rather than reconstructed from an intermediate theatrical abridgment, the First Quarto of Henry V was created from a version linked to the Folio, by actors intent on putting together an abridged version of the play—perhaps for a tour outside London, perhaps as a reading text for a patron or friend of the actors.[2] Whatever the first

purpose of Q Henry V, its connection to the Folio version rather than an intermediate adaptation is a key finding of this study.

My analysis of Q Henry V is based on a parallel text, assembled from photocopies of the two versions in facsimile, and a computer analysis, designed from the handmade parallel text. Section 1 presents the results of my computer-assisted analysis of possible memorial reconstruction in Q Henry V. This analysis provides clear and quantitative evidence of the memorial reconstruction theory, identifying the most likely reporters and demonstrating their knowledge of a version related to the Folio rather than an intermediate abridgment. Sections 2 and 3 consider the possibility of deliberate adaptation in Q Henry V, for though the computer-aided analysis shows that the Quarto must have been reconstructed by actors familiar with a script linked to F, key differences between the two texts suggest that Q might have been deliberately abridged, perhaps at the same time as it was reconstructed. Section 2 discusses the unusual number of reattributions—80 lines in Q Henry V —persuasive evidence of intentional adaptation by the reporters or their colleagues. Section 3 focuses on a series of arguably intentional omissions in Q as well as key structural alterations in the plot. Significantly, many of these alterations corroborate an important result of the computer-assisted analysis in reinforcing the connection of the Quarto to a script linked to the Folio version rather than an intermediate theatrical abridgment.

Section 1: Memorial Reconstruction in Q Henry V

To seek verifiable evidence for or against memorial reconstruction, I designed a computer-assisted analysis to help compare the two versions of Henry V.[3] My analysis is based on the fluctuating quality of Q, observed by

many scholars, for the parts of certain characters seem to correspond more closely to F than others; the analysis is designed to isolate the lines with the highest correlation in the two versions and to identify both the speakers and the characters whose actors witnessed these closely parallel lines.

To implement the analysis, I first underlined each matching word in corresponding segments of my handmade parallel text, then marked each line with a code reflecting the degree of correlation. If every word in the line appears in the parallel segment of the other text (ignoring word order, lineation, and spelling), I marked the line "A" (for all). If more than half of the words correlate, the code is "M" (for most); if half or fewer words match, I marked the line "S" (for some). Lines that paraphrase the content of a parallel segment—but contain no matching words—were marked "P" (for paraphrase), and lines with no correlation were marked "X". Next, using computer typescripts of Q and F, I transferred the correlation codes from my parallel text to the computer texts. I also marked each line with codes to identify the speakers and the characters on stage.[4]

For each of the two texts, I used a database program to isolate and count the lines that each character speaks and the lines his or her actor witnesses while on stage. In addition, I determined the degree of correlation between the two texts for these spoken and witnessed lines, using the five correlation categories, A through X. Tables A, B, C, and D in the appendix record this basic information. Then I organized the data with the help of a spreadsheet program.[5]

Tables A and B in the appendix, which record the number of lines of each character in various correlation categories, show that actors playing 26 of the 51 roles are very unlikely candidates for a reporter. Even if a reporter

had doubled in some of these roles, there is often too little information to draw any conclusions about his part in a possible reconstruction. Beaumont, Berri, and the Second French Ambassador have no lines in either version, making them the first to be eliminated. Clarence, Gebon, and the Lord have no lines in F; most of the lines spoken by them in Q are spoken by other characters in F, making them equally unlikely reporters. The Chorus, Ely, Westmorland, Isabel, MacMorris, Grandpre, Jamy, Bedford, Britanny, Rambures, Erpingham, and the English Herald have no lines in the Quarto version, though some lines have been reassigned. Court has one line in Q, only 2 in F, while the French Messenger and Salisbury each speak only 3 lines in Q (7 and 9 lines respectively in F); parallels between the lines in F and Q for each are not striking. The roles of the Dauphin, Bourbon, and Burgundy are radically different in Q, eliminating them as likely reporters. The Dauphin's role is reduced from 117 lines in F to 22 in Q; Bourbon is assigned some of these lines, as his role expands from 9 in F to 29 in Q. Burgundy's role is trimmed from 68 lines in F to only 4 in the Quarto. Warwick's and Gloucester's much smaller parts are also altered in Q: Warwick has 1 line in F, a line that does not appear in Q, but is reassigned 7 lines spoken by others in the Folio; Gloucester's part includes 5 lines in F, 11 in Q, again reassigned from the roles of other English lords in F. Thus these 26 unlikely candidates have been eliminated as possible reporters.

Table 1 shows the percentage of lines in the Folio with a high correlation to parallel lines in Q, for lines spoken and witnessed by the remaining 25 characters. We would expect that a reporter—if one existed for Q Henry V —would have remembered his own lines more accurately than those he witnessed, for it seems likely that an actor would recall his own part more fully than the words of others on stage with him. Using this criterion, I have eliminated as possible reporters the 14 characters listed toward the bottom of Table 1, for in each case the lines witnessed in the two texts are more closely parallel than those spoken by their actors. The only possible exception among this group may be Mistress Quickly, for the difference in correlation between spoken and witnessed lines is very slight. I believe her actor is an unlikely reporter, however, because of the relatively low proportion of lines in the "A" category and because her spoken lines are not more accurately rendered than those her actor witnessed.

In addition to remembering his own lines more fully than those he witnessed, we would expect a likely reporter to recall his own role with an accuracy greater than the average, shown near the center of Table 1. Orleans is at the median whereas Alice and Kate fall below both median and mean (average), making their actors unlikely reporters.

This leaves eight possible reporters out of the 51 characters: Exeter, Gower, Pistol, Nym, Scrope, the Governor of Harfleur, York, and Williams. I believe Williams is an unlikely reporter, for the proportion of his lines in the "A" category is considerably below the mean. York has only two spoken lines and witnesses only three others in F; because of the small amount of data, it is difficult to determine if his actor was a reporter, although one of

Table 1: Folio Spoken & Witnessed Lines with a High Correlation to Q (expressed as a percentage of the character's total F lines)

                                                             

	Folio	Folio	Folio	Folio
	spoken	witnessed	spoken	witnessed
	A + M	A + M	A	A
Exeter	84%	49%	57%	22%
Gower	61%	55%	40%	21%
Pistol	65%	55%	35%	22%
Nym	67%	53%	22%	20%
Scrope	100%	55%	62%	28%
Governor	100%	0%	57%	0%
York	100%	67%	50%	33%
Williams	43%	39%	11%	13%
MEAN (AVERAGE)	39%	39%	17%	17%
MEDIAN	33%	33%	10%	10%
Orleans	33%	25%	22%	9%
Alice	30%	13%	19%	4%
Kate	25%	22%	15%	7%
---------------------------------------
Quickly	59%	60%	22%	24%
French Amb.	65%	88%	24%	43%
Grey	50%	59%	8%	32%
Fluellen	48%	60%	10%	31%
Canterbury	45%	59%	24%	26%
Henry	42%	48%	19%	22%
Cambridge	40%	60%	27%	31%
Montjoy	33%	75%	13%	40%
Boy	29%	43%	12%	17%
Constable	28%	35%	10%	18%
Bardolph	27%	62%	10%	22%
French Soldier	20%	60%	0%	30%
Bates	18%	21%	6%	3%
Charles	14%	31%	2%	16%

the reporters certainly could have doubled as York. The case for the Governor of Harfleur is similar, for though his 7 lines in F are closely parallel to his role in Q, his actor witnesses no lines in the Quarto; one of the reporters could easily have doubled as the Governor, but without lines witnessed by this character in Q, there is too little evidence to evaluate.

