2000246352

THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS

TD1937 G 859 copl

TD1937 G 859

THE GENERAL LIBRARIES THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

THIS IS AN ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT IT MAY NOT BE COPIED WITHOUT THE AUTHOR’S PERMISSION

REALTIONSHIPS IN THE PLAYS OF THE YORK-LANCASTER TETRALOGY

Approved*

Approved*

IMun Vie

REALTIONSHIPS IN THE PLAYS OF THE YORK-LANCASTER TETRALOGY

THESIS

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate Schaal of The University of Texas in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

Far the Degree of

DOCTOR GF PHILOSOPHY

By

Clayton Alvis Greer, B, A., M. A*

(Austin,

Austin, Texas

June, 1937

PREFACE

This work on the lork-Lancaster tetralogy really to form in the summer of 1928 at the University of Texas, as a term paper in Professor R. A. Law’s course in Elizabethan Drama* And from the beginning in this term paper, with its treatment of merely one or two relationships in the general problem, the work has gradually expanded, in the intervening years, into the present study embracing many relationships, ever 'under the counselling of Professor Law.

Here, I wish to make special acknowledgement of appreciation for material favor or assistance to the following persons: to Mr. Louis Landa of the faculty of the University of Chicago for consulting certain books in the Chicago libraries not directly available to ma; to Liss Evelyn Albright of the faculty of the Universitty of Chicago for helpful criticism of Part II of the work; to the Huntington Library for. permission to reproduce page 196 of Ralph Brooke’s Catalogue and Succession of the xlngs, Princes, Bukos, Marquesses, Earles, and Viscounts of This RaaLoe of Ugland(l6l9) 3 and pages K and M of Richard Crompton’s Mansion of whgmmimitie(ls99); to Mr. George D. Clark for checking certain books in the Library of Congress which otherwise were not available to me; and finally to Professor R. A. law for his general inspiration, constant encouragement, and patient, sympathetic, scholarly, constrictive criticism and guidance.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

General Introduction 1

I. Two great problems posed by textual relationships

in the plays of the York-Lan caster tetralogy

namely, that of authorship and that of sequence... 1

11. The author r s concern with only the latter of

these two problems. 1

111. Texts to be considered in particular 1

PART I

THE QUARTO-FOLIO SEQUENCE IN THE 2 AND 3 HENRY VI PLAYS

Chapter I: Introductory Remarks 3

I. The age-old problem of precedence - 2 and

3 Henry VI or the Contention and tho True

Tragedy..... 3

11. Various opinions concerning this pr0b1em.......... 3

A. Opinions of those who in general have hold

that the Quartos are the originals and 2

and 3 Henry VI are later revisions of them..... 3

1. Malone. ..... ........... 3

2. Miss Jane Lee .. 3

3. Others contemporary with Miss Lee 4

4. Critics in the present century..... 4

B. Opinions of those who have hold that 2. and

3 Henry VI are the originals and the Quartos

are pirated versions of them 4

1. Dr. Johnson..... ....... 5

2. Stoevons 5

3. E. H. C. Oliphant and B. A. P. van Dam...... 5

C. Hilliwll alone, among the earlier critics

in suggesting that both the Quartos and the

Folio plays camo from lost versions, the

former coming first* ♦.... 6

D. Recent opinions of Deter Alexander and Miss

Madeleine Doran that the Quartos are versions

of the Folio plays, pirated by actors... 6

E. Tucker Brooke? s theory of a lost text from

the First Quartos, the Whoie Contentlon

and the Folio came separately and independent-

1y............ 7

Chapter II: Abundance of Folio Material That Greatly

Shirpens Characterization and Dramatic Effect........ 8

Chapter III: Quarto Miterial That Is Dan-Essential

to Characterization and Dramatic Effeet.............. 19

Chapter IV: Quarto and Folio Corruptions. ...... 24

Chapter V: Evidence of a Lost Text from Which the

Quarto and Folio Texts Came Independently... 60

A. Evidence that the Whole Contention did not come

from the Contention and the True Tragedy. 60

B. Evidence that 2 and 3 Henry VI did not come from

the Whole Contention... 63

C. Evidence that the Folio did not come from the

Contention and the True Tragedy. .......... ... 65

D. Certainty of a common source, since the three

sets of playa did not come any one directly

from another. 65

E. The lost version which probably was the common

ground for the three sets of p1ay5......... 67

F. The Quartos of 1600 as evidence of a lost version.. 67

G. Line differences in the Folio plays and the first

Quartos as evidence that the latter are not

reports of the former. 72

R. Irregularity of the poetry and prose in the

Quartos and the F01i0....... • 74

1. The inconsistency in the Cardinal’s re-reading

of the last item of the terms, of alliance con-

tracted between England and France by 5uff01k...... 78

J. Other Folio inconsistencies. u 79

K. W. V?. Greg’s interpretation of the passage

re-road by the Cardinal 80

L* Conclusions to Part 1..... 82

PART II

THE RELATION (T RICHARD 111 TO THE TRUE TRAGEDY AND

3 HENRY VI

I. Alfred W. Pollard’s apparent belief that

Ri slurd 111 links itself as readily to the True

Tragedy as it does, to 3 Henry VI. 85

11. Contrary belief that Richard 111 is a con-

tinuation of 5 Henry VI rather than of the

True Tragedy. 85

111. Details which are in 3 Henry VI but are not in

the True Tragedy, and which definitely motivate

certain parts of Ri chard 111........................ 86

A. Richard’s detailed statement of his plan to

get the crown 86

B. Direct statements of Richard’s intention to

got the cr0wn....................... 89

C. Richard’s questioning himself a a to what her

he should try to cut off the "causes 1 * that

keep him from the crown 90

D. Additional statements of Richard’s intention

to gob the crown* ........ ............. 91

E. Richard’s actual dead of stabbing young Prince

Edward. 92

F. Details which sharpen the characterization of

King Henry VI 93

G. King Henry’s prophecy that the young Earl of Richmond would some day bo King of England....... 94

H. Clarence’s stabbing the Prince 95

I. Details which emphasize the "wanton lust"

of King Edward 95

Part hi

THE PLACE CF 1 HENRY VI IN THE YORK-lAN CAST ER TETMLOOY

Chapter I: Introduetory Remarks ..................... 99

I. Identification of "Harry the Sixth," the earliest

form of what we now call 1 Henry VI 99

11. Opinions as to the proper place of 1 Henry VI in

th© sequence of the tetralogy 99

A. Sparsity of such opinions.. 99

B. Opinions of ml one (1787) and Dr.

Johnson(l76s), among the earlier critics,

that the play was composed before 2 and

5 Henry VI ................. 99

C* Capell’s conjecture(l76B) that the play was written ’’some considerable time” after 2

and 3 Henry V 1....... 100

D* Henneman’s opinion, in 1900, that 1 Henry VI

my have been revised even before 2 and

3 Henry VI assumed their present shape

100

E. Tucker Brooke’s opinion, in 1918, that the

revision ms about 1600, right after henry V*.... F. Oaw’s fusion, in 1926, of the positions, of

100

Hennemn and Brooke in his theory of two

revisions ...................... 100

Chapter II: Brooke’s theory Concerning the ’’Revision 11

in Henry, VI» with the Suggestion of an Opposing

101

Theory ........... . .........

1. Introductory remarks.

101

11. Brooke's two pieces of evidence: (DTalbot’s

epitaph and (2) passages in 1 Henry VI that

’’seem reminiscent of Henry V” 101

111. Examination of Brooke’s evidence*.......... 101

A. Examination of the evidence of Talbot’s

epitaph. . 101

1. The epitaph as in 1 Henry VI and Richard

felansion of >&gnanimltie(ls99) 101

2. Brooke’s belief that since Crompton is

the earliest known printing of the

epitaph our play could hardly have been

revised before 1599 102

3. Material from Crompton* s Kia ns ion a~n3 Raiph Brooke 1 s Catalogue and Succession( 1619) to be used against fucker 8r00ke,............. 103

4* Ralph Brooke's source of information not known* ♦... .. ............ 115

5, The suggested theory of a lost text well before 1599 from which Crompton, Brooke, and the author or reviser of 1 Henry VI all got the epitaph materia1...................... 115

6. Probability that the original lost text existed in time for the Shakespearean revision of si fb,rry the Sixth n immediately after Richard 111............................. 117

7. Metrical tests decidedly against Professor Brooke . .......... 117

11. Examination of the evidence of passages in

J. Henry VI that '’seem reminiscent of Henry V”.... 124

Chapter III: More Evidence in Support of the Suggested

Theory of Revision in 1 Henry VI ..... 129

I. Ifeterial from which th© additional evidence is to

be drawn. 129

A. Material that connects 1 Henry VI and the other

plays of the tetralogy ... 129

1. Reminders in 1 Henry VI of the coming conflict, the Wars of the Roses, which

largely occupies the other plays 129 2. Traits of characterization in 1 Henry VI

that are consistent with characterization

in the other plays*. 130 3. Specially significant plot linkings between

1 Henry VI and the other p1ay5......... 131

B. Material that makes against connection between 1 Henry VI and the other plays of the

tetralogy. .».. .... ...» 132

1. Dramatically important material in 1 Henry VI that is not at all in the other plays 132

2. Inconsistencies of characterization between 1 Henry VI and the other plays*.... 133

3. Special inconsistencies between 1 Henry VI and the other plays 134

XI. Two facts established by the material listed 136

A. That there was a conscious, deliberate effort at adapting either 1 .Henry VI to the other plays of the tetralogy or v.t co ver5a............. 136

B. That there must hive been circumstances tint made against the best possible adaptation*.*..... 136

111. Two possibilities of sequence which at one time or another have been advanced . 136

k t That 1 Henry VI was written in its entirety,

once and for all, before the other plays of the tetralogy .................. 136

B. That ws written in its entirety, once and for a 11, after the other plays of the tetra10gy....................... 136

C. Difficulties and improbabilities in connection nith adaptation under either of these two theories. .......... ...... 136

IV. A much easier plan or arrangement for the a da pta t i on 137

V* Additional reaeons in support of the theory that the revision occurred immediately after the composition of Richard 111.... ..... 140

General Conclusion . .. ............... 143

Bibliography 145

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Ko four Shakespearean plays have invited more scholarly study than have 1 Henry VI, 2 Henry VI, 3 Henry VI, and Richard 111 all of which deal with the great histori ail struggle between the houses of York and Lancaster. Textual relationships have raised two great problems - that of authorship and that of sequence, sequence not only between the plays themselves but between the various texts of the plays individually.

