Metafiction, Henry V, and
Shakespearean Hypermedia
by Ronald Fedoruk
O For a Muse of Fire, that would ascend
The brightest Heauen of Inuention:
5 And Monarchs to behold the swelling Scene.
Assume the Port of Mars, and at his heeles
eginning with an invocation, Shakespeare acknowledges that the story we are about to hear has come from somewhere other than his original thought. The tone is humble and apologietic, as if Shakespeare is unaware of his superb craftsmanship. But where he could have credited Raphael Holinshed, he instead shares the authorship with his muse. We can argue with both Shakespeare's originality and his humility, but in creating Chorus, he illustrates a much more intriguing question relating to the ownership of a story.
The invocation of the muse follows the example of a lineage of great narrrators, that extends back a long way indeed, perhaps to the very beginning of storytelling. Homer begins the Iliad by similarily seeking help from the muse. "Sing, O goddess, the anger of Achilles son of Peleus..." Since Homer sits right on the boundary of oral and literal text, he gives us some strong clues about the form of the spoken poetry of his ancestors.
The Haida storyteller Skaay has been translated by Robert Bringhurst. He begins his creation myth Raven Travelling: "Hereabouts was all salt water, they say". Skaay thus situates the story in the distant past, and by invoking "they", he securely roots it in Haida history. In an oral society the story is not an historical artifact. It remains alive, no longer beholden to the author or authors of past generations. The present storyteller is always the author, reinventing and re-invigorating the text at each utterance, Skaay clearly situates himself in a long line of storytellers who share the ownership of the story; share the glory of authorship and the responsibility of accuracy. Shakespeare similarily defines the authorship of Henry V. Unlike Holinshed's Chronicles, this text is meant to be heard rather than read, delivered by Chorus and renewed with every repetition.
Shakespeare wrote this text, not Chorus, though as the narrator, Chorus is the direct representative of the author, and he negotiates with the audience on Shakespeare's behalf. This relationship is complicated by the probability that Shakespeare initially played the Chorus role. (Grote) Rather than narrate the story in the person of William Shakespeare, he (the narrator) removes himself from the authorship of the text by one step and assumes the persona of Chorus. For another actor playing the role four centuries later, this puts the character in a direct lineage of Chorus storytellers, while at the same time situating him one step removed from the author, still only one generation away from the original storyteller.
Regardless of the casting of the role, we can easily simultaneously recognize that this is an actor (with what Van den Dries calls an I-identity) performing a character (with a role-identitiy). His character is part of the story, yet at the same time he exists outside the story and can comment on it. He is of the imaginary world of the play, yet able to converse directly with the audience in the real space of the theatre.
This duality is described by Richard Schechner. "Theater, to be effective, must manitain its double or incomplete presence, as a here and now performance of there and then events. The gap between the 'here and now' and the 'there and then' allows the audience to contemplate the action and to entertain alternatives." (Schechner 190)
While he appears to offer an apology for the poor representation he is about to give to this story, Chorus is more accurately acknowledging the collaborative nature of the Theatre. He thus begins a negotiation with the audience to determine the level of their active engagement, he lays out the terms under which we will be required to participate in the presentation, and he begins to guide us through our responsibilities.
Chorus invites us, the audience, to imagine ourselves outside the real world of the theatre. Given that in the theatre, the audience is already engaged in a complex imaginary exercise, this invitation requires that we substitute one imaginary or virtual world for another, that we experience the various worlds simultaneously, and that we make transitions instantly. We are being asked, in effect to create our own imaginary hypermedia, with Chorus acting as the link between our various worlds.
Crouch for employment.
10 The flat vnraysed Spirits, that hath dar'd,
So great an Obiect. Can this Cock-Pit hold
The vastie fields of France?
METADRAMA and METAFICTION are modes of writing
that comment on their own activities
Or may we cramme
Within this Woodden O. the very Caske
O pardon: since a crooked Figure may
Attest in little place a Million,
And let vs, Cyphers to this great Accompt,
On your imaginarie Forces worke.
20 Suppose within the Girdle of these Walls
Whose high, vp-reared, and abutting Fronts,
The perillous narrow Ocean parts asunder.
Peece out our imperfections with your thoughts:
25 Into a thousand parts diuide one Man,
And make imaginarie Puissance.
Thinke when we talke of Horses, that you see them
Printing their prowd Hoofes i'th' receiuing Earth:
For 'tis your thoughts that now must deck our Kings,30 Carry them here and there: Iumping o're Times;
Turning th' accomplishment of many yeeres
Into an Howre-glasse: for the which supplie,
Admit me Chorus to this Historie;
Who Prologue-like, your humble patience pray,
35 Gently to heare, kindly to iudge our Play.
interaction is the immediate consequence of the double
status of the actor who acts both as an �I-identity� and
a �role-identity� (Van den Dries 2001: 26). To handle this
double identity the audience should be familiar with the
prevailing socio-symbolic praxis which should be considered
as a bilateral social agreement, an agreement which is
largely dependent of the context in which performance and
reception take place.
