STANDARDS VI. AND VII. THE SECOND PART OF SHAKESPEARE'S KING HENRY IV. PREPARED AND ANNOTATED FOR SCHOOL USE BY CHARLOTTE M. YONGE, AUTHOR OF "CAMEOS FROM ENGLISH HISTORY." Designed specially to meet the requirements of ENGLISH LONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS. AN LIBR 4 FEB A INTRODUCTION. IN the "Second Part of Henry IV.," Shakespeare has dealt with history so as to fulfil his own purpose of making the drama effective, compressing ten years into a few days or weeks. The true history is as follows:-After the battle of Shrewsbury, in 1403, the Earl of Northumberland submitted, renewed his oaths of allegiance to Henry IV., and was pardoned. Owen Glendower held out in Wales, where Prince Henry was sent to subdue him, and there continued, acting as a brave and skilful leader. In 1405 the Earl of Northumberland took offence and rebelled again; and with him was joined the Archbishop of York, Richard Scrope, who had never believed Richard II. to be dead, and even supposing that he were, viewed the Earl of March as the rightful King, and Henry IV. as an usurper. Lord Bardolph was another of the party, also Lord Mowbray, son to that Thomas Mowbray, Earl of Norfolk, whom Henry IV. (then called Earl of Hereford) had accused of treason, and with whom he had been about to fight the combat that was stopped by the King's throwing down his warder. Mowbray had never been allowed to assume his father's earldom, and was naturally willing to take part against Henry IV. Who Hastings was is not equally clear, for the direct line of the barony had failed. But he was probably Hugh Hastings, one of the claimants. The Archbishop and Lord Mowbray were at the head of eight thousand men at Shipton-le-Moor, a few miles from York, when they were invited to a conference with the Earl of Westmoreland and John of Lancaster, Henry's third son. The Earl pretended that all the Archbishop demanded should be granted, and thus induced him to dismiss his army, after which the two leaders were treacherously made prisoners and carried off to Pomfret, where the King then was. Afterwards. they were taken to Bishopthorpe, the Archbishop's own palace, and the King commanded the Chief Justice, Sir William Gascoigne, to pass sentence on them; but he refused, and another man was for the time put in his office to pronounce that they should be beheaded. The Archbishop declared that he had only meant to have the poor people's grievances redressed, and had meant no ill against the King's person. He was a man ex ceedingly beloved, and was long held to be a saint. Henry's illness (leprosy) was thought by the Yorkshire people to have been a judgment sent upon him on the very day of the Archbishop's condemnation. Northumberland and Bardolph stayed two years in Scotland, but in 1408 again attacked. England in the north. They were defeated by Sir Thomas Rokeby at Bramham Moor, where the Earl was killed, and Bardolph received his death-wound. In 1409, Prince Henry was recalled from Wales, and kept on a very short allowance at Coldharbour and Windsor. The King seems to have been jealous of him and kept him at a distance, but there are no excesses recorded of him, though his brothers, Thomas and John, did misbehave themselves at Eastcheap, and caused a great riot. The story of the Prince interfering to save one of his followers whom the Lord Chief Justice Gascoigne was about to send to prison is placed about this time, but is quite uncertain. It was believed in Queen Elizabeth's reign, together with the stories of the freaks of the madcap Prince, but the letters and records of the reign of Henry IV. only show that the King disliked and distrusted his eldest son, and no clear reason is given. In 1413, Henry IV. became insensible while praying before the shrine of Edward the Confessor, in Westminster Abbey. He was carried into a room near at hand, and hearing it was called the Jerusalem Chamber, was much struck, recollecting an old prediction that he should. die at Jerusalem. He was actually thought to be dead when his son came in and took the crown from a cushion, on which it had been placed near him. When he revived, he was distressed till the Prince brought back the crown. Then he said, "Fair son, what right have you to the crown. You know I had none." .66 My lord," said young Henry, "with the sword you took it, and with the sword I will keep it." "Act as you think best," said the King; "I leave all to God. May He have mercy on my soul.” Henry is also said to have advised his son to occupy his people in foreign wars as the only way to keep peace at home. He died on the 20th of March, 1413, when only forty-five years old. The histories believed in Elizabeth's time showed Henry V. dismissing his evil companions and favouring Judge Gascoigne ; but in point of fact he does not seem to have had any bad companions to dismiss, and Gascoigne lost his office ten days after the reign began. The history commonly believed in Shakespeare's time is thus proved to be unlike the truth, and it was further varied for the sake of gathering all together in an effective drama. The poet has changed two rebellions into one, the remnant of that which was crushed at Shrewsbury, though really separated from it by several years. Next, he has made Henry's illness begin on his return from Shrewsbury, instead of making use of the fine scene that the condemnation of the Archbishop and the sudden stroke of illness falling on the King might have afforded. He also brings home the Prince after Shrewsbury, whereas Henry remained for nearly six years fighting in Wales. The expedition of John of Lancaster with the Earl of Westmoreland, and the treachery towards the Archbishop of York, are closely represented, but the tidings are made |