Five characters, then, remain as major candidates for reporter—Exeter (obviously the most likely possibility), Gower, Pistol, Nym, and Scrope—perhaps also doubling the smaller roles of the Governor and York. Table 1 shows why Exeter is often mentioned as a likely reporter, for well over half of his spoken lines are virtually identical in the two versions, while 84% are closely parallel.[6] Lines spoken by the other likely reporters show less correspondence,

though still considerably more than either the median or the mean. Equally important, the proportion of closely parallel lines witnessed by all five is also well above average, a key indication that Q did not begin simply as a transcript of these players' parts.

No single actor could have played all five of these roles in Henry V: although some doubling is certainly possible, each of the five appears with at least one of the others. Exeter could double Pistol or Nym, but this seems unlikely (apart from casting difficulties), because Exeter's scenes are generally more accurately rendered in Q than Pistol's and Nym's. Gower could double both Nym and Scrope; Pistol could also double Scrope, and any but Exeter could double the Governor and York. Three actors, then, could have reconstructed the Quarto: the actor playing Exeter, along with the actors playing Pistol and Gower, doubling Nym, Scrope and possibly the Governor and York. Thus Table 1, based on a quantitative analysis of possible candidates, verifies the widely-held impression that Exeter, along with one or two others, was responsible for reconstructing Henry V from his memory of performances, a significant confirmation of the memorial-reconstruction theory. This result is particularly important in light of the recent healthy skepticism of Steven Urkowitz and Paul Werstine, among others, concerning the validity of the theory of memorial reconstruction.[7]

Just as significantly, Table 1 indicates that the version the reporters apparently knew was a script linked to the Folio rather than to an intermediate abridgment. The proportion of closely parallel lines spoken by Exeter, Scrope, and the Governor suggests that the reporters attempted to reconstruct a version similar to the Folio, apparently abridging sections of it at the same time or shortly thereafter. Exeter's part in Q retains some 84% of his Folio lines with considerable accuracy, as noted above, while all 13 of Scrope's Folio lines and all seven of the Governor's reappear with equal accuracy. The Quarto, with 1629 spoken lines, includes only 50% as many lines as does the Folio (3253 spoken lines). If the reporters had known only an abridgment, their lines presumably would have been cut in such an abridgment in roughly the same proportion as the rest of the play. But Exeter's crucial part in particular is remarkably full as well as unusually accurate, a key indication that he was working from his memory of a longer, Folio-linked script. Though the Quarto version has obviously been abridged, probably deliberately, Table 1 presents

significant new evidence that the reporters began with performances directly related to the Folio version rather than to a lost intermediate abridgment.[8]

Section 2: Reattributions

Perhaps the strongest indication of deliberate adaptation in the Quarto is the remarkable number of reattributed lines, a very unusual feature of Q Henry V.[9] In the Quarto, some 80 lines have speech headings different from the parallel lines in the Folio—not including 21 lines in 4.8 mistakenly assigned to Exeter in Q. Many of these 80 lines reattributed in Q may have been intentional alterations, made by the reporter/adapters when they reconstructed the text.

However the assignment of the 21 lines in 4.8 to Exeter rather than Henry is an obvious error in Q rather than a deliberate reattribution. In Q, the reading of the list of the dead at Agincourt is assigned to Exeter, as a continuation of his four lines that seem to begin a reading of the list. But the sequence beginning "This note doth tell me" (F3r, TLN 2799) must be Henry's, as F indicates, for the next speech in both versions belongs to Exeter.[10] The Quarto includes a double speech heading for Pistol in 4.1

(D3v); the second heading for Exeter's "Tis wonderful" could be a similar error. Instead, it seems more likely because of the sense of the passage (with its emphasis on God's hand in the English victory), as well as F's speech heading, that the omission of the speech heading to begin Henry's speech in Q is the error. In two other cases Q omits speech headings, once in 1.2 (A2v) when the Bishop's heading at the top of the page is missing (but present as a catchword on the previous page), once in 4.3 (E2v) when Henry's speech heading is similarly missing from the top of the page, but present in the catchword. In 4.8, however, the omission occurs near the bottom of the page, with no catchword to serve as a correction.

The remaining 80 reassigned lines in Q Henry V are not obvious errors (like the misattribution in 4.8); some are significant indications of purposeful adaptation in the Quarto. The most obvious and important include the reassignment of all of the Dauphin's lines in the French nobles' scenes at Agincourt. Table 2 lists the reattributions in scenes involving the French nobles.

Table 2: Reattributions in French Nobles' Scenes

                                       

Act &	Folio	Quarto	Description
scene	TLN	Sig. #
2.4	956-7	C1v	F, French Messenger; Q, Constable
2.4	1039	C1r	F, Exeter; Q, French King
3.5	1384-5, 1388	C3v-4r	F, Dauphin; Q, Constable
3.5	1389-93	C4r	F, Brittany; Q, Bourbon
3.7	1632-3, 1645-7	D2v	F, Dauphin; Q, Bourbon
3.7	1667	D2v	F, Orleans; Q, Constable
3.7	1669-70	D2v	F, Dauphin; Q, Bourbon
3.7	1687-8, 1692	D2v	F, Dauphin; Q, Bourbon
3.7	1706-7	D2v	F, Dauphin; Q, Bourbon
3.7	1711-12	D2v	F, Rambures; Q, Orleans
3.7	1715	D3r	F, Dauphin; Q, Bourbon
3.7	1716	D3r	F, Orleans; Q, Gebon
3.7	1717	D3r	F, Rambures; Q, Orleans
4.5	2459	E3r	F, Constable; Q, Gebon
4.5	2460	E3r	F, Orleans; Q, Bourbon
4.5	2461	E3r	F, Dauphin; Q, Constable
4.5	2478-80	E3r	F, Orleans; Q, Constable
4.5	2482	E3r	F, Bourbon; Q, Constable

The Quarto omits one of the French nobles' scenes (4.2, except for the final 2 lines retained for the end of 3.7, as discussed in detail below). In 3.7, in which the nobles banter about mistresses and horses, the Dauphin is replaced in Q by Bourbon, a change consistent with his father's order in 3.5 that the Dauphin stay in Rouen. Several critics have suggested other theories for this alteration, but whatever the reason, it seems a deliberate, systematic change, accounting for 18 of Q's 80 re-attributed lines.[11]

Three of the Dauphin's other Folio lines are assigned to the Constable in 3.5, significantly reducing the Dauphin's part in his final appearance in Q. The Constable in Q also delivers the two lines spoken by the French Messenger in F's 2.4 (eliminating a speaking role in Q), two of Orleans's lines in 3.7, and five additional lines in 4.5, one spoken in F by the Dauphin, three by Orleans, and one by Bourbon. Some of these changes may have been intentional, as the Constable's role is significantly altered in Q, but others were probably inadvertent, for one of the Constable's Folio lines in 4.5 (TLN 1167) is given to Gebon in Q. This is especially interesting because "Gebon" —perhaps the name of an actor—speaks no lines in F, two in the Quarto.[12] In another change, Q assigns four of Brittany's (Folio) lines to Bourbon in 3.5, where he appears in F but has no lines. This change introduces Bourbon, preparing the audience for his expanded role in Q, and eliminates one speaking part, Brittany's; the lines are consistent with Bourbon's usual character in the Quarto, boastful, bantering, and colloquial.