In Ulis study I shall be concerned only with the latter of these two problems - more specifically, only with such relationships as will throw light upon the sequence of composition both between the plays themselves and between the texts of the plays individually. Authorship will creep in only in a casual and general way, if at all.

The extant texts which will receive my parti collar attention, I may add, are as follows: the 1623 Folio versions of 1,2, and 3 Henry VI and Richard III; the 1594 Contention and the 1595 True Tragedy, the First Quarto versions corresponding to 2 and 3 Henry VI respectively; the Second Quartos, of 1600 - the two corresponding to the 1594 Content!on and the one corresponding to the 1595 True Tragedy; and the Third Quarto or Whole Contention of 1619, combining two versions - one which corresponds to the earlier versions of the Content!on and the other which corresponds to the earlier versions of the True Tragedy*

PART I THE QUARTQ-FOLIO SEQUENCE IN THE 2 AND 3 HENRY VI PLAYS

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

Merely as a matter of convenience we shall begin our problem of sequence with a consideration of 2 and 3 Henry VI. And here, we are Immediately confronted with the age-old problem of which preceded the other in the composition - the 1623 Folio versions of 2 and 3 Henry VI or their respective Quarto versions, the 1594 Contention and the 1595 True Tragedy? Always there has been a difference of opinion. Some have held that the Quartos are the originals and 2 and 3 Henry VI are later revisions of them. IM lone, in the latter part of th© eighteenth century, in the first elaborate treatment of the matter, wrote as follows:

On these two plays/the Contention and the True Tragedy/, which I believe to have been written by some preceding author, before the year 1590, Shakespeare formed, as I conceive, this/2 Henry VI/and the following drama/3 Henry Vl/; altering, retrenching, or amplifying, as he thought proper, la

In the latter part of the nineteenth century Miss Jane Lee concluded

that Henry VI, Parts 2 and 3, v/ere written about the year 1590, and that they were not original plays, but were founded on certain older plays known as the Content!on and the True Tragedy. 2

3 4 5 Furnivall, Richard Grant, White, and Appleton Morgan, all likewise in the latter part of the nineteenth century, also held that 2 and 3 Henry VI are revisions of the Contention and the True Tragedy, differing with others only in matters of 6 authorship. And in the present century H. C. Hart and W. A. 7 Neilson have continued the claim of priority for the Quartos and a subsequent revision of them for the Folio plays, attributing, of course, the authorship of the former and the revision of the latter as they saw fit. Other critics, nevertheless, have held that 2 and 3 Henry VI are the originals and the Quartos are pirated versions of them.

Dr. Johnson, q contemporary of &hlone, wrote as follows:

The old copies of the two latter parts of King Henry VI . * . are so apparently imperfect and mutilated,that there is no reason for supposing them the first draughts of Shakspere. I am inclined to believe them copies taken by some auditor who wrote down, during the representation, what the time would permit, then perhaps filled up some of his omissions at a second or third hearing, and, when he had by this method formed something like a play, sent it to the printer. 8

And Steevens, likewise a contemporary of Malone, supports Dr. Johnson with the following:

There is another circumstance which may serve to strengthen Dr. Johnson’s supposition, viz. that most of the fragments of Latin verses, omitted in the quartos, are to be found in the folio; and when any of them are inserted in the former, they are shamefully corrupted and misspelt. The auditor, who understood English, might be unskilled in any other language. 9

Even as recently as 1930 Mr. E. H. C. Oliphant found ’’good reason for believing .• . that the ’Contention 1 Quartos are pirated versions of 2 and 3 Henry VI,“ without specifying exactly what 10 the means of piracy was. And also in 1930, Mr. B. A. P. van Dam said

that The Contention cannot Shakespeare 1 s first sketch of the play, or Marlowe's, Greene’s, Peale’s or Lodge’s original composition, that The Contention is a piratical version of Shakespeare’s 11 henry VI. And such a version is The True Tragedy. 11

Then, W»» van Dam goes on to say that the pirating done 12 through shorthand reporting.

Halliwell, it seems, ms alone among the earlier critics the in suggesting that both the Quartos and Folio plays came from 13 A lost versions, the former coming first.

In fairly recent times the old question of the quarto-folio relationship of these plays has come to the fore again in a 14 new light - this time in exhaustive studies by Mr. Alexander 15 and Miss Doran. As others 'before them have done, they hold that the Contention and the True Tragedy are pirated or reported versions of the Folio 2 and 3 Henry VI, following rather than

16 preceding those two plays, but unlike their predecessors, who thouglit that the Quartos originated through shorthand reporting, they further hold that the Contenti on and the True Tragedy were composed by actors who had played in 2 and 3 Henry VI and written from memory with the possible aid of 17 a few scattered, isolated manuscript or printed parts. Personally 1 am in accord with the position first definitely taken by Professor Tucker Brooke in 1912, namely, that there is a lost text from which the Contention and the True Tragedy, the Whole Contention of 1619, and the Folio all came separately ±8 or independently. Professor Brooke did not elaborate his position but I nevertheless believe it is right, and will now submit my evidence for so believing.

1 The contents of this chapter as well as of the other chapters of Part I form to a large extent the material of a paper of the authors published in PMLA for September, 1933, but still much material has here been the form and arrangement have been altered considerably.

la , IM lon©, Edmund, in The Plays of Millam Shakespeare, edited by Isaac Reed, Vol. 13, p. 182(i757)< TxU

2 Lee, Jane, in The New Shakspere Society*s Transactions for 1875-1876, p. 275.

3 Furnivall, F. J., in The New Shakspere Society* s Transactions for 1875-1876, pp. 280-289.

4 White, R. G. See Jane Lee, op* cit., p. 377.

5 Morgan, Appleton, in the Bankside Shakespeare, Vol. XX, pp. iii-xxv(/m).

6 Hart, H. C., Introduction to "The Second Part of King Henry the Sixth" in The Works of Shakespeare (Arden Edition), pp. vii-lii (woft

7 Neilson, W. A., Introduction to "The Three Parts of Henry the Sixth" in the Cambridge Edition of Shakespeare, pp. 633- 6340t00.

8 Johnson, Dr. Samuel, in The Plays of William Shakespeare edited Isaac Reed, Vol. 14, p. 214 (/74*9.

9 St eevens, George, in The Plays of Milian ShaKes FerrC edited by Isaac Reed, Vol* 14, p. 214C/ , 7 731

10 Oliphant, E. H. 0., in Modern Language Kotes, Vol. 45, p.

11 van Dam, B. A. P., “Shakespeare Problems Nearing Solution," in English Studies, Vol. 12, p.

12 Ibid* , p. 81.

13 Halliwell, James 0., The First Sketches of the Second and Third Parts of King Henry the Sixth, pp.

14 Alexander, Peter, Shakespeare* s Henry VI and Richard 111 (Cambridge, 1929).

15 Doran, de 1 eine, Henry VI - Parts II and HI, Their Relation to the "Contention" and the "Tfroe owa" City/ 1928) .

16 Doran, op. cit., p. 83; Alexander, op. .cit., p. 115.

17 Doran, op. cit., pp. 77-78 and 82-83; Alexander, op. cit., p• 115•

18 Brooke, Tucker, tt The Authorship of the Second and Third Parts of King Henry VI," in Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences/XVII (1912), pp. 141-211. ~

CHAPTER II ABUNDANCE OF FOLIO MATERIAL THAT GREATLY SHARPENS CHAR- ACTERIZATION AND DRAMATIC EFFECT

Many facts contradict the theory of Mr. Alexander and Miss Doran. In the first place, why did the actor-reporters omit from the Quartos much Folio material that distinctly adds to characterization and dramatic effect? For example, why did they omit the following items bearing upon the principal characters of the plays?

Items That Sharpen the Characterization of King Henry VI

1, extended discussion of Henry’s piety and holinesst2H.Vl, I. iii. 58-67) 1 2. Margaret 1 s disappointment at Henry’s short-comings in courage, courtship and physical proportion(2H.Vl, I. iii. 56-57) 3. Margaret’s saying that the Cardinal, Somerset, Buckingham, and Y ork, as well as H umphrey, can do more in England than Henry(2ll .VI, I. iii. 71-74) 4. The King’s speaking of heaven as ’’the treasury of everlasting joy w (2H,VI, 11. i. 18) 5. The King r s say Ing that the blind man’s sins; will be multiplied by his gaining sight(2H.Vl, 11. i. 71) 6. The King’s telling the blind man not to forget the Lord’s goodness to him(2H.Vl, 11. i. 84-86) 7. The Cardinal’s complaining to the King about the latter’s giving Humphrey free rein of speech(2H.Vl, 111. i. 172-177) 8. The King’s repeating his belief in Humphrey’s innocence (2H.VI, 111. i. 66-73) 9’. The King’s extended expression of grief at Humphrey’s state; his believing that the Queen and the nobles are seeking Humphrey’s "subversion”; his realizing his helplessness to aid Humphrey against the Queen and the mighty nobles(2H.Vl, 111. i. 202-222)

10. The Queen’s saying that Henry is too cold in great affairs - that he is beguiled by Humphrey(2H.Vl, 111. i. 223-230)

11. The King’s suspecting that violent hands have been laid on Gloucester; his asking Cod to forgive him if he suspects wrongly; his desire to pay Humphrey sentimental obsequies, but his realizing the vanity and meanness of such action (2H.VI, 111. ii. 136-146) 12. 'Sa 11 sbury ’ s tolling the King that the common people fear his(the King’s) death at the hands of Suffolk - that they are determined to protect him(the King) (2H.VI, lII.Mi. 249-269)

13. The King’s saying that he, like the commons, fears some mischance for himself at Suffolk’s hands(2H.Vl, 111. ii. 283-284) ~

