A Review of Classical Comics Henry V
This
brief review is based on abbreviated (14 pages) pre-publication copies of
"the graphic novel" Henry V from
Classical Comics. The full
Henry V (144 pages) is due to be published on November 5, 2007.
The review copies I was sent contain only the Prologue, Act I scene 1, and
Act I scene 2; fourteen pages of graphic content. I say "copies" because
the play is published in three versions, with identical art work (except for
the covers) but three different texts, as distinguished in their advertising
matter:
- Original text: "The Original Text version of Henry V is the unabridged, full original script - just as The Bard intended...ideal for the purists, students and for readers who want to experience the unaltered text."
- Plain Text: "For the Plain Text version, the original script has been 'converted' into modern English, verse-for-verse, while retaining the full essence of the play. If you've ever wanted to fully appreciate the works of Shakespeare but find the language rather cryptic, then this is the version for you!"
- Quick Text: "The Quick Text version is a revolution in graphical novels! We take the dialog and reduce it to as few words as possible allowing readers to absorb and enjoy the story quickly..."
I dispute that "fully appreciate" in connection with the Plain Text version is appropriate, and sounds more like code for "finally understand." I also dispute whether reducing the words to "as few as possible" can be used in connection with "absorb and enjoy." But more on that anon.
The speeches (and those used to reading neat lines of iambic pentameter arranged so orderly, prefaced by speaker identifications, should not forget that that is what they were first intended to be, not printed poetry, but speeches) are laid out in traditional balloons, lettered with neat, clear all caps black-on-white lettering, using bolding for emphasis. The Original Text version truly is the full, original text. It makes one wonder at the bravery of the publisher to attempt Act I scene 2 of Henry V in the review sample copy, because it contains one of the most dense and difficult speeches in all of Shakespeare (lifted liberally by our poet from Holinshed) delivered by the Archibishop of Canterbury on the Salic law. It is hard for us today to appreciate the relevance of the speech's details, though it is enshrined in the play for its justification of English righteousness, which, of course, is its dramatic point, and thus in its day must have gained audience tolerance if not approval. The Lords and gentlemen of a scholarly bent in attendance at the playhouse doubtless found the argument itself fascinating, the groundlings probably continued to crack their walnuts and drink their ale while Canterbury discoursed on Pharamond, the floods of Sala and Elbe, Meisen and the law Salique, Charles the Great, King Pepin, Childeric, Blithild, and Clothair; they appropriately and patriotically stood up to cheer when the King responded rousingly "Now are we well resolved..." Which example helps us appreciate the differences in the three texts. (Perhaps the publishers were craftier than we had at first suspected in choosing this scene).
In introducing your young child to Shakespeare, do you want her to read the original text of this challenging speech, a "plain text" version cast in modern parlance but still containing the key elements, in all their archaic glory, or a grossly simplified version, that gets the plot point across but loses all the inherent elements of poetry and history? Which would you choose?
Compare the original text version, where we have the exact text of Canterbury's speech from 1.2.33-95 (I am using the Globe edition here, from the Open Source Shakespeare, which varies slightly from the published version, for ease in copying):
Then hear me, gracious sovereign, and you peers,
That owe yourselves, your lives and services
To this imperial throne. There is no bar
To make against your highness' claim to France
But this, which they produce from Pharamond,
'In terram Salicam mulieres ne succedant:'
'No woman shall succeed in Salique land:'
Which Salique land the French unjustly gloze
To be the realm of France, and Pharamond
The founder of this law and female bar.
Yet their own authors faithfully affirm
That the land Salique is in Germany,
Between the floods of Sala and of Elbe;
Where Charles the Great, having subdued the Saxons,
There left behind and settled certain French;
Who, holding in disdain the German women
For some dishonest manners of their life,
Establish'd then this law; to wit, no female
Should be inheritrix in Salique land:
Which Salique, as I said, 'twixt Elbe and Sala,
Is at this day in Germany call'd Meisen.
Then doth it well appear that Salique law
Was not devised for the realm of France:
Nor did the French possess the Salique land
Until four hundred one and twenty years
After defunction of King Pharamond,
Idly supposed the founder of this law;
Who died within the year of our redemption
Four hundred twenty-six; and Charles the Great
Subdued the Saxons, and did seat the French
Beyond the river Sala, in the year
Eight hundred five. Besides, their writers say,
King Pepin, which deposed Childeric,
Did, as heir general, being descended
Of Blithild, which was daughter to King Clothair,
Make claim and title to the crown of France.