One of the reassignments in 2.4 is an intriguing anomaly: in this scene, Q moves forward a line spoken by Exeter in the Folio, TLN 1039, and attributes it to the French king, in a segment parallel to TLN 899-901.[13] In F, Exeter warns the French that Henry "is footed in this Land already" (TLN 1039), in a four-line passage omitted from Q at the end of the scene. In the Quarto, the line appears instead at the beginning of the scene, as part of the French king's first speech: "he is footed on this land alreadie" (C1r). Because such anticipations are extremely rare in Q Henry V, and because this case involves one of Exeter's lines, I believe it was an intentional change, although we can only speculate about the reporter/adapter's reasons. Perhaps the actor who played Exeter salvaged a line from an omitted section to fill out a scene he remembered with difficulty. In any case the reattributed and moved line is another indication that the reporters were familiar with a version related to the Folio rather than an intermediate abridgment, for the transferred line is part of a neat cut of four lines not otherwise present in Q.

Other reassignments—none of them altering the impact of the scenes—include three lines in 3.7 (one changed from Orleans to Gebon, two from Rambures to Orleans) and one line in 4.5 (changed from Orleans to Bourbon). Speech headings in 4.5 in particular seem almost random in both texts, as the French lords move from despair to a show of bravery. The Constable, for example, is as miserable as any, in contrast to his earlier courage, while Bourbon (in F the Dauphin) is uncharacteristically bold, with his call to arms and its graphic reference to rape. Scene 4.5 calls into question the view that either text—especially Q—is consistent in its characterization of the individual French lords, casting a shadow on Taylor's decision to use Q's substitution of Bourbon for the Dauphin in both of his Oxford editions.

In all, the scenes involving the French nobles account for 40 of the 80 lines reattributed in the Quarto. Surprisingly, the group of scenes with the next highest number of reassigned lines—29—includes the scenes with the English nobles, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Reattributions in the English Nobles' Scenes

                               

Act &	Folio	Quarto	Description
scene	TLN	Sig. #
1.2	148	A2r	F, Westmorland; Q, Exeter
1.2	313-19	A3v	F, Ely; Q, Lord
1.2	628	B2v	F, Bedford; Q, Gloucester
2.2	635-8	B2v	F, Exeter; Q, Gloucester
4.3	2243	E1v	F, Westmorland; Q, Warwick
4.3	2253-4	E1v	F, Bedford; Q, Clarence
4.3	2255	E1v	F, Exeter; Q, Clarence
4.3	2259-61	E1v	F, Westmorland; Q, Warwick
4.3	2312-13	E2r	F, Salisbury; Q, Gloucester
4.3	2316	E2r	F, Westmorland; Q, Warwick
4.3	2319-20	E2r	F, Westmorland; Q, Warwick
4.7	2650	F1v	F, Exeter; Q, Fluellen
5.2	3086	G1r	F, Isabel; Q, French King
5.2	3323-4	G3v	F, Westmorland; Q, French King

Because Exeter witnessed all of these reassigned lines—and spoke a few of them himself—some of Table 3's reattributions may have been deliberate. The largest block, the 7 lines spoken by Ely in the Folio (1.2, TLN 313-319) and assigned to a Lord in Q (A3v), eliminates a speaking part, if the Lord's lines are spoken by, say, Gloucester or Warwick.[14] Other reassignments in Q systematically eliminate Westmorland's role (19 lines in F). Nine of his lines are omitted entirely in Q, the other 10 reattributed: Exeter takes one (TLN 148), while Warwick replaces Westmorland in 4.3, where 7 of these lines appear as Warwick's 6 lines. One reason for this change may be that Warwick, not Westmorland, is included in Henry's brief list of heroic soldiers in both versions (TLN 2296-98, E2r). But this list in F also includes Talbot, who does not appear in the play, and omits Erpingham (as does the list in Q), although Erpingham is mentioned in F's entry direction for 4.3. Q alters the list to include York instead of Talbot, but omits Salisbury, though Salisbury is included in Q's stage direction (E2r). In F Henry addresses Westmorland twice by name (TLN 2263 and 2278); Q alters the first direct address to Warwick (E1v), an indication that the change from Westmorland to Warwick was deliberate, but omits the second. Westmorland's last 2 lines, TLN 3323-24, are paraphrased by the French king in Q. Though the evidence is mixed, I think it favors deliberate substitution of Warwick for Westmorland in the Quarto.[15]

Bedford is also eliminated from Q as a speaking role. Six of his 9 Folio lines are cut in Q, while his other 3 lines are divided between Gloucester (TLN 628, which is set in Q as two lines) and Clarence (TLN 2253-54). But not all of the reattributions in these scenes eliminate speaking roles: Clarence has no lines in F but 3 in the Quarto, including two of Bedford's lines just mentioned and one of Exeter's (TLN 2255), which precedes these lines in the Quarto version. Other reattributions include 4 lines transferred from Exeter to Gloucester and two from Salisbury to Gloucester. Gloucester's role may have been deliberately expanded, as he has 5 lines in the Folio, 11 in Q—and 4 of these are spoken by Exeter in F. In 4.7 Fluellen is reassigned another of Exeter's lines. This seems almost certainly intentional, for the line is altered to fit Fluellen's tone in Q: in F, Exeter tells Williams, "Souldier, you must come to the King" (TLN 2650), while in Q Fluellen, more roughly, says, "You fellow come to the king" (F1v).[16] One other reattribution in scenes involving the English nobles paraphrases Isabel's sentiment in 5.2 (TLN 3086) in one of the French king's speeches, as part of Q's systematic elimination of lines by Isabel.