14. Henry’s wishing to save the bloodshed of many simple souls(2H.Vl, IV. iv. 10-11) 15. Henry’s weariness of being king and his longing to be a subject(2H.Vl, IV. ix. 1-6) 16. The King asking Buckingham not to be rough in terms with York, for the latter would not stand for it(2H.VI, IV. lx. 44-45)

17. The King*s desire to learn to rule better - his fear that England may yet curse his reign(2H.Vl, IV. ix. 48-49) 18. York’s telling Henry that his hand is ’’made to grasp a palmer’s staff” and not a prince’s scepter (2H.VI, V. i. 97-98)

19. The King’s pleading with Salisbury to continue his fealty to him(2H.VI, V. i. 162-174) 20. Henry’s hesitancy to flee from St. Albans - his resignation to the heavens - his asking Margaret to stay with him - her chiding him for neither fighting nor fleeing - her wanting him to hurry with her to London, where he is loved(2H.Vl, V. 11. 72-83)

21. Henry’s wishing for the peaceful, secure life of a shepherd in preference to the tempestuous, insecure life of a king(3H.Vl, 11. v. 21-54) 22. Henryks grief for Ms subjects* woe(3H.VI, 11. v. Ill) 23. Henry’s desire to be in the presence of his queen(3H.Vl, 11. v. 138-139)

24. Henry’s having a prayer book when captured in Northern England(3H.Vl, 111. i. Stage direction after line 12) 25. Edward 7 s saying that the Queen led Henry "though he were a king” (3H.VI, 11. vi. 34-36) 26. Henry’s complimenting the power of the Queen’s sighs and tears(3H.Vl, 111. i. 35-41) 27. Henry T snconversation with his captors concerning oaths, his revealing the lightness of their oaths, and his desiring them not to break their latest oath to Edward, as they had broken the one which they had made to him(3H.VI, 111. 1. 72-92) 28. Henry’s delight in staying in prison, his wanting to reward the jailer, and his wanting to live where no one can hurt him and he can hurt no one else(3H.VI, IV. vi. 1-22) 29. Henry’s wanting Warwick and Clarence to send immediately for Margret and his son(3H.VI, IV. vi. 58- 63)

30. Henry’s believing that his meed, pity, mildness, mercy, and lack of oppression in dealing with his subjects will hold the people to him and keep them from going to Edward(3H.Vl, IV. viii. 33-51) ~~

1 All references in this study to the Folio plays, 2 and 3 Henry VI, are based on W. A. Neilson’s 1906 Cambridge Edition of Shakespeare, unless otherwise indicated.

Items That Sharpen the Characterization of Duke Humphrey

1. Humphrey’s reminding the nobles of the services they and others have rendered in France and his asking them if this is to be in vain; his concrete, vivid picturing of Henry V’s services in France and his believing that France was Henry V’s true inheritance(2H,Vl, I. i. 75-103) 2. Gloucester’s considering Suffolk’s demand of a whole fifteenth for costs and charges in transporting Margaret, a jest never before heard of - his saying that Margaret should have stayed in France and starved there(2H.Vl, I. i. 132-135) 3. Gloucester’s deciding to go in order that he and the Cardinal may not begin their "ancient bi ckeri ngs" (2H. VI, I. i. 143-144)

4. The Cardinal’s warning the lords that they bo not deceived by Gloucester’s smooth speech and the common people’s praise of hImUH.VI, I. 1. 156-164) 5. Sailsbury T s~speaking of Humphrey’s ever gentlemanly CQnduct(2H.Vl, I. i. 184-185) 6. Salisbury’s saying that Warwick ranks next to Duke Humphrey in the favor of the common people (2H, VI, I. i. 192-193) 7. Gloucester’s dream that the Cardinal breaks his

(Gloucester’s) staff(2H.Vl, I. ii. 27) 8. Gloucester’s telling Eleanor to banish disloyal, ambitious thoughts(2H .VI, I. ii. 18) 9. Gloucester* s calling Eleanor "ill-nurtured"; his chiding her for wanting more than she already has; his warning her that her ambitious treachery will pull them down from honor to disgrace( 2H.Vl, I. ii. 42-49) 10. Humphrey’s being falsely and specifically accused to the King by the Queen, Suffolk, the Cardinal, York, Buckingham, and Somerset(2H.Vl, I. iii. 128 and 132-140) 11. Humphrey 1 s leaving the conference to cool his anger which has been aroused by the false accusations of the Queen and her followers(2H.Vl, I. iii. Stage direction following line 140. Also lines 155-157)

12. Humphrey’s challenging his spiteful and false accusers to prove their accusations - his expression of loyalty to his king and country(2H.VI } I. iii. 158-161) 13. York’s mentioning Humphrey’s goodness and virtue(2H.Vl, 11. ii. 74) , 14. Gloucester’s telling Eleanor, after she is sentenced and is being taken away, that he cannot "justify whom the law condemns”(2H.Vl, 11. iii. 15-16) 15. Gloucester’s outburst of grief at Eleanor’s state(2H,Vl,

11, iii. 17-19)

16. Gloucester’s reflecting upon the coming and going of cares and joys(2H.Vl, 11. iv. 1-4) 17. Stanley’s telling Eleanor that she will be treated as Duke Humphrey’s wife(2H.Vl, 11. iv. 98) 18. The King’s repeating his belief in Humphrey’s innocence(2H.Vl, 111. i. 66-73) 19. Humphrey’s being accused falsely and specifically again to the King by the Queen and her followers(2H.Vi, 111. i. 28, 45-52,58-59, 60- 63, and 64) 20. The King’s extended expression of grief at Humphrey’s state; his believing that the Queen and the lobles are seeking Humphrey’s "subversion”; his realizing his helplessness to aid Humphrey the Queen and the mighty nobles (2II» VI, 111. i. 202-222) 21. Suffolk’s not thinking favorably of the Cardinal’s suggestion that Duke Humphrey die by due course of law; Suffolk’s saying that their(his and his followers’) arguments against Humphrey are trivial, that he fears the King will strive hard to save Humphrey* s life, and that the commons nay rise in Humphrey’s behalf (2H.VI, 111. i. 235-242) 22. The King’s suspecting tliat violent hands have been laid on Gloucester; his desire to pay Humphrey sentimental obsequies, but his realizing the vanity and meanness of such action(2H.Vl, 111. ii. 136-146)

Items That Sharpen the Characterization of the Cardinal

1. Gloucester’s deciding to go in order that he and the Cardinal may not begin their "ancient bi eke rings" (2H.VI , I. i. 143-144) 2. The Cardinal’s false accusations of Humphrey by way of arousing the other lords against him(2H.VI, I. i. 149-164) 3. The Cardinal’s rushing to tell Suffolk of the united plot "to hoise Duke Humphrey from his seat" (2H.VI, I. i. 170-171) 4. Salisbury’s saying that the Cardinal demeans himself unlike a ruler of the commonwea 1 (2H * VI, I. i» 188-189) 5. Gloucester’s dream that the Cardinal broke his (Gloucester’s) staff(2H.Vl, I. ii. 27) 6. The Cardinal’s having a hand in the "attainture” of Sleanor(2H.Vl, I. ii. 94) 7. Margaret’s designating the Cardinal as imperious 211.V1, I. lii. 71-73) 8. The Cardinal’s falsely accusing Humphrey to the King of racking the commons and extorting the clergy(2H»Vl, I. iii. 132) 9. The Cardinal’s calling Humphrey, in the King’s presence, the ’’pernicious Protector”(2H.Vl, Xl* i. 21) 10. Vomit’s speaking of the Cardinal’s pride(2H.Vl, 11. ii. 71) 11. The Cardinal’s falsely accusing Gloucester to the

King of devising ”strange deaths for small offenses done (2H.VI, 111. i. 58-59) 12. The Cardinal’s complaining to the King about the latter’s giving Humphrey free rein of speech(2H.Vl, 111. 1. 172-177)

Items That Sharpen the Characterisation of Queen Margaret

1. The King’s expression of joy at the charm and wisdom of spoech(2H.VX, I. i. 33-35) 2. Gloucester’s saying that Margaret’s father’s style of living is too much for the latter’s lean purse(2H. Vl, I. i• 111—112) 3. Gloucester’s considering Suffolk’s demand of a whole fifteenth for cost and charges in transporting Margaret, a jest novel* before heard of; his saying that she should have stayed in France and starved there(2H.Vl, I. i. 132-135) 4. Margaret’s admiration of Suffolk’s courage, ways of courtship, and physical proportion(2H.Vl, I. iii. 56-57) 5. Suffolk’s asking the Queen to be patient until they can get rid of the Cardinal, Humphrey, and York - Humphrey first - then all will he well for them (21! ♦ VI, I. iii. 95-103)

St The Queen’s falsely accusing Humphrey to the King of selling offices and towns in France(2H.Vl, I. iii. 138- 140) 7. The Queen’s gloating over Gloucester’s losing his staff and his disgrace at Eleanor’s handa(2Jl.Vl, 11. iii• 39—44) 8. The Queen’s falsely telling the King that Gloucester has won th© common people by flattery(2H<VI > 111. i. 28) 9. The King* s relieving that the Queen and the nobles arc seeking Humphrey’s. ” subve rs i on”(2H. VI,, 111. i. 202-208) 10. The Queen’s feigning before the King a hope that Gloucester will clear himself of suspicion and that he will not be falsely accased(2H.Vl, 111. ii. 23-25) 11. The Queen’s wondering why Suffolk’s ”lovely face” could not induce his captors to relent as readily as it had been able to rule her(2H.VI, IV. iv. 13-18) 12. York’s calling Margaret a ’’blood-besotted Neapolitan” (2H.VI, V. i. 117) ~ 13. Margaret’s chiding Henry for neither fighting nor fleeing(2H.Vl, V. ii. 74) 14. Henry’s complimenting the power of Margaret’s sighs and tears(3H.Vl, 111. i. 35-41) 15. Margaret’s feigned but tactful humility before the King of Franco(3H.VIIII. ill. 4-11) 16. Margaret’s encouraging her allies at Tewksbury (3H.VI, V. iv. 1-2 and 24-38) 17. The Prince’s proud speech of praise for his mother’s courage (3H .VI, V. iv. 39-42)

