Quickly's Rawhide Notebook: Desentimentalising the Crux at Henri V 2.3.15-16

The famous crux at Henry V, 2.3.15-16 has long taxed editors of the play, but no more convincing solution has been found than Lewis Theobald's conjecture of 1724. This article contends, firstly, that Theobald's conjecture is not only misguided but has also propitiated sentimental, mythographic readings of 1 and 2 Henry IV, which pastoralize the Boar's Head tavern and idealise Falstaff, its most famous patron; secondly, that in view of the dirty realism of the Boar's Head scenes and in light of recent research into the table-book, William Smith's conjecture as reported by Zachary Grey in 1754 should be rescued, with slight modification, to replace Theobald's. If accepted, the modified Smith-Grey solution will permit the Boar's Head, Falstaff and the plays themselves to be regarded in a truer, if more rebarbative, light. Yet the erasure of deep-seated but wish-fulfilling misconceptions might be a price few readers and audiences are willing to pay.

Automated summary

This article discusses a crux in Henry V and compares different solutions to it. The author argues that Lewis Theobald's conjecture is not only misguided, but also has influenced the interpretation of other plays in the Henry IV series. The author suggests adopting William Smith's conjecture with slight modification as a more accurate understanding of the play and its characters.