Table 4: Other Reattributions

                       

Act &	Folio	Quarto	Description
scene	TLN	Sig. #
2.1	532	B1v	F, Bardolph; Q, Nym
2.1	543	B1v	F, Bardolph; Q, Quickly
2.3	828	B4v	F, Pistol; Q, Bardolph
2.3	850	B4v	F, Bardolph; Q, Boy
2.3	856-7	B4v	F, Boy; Q, Nym
3.2	1139-40	C2v	F, Pistol; Q, Nym
3.4	1131	C3v	F, Alice; Q, Katherine
4.1	2034-5	D4v	F, Williams; Q, Bates
4.1	2056	E1r	F, Williams; Q, Henry
4.1	2057-8, 2066	E1r	F, Henry; Q, Williams

Of the remaining 13 lines reassigned in Q, shown in Table 4, only 3 are especially significant. In the Folio (4.1, TLN 2056-58, 2066), Williams asks Henry how their quarrel should be renewed at a more appropriate time; Henry suggests the exchange of gloves. But in Q, the King asks, "How shall I know thee?" to which Williams throws down his glove and suggests the challenge, a marked difference. In the Quarto version, Henry seems more detached from the quarrel than he does in F, partly because of the omission of his line "I embrace it [the quarrel]" as well as other omissions. Henry's aloofness in Q is perhaps consistent with his true identity; the challenge seems rather childish, more in keeping with Prince Hal's behavior than King Henry's. Even so, the device of the glove is appropriate for a nobleman; coming from Williams it almost parodies the chivalric convention. Thus it is

difficult to judge if the change was deliberate, especially since none of the likely reporters takes part in this scene.

Earlier in 4.1, Bates delivers a sentiment assigned to Williams in F (TLN 2034-35), a rather insignificant change. Equally indifferent reattributions include one of Alice's lines (TLN 1331) to Kate and the reassignment of 8 lines in the two Eastcheap scenes. Though some of these might have been intentional, the differences do not affect either the casting or the impact of the scenes.

Of the 80 lines attributed to different characters in the two versions, most seem to be deliberate changes, especially those involving Exeter's lines, the Dauphin-Bourbon substitution, and those that reduce the number of speaking roles (such as Westmorland's). Though some of the reattributions are indifferent, as a few lines seem assigned almost at random in the scenes with the French and even the English nobles, and others are difficult to judge, like the lines concerning the exchange of gloves, the majority of the reattributions support the view that the reporters deliberately altered certain roles as they reconstructed Henry V.

Section 3: Omissions and Alterations

Other indications of intentional adaptation include alterations in plot structure and a series of arguably intentional omissions that shape the Quarto as well as simply abridging it.

Table 5: Scene by Scene Comparison of Q and F

                                       

Q	Q	F Act, Sc.,	Capsule description
scene	signature	TLN
		(1.0, 1-35)	(Chorus)
		(1.1, 36-142)	(Canturbury & Ely conference)
1	A2r-B1r	1.2, 143-461	Court; decision re: French war
		(2.0, 462-504)	(Chorus)
2	B1r-B2v	2.1, 505-626	Pistol, etc.; Falstaff's illness
3	B2v-B4r	2.2, 627-822	Henry with three traitors
4	B4v-C1r	2.3, 824-884	Pistol, etc; Falstaff's death
5	C1r-C2v	2.4, 885-1042	French nobles; Exeter as messenger
		(3.0, 1043-1080)	(Chorus)
		(3.1, 1081-1118)	("Once more unto the Breach")
6	C2v-C3r	3.2, 1119-1258	Pistol, etc.; Fluellen, Gower (F only: Jamy & MacMorris)
7	C3r	3.3, 1259-1319	Henry at gates of Harfleur
8	C3r-C3v	3.4, 1320-1377	French lesson
9	C3v-C4r	3.5, 1378-1448	French nobles; Dauphin to stay at Rouen
10	C4r-D2v	3.6, 1449-1623	Gower, Fluellen, Pistol; Henry, Montjoy
11	D2v-D3r	3.7, 1624-1787	French nobles; Bourbon, not Dauphin in Q
		(4.0, 1788-1843)	(Chorus)
12	D3v-E1v	4.1, 1844-2164	Henry & soldiers on eve of Agincourt

                   

		(4.2, 2165-2236)	(French nobles; 2 lines only in Q 3.7/sc. 11
13	E1v-E3r	4.3, 2237-2383	English prepare for Agincourt
14	E3r	4.5, 2457-2482	French nobles near defeat
15	E3v	4.4, 2385-2456	Pistol and French soldier, Boy
16	E3v-E4r	4.6, 2483-2523	Exeter re. end of battle; Henry orders prisoners killed
17	E4v-F2v	4.7, 2524-2712	Gower, Fluellen; Henry, others; Montjoy's surrender for French
18	F2v-F3v	4.8, 2713-2848	Conclusion of glove challenge; list of dead
		(5.0, 2849-2896)	(Chorus)
19	F3v-F4v	5.1, 2897-2983	Gower, Fluellen, Pistol: leek
20	F4v-G4r	5.2, 2984-3382	English & French courts; wooing scene (F only: epilogue)

Table 5 summarizes major differences in plot structure between Q and F. As indicated in Table 5, three scenes are missing from Q (along with the Choruses): 1.1 (over 100 of Canturbury's and Ely's lines), 3.1 (Henry's 35-line "Once more unto the Breach"), and 4.2 (around 70 lines spoken by the French nobles.)[17]

Only two lines remain from the end of 4.2, which were moved to the end of Q's parallel to 3.7. Following the messenger's warning in 3.7 that the English are very close to the French camp (1500 paces in F, only 100 paces in Q), the Quarto scene ends quickly with Constable's "Come, come away. / The Sun is hie, and we weare out the day" (D3r). The Folio's 3.7 ends with Orleans's "It is now two a Clock: but let me see, by ten / Wee shall haue each a hundred English men" (TLN 1786-87). At first glance the lines in Q may appear to be a minor substitution like those common in all of the "bad" quartos, for, as noted, a few lines earlier Q had substituted 100 paces for 1500. But in fact these two lines appear at the end of 4.2 in the Folio (TLN 2235-36), spoken by the Constable—the only lines of this scene retained by the Quarto version. Presence of this tiny bit from an omitted scene is a significant piece of evidence that the reporters knew a script linked to the Folio rather than an intermediate lost abridgment.[18]

Unfortunately, moving these lines forward from the later French nobles' scene seems to make the sun rise at midnight in Q's 3.7, which immediately precedes Henry's nocturnal visits to his soldiers in (Q's) 4.1.[19] At the end of 4.1 the reporter/adapters introduced another apparent error—one that, like the transposition, again links Q to the version preserved in the Folio. In a

skillful transition that masks the removal of 4.2 from the Quarto and prepares for 4.3, in which the English make their final preparations for Agincourt, Gloucester enters (E1v, as in 4.1, TLN 2159) just after Henry's prayer on the eve of battle, to remind the King that his soldiers are awaiting him. However some 15 lines earlier, between the soldiers' exit and Henry's solitary prayer, Q inserts "Enter the King, Gloster, Epingam, and Attendants" (E1r). Erpingham enters in F for a brief exchange with Henry before the prayer (4.1, TLN 2135), but the Quarto version eliminates this conversation—and all the rest of Erpingham's role. The King of course is already on stage in Q, Gloucester has a second entrance in the Quarto after the prayer, as noted, and the attendants enter, also with an appropriate stage direction in Q, a few lines after Gloucester. Except for the mention of Erpingham, this stage direction could be merely a reporter's error, anticipating the entrance of Henry's nobles in 4.3. But because Erpingham has no role in Q, this erroneous stage direction provides an important clue that the reporters knew a longer, Folio-linked version rather than an intermediate abridgment preceding the Quarto.[20]