Items That Sharpen the Characterization of Suffolk

1. York’s cursing Suffolk for giving up Anjou and Maine (2H.VI, I. 1. 123-126) 2. Gloucester’s considering Suffolk’s demand of a whole fifteenth for cost and charges in transporting Margaret, a jest never before heard of (2H.VI, I. i. 132-135) 3. Margaret’s admiration of Suffolk’s courage, ways of courtship, and physical proportion(2H.Vl, I. iii. 56*57) 4. Suffolk’s asking the Queen to be patient until they can get rid of Humphrey, the Cardinal, and York - Humphrey first - then all will be well for them (2H»VI, I. iii. 95-103) 5. Suffolk’s falsely blaming Humphrey to the King for the Dauphin’s success in France(2H.Vl, I. iii. 128) 6. York’s speaking of Suffolk’s in s olen ce (2H .VI, 11. ii. 70)

7. Suffolk’s gloating over Gloucester’s losing his staff and his disgrace at Eleanor’s bands(2H .VI ? 11. iii. 45-46) 8# Suffolk’s falsely telling the King that Gloucester probably instigated Eleanor to plot his(the King’s) overthrow (2H.VI, HI. i* 45-52) 9. The King’s believing that the Queen and the nobles (including Suffolk) are seeking Humphrey’s "subversion" (2H.VI. 111. 1. 202-208) 10. Suffolk’s not thinking favorably of the Cardinal’s wanting Duke Humphrey to die by due course of law; his saying that their(his and his followers ’ ) arguments against Humphrey are trivial; his fearing that the King will strive hard to save Humphrey’s life and that the commons will rise up in Humphrey’s behalf(2H.Vl, 111. i. 238-242) 11. Salisbury’s telling the King that the common people fear his(the King’s) death at the hands of Suffolk - that they are determined to protect him( the King) (211 .VI, 111. ii **249-269) 12. The King’s saying that he, like the commons, fears some mischance for himself at Suffolk’s Ilands(2H.Vl, UI.

it. 283-284) 13. A second cry from the commons - a cry that they will break in if Salisbury does not bring them an answer from the King as to what he(the King) is going to do with Suffolk (2H>I, !!!• ii. 278) 14. The Lieutenant’s summary of the evil Suffolk has done and his telling what was then happening in England be cause of Suffolk(2H.Vl, IV. i. 83-105) 15. The QuoWs wondering why Suffolk’s "lovely face® could not induce his captors to relent as readily as it had boon able to rule her(2H.VX } IV. iv. 15-18)

Items That Sharpen the Characterization of the Duke of York

1. Salisbury’s saying that York’s campaigns in England’s behalf have caused him (York) to be feared by the people of

England (2H* VI, I. i. 193) 2. Y' ork r s~de cla ring that he would not have given up Anjou and Mine to France without a fight as Suffolk had done; his saying that he would have upheld England’s warlike reputation(2H.Vl. I. i. 123-126) 3, York’s bemoaning the loss of Anjou and Maine, which he looks upon as his own(2H*Vl, I. i. 214-235) 4. Mrgaret’s describing York as *’grumbling” (2H.VI, I. iii. 71-73) 5. York’s blaming Somerset for his losing Paris(2H.Vl, I, iii. 170-175) 6. York’s mentioning, to Salisbury and Warwick, Suffolk’s insolence, the Cardinal’s pride, Somerset’s ambition, and Humphrey’s goodness and virtue(2H.Vl, 11. ii. 66-76) 7. York’s falsely accusing Gloucester to the King of levying ”great sums of money through the realm for soldiers’ pay in France” and of never sending it to France for that purpose, thereby causing many towns to revolt(2H.Vl, 111* i. 60-63) 8. York’s secret intention to get the throne(2H*Vl, 111. i. 89-92) 9. The King’s asking Buckingham not to be rough in terms with York, for the latter would not stand for it(2K.VI, IV. ix. 44-45) 10. York’s telling Henry that his(Henry’s) hand is ’’made to grasp a palmer 5 s staff” and not a prince’s scopter(2H*Vl, V. i. 97-98) 11. York 5 s calling Margaret a “blood-besotted Neapolitan” (2E.VI, V. i. 117)

Items That Sharpen the Characterization of Salisbury

1* Salisbury's speaking of Humphrey’s ever gentlemanly condu ct(2H * VI, I* i. 184-185) 2. Salisbury’s saying that the Cardinal demeans himself unlike a ruler of the commonweal(2H*Vl, 1. i. 188-189) 3. Salisbury’s telling York that his( York’s) campaigns in England’s behalf have caused him(York)to be feared by the people of England (2H, VI f I, i. 198) 4. Salisbury’s saying that Warv/ick ranks next to Humphrey in the of the common people(,2H*Vl, 1. i. 192-193) 5. Suffolk’s putting Salisbury and Warwick above Humphrey, the Cardinal, Somerset, Buckingham, and York in power and influence (2H/h I. ill. 75-77) 6. Salisbury*s refusing to heed Henry’s plea that he continue his fealty to him - his defense of himself by telling Henry that it is a greater sin to be bound by an oath to do wrong than it is to swear unto a sin(2H.VI, V. i* 175-190)

Items That Sharpen the Characterization of Warwick

1. Salisbury’s saying that Warwick ranks next to HUmphrey in the favor of the common people(2H.Vl, I. i. 192-193) 2. Suffolk’s putting Salisbury and Warwick above Humphrey, the Cardinal, Somerset, Buckingham, and York in cower and influence(2F.Vl, I. iii. 75-77) 3. The Cardinal’s describing Warwick as w ambitious K (2H.Vl, I. iii. 112)

4. Warwick’s being confident that he will some day make York king(2H.Vl, 11. ii. 78-79) 5. Richard’s telling Old Clifford that he(the latter) will not fare well in a fight with Warwick(2H.Vl, V. i. 150-152) 6. Margaret’s warning King Lewis and Lady Bona of Warwick’s political deceit in arranging for the marriage of Edward to Lady Bona (3H .VI ; 111. iii. 66-77), a detail will ch motivates and emphasizes the exposure of Warwick’s insincerity later (3H.VI, 111. iii. 179-130, and True Tragedy, 111. iii. 1097 ~ 2 7. Margaret’s fear that Warwick’s eloquence will win the King(3H.VX, 111. iii. 112) 8. khrgaret’s emphasizing Warwick as the cause of the King’s releasing himself from his recent premise to help herQH.VI, 111. iii. 144-150) 9, rhrgaret’s emphasizing Warwick’s reputation as a ’’setter up and puller down of kings”(3H.Vl, 111. iii. 156-157) 10. Warwick’s wanting Clarence to bo Henry’s Protector instead of himself(3H.Vl, IV* vi . 26-40) 11. Warwick’s wanting Edward to be declared a traitor and his property confiscated(3ll.Vl, IV. vi. 48-55) 12. emphatic defiance of the pleas of Edward and Richard for him to rejoin them(3H. VI, V. i. 48-57) 13. Edward’s designating Warwick as changing Warwick” (3H. VI, V. i. 57) 14. Warwick’s praising Clarence for loving the right more than he loves his brother(3H*Vl, V. i. 73-30) 15. Warwick’s eagerness to find treason and down it(3H.VI, V. ii. 16-18)

Items That Sharpen the Characterization of Richard

ta 1. Richard’s telling Old Clifford that(Old Clifford) will not fare v/eil in a fight with Wach(2H.Vl, V. 1. 151*156) 2. Old Cliff ord’s speaking of Ri chard T ~crook€3d shape, crude manners, and quickness to wrath(2H,Vl, Vl.vi, 157-158) 3, Richard's declaring, upon his hearing that Young Clifford had murdered his father* and youtliful brother, that he would

kill Young Clifford(sH»yi, 11. i. 201-203) 4. Edvard and George considering the battle at Towton lost, a consideration in direct contrast with that of Richard (3H. VI, 11. ill. 9-13) 5. Clifford 1 s fleeing from combat with .Richard at Towton (3H.VI, 11. iv. Stage direction after line 11) instead of Richard’s being rescued by Warwick, as the True Tragedy has it(T.l., 11. iv. Stage direction at and of scend 6. Richard’s again assigning himself the special task of killing Clifford after Clifford had fled from him at Towton (3H.VI, 11. iv. 12-13. Stage direction) 7. Richard’s questioning himself as to whether he should try to cat off the ”causes” that keep him from the crown (3H. VI, 111. ii. 134-147) 8• Ri chard’s two a ddill ona 1 direct sta taments of his intention to get the or own (SR.I'I, 111. ii. 165-181) 9. Richard’s detailed plan~Tor getting the crown(3H<Vl, 111. ii. 184-190)

10. Richard’s patient but continued secret plotting for the throne(3h.Vl, IV. i. 124-126) 11. Richard^s^actual deed of stabbing the young Prince Edwrd.(3H.Vl, V. v. 39)

2 All references in this study to the Quarto plays are based on the Praetorius Facsimiles unless otherwise indicated.

Items That Sharpen the Characterization of Young Clifford

1. Young Clifford’s declaring that he will no longer spare the babes of York; his deciding to be cruel and relentless (211 .VI, V. ii. 51-65) 2. Young Clifford’s declaring his intention to do future mi s chi ef (211 *VI, 11, 84) 3. Salisbury’s being killed by Clifford(3H.Vl, 11. iii. 14-16)instead of a ’’thousand swords,” as the True Tragedy has it(T.T., Xl* iii. 15-25)