Hugh Capet also, who usurped the crown
Of Charles the duke of Lorraine, sole heir male
Of the true line and stock of Charles the Great,
To find his title with some shows of truth,
'Through, in pure truth, it was corrupt and naught,
Convey'd himself as heir to the Lady Lingare,
Daughter to Charlemain, who was the son
To Lewis the emperor, and Lewis the son
Of Charles the Great. Also King Lewis the Tenth,
Who was sole heir to the usurper Capet,
Could not keep quiet in his conscience,
Wearing the crown of France, till satisfied
That fair Queen Isabel, his grandmother,
Was lineal of the Lady Ermengare,
Daughter to Charles the foresaid duke of Lorraine:
By the which marriage the line of Charles the Great
Was re-united to the crown of France.
So that, as clear as is the summer's sun.
King Pepin's title and Hugh Capet's claim,
King Lewis his satisfaction, all appear
To hold in right and title of the female:
So do the kings of France unto this day;
Howbeit they would hold up this Salique law
To bar your highness claiming from the female,
And rather choose to hide them in a net
Than amply to imbar their crooked titles
Usurp'd from you and your progenitors.
(still with me?) with the "plain text" version of the speech:
Then Listen, gracious sovereign, and you Lords who owe yourselves, your lives and your duty to the imperial throne - there is no barrier to your highness' claim to France - except this, which they attribute to King Pharamond:
"In terram salicam mulieres ne succedant". "No woman may inherit the throne in Salic land". The French wrongly interpret "Salic Land" as the legislator of this law, which bars females from the throne. even their own writers confirm that Salic land is in Germany, between the Sala river and the Elbe -
Where Charlemagne left a group of French settlers, after he defeated the Saxons. These settlers disliked German women, because of their slack morals, and drew up this law - that no female should inherit Salic land. Which is, as I've said, between the Sala and the Elbe and is known in Germany today as Meisen. So, it's obvious that the Salic law was not devised for France, nor did the French own the Salic land until four hundred and twenty one years after the end of Kind Pharamond - wrongly regarded as the originator of the law.
He died in four hundred and twenty six AD, but Charlemagne defeated the Saxons and established the French on the other side of the river Sala in eight hundred and five AD. Their writers also say that King Pepin deposed King Childeric and claimed the crown of France because he was descended from Queen Blithild, daughter of King Clothair.
Hugh Capet also tried to seize the crown of Charles - Duke of Lorraine and sole male heir to Charlemagne, by representing himself as heir to Lady Lingare, Charles the Second's daughter - even though that claim was illegal. Charles was the son of the Emperor Louis, who was the son of Charlemagne.
As well as that, King Louis X - sole heir of the usurper Capet - couldn't find peace of mind as King of France, until he was satisfied that his grandmother, Queen Isabel, was a descendant of Lady Ermengard, daughter of Charles Duke of Lorraine, who I've already mentioned.
Her marriage reunited the line of Charlemagne with the crown of France. So, it's as clear as the summer sun that King Pepin's title, Hugh Capet's claim and King Louis' peace of mind, all appear to uphold the principle of female inheritance. So do the kings of France to this day, even though they cite this Salic law to bar your highness from claiming the throne through the female line. They prefer to hide behind a veil, rather than admit their own illegal claims to the inheritance they've taken from you and your ancestors.
with the Quick Text version:
Listen everyone,
The French say that no woman can inherit the throne.
But they are mistaken about the law.
It doesn't apply in France!
It takes a lot of history to explain, but there are many examples in French royal history.
So woman can inherit the throne in France. They are lying to stop you from claiming the throne through your female ancestors.
If the fact that these works are "graphic novels" does not cause you to dismiss them (and I think it should not), the art work being the same, which version would you choose for your impressionable child? What about the child struggling with language skills? What about the indifferent child, who needs encouragement?
Clearly, there is a virtue in each approach, especially for the speech I have quoted at length above. Even the most ardent devotee of Shakespeare cannot truly enjoy Canterbury's Salic speech, even if she can appreciate its dramatic uses. On first reading, unless we have the aid of a good critical edition, we are bewildered by it and hope we do not have to remember its details to make sense of the promised, forthcoming action. If we think the historical details important (and in the ensuing action of the play they are not, it is only the fact that the King's claim is just that matters) we might choose the Plain Text version over the Original Text. If we decide the details don't matter at all, then we might, in fact, choose the Quick Text version, at least for this speech.
And that is the problem. Obviously most of Shakespeare is not as dense or factually prickly as this speech. Beyond the stories--and in Shakespeare the story is hardly the point, he seems content to revise plots, which he did with genius, rather than invent them--it is the language of Shakespeare that engages us wit the plays. Consider another, more famous example, more central to my argument:
Original Text:
O for a muse of fire, that would ascend the brightest heaven of invention!