The Quarto's Act 4 also switches the order of F's 4.4 and 4.5, for in Q the scene with the four defeated French lords occurs before Pistol's scene with his French prisoner. The Q reversal of 4.4 and 4.5 may not have been intentional; either order could be effectively staged. At the end of Q's 4.4, however, Pistol leaves the stage, only to return immediately in 4.6, along with Henry and his train. This quick reentry is another clue that the reporters were adapting a version linked to the Folio, for such reentries are exceptional in Shakespeare's scripts.[21] In the Folio version staging, Pistol may also have entered with Henry and his train, as his presence in Q's 4.6 suggests. But only Q mentions him by name—and even gives him the last word, "Couple gorge," a transposition from 2.1 (B2r, TLN 573) and certainly a clever addition here.[22]

Table 6 charts other possible evidence of purposeful abridgment as well as additional evidence of memorial reconstruction. This table shows the relative number of lines in Q and F of each of the key characters. For example, Henry speaks 53% as many lines in Q as he does in F, just above average (50%). But Exeter speaks 85% as many lines in the Quarto as in the Folio, a key indication that the actor playing Exeter knew his complete Folio-linked role rather than an abridgment of it. Parts of the other likely reporters, Pistol (77%) and Gower (67%), are also represented more fully than the average, although some of these lines, as Table 1 indicated, do not correspond as

Table 6: Comparison of the Number of Q to F Lines by Role (expressed as a percentage of Q to F)

• Scrope 100%
• Governor 100%
• York 100%
• Nym 87%
• Exeter 85%
• Quickly 85%
• French Amb. 82%
• Pistol 77%
• Fluellen 72%
• Bates 71%
• Gower 67%
• Bardolph 67%
• Williams 64%
• Alice 59%
• Kate 53%
• Henry 53%
• AVERAGE 50%
• Montjoy 48%
• Canterbury 48%
• Cambridge 47%
• French Soldier 47%
• Constable 45%
• Grey 42%
• Boy 43%
• Charles 34%
• Orleans 31%

closely in Q and F as do Exeter's; the case is similar for Nym. Scrope's, the Governor's, and York's Folio-version roles—as Table 1 confirms—are reproduced almost exactly in Q. Table 6 shows Fluellen's role as unusually complete, because of his presence on stage with one or more of the reporters; Hostess Quickly, Bardolph, and the French Ambassador also habitually appear with at least one of the likely reporters. Bates's part at first seems unusually full, but a look at Tables A and B in the appendix reveals that though he speaks twelve lines in Q and seventeen in F, his lines in the two versions are quite different. Thus Table 6 lends further support to the conclusion that three actors—playing Exeter, Pistol, and Gower (doubling Nym, Scrope and possibly the Governor and York)—reconstructed lines from a Folio-linked script to fashion Q.

Table 6, along with Tables A and B in the appendix, also contributes evidence to the view that the reporters deliberately abridged a version related to the Folio as they reconstructed it, for Table 6, Table A, and Table B all indicate potentially intentional omissions from F.

The Chorus—223 lines, 7% of the Folio—is the most obvious omission. Because of other evidence that the reporter/abridgers were working from performances linked to the Folio, I believe this was an intentional cut: three actors experienced enough to recall so much of their own parts—and the parts of others—would not simply forget so important a role as the Chorus. Even if the Chorus's part was simply read at performances rather than memorized by one of the players, the reporters would still have heard these lines delivered, as they did other lines in the play. It is possible, as some have suggested, that the Choruses were added to the text underlying F after the publication of the Quarto in 1600.[23] In one case, however, the omission of a

Chorus in Q creates a minor staging difficulty, an indication that the Choruses were cut in the Quarto rather than added to the version underlying the Folio between 1600 and 1623. In both texts, 4.8 ends with Fluellen (and presumably Gower) leaving the stage with Henry and the others. Omitting the Chorus introducing Act 5, Q opens the next scene (5.1) with Fluellen and Gower immediately returning to the stage, chatting about Fluellen's leek and his planned revenge on Pistol. This quick reentry, like the one noted above for Pistol (in Q's 4.6), is so uncommon in Shakespeare's plays that it is a significant clue that the Choruses must have been omitted in Q rather than added to the Folio, perhaps in order to speed the action, eliminate a long speaking role, or remove the references to the Globe, especially if Q was designed for production outside London.

The entire sequence involving Jamy and MacMorris (almost 75 lines from 3.2) is also missing in Q, thus eliminating the need for two more actors (in addition to Fuellen) who needed to be proficient in dialects, another likely theatrical cut reasonable for a less ambitious production. Ely (33 lines), Westmorland (19 lines), Isabel (24 lines), Grandpre (18 lines), Bedford (9), Britanny (9), Rambures (9), Erpingham (8), and the English Herald (2) are also eliminated as speaking roles in Q (as shown in Table A in the appendix), though some of their lines are reassigned to others. But most of the 138 Folio lines spoken by these characters have been cut in the Quarto, allowing Q to eliminate nine more speaking roles. These nine characters have no lines in Q—but three others who do not speak in F, Clarence, Gebon, and the Lord, have a few lines in Q as a result of various cuts and rearrangements, as noted above. The net result, however, is seven fewer speaking parts in Q than F, including the elimination of the Chorus.[24]

Perhaps even more significant are omissions in scenes involving the French nobles. In what is almost certainly a deliberate change, as discussed above, the Dauphin is replaced by Bourbon in 3.7 and 4.5; the Dauphin's role is reduced from 117 lines in the Folio to 22 in the Quarto, while Bourbon's role increases from 9 in F to 29 in Q. Table 6 indicates the significant cuts in the roles of the other French nobles, including Constable (124 lines in F, 56 in Q), Charles (95 in F, 32 in Q), and Orleans (49 in F, 15 in Q); all three roles are pruned more than the average, especially those of Charles and Orleans.

Above average reductions in at least three other roles may also have been deliberate, for Exeter was present for all of these lines: Montjoy (52 in F, 25 in Q), Cambridge (15 in F, 7 in Q), and Grey (12 in F, 5 in Q). Although Montjoy's lines in 3.6 are rather fully represented in Q, some eight lines are neatly cut from his part in 4.3, another nine consecutive lines from 4.7. Similarly, the lines spoken by Cambridge and Grey in 2.2 are well represented—except for a neat cut of eleven consecutive lines (TLN 784-794), six spoken by Cambridge in F, five by Grey.

Table 6 also shows above average omissions in the roles of the Boy and the French soldier (Pistol's prisoner), some of them possibly intentional. The actor playing Pistol witnessed their Folio-version lines, but only thirty of the Boy's sixty-nine F lines and seven of the French soldier's fifteen remain in Q. Nearly all of the Boy's lines in 2.1 and 2.4 reappear in Q (though Nym paraphrases one of them), but thirteen lines are neatly cut in the beginning of his long speech in 3.2 (when Pistol is still on stage in Q), and all eleven lines in his final speech (4.4), delivered as Pistol exits. Other lines in 4.4—the scene with the French prisoner—are also cut, perhaps deliberately, including sequences of six, seven, and seven lines, shared in F by the Boy, Pistol, and the French soldier.