Items That Sharpen the Characterization of Edward

1. Richard’s insinuation of Edward’s fondness for women (3H.VI, 11. i. 41-42) ~~ 21 Edwar d* s consider!ng the batll oat Towton lost, a consideration in sharp contrast with that of Ri chard(3H.Vi, IX. ill. 12-13) 3. Richard’s speaking of Edward’© lustful nature (311. VI, 111. ii. 129), 4. Margaret’s warning King. Lewis and Lady Bona that Edward’s love is not sincere(3H.Vl, 111. iii. 66-77), a detail which motivates and empm sizes the exposure of Edward’s fickleness and insincerity later(3H.Vl, 111. ill. 179-180, and True Tragedy, 111. iii. 109) 5. Clarence 1 © saying that Edvard married Lady Grey for wanton lust” instead of for the honor, strength, and safety

of bis country(3H.Vl, 111. ill. 208-211) 6. Edward’s premeditated deception of the myor of York (3H.VI, IV. vii. 1-15)

Items That Sharpen the Characterization of Clarence

!♦ Clarence’s considering the tattle ut Towton lost, a consideration in direct contrast with that of Richard(3H.Vl, II . Hi. 9-11)

2. Clarence’s deserting Edward because he considers that Edward married ’’for wanton lust” instead of for the honor, strength, and safety of his country(3H.Vl, 111. ill. 208-211) 3. Clarence’s wanting Warwick to bo Henry’s Protector instead of himself (3H.VI, IV. vi . 32-36) 4. Clarence’s wanting succession to be dotermined(3H.Vl, IV. vi. 56) 5. Edward’s respect for Clarence’s power(3H. Vl ? IV. vii. 84-88)

6. Warwick * s pra lai n g Cla ren c □ for loving th o right mo re than he loves his brother(3H.7l, V. i. 78-80)

7. Clarence’s deciding without persuasion from Edward and Richard to desert Warwick(3H.Vl, V. i. 30-81) 8, Clarence’s stabbing Prince Edward(3H.Vl, V. v. 40)

To one familiar with the plays under consideration the foregoing items mean much in characterization and dramatic effect. They make the Folio plays much stronger than the Quartos: Henry’s piety or* saintliness, and inherent weakness; Richard’s craftiness and fiendishness; Margaret’s masculinity, cruelty, and insincerity; Suffolk’s insolence; the Cardinal’s greed and imperiousness; Humphrey’s goodness and his popularity with the common people; York’s power and secret political ambition; Salisbury’s great influence and high repute; Warwick’s political shiftiness, popularity with the common people, and reputation for being a maker and unmaker of kings; Young Clifford’s bloodiness and cruelty; Clarence’s power and independence; and Edward’s ’’wanton lust” - all are nude profoundly more distinct from the additional items

contained in the Folio.

Tho items listed above represent practically all of the allegedly omitted material. The assumed a ctor-reporters left out, so far as 1 can see, nothing that ms unimportant or worthless. Is it possible that the aetor-reporters, working in the Quartos, deliberately or consciously omitted all this vital material? Or is it possible that they omitted the material through accident or chance or faulty memory? How strange to omit so much that is vital and little oi’ nothing that Is not vital 1

CHAPTER III QUARTO MATERIAL THAT IS NON-ESSENTIAL TO CHARACTER- IZATION AND DRAMATIC EFFECT

In the second place, why did the actor-reporters add several items in the Quartos ,that are not to be found in the Folio - items that apparently add nothing to characterization or dramatic effect? For example, why the following? The King’s censuring for boxing Eleanor’s ear (Cent., I. iii. 145-147); Bolingbroke*s speech about, Pluto(Pont., I. iv. 32-35); the Queen’s having Buckingham to muster York’s soldiers(Cent., 111 • i. 157-164) instead of Suffolk, as 2 Henry VI has it(2H.VI, 111. i. 327-330); Robin’s announcement to Cade that London Bridge was afire(Cont., IV. vii. 68-70); Richard’s fleeing from Young Clifford(COnt., V. ii. Stage direction after line 57); Warwick’s rescue of Richard in the latter’s fight with Clifford(T.T., 11. iv. Stage direction at end of scene), as against Clifford’s fleeing from Richard in 3 Henry VI (11. iv. Stage direction after linelll); Clifford’s having an arrow in his neck(T.T., 11. vi. Stage direction at beginning of scene); and Henry’s being disguised when captured in Northern England(T.T., 111. i. Stage direction after line 3. Also lines 4-5). Why indeed should the a ctor-reporters have added a considerable amount of non-essential material? If they had hot Svppileg the additions, they could have shortened their plays for

1 acting purposes still more.

Further, why did the actor-reporters make several non-essential additions or changes in the Quartos that indicate a close touch with the chronicle sources? that signify work independent of a mere reporting of another play? Consider the following scheme:

Additions or Changes in the Quartos

Cade ”strikes his sword upon London stone”( Cent., IV. vi. Stage direction at beginning of scone)

Clifford has an arrow in his neck (T.T., 11. vi. Stage direction at beginning of scene)

Henry is disguised when captured in Northern England (T.T., 111. i. Stage direction after line 3. Also lines 4-5)

Richard has a parley with Clarence at Edward’s request, in which Clarence is won over(T.T., V. i. 54 and stage direction following

Stage direction at the beginning

Parallel in the Folio

Cade ”strikes his staff on London stone” (2H.VI, IV. vi. Stage direction at beginning of scene)

None

None

None

In 3 Henry VI only the namesof

Parallel in the" Chronicles

He strikes his sword (Boswell-Stone, W. G., Holinshed, p. 276)

Has arrow in his neck (Boswell-Stone, op. cit., p. 307 T

He is disguised when captured (Boswell-Stone, op* cit*, p. 309)

Richard has a parley with Clarence at Edward’s request, in which Clarence is won over (Boswell-Stone, op. cit., pp. 335-336)

The True Tragedy 10l-

Additions or Changes in the Quartos

of Act V, scene v, of the True Tragedy: "Alarmss to battell, Yorke flies, then the chambers be discharged. Then enter the king, Cla & Gio, and the rest, & make a great shout and crie, for Yorke, for Yorke, and then the Queone is taken, & the prince, & Oxf. & Sum. and then sound and enter all againe."

Humphrey accuses the Cardinal of bastardy(Cont., 11. i.

Clarence is the only brother to object to Edward* s marriage to Lady Grey(T.T., IV, i. 31-341

Margery Jourdaine is spbken of as the cunning Witch of Ely(Cont., I • it. 53-S4T"

Parallel in the Folio

thoSe who enter are given(3H.Vl, V. v. Stage direction at beginning of s cene)

Hone

Clarence and Richard both object(3H.Vl, IV. i. 47-58)

She is spoken of as merely the cunning witch (2H.VI, I. ii.

Parallel in the Chronicles"

lows Hall exactly (Hall, Edward, History of England, p. 300. See also Boswell-Stone, op. cit., p. 338)

Humphrey accuses the Cardinal of bastardy (Hall, op. cit., p. 210)

Clarence alone objects (Hall, op. cit., p. 271)

“She is spoken of as Witch of Ely (See Stow, John, Annales or Generali Chronicle of England, continued and augmented by Edmond Howes, London, 1615, "Alphabet! ca 11 Table M under W* s. See also Hart, H. C., op. dt., Note 7, p. 63 J -

Would actor-reporters working in the Contention and the True Tragedy have gone outside of the plays they were merely reporting for additional or different material? And if their memories failed them, how is it that they happened to fill in with much material that has its parallel only in con-

temporary chronicles?

It cannot be that actor-reporters working in the Contention and the True Tragedy omitted, added, or changed 2 material bemuse of faulty memories# For example, how could they have forgotten that the c ueen instead of Suffolk (Cent#, I. iii. Stage direction after line 40) tore the supplications(2H. VI, I. iii. Stage direction after line 42)? That Humphrey left the conference on the regentship in anger (2H.VI, I. ill# 155-157)? That the Queen dropped her fan (2H.VI, I, iii. 141) instead of her glove(Pont., I. iii. Stage direction after line 132)? That the Queen struck Eleanor only once(2H#Vl, I. iii. Stage direction after line 141), not twice(Cont.,l. iii. Stage direction after line 132. Also line 133)? That the blind man’s name was "Saunder Simpcox" and not "Sander"? That Suffolk’s executioner was named "Walter Whitmore"(2H.Vl, IV. i. 14) and not "Water Whickmore"(Pont., IV. i. 5)? That Clifford fled from Richard (3H.VI, 11. iv. Stage direction after line 11) rather than that Richard was rescued by Warwick and that Clifford did not flee(T#T. ,11. iv. Stage direction at end of scene)? That Clifford did not have an arrow in his neck(3H.Vl, 11. vi • Stage direction at beginning of scene)? And that Henry was not disguised when captured in Northern England(3H.Vl, 111. i)? - Their mere rehearsing of the Folio plays and hanging around the stage to watch their fellow actors "go through" their parts would have wade impossible their forgetting the above facts. Now if they omitted, added, or changed material in many such instances as just noted, even though they did not forget, how can it be held that in certain other instances of variation between the Quarto and Folio texts the actorreporters forgot?