A kingdom for a stage, princes to act, and monarchs to behold the swelling scene!
Then should the warlike Harry, like himself, assume the port of mars; and at his heels, leash'd in like hounds, should famine, sword and fire crouch for employment.
Plain Text:
It would be great to have some goddess of creative fire, to help us enact this play with a true representation -
to have an entire kingdom for a stage and princes for actors and to have royalty to watch the performance!
Then, our heroic henry would be like mars - the god of war - and we'd see famine, bloodshed and fire snarling like save hounds at his heels.
Quick Text:
If we had some help from the gods, we could give a better performance of this play.
we could show our king Henry as Mars, the god of war, bringing hunger, blood and fire with him.
The plain text version suffers badly in this comparison. "ascend the brightest heaven of invention," "the swelling scene," "warlike Harry," "the port of Mars," "leash'd like hounds," "crouch for employment." This is the great language of the world's greatest poet. The "creative fire," "true representation," "heroic Henry," "like Mars," "like savage hounds," "at his heels," of the Plain Text version are mundane cliches, the language of everyday common sense, without polish or power. The Quick text version is very much slighter, without poetic pretense at all. The words simply move the story along.
And so the comparisons run. Shakespeare's language is so much more than sense, and action, as far as it is necessary at all, arises naturally from them, almost effortlessly on the part of the poet. It is true you have to work hard to understand the language, but consider the rewards to be gained once you have: "the brightest heaven of invention," rather than "creative fire." It is also true that you almost never have to work so hard as in the Salic law speech, which yields little fruit in any event, though we must admire the versification of it taken over in bulk, as it is, from Holinshed.
I come down on the side of the original text, even for children who might have some language difficulties, and there are few children who won't at first have difficulties with such complex language. The effort to understand, then master it (if that is ever possible) bears such great rewards that depriving children of them seems misguided. It is engagement with Shakespeare's language that illuminates and informs us for life, not his stories. Yes, I know, there are levels of language difficulties, and surely some children will never progress to the Original Text level, but why not let them try? If the quick text version could be used in conjunction with the Original Text version in a judicious way, children, with assistance, could learn to appreciate the language in the context of the action of the play.
Furthermore, in a graphic novel format, the sense of witnessing a play becomes more forceful than it does when simply reading the text. I applaud the publishers for using a "graphic novel" approach to Shakespeare. The art work is excellent, the publication standards high, using rich color on heavy, semi-glossy, heavy paper. The printing is very clear, with bold used to relay emphasis. Locales and dates are given at the head of the scenes, even though these do not, of course, usually appear in the Original Text (meant to appeal to history teachers, one suspects).
What the art work relays is the sense of confrontation, argument, posturing, and a concrete reality that is entirely imaginary when simply reading a text. It is certainly not the same as viewing the play, but more than simply reading the script of the play. This "more" is an exciting advantage in bringing the works to young people who probably have not seen them in performance. There are literary classics that attempt to present Shakespeare to children: the Lambs' Tales from Shakespeare (amended by Winston Stokes to add the history plays); Quiller-Couch's Historical Tales from Shakespeare; Harrison Morris' Tales from Shakespeare; Edith Nesbit's The Children's Shakespeare; and others, but these works are completely narrative. They lack the sense of drama that it is possible to achieve in a graphic novel. It is as if the stories, the simple plots, were more important than either the dramatic confrontations or the language. The graphic novel has a strong advantage over them in presenting the action of the plays visually. I reject the argument that translating the plays into a graphic novel in any way "dumbs down" Shakespeare, though certainly modifying the original language cannot help but do so. Nevertheless, there is even a place for modification of the language when introducing Shakespeare to children. I do not think we should be so doctrinaire about this, though one would hope that eventually those introduced to the plots with simpler language would take on the original texts.
Unfortunately the cost of each graphic novel is £9.99, or $20.05 USD at the current rate. I do not begrudge a profit to the publishers for the obvious amount of care and craftsmanship that has gone into the production of these volumes, but if a family wishes to purchase more than one version, say the Quick Text and Original Text versions, for younger and older children, the cost becomes a burden, especially for those home schooling who have so many other related expenses
After the release of Henry V in November,
Classical Comics has
plans to release Macbeth in early 2008, followed by Jane Eyre,
Great Expectations, Frankenstein, Romeo and Juliet,
A Christmas Carol, and Richard III, all by summer of
2008. These are all canny choices on the part of the publisher, and I, for
one, eagerly anticipate their publication.