Nine of these lines omitted from 4.4 are in French—and a glance at the other scenes with patches of French shows that the reporter/adapters of Q were not completely fluent in French. Even so, as Table 6 indicates, the scenes with Katherine and Alice are not reduced more than the average in Q: though the grammar is sometimes odd and the spelling usually phonetic, these scenes are not cut more than the rest of the play.

But the Quarto is cut drastically, reducing the Q text to only half the length of the Folio. The FX (F Only) column of Table A in the appendix shows that 1593 of the 3253 lines spoken in F are missing in the Quarto, which includes only 55 lines unique to the shorter version (QX, Table B). Of the lines missing in Q, by far the largest number have been cut from Henry's part: 474 lines or almost 15% of the Folio.

Since Henry is almost always on stage with either Exeter, Pistol, or Gower, many of these cuts may have been deliberate. Indeed the reporters often reproduced Henry's lines with considerable accuracy (see the QA and QM entries for Henry in Table B in the appendix). As with other omissions mentioned above, many of the cuts in Henry's part are in long sequences: missing in the Quarto are 2.2, TLN 734-770 (37 lines) from Henry's speech

to the three traitors; 3.1, TLN 1083-1118 (35 lines), the famous "Once more unto the Breach" sequence; 3.3, TLN 1270-1300 and 1311-18 (38 lines), his bloodiest threats to the city of Harfleur; 4.1, TLN 1845-80 (35 lines), his conversation with Gloucester, Bedford, and Erpingham; and 4.1, TLN 2079-2140 (60 lines), his soliloquy concerning the burdens of kingship and his brief chat with Erpingham. Though Exeter is not on stage for the soliloquy or the conversations with the nobles, I think even these omissions may have been deliberate, for the next lines, Henry's solitary prayer to the "God of Battles" and the brief sequence with Gloucester (4.1, TLN 2141-63), are well represented in Q (E1v-E1r).

The wooing scene is also considerably shorter in Q, although cuts in this scene may not have been intentional: no likely reporter was present, and the scene is rearranged in a way unusual for Q Henry V, as if the reporters had had difficulty recalling this scene. Yet in spite of its differences from F, the scene is perfectly coherent in Q and even contains a charming alteration of the F version: in Q, Henry explains in English (as in F, TLN 3164-65),

He then goes on to repeat each phrase in French, mirroring the Folio version. But in the Quarto only, Kate translates to English after each phrase, creating a sweet and intimate exchange between the two. Following the stolen kiss (in both versions), the nobles reenter for the final sequence, very abbreviated and more domestic in Q, as the Quarto omits all of the rather crude byplay between Burgundy and Henry (as well as Isabel's formal prayer for a successful marriage); only 4 of Burgundy's 68 Folio lines remain in the Quarto's 5.2. Six lines—an unusually long addition to Q—are unique to the Quarto at the end of the scene (G4r), as Q substitutes a domestic wish for joy in the marriage of Henry and Katherine for the more political good wishes in F: characters in Q hope for love between the two spouses while those in F wish for peace between the two kingdoms. This seems to be a deliberate change, as the six-line addition to Q appears soon after a speech by Exeter that is closely parallel in the two versions.

Other possibly deliberate alterations or omissions involve lines spoken in F by the likely reporters but missing from Q. Of Exeter's 12 lines omitted in the Quarto, 8 occur in patches of two or three lines. One of these, TLN 269-271, is embedded in a twenty-one-line cut that does indeed seem deliberate, as Q omits a long sequence in 1.2 (TLN 262-282), in which Canterbury, Exeter, and Westmorland (eliminated entirely from Q) urge Henry to wage war on France.

Of the thirty-five Folio lines spoken by Pistol but omitted from Q, some twenty-three may be deliberate cuts, as they occur in passages of four or more lines omitted in the Quarto. Though in general Pistol's lines (and those his actor witnessed) are not so well reported as those of Exeter or even Gower, some of these omissions may have been deliberate.

Among Gower's twenty-three Folio lines omitted in the Quarto, twenty occur in long passages that must have been deliberate cuts. Ten of these lines appear in the seventy-five-line passage involving Jamy and MacMorris, 3.2, TLN 1183-1258. Ten other lines were apparently cut from 5.1, TLN 2965-74, in which Gower scolds Pistol for cowardice and deceit; with two likely reporters on stage, this seems an especially good example of a deliberate cut, for it seems improbable that both would simply forget all ten of these lines.

Table 7: Key Passages Missing in Q

                             

# of lines	F Act, Sc. TLN	Capsule Description	Evidence passage pre-dates 1600?
223	(See Table 5)	Choruses	yes
102	1.1, 36-142	Canturbury & Ely conspire
21	1.2, 262-282	Exeter, others urge French war
37	2.2, 734-770	Henry with traitors
35	3.1, 1083-1118	"Once more unto the Breach"	yes
75	3.2, 1183-1258	Jamy & MacMorris	yes
38	3.3, 1270-99, 1311-18	Henry before Harfleur
40	4.1, 1845-80, 2135-40	Henry with Erpingham	yes
55	4.1, 2079-2134	Henry & burdens of kingship
71	4.2, 2165-2236	French nobles	yes
11	4.4, 2446-2456	Boy's final soliloquy
10	5.4, 2965-2974	Gower scolds Pistol
82	5.2, 3022-54, 3271-319	Burgundy (and others)
23	5.2, 2999-3007, 3080-3, 3380, 3350-59	Queen Isabel	yes

Key omissions in Q are summarized in Table 7. Some of these omissions are so neat—and so lengthy—that at first glance they may seem to support the hypothesis that an early script of the play might have been substantially expanded and revised after Q was printed, a variation of the once widely-held view that Q represents (or is a reconstruction of) an early Shakespearean draft.[25] But a closer look at the omissions listed in Table 7 shows that this theory is untenable. According to this hypothesis, certain passages missing in Q might have been added to an early script at some time between 1600 and 1623 (or at least 1616), making the Quarto a witness to a short early draft of the play. Given recent interest in the likelihood that Shakespeare, like other writers, sometimes revised his work, this hypothesis might at first seem possible,

for in several plays with two "good" versions, it is often difficult to determine if a passage was added to one or cut from the other.[26] Similarly, some of the omissions in Q Henry V might conceivably have been later additions to a short early version otherwise similar to F, creating an expanded Folio text after Q was published. For a generation familiar with renderings of Henry V as dissimilar as the adaptations by Laurence Olivier and Kenneth Branagh, proliferating versions of the play might seem quite natural. But, like the equally appealing theory that Q is based on an authorized abridgment, the hypothesis that Q's omissions might be additions in F is seriously flawed.

The Chorus, as noted above, might seem to be a possible late addition to the version underlying F. But apart from other objections raised over the years by various critics, the immediate reentry of Fluellen and Gower in 5.1, discussed earlier, signals the removal of a Chorus from Q, undercutting the view that the Choruses were added after 1600. The next three omissions listed in Table 7, from 1.1, 1.2, and 2.2, could be, potentially, either omissions in Q or additions to F, for there is no internal evidence in Q either way. But the next long omission, Henry's famous "Once more unto the Breach" must have been cut in the Quarto version, for both Q and F include Fluellen's amusing echo of the speech, as he urges Pistol and the others, in Q's rendition, "Godes plud vp to the breaches" (C2v).