1 Cf. Doran, op. cit., p. 51.

2 Doran, op. cit., pp. 10-27; Alexander, op, cit., pp. 51-116.

CHAPTER IV QUARTO AND FOLIO CORRUPTIONS

Many of the Quarto corruptions really are not corruptions at all; they are only so-called ones* Some, of course, are real corruptions, but an actor-reporter, either with or without a bad memory, need not be considered as responsible for them* Consider as a first instance Richard* s 1 speech about the father of Warwick:

Ah Warwike, why haste thou withdrawn© thy selfe? Thy noble father in the thickest thronges, Cride still for Wa rwike Eis thrise valiant son, Untill with thousand swords he was. beset, And manic wounds made in his aged brest, And as he tottering sate upon his steede, He waft his hand to me and cride aloud: Richard, commend me to my valiant sonne. And still he cride Warwike revenge my death, And with those words he tumbled off his horse, And so the noble Salsbury gave up the ghost. (T.T., 11. iii. 15-25)

In 3 Henry VI this speech is a follows:

Ah, Warwick, why hast thou withdrawn thyself? Thy brother’s blood the thirsty earth hath drunk. Broach’d with the steely point of Clifford’s lance; And in the very pangs of death he cried. Like to a dismal clangor heard from far, "Warwick, revenge’, brother, revenge my death 1 .” So, underneath the belly of their steeds, That stain’d their fetlocks in his smoking blood, The noble gentleman gave up the ghost. (3H.VI, 11. iii. 14-22)

Now compare the phraseology of the speech in the True Tragedy with the following passages in the Contention. In the first of these, Salisbury is speaking to Warwick:

And thou brave Warwike, my thrice valiant sonne Thy simple plainness© and thy house-keeping Hath wonne thee credit amongst the common sort. (COnt., I. i. 123-125)

In the second passage, Richard is telling his father of Salisbury’s heroic fighting:

My Lord, I saw him in the thickest throng, Charging his Lance with his old weary armes, And thrise 1 saw him beaten from his horse, And thrise this hand did set him up again©, And still he fought with courage gainst his foes, The boldest spirited man that ere mine eyes beheld. (Cont., V. iii. 9-14)

Note the use of the italicized phrases "thrice valiant sonne" and "in the thickest throng” in Richard’s speech from the True Tragedy and the last two speeches from the Contention* Note also that the phrases are descriptive of the same persons, Warwick and Salisbury respectively, in both the True Tragedy and the Contention* Then bear in mind that these two phrases nowhere appear in the Folio plays, 2 and 3 Henry VI. Does all this not show that the author of the True Tragedy was consciously linking his work to his previous work in the Contention rather than trying to recall a corresponding passage from 3 Henry VI? I think it does. It is indeed strange that an actor-reporter, trying to recall the speech in 3 Henry VI, should be able to remember a large part of that speech and at the same time not be able to

remember the two far most impressive points of the speech - namely, that it was Warwick’s brother who was killed and that he was killed by Clifford. Here it should be noted further that the phrase "in the thickest throngs" is used in one other placo in the True Tragedy and not in the corresponding place of 3 Henry VI. Young Prince Edward in rousing his followers to fight exclaims:

I will not stand aloofe and bld you fight, But with my sword presse in the thickest thronges. (T.T., V. iv. 17-18)

This is all the more corroborative of my position that the memory of the author of the True Tragedy did not fail him in Richard’s speech about Warwick’s father. Really, it is far more effective, I think, to use “father" rather than "brother, " as is done in 3 Henry VI: the bond of affection between Warwick and his father was great and has been previously stressed in both the Quartos and the Folio, but nothing what soever has been said heretofore, in any of the plays, about Warwick’s bastard brother. The author of 3 Henry VI goes contrary to history in having Clifford kill the bastard brother; then why can we not allow the author of the True Tragedy a similar privilege in having the father killed instead of the brother? To allow him this privilege undoubtedly makes for greater dramtic effectiveness.

In the second place, there is the so-called corruption

2 about the Scales-Bonfield marriage. In the True Tragedy, Hastings, by way of refuting Montague’s contention that Edward should have married the French king’s sister instead of lady Grey and thereby have formed an alliance with France, says:

Let England be true within it self, We need not France nor any alliance with them. (T.T., IV. i. 31-32)

From here the argument continues as follows:

Cla» For this one speech the Lord Hastings wol deserves. To have the daughter and heire of the Lord Hungerford. Edw. And what then? It was our will it should be so? Cla. I, and for such a thing too the Lord Scales Did well deserve at your hands, to have the Daughter of the Lord Bonfield, and left your Brothers go seeke elsewhere, but in Your madnes, you burie brotherhood. Edw. Alasse poore Clarence, is it for a wife, That thou art sal-content. Why man be of good cheere, I will provide thoe one. Cla. Naie you plaide the broker so ill for your selfe, That you shall give mo leave to make my* Choise as I thinke good, and to that intent, I shortite meane to leave you. Edw. Leave me or tarrie I am full resolv’d, Edward will hot be tied to his brothers? wils. (T.T., IV. i. 33-49)

In 3 Henry VI, the argument from Montague’s contention proceeds thus i

Hast. ’Tis better using France than trusting France. Let us be back’d with God and with the seas

Which He hath given for fence impregnable. And with their helps only defend ourselves. In them and in ourselves our safety lies. Clar. For this one speech Lord Hastings well deserves To have the heir of the Lord Hungerford. K. Edw. Ay, what of that? It was my will and grant; And for this once my will shall stand for law. Glou. And yet methinks your Grace hath not done well To give the heir and daughter of Lord Scales Unto the brother of your loving bride. She better would have fitted me or Clarence; But in your bride you bury brotherhood. Clar. Or else you would not have bestow*d the heir Of the Lord Bonville on your new wife’s son, And leave your brothers to go speed elsewhere. K. Edw. Alas, poor Clarence’, is it for a wife That thou art malcontent? I will provide thee. Clar. In choosing for yourself, you show* d your judgment, Which being shallow, you shall give me leave To play the broker in mine own behalf; And to that end I shortly mind to leave you. K. Edw. Leave mo or tarry, Edward will be king. And not be tied unto his brother’s will. (3 Henry VI, IV. i. 42-66)

Miss Doran seems to think that the actor-reporter erred in confining the objections in this marriage affair to Clarence 3 that is, in having Clarence the sole brother to object. But 4 since history represents Clarence as the only objector, the Time Tragedy is accurate at this point and 3 Henry VI, which makes Richard as well as Clarence an objector, is not. Miss Doran says that Clarence* s objecting to the Scales-Bonfield marriage is pointless in that this marriage does not provide a reason for Clarence’s disapproval of

5 Edward’s marriage to Lady Grey. To me, however, it seems that Edward’s giving the Bonfield heiress to Lord Scales provides just as good a reason as does Edward’s giving the Hungerford heiress to Lord Hastings - another marriage which Clarence objects to and one which 3 Henry VI has in common with the True Tragedy. In both cases Edward bestows favors on those who favor his marriage to Lady Grey and oppose his marriage alliance with France. As a matter of fact, the giving of the Bonfield heiress to Lord Scales provides a better reason, for the Lord Scales in question is none other 6 than the brother of Lady Grey, Edward’s. wife and queen. Then if Clarence means to grumble because Edward is giving wives to those who favor his marriage before he gives them to his own brothers, the Scales-Bonfield marriage is a capital reason for such grumbling. And if the Scales-Bonfield marriage makes good contextual sense, as I can but believe 7 it does. Miss Doran’s further objection to it on the ground 8 that it is not historical means naught in the charge that it

represents a corruption of the Folio text, for historical fact was often of little or no concern to the Elizabethan playwright•

It is claimed further that Somerset’s announcement of Montague’s death to Warwick in the True Tragedy is pointless 9 or unmotivated - that it involves corruption. Here is the announcement with its setting:

Enter Oxford and Summerset. Oxf. Ah Warwike, Warwike, cheere up thy self© and live.

For yet thears hope enough to win the dale. Our warlike Queens with troopes is come from France And at South-hampton landed all hir traine, And mightst thou live, then would we never file.

War. Whie then I would not file, nor have I now, But Hercules himselfe must yeeld to ods, For manle wounds receiv’d, and manie moe repaid, robd my strong knit sinews of their strength, And spite of spites needes must I yeeld to death.

Som. Thy brother Montague hath breathd his last. And at the pangs of death I heard him crie And sale, commend me to my valiant brother, And more he would have spoke and more he said. Which sounded like a clamor in a vault,

That could not be distinguish! for the sound, And no the valiant Montague gave up the ghost.

War. What is pompe, rule, raigne, but earth and dust? And live weehow wo can, yet die we must.

Sweet rest his soule, file Lords and save your selves. For Warwike bids you all farewell to moot in Heaven.

He dies.

(T.T., V. ii. 18-33)

In 5 Henry VI, we find the following:

Bnter Oxford and Somerset * Som. Ah, Warwick, War wi okl wer t thou as we are,

We might recover all our loss again. The Queen from France hath brought a puissant power; Even now we heard the news. Ah, couldst thou fly’.

War. Why, thennl would not fly. Ah, Montague, If thou be there, sweet brother, take my hand, And with thy lips keep in my soul a while’. Thou lov* st me not; for, brother, if thou didst, Thy tears would wash this cold congealed blood That glues my lips and will not let me speak. Come quickly, Montague, or I am dead. Som. Ah, Warwick*. Montagus hath breath’d his last; And to the latest gasp cried out for Warwick, And said, M Commend me to my valiant brother.” And more he would have said, and more he spoke, Which sounded like a clamour in a vault.

That might not be distinguish’d; but at last I well might hear, delivered with a groan, ”0, fa rewell, Warwi ck ” War. Sweet rest his soul’. Fly, lords, and save yourselves; For Warwick bids you all farewell, to meet in heaven. (3H.VI, V. ii. 29-49)

Miss Doran thinks that Warwick’s delirious calling for Montague - which precedes Somerset’s, announcement of the latter’s death in 5 Henry VI and is totally absent from the True Tragedy - is necessary in order to make Somerset’s lO announcement in the latter play clear. This I cannot see. The announcement in the True Tragedy is not written as an answer to a preceding entreaty as it is in 3 Henry VI * Nor does it begin with an exclamation and a noun of address as it does in 3 Henry VI. It makes perfectly good sense with what goes before and comes after: quite clearly it is a message that Somerset feels he should give Warwick before the latter dies. It gives also, it seems to me, ample

motivation for Warwick’s farewell speech which immediately follows - an appropriate speech on the futility of earthly pomp and power and the necessity of death.

Miss Doran claims conniption even in Henry* s being on the stage when he is captured by Edward at the beginning of Scene 11 xx of the True Tragedy. The complete setting for this so- called corruption is a follows:

War. In Warwike shire I have true harted friends, Not mutinous in peace, yet bold in warre. Them will I muster up, and thou sonne Clarence shalt In Essex, Suffolk©, Norfolk©, and in Kent, Stir up the knights and gentlemen to come with thee. And thou brother Montague, in Leister shire, Buckingham and Northamptonshire shalt find©. Men well inclindo to doe what thou commands, And thou brave Oxford Wondrous well belov’d, Shalt in thy countries muster up thy friends. My sovereign© with his loving Citizens, Shall rest in London till we come to him. Fairs Lords take leave and stand not to replie, Farewell my sovoraigne. King. Farewell my Hector, my Troyes true hope. War/ Farewell sweet Lords, lots moot at Coventrie. All. Agreed.