It seems likely that the Jamy/MacMorris segment was also cut for the Quarto version rather than added after 1600. Though the presence of the Scotsman Jamy might appear to be a kind of compliment to King James, added, perhaps, after his accession in 1603, the King was certainly not amused by the use of a Scots accent in Eastward Ho (1605); it would have been safer to cut the passage for Q, even perhaps as early as 1600, than to add it later to the text underlying F.[27]

Omissions in 3.3, Henry's long sequences before the gates of Harfleur, as well as his soliloquy on the cares of kingship in 4.1, might have been either neat cuts or later additions, as far as we can tell from Q, but the sequences involving Erpingham must have been omitted in Q. Though Q cuts all of Erpingham's 8 Folio lines and the long sequence in 4.1 in which he appears, the erroneous stage direction in Q's 4.1 is an important clue that Erpingham was a character in the version known by the reporters, as pointed out earlier. Similarly, the presence in the Quarto of the last two lines in F's 4.2, moved

forward to Q's 3.7, is unmistakable evidence that 4.2 was not a later addition to the Folio text.[28]

The next three examples listed in Table 7 left no traces in Q, but the last, including most of Isabel's lines, must have been the result of cuts in Q, for the Quarto entry direction for 5.2 specifies "Queene Katherine" (F4v), apparently a vestige of the Folio-linked staging in which both Queen Isabel and Princess Katherine entered at this point.

Thus of the passages listed in Table 7 as potential additions to F, there are significant indications that several were present in the version the reporters had performed, and no signs that any of the others were later additions, thus casting very serious doubts on the hypothesis that some of the omissions reflected in Q might have been late additions to the text underlying F. Equally significant, evidence in the Folio suggests that F was based on Shakespeare's foul papers: additions as extensive as those listed in Table 7 presumably would have created a very different sort of base text.[29] These passages, then, must have been omitted by the reporter/adapters as part of the reconstruction and abridgment that resulted in the First Quarto.

Implications

A fresh look at the two versions of Henry V, in part aided by a computer analysis, contributes substantial new evidence to the view that Q Henry V originated as both a deliberate abridgment and a memorial reconstruction by actors who had taken part in the play. But my study reverses the commonly held view of the order of these two processes, for the players must have based their reconstruction on performances linked to the Folio version, not an intermediate and possibly authorized abridgment. The obvious signs of deliberate abridgment, then, were incorporated in the reporter/adapters' reconstruction, not derived from a (possibly authorized) theatrical abridgment that might have preceded the Quarto.

The implications are especially significant for editors, theater historians, and directors. As Gary Taylor pointed out in "Corruption and Authority in the Bad Quarto" (1979), the fluctuating correlation between Q and F helps identify the most likely reporters; it also allows an editor to evaluate which variants are likely to have authority in Q, for variants in closely parallel segments of Q may represent Shakespeare's intentions. If Q was reconstructed directly from a script linked to the Folio, these sections take on greater authority than if Q were based on an intermediate abridgment, making them even more useful to editors. Staging details in the Quarto, of particular interest to theater historians and directors, may preserve elements of the Globe staging rather than that of an abridgment, increasing the value of the Quarto.

The cuts and other alterations in Q—probably the first deliberate abridgment of Henry V, designed, perhaps, as a promptbook for use in performances outside London—could also be of considerable interest to directors who themselves may need to prune the text for a particular theatrical purpose.

But at the same time, the authority of the alterations in Q decreases if the Quarto was reconstructed and abridged by actor/adapters. Gary Taylor, believing that Q may preserve a theatrical abridgment used by Shakespeare's company, argued that it contained a number of features that might have been approved by Shakespeare himself, including the substitution of Bourbon for the Dauphin in the Agincourt scenes, the replacement of Westmorland by Warwick, even the addition of Pistol's "Coup'la gorge" at the end of 4.6.[30] He incorporated each of these features of the Quarto (and others) in his two recent Oxford editions of Henry V. If, instead of Shakespeare, reporter/ adapters were alone responsible for these and other alterations in Q, their authority clearly diminishes. Although these changes are intriguing and significant since they characterize a version of Henry V printed in England in Shakespeare's time, they may be inappropriate in the text of an edition of Henry V that seeks to communicate Shakespeare's intentions.

Appendix

Table A: Henry V Folio Spoken Lines in Various Correlation Categories

                                                                                                         

	FX (F Only)	FA (All)	FM (Most)	FS (Some)	FP (Paraphrase)	F Total
All characters	1593	560	693	380	27	3253
Henry	474	198	239	118	11	1040
Fluellen	67	27	105	71	5	275
Canterbury	114	53	48	8	0	223
Chorus	223	0	0	0	0	223
Pistol	35	53	45	15	2	150
Constable	78	13	22	11	0	124
Exeter	12	73	34	8	0	127
Dauphin	74	11	24	8	0	117
Charles	67	2	11	13	2	95
Williams	22	8	23	18	1	72
Boy	38	8	12	10	1	69
Burgundy	64	0	0	4	0	68
Gower	23	27	14	3	0	67
Katherine	29	9	6	16	0	60
Montjoy	24	7	10	11	0	52
Orleans	32	11	5	1	0	49
Nym	9	10	21	6	0	46
Quickly	4	9	15	13	0	41
Ely	26	3	3	1	0	33
Bardolph	8	3	5	14	0	30
Alice	13	5	3	6	0	27
Isabel	23	0	0	0	1	24
MacMorris	19	0	0	0	0	19
Westmorland	9	1	6	3	0	19
Grandpre	18	0	0	0	0	18
Bates	10	1	2	4	0	17
Fr. Ambassador	0	4	7	3	3	17
Cambridge	8	4	2	1	0	15
French Soldier	8	0	3	3	1	15
Scrope	0	8	5	0	0	13
Grey	6	1	5	0	0	12
Jamy	11	0	0	0	0	11
Bedford	6	1	2	0	0	9
Bourbon	1	1	4	3	0	9
Britanny	4	0	3	2	0	9
Rambures	6	2	1	0	0	9
Salisbury	4	0	5	0	0	9
Erpingham	8	0	0	0	0	8
Fr. Messenger	3	1	3	0	0	7
Governor	0	4	3	0	0	7
Gloucester	3	1	0	1	0	5
Court	0	0	1	1	0	2
Eng. Herald	2	0	0	0	0	2
York	0	1	1	0	0	2
Warwick	1	0	0	0	0	1
Beaumont	0	0	0	0	0	0
Berri	0	0	0	0	0	0
Clarence	0	0	0	0	0	0
Second Fr. Amb.	0	0	0	0	0	0
Gebon	0	0	0	0	0	0
Lord	0	0	0	0	0	0

Table B: Henry V Quarto Spoken Lines in Various Correlation Categories

                                                                                                         