Exeunt Cannes •

Enter Edward and his traine. Edw. Sease on the shamefast Henry, And once againe convaie him to the Tower, Awaie with him, I will not heare him speaks. And now towards Coventrle let us bend our course To meet with Warwike and his confederates. Exeunt Omnes. (T .T., sc. xix. 11. 31-47; sc. xx. 11. 1-5)

And the setting for 3 Henry VI is:

War* In Warwickshire I have true-hearted friends, Not mutinous in peace, yet bold in war; Those will I muster up; and thou, son Clarence, Shalt stir up in Suffolk, Norfolk, and in Kent, The knights and gentlemen to come with thee. Thou, brother Montague, in Buckingham, Northampton, and in Leicestershire, shalt find Men well inclin’d to hear what thou command* st; And thou, brave Oxford, wondrous well beloved, In Oxfordshire shalt winter up thy friends. My sovereign, with the loving citizens, Like to his island girt in with the ocean, Or, modest Dian, circled with hor nymphs, Shall rest in London till wo come to him. Fair lords, taka leave and stand not to reply. Farewell, my sovereign. K. Hen. Sweet Oxford, and my loving Montague, And ail at once, once more a happy farewell. War. Farewell, sweet lords’. Let’s meet at Coventry. Exeunt. K, Hen. Hore at the palace will I rest a while. Cousin of Exeter, whfet thinks your lordship? Methinks the power that Edward hath in field Should not be able to encounter mine. Exe. The doubt is that he will seduce the rest. Enter King Edvjard and soldiers. K. Edw. Seize on the'shamelfac * d Henry, boar him'hence; And once again proclaim us King of England. You are the fount that makes small brooks to flow; Now stops thy spring, my sea shall suck them dry. And swell so much the higher by their ebb. Penne with him to the Tower, let him not speak. Exeunt some with King henry. And, lords, towards Coventry bend we ovr course, Where peremptory Warwick now remains. (3H.VI, IV. viii. 9-59)

Miss Doran says that the a ctor-reporter erred in the True Tragedy in having Henry on instead of off the stage 12 when Edward enters with his train. She says that the pre- ceding ’’Exeunt Omnes” took Henry off stage and no notice has been given of his return by the time Edward arrives. But

this "Exeunt Omnes" clearly refers only to Warwick and the other lords. Warwick tells the King to remain where he is (London); he bids the other lords to meet with him at Coventry; they "all" agree to do so; then they and Warwick all depart and the King remains. The "Exeunt omnes" of Elizabethan draw. doos not always clear the stage - some one often remains r after it. Note the following passages:

Enter Antipholus Siracusia with his Rapier drawne, ’ and Dromio Sirac. IB Luc. God for thy mercy, they are loose again©, Adr. And coma with naked swords, LetTs call more help© to have them bound againe. Runne all out. Off. Away, they’l kill us. Exeunt omnes, as fast as bay be, frighted.. S. Ant. I see these Witches are affraid of swords. 3. Pro. She that would be your wife, now ran from you. Exeunt. (Com, of Errors, IV. iv. 147-162)

Citi♦ The better that thou lives, doth he. Shore. Thankee father, I am glad of it. But come mister Lodwicke shall we go? And y ou Morton, youle bear© us company.' Lod. I k istresse Shore, Fer my Lord thinkss long for our commlng. Exit omnes. Citi . There there, buffer, but by your leave. The Kings death is a maims to her credit, . U ...... i . (The True Tragedy of Richard the Third/159£/, The Kb lone Society Reprints, lines~322-337) 14 Satur. Ascend Fairs Qaone, Pantheon Lords, accompany

Your Noble Emperour and his lovely Bride, Sent by the heavens for Prince Saturnine,, Whose wise dome hath her Fortune Conquered, There shall we Consummate our Spousall rites. Exeunt omnes. Tit. I am not bid to waits upon this Bride: Titus, when wer’t thou wont to walks alone, Dishonoured thus and Challenged of wrongs? (T. And., I. i. 333-340) Maris. Alas 1 am undone, it is the Quoene. The Proudest Queene that ever England knew. Exeunt Maris, & omnes. Queo. Come Gloster, lets to the’ court and revel there. Bxeunt Glocester and the Queene. (King Edward the First/iSQS/, The Malone Society Reprints, lines 828-332) Qu. Eli. Shoe vaunts that mighty England hath felt her fist;

Longsh. And Ka the ria who brings me that newes shal not goo emptie handed* Exite omnes. Enter Mortlmor^'Tluellen and Meredith. Mortimer. Farewel Lluellen with thy loving Nell. Exit Mortimor. Elinor. To heaven Frier, Frier no fie, Such heavio soules mount not so hie. (King Edward the First£ls93/, The Malone Society Reprints, lines~’i2sl-1278)

Obviously, then, the Elizabethan “Exeunt omnes” did not always mean that every one was to leave the stage. This being true, no corruption can be claimed in King Henry’s remaining after the “Exeunt Omnes” of the True Tragedy. On the other hand, how can Exeter’s being on the stage after the stage direction “Exeunt” in 3 Henry VI be explained? Henry had already told all at once “goodbye,” and “Exeunt” is supposed to include Exeter, if he is then in the King’s presence - on the stage. I say “if he is then in the King’s presence,” for the Folio has nowhere in the scene indicated his - either in stage direction or conversation.

The True Tragedy lias, no occasion fox* having Exeter present; hence, it does not have him so. But suddenly, in the Folio, we find Henry addressing Exeter, after all but Henry are supposed to have gone. Rather it seems that it is the Folio that is in error at this point.

Moreover, there is Warwick’s speech just before the messenger arrives at the royal court of France with a letter announcing Edward’s marriage to Lady Grey:

Henry nov/ lives in Scotland at his ease, Where having nothing, nothing can he lose. And as for you your salfe oar quondam Queen©, You have a fa Uxor able bo malnetaine your state. And better twore to trouble him then France, Sound for a post within.. Tttfc nr. m. 90-94)

Miss Doran holds that this speech is a reproof of Margaret and is unmotivated because it is not immediately preceded 15 by ”a word of complaint or entreaty” from that person. She thinks that the a ctor-report er, in writing what he could from memory of 3 Henry VI, omitted two necessary speeches which precede s speech in that play. One of the speeches is by Margaret; the other by King Lewis:

Q. M?.r. Deceitful Warwick*, it vras thy device By this alliance to make void my suit. Before thy coming Lewis was henry*s friend.

A. Lew* And still is friend to him and Margaret. But if your title to the crown be weak.

As may appear by Edward’s good success. Then ’tis but reason that I bo releas’d From giving aid which late I promised. Yet shall you have all kindness at ray hand That your estate requires and mine can yield. (3H.VI, 111. iii. 141-150)

I cannot seo that Warwick’s speech need bo considered a reproof, io me it can very easily be a concluding - a clinching - argument to the whole matter of who is to get the French king’s cooperation. But if it must be considered

a “reproof” and must have provocation, why should we not say that Margaret’s emphatic complaints and entreaties only a few linos back furnish the necessary provocation - a sort of provocation carried or held over while Warwick and Lewis, at the latter’s request, converse apart from Margaret and the others present? Such complaints or entreaties are the following* for 1 example:

Queen. And if this/Edward’s proposed league of amity with the King of France and his proposed marriage to Lady Bona/go forward all our hope is done. (T.T. 111. iii. 22)

queen. King Lowes and Lady Bona hear© me speake, Before you answers Warwike or his words. For hee it is hath done us all these wrongg. (T.T., 111. Hi. 29-31)

Warwick heard these remarks and, on Margaret’s return to King Lewis’s presence and after Lewis had announced his allegiance to Edward, Warwick made the speech in question - somewhat gloatingly perhaps, but nevertheless aptly and logically. Doubtless he anticipated Margaret’s mind and triumphantly lost no time in speaking before she spoke. It is quite possible, though, that Margaret would have found

an unavailing retort had not the messenger from England arrived when ho did.

In Scene V of the Contention has been pointed out still 16 ~ - another corruption. The Cardinal and Suffolk on the one side are quarreling with Duke Humphrey on the other:

Card. Thy heaven is on earth, thy words and thoughts beat on a Crowne, proude Protector dangerous Peers, to smooth it thus with King and common-wealth. Humphrey. How now my Lord, why this is more then needs, church-men so hoto. Good unckle can you doate. Suf f olke. Why not Having so good a quarrell & so Md a cause. Humphrey. As how, my Lord? Suf folke. As you, my Lord, And it like your Lordly Lords Prot e ctorship• (Cent., sc. v. 11. 16-24)

In 2 Henry VI, this passage is as follows:

Car. Thy heaven is on earth; thine eyes and thoughts Beat on a crown, the treasure of thine heart. Pernicious Protector, dangerous peer, That smooth 1 st it so with king and commonweal. Glou. What, Cardinal, is your priesthood grown peremptory? Churchmen so hot? Good undo, hide such malice. With such holiness can you do it? Suf. No malice, sir; no more than well becomes So good a quarrel and so bad a peer. G 1 ou. As who, my 1 o rd? Suf'. Why, as you, my lord, An’t like your lordly Lord-protectorship. (28.V1, XI. i. 19-30)

The Italicized words indicate the points of supposed corruption in the Contention. But they make good sense and are effective. They are not necessarily corruptions.

"Doate" is merely another form of ’’dote,” and means "to be crazy" or "to be out of one’s wits.” I think it is precisely the word needed in the context, and Malone prefers it, in its Second Quarto form of "dote," to the "do’t" and "doe it" 17 of the Third Quarto and the First Folio respectively• 13 Halliwell pronounces it "intelligible enough," while Staunton 19 and Vaughax incorporate it, spelled as "dote," in their respective editions of 2 Henry VI. Time and in Shakespeare’s works we find it used in the sense hero given 20 it. And to no less extent are the words "cause" and "how" 21 used in Shakespeare as they are here used in the Content!on.

22 . Finally, there is the famous genealogical scene. In the Contention, we read as follows:

War. Then Yorke begin, and if thy claime be good. The Nevils are thy subjects to command.

Yorke, Then thus my Lords.