	QX (Q Only)	QA (All)	QM (Most)	QS (Some)	QP (Paraphrase)	Q Total
All characters	55	624	735	183	32	1629
Henry	14	215	266	44	11	550
Fluellen	6	39	109	36	7	197
Canterbury	0	55	48	3	0	106
Chorus	0	0	0	0	0	0
Pistol	4	64	42	6	0	116
Constable	2	19	26	9	0	56
Exeter	1	70	35	2	0	108
Dauphin	0	9	10	3	0	22
Charles	5	4	12	6	5	32
Williams	1	11	23	10	1	46
Boy	2	11	15	2	0	30
Burgundy	1	0	1	2	0	4
Gower	0	29	15	1	0	45
Katherine	6	6	9	11	0	32
Montjoy	1	10	12	2	0	25
Orleans	1	5	5	4	0	15
Nym	2	12	20	6	0	40
Quickly	0	12	15	7	1	35
Ely	0	0	0	0	0	0
Bardolph	0	3	9	6	2	20
Alice	2	2	5	6	1	16
Isabel	0	0	0	0	0	0
MacMorris	0	0	0	0	0	0
Westmorland	0	0	0	0	0	0
Grandpre	0	0	0	0	0	0
Bates	4	1	5	2	0	12
Fr. Ambassador	0	3	8	1	2	14
Cambridge	0	6	1	0	0	7
French Soldier	0	1	2	2	2	7
Scrope	0	10	3	0	0	13
Grey	0	1	3	1	0	5
Jamy	0	0	0	0	0	0
Bedford	0	0	0	0	0	0
Bourbon	0	7	16	6	0	29
Britanny	0	0	0	0	0	0
Rambures	0	0	0	0	0	0
Salisbury	1	0	1	1	0	3
Erpingham	0	0	0	0	0	0
Fr. Messenger	0	2	1	0	0	3
Governor	0	4	3	0	0	7
Gloucester	1	3	5	2	0	11
Court	0	1	0	0	0	1
Eng. Herald	0	0	0	0	0	0
York	0	1	1	0	0	2
Warwick	1	2	3	1	0	7
Beaumont	0	0	0	0	0	0
Berri	0	0	0	0	0	0
Clarence	0	1	1	1	0	3
Second Fr. Amb.	0	0	0	0	0	0
Gebon	0	1	1	0	0	2
Lord	0	4	3	0	0	7

Table C: Henry V Folio Witnessed Lines in Various Correlation Categories

                                                                                                         

	FX (F Only)	FA (All)	FM (Most)	FS (Some)	FP (Paraphrase)	F Total
All characters	1593	560	693	380	27	3253
Henry	266	155	185	101	7	714
Fluellen	99	111	104	45	1	360
Canterbury	58	48	61	16	3	186
Chorus	0	0	0	0	0	0
Pistol	63	58	85	46	7	259
Constable	193	60	59	25	2	339
Exeter	463	252	311	124	8	1158
Dauphin	160	49	45	27	2	283
Charles	185	50	49	31	2	317
Williams	79	30	59	56	4	228
Boy	40	20	31	26	2	119
Burgundy	83	7	17	14	2	123
Gower	139	111	177	92	4	523
Katherine	100	13	26	36	2	177
Montjoy	14	45	39	14	0	112
Orleans	141	17	33	9	0	200
Nym	35	31	51	34	3	154
Quickly	20	21	31	11	3	86
Ely	145	98	106	23	3	375
Bardolph	36	38	67	26	3	170
Alice	147	7	17	18	2	191
Isabel	124	7	17	18	1	167
MacMorris	45	0	0	0	0	45
Westmorland	177	200	197	52	3	629
Grandpre	7	1	0	1	0	9
Bates	54	4	21	35	5	119
Fr. Ambassador	0	21	22	6	0	49
Cambridge	55	48	45	7	0	155
French Soldier	22	25	25	11	1	84
Scrope	63	44	42	8	0	157
Grey	57	51	42	8	0	158
Jamy	53	0	0	0	0	53
Bedford	433	222	220	69	5	949
Bourbon	41	20	44	39	2	146
Britanny	100	45	40	24	2	211
Rambures	167	26	37	10	0	240
Salisbury	18	30	22	5	0	75
Erpingham	58	42	40	18	0	158
Fr. Messenger	79	2	1	1	0	83
Governor	8	0	0	0	0	8
Gloucester	435	253	309	130	9	1136
Court	64	5	22	38	5	134
Eng. Nerald	30	35	36	23	0	124
York	0	1	1	1	0	3
Warwick	274	153	214	97	7	745
Beaumont	66	1	0	1	0	68
Berri	62	41	31	17	1	152
Clarence	309	183	222	96	9	819
Second Fr. Amb.	0	25	29	9	3	66
Gebon	0	0	0	0	0	0
Lord	373	147	182	92	6	800

Table D: Henry V Quarto Witnessed Lines in Various Correlation Categories

                                                                                                         

	QX (Q Only)	QA (All)	QM (Most)	QS (Some)	QP (Paraphrase)	Q Total
All characters	55	624	735	183	32	1629
Henry	22	178	190	40	8	438
Fluellen	2	119	114	14	1	250
Canterbury	0	46	63	6	2	117
Chorus	0	0	0	0	0	0
Pistol	5	60	91	29	8	193
Constable	2	59	56	16	4	137
Exeter	19	265	326	47	8	665
Dauphin	1	39	40	7	4	91
Charles	6	56	54	14	1	131
Williams	6	34	81	16	5	142
Boy	0	24	33	14	3	74
Burgundy	9	12	15	8	2	46
Gower	7	124	185	40	5	361
Katherine	15	30	59	32	5	141
Montjoy	0	48	36	5	0	89
Orleans	3	68	61	20	3	155
Nym	0	41	50	17	3	111
Quickly	0	21	35	5	2	63
Ely	0	100	111	9	2	222
Bardolph	2	50	61	17	1	131
Alice	18	31	57	28	4	138
Isabel	10	12	16	10	2	50
MacMorris	0	0	0	0	0	0
Westmorland	0	0	0	0	0	0
Grandpre	0	0	0	0	0	0
Bates	3	12	28	13	5	61
Fr. Ambassador	0	18	24	3	0	45
Cambridge	0	50	43	2	0	95
French Soldier	2	26	25	6	0	59
Scrope	0	46	41	2	0	89
Grey	0	55	41	1	0	97
Jamy	0	0	0	0	0	0
Bedford	0	13	5	0	0	18
Bourbon	4	58	53	14	4	133
Britanny	0	0	0	0	0	0
Rambures	0	0	0	0	0	0
Salisbury	3	45	42	6	0	96
Erpingham	0	0	0	0	0	0
Fr. Messenger	0	3	1	0	0	4
Governor	0	0	0	0	0	0
Gloucester	21	205	200	35	6	467
Court	7	12	33	15	5	72
Eng. Herald	1	15	24	5	0	45
York	4	44	42	7	0	97
Warwick	16	106	156	32	6	316
Beaumont	0	0	0	0	0	0
Berri	1	43	34	9	3	90
Clarence	20	271	317	45	9	662
Second Fr. Amb.	0	21	32	4	2	59
Gebon	3	29	31	15	0	78
Lord	16	195	219	36	8	474

Notes