Edward the third had seven sonnes, The first was Edward the blacke Prince, Prince of Nales. The second was Edmund of Langly,

Duke of Yorke.

The third was Lyonell Duke of Clarence. The fourth was John of Gaunt,

The Duke of Lancaster.

The fifth was .Roger Mortomor, Earle of inarch. The sixt was sir Thomas of Woodstock©. William of Winsor© was the seventh and last.

Now. Edward th© black© Prince he died before his father, and left behind© him Richard, that afterwards ms King, Crownde by the name of Richard the and he died without an heire. Edmund of Langly Duke of Yorke died, and left behind him two daughters, Anne and Elinor.

Lyonell Duke of Clarence died, and left behind© Alice, Anne, and Elinor, that was after married to my father, and by her I claime the Crowns, as the true heire to Lyonell Duke of Clarence, the third sonne to Edward the third. Now sir. In the time of Richards raigne, Henry of Dullingbrooke, sonne and heire to John of Gaunt, the Duke of Lancaster fourth son to Edward the third, he claimdc 'the Crowne, deposde the King, and as both you know, in Pomphret Castle harmless© Richard was shamefully murthorod, and so by Richards death came the house l of Lancaster unto the Crown©.

Sals. Saving your tale my herd, as 1 have heard, in the ruigne of Bullenbrooke, the Duke of Yorke did claime the Crowno, and but for Jwin Glendor, had bene King. forks* True. But so it fortuned then, by meanes of that monstrous rebel Glendor, the noble Duke of York was done to death, and so ever since the heires of John

of Gaunt have possessed the Crown©. But if the issue of the elder should sucseed before the issue of the yonder, then am I lawfull heire unto the kingdom©. Warlike. What plain© proceedings can be more plains, hoe claimes it from Lyonel Duke of Clarence, the third

sonne to Edward tlie third, and Henry from John of (Jaunt the fourth sonne. So that till Lyonels issue falies, his should not raigne. It failes not yet, but florlsheth in thee & in thy sons, brave slips of such a stock. Thon noble fa tiler, kneele we both togither, and Ln this private place, be we the first to honor him with birthright to the Crown.

(Cont., 11. ii. 5-48)

In 2 Henry VI the corresponding passage reads:

War. Sweet York, begin; and if thy claim be good. The Nevils are thy subjects to command.

York. Then thus:

Edward the Third, my lords, had seven sons:

The first, Edward the Black Prince, Princes of Wales; The second', William of Hatfield; and the third, Lionel Duke of Clarence; next to whom

Was John of Gaunt, the Duke of Lancaster; The fifth was Edmund Langley, Duke of York;

The sixth was Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester; William of Windsor was the seventh and Last. Edward the Black Prince died before his father

And left behind him Richard, his only son, Who after Edward the Third’s death reign’d as king, Till Henry Duke of Lancaster, The eldest son and heir of John of Gaunt,

Crown'd by the name of Henry the Fourth, Seiz’d on the realm, depos’d the rightful king. Sent his poor queen to France, from whence sire came, And him to Pomfret; where, as all you know, Harmless Richard was murdered traitorously.

War. Father, the Duke hath told the truth; Thus got the house of Lancaster the crown. York. Which now they hold by force and not by right; For Richard, the first son’s heir, being dead, The issue of the next son should have reign’d. Sal. But William of Hatfield died without an heir.

York. The third son, Duke of Clarence, from whose line 1 claim the crown, had issue, Philippe, a daughter, Who married Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March;

Edmund had issue, Roger Earl of March; Roger had issue, Edmund, Anne, and Eleanor. Sal. This Edmund, in the reign of Bolingbroke, As I have road, laid claim unto the crown; Knd, but for Owen Glendower, had been king. Who kept him in captivity till he died. But to the rest.

York. His oldest sister, Anne, My mother, being heir unto the crown,

Married Richard Earl of Cambridge, who was son

To Edmund Langley, Edward the Third’s fifth son. By her I claim the kingdom. She was heir To Roger Hhrl of Wrch, who was the son Of Edmund Mortimer, who married Philippe, Sole daughter unto Lionel Duke of Clarence; So, if the issue of the elder son

Succeed before the younger, I am king.

Wjr* plain proceeding is more plain than this? Henry" doth claim the crown from John of Gaunt, The fourth son; York claims it from the third. Till Lionel*s issue fails, his should not reign. It fails not yet, but flourishes in thee

And in thy sons, fair slips of such a stock. Then, father Salisbury, kneel we together; And in this private plot be we the first That sliall salute our rightful sovereign With honour of his birthright to the crown. (2H.VI, 11. ii. 7-62)

The Folio account of York’s lineage and claim to the crown is the bistori sally correct one, end no doubt the Quarto account is corrupt and inaccurate in places - in its nuking Edmund of langley the second son of Edward the Third instead of the fifth; in its making Roger Mortimer the fifth son; in its attributing two daughters, Anne and. Elinor, to ) Edmund of Langley; in its saying that Lionel, Duke of Clarence, had three daughters, Alice, Anne, and Eleanor; and in its leaving York’s father to marry one of Lionel’s daughters. But the corruptive work at this joint, it seers to me, must bo charged solely to secondary manipulation, not at all to an author’s composition. No author who has given positive indication that he has gone directly to original sources for correct historical material (and the author of the

Contention and the True Tragedy, we have seen, certainly gives such an indication) would have gone so far astray as the passage from the Contention would signify its author has done. If the author of the Quartos used the original chronicle sources in one place(and he did), would he not hax r e used them in another? If an actor-reporter had been the author, surely he would have consulted, the chronicles just once again, especially when he so badly needed to do so.

Again, the Contention, in this genealogical scene, gives Anne and Eleanor as the daughters of Lionel Duke of Clarence; but this la a mistake, for they are rightly the daughters of Roger Mortimer, Lionel’s grandson, as they 24 are given in g VI * We might possibly think this mistake attributable to ths confused Mory of an actorreporter trying to recall the Folio text uuro it not for a certain other m&t.terJ along with Anne and Eleanor the Contention also gives Alice as one of Lionel’s daughters, how Alice is not given in the Folio us a daughter of Roger MortimerCin no mwr is she mentioned therein), but Holinshed 25 and Fabyan both give along with the other two sisters.

as a daughter of that person. Shall we believe that an a ctor-reporter deliberately added another daughter when there were only two daughters for him to remember? There would have been no reason for his doinggsuch a thing; but if he did do it, is it possible that he accidentally hit upon the name of Alice, the other historical daughter of Roger Mortimer? I most emphatically cannot believe he did. I do not even believe there was an a ctor-reporter• I rather believe "Alice 1 ’ readied the Contention from some source other than 2 Henry VI, and that, through a bungled job of printing, copying, shorthand-reporting, editing, or any combination of them. I rauher believe that the Contention and the True Tragedy did not come from 2. and 3 henry VI. Here we have evidence of work independent of a mere reproduction of the Folio plays. Furthermore, the Whole Contontion of 1619 has none of the errors made by the Content!on in the scene under consideration but has three others instead; to wit, (1) William of Windsor is made the sixth son of Edward 111, (2) Thoms, of Woodstock is made the seventh son, and (3) this latter 26 person is made the Duke of York. Now every one believes that

the Whole Contention came from some earlier York and Lancaster - be it the Contention and the True Tragedy, 2 and 3 Henry Vl ? a lost play, or whatnot; and no one would think of attributing these three errors of the Whole Contention to the confused memory of an actor-reporter. Then how shall we account for them? Obviously, by secondary manipulation and that only. That is, by careless printing, copying, stenography, editing, or the like. But the three errors of the Whole Contention are of the same type or nature as those of the Contention, and if secondary manipulation such as I have indicated can be held responsible for the errors of the former play, then it can likewise be held responsible for those of the latter. . Certainly we do not have to limit ourselves to actor-reporters in order to explain the origin 27 of the Contention and the True Tragedy.

The corruption in this genealogical scene is the only corruption connected with the Contention and the True Tragedy worth considering. All others are trivialities, easily attributed to poor transcribing, poor printing, or poor editing. What, for example, is responsible for the following if it is not secondary manipulation?

"crouch" (Cont., 111. i. 99) for " crutch" (2H. VI, 111. I. 189) "barrell"TT^T., V. 1. 51) for "battle"(3H.Vl, V. 1.77) "leave fastTfCont. ,111.11.151) for "lean-faced"(2H.VI,III. 11.315) "death"(T.T.,l .1v.41) for "deaf"(3H.Vi,l .iv. 53 "whose" ('J .1.,11 .11.14) for "wh0"(3H.V1,11.11.15)

Can these be slips of an author*s pen? To me, they are errors of a secondary nature and nothing more.

There are a few other corruptions in the Quartos, but enough have been pointed out and discussed to show that many of the "corruptions” are really not corruptions and that those which are, should be charged to a secondary source and not to the faulty memory of an actor-reporter - an author if you please.

That the actors who played the parts of Suffolk and Warwick (the actor who played the part of Suffolk also playing the part of Young Clifford) should be singled out as the authors of the Quartos on the ground that there are fewer corruptions and less forgetting in connection with their parts in the Quartos than in connection with other parts in those 28 plays,l cannot concede. Of the seven corruptions which we have discussed in full no less than three involve mistakes (supposed mistakes, however) on the part of either Suffolk or Warwick - the one concerning the words ”doate,” ”cause,” and ”how”; the one concerning Somerset’s announcement of Montague’s death to Warwick; and the one concerning Warwick’s speech to Margaret just before the messenger brings a letter announcing Edward’s marriage to Lady Grey. Granted that all seven of the corruptions discussed in full are genuine corruptions, then the fact that about forty-three percent of them involve Suffolk and Warwick is strong evidence that the two actors who played the parts efthose two characters had considerable trouble in remembering their own parts. Of the 140 items that I could cite as omissions of vital significance to characterization and dramatic effect(l2o are listed at the beginning of this study), eleven involve eleven separate and different Suffolk roles, and thirteen, those of thirteen separate and different Warwick rCles - 24 separate and different r3les all together, 24 out of 140. Did the two actors who took the parts of Suffolk and Warwick deliberately omit

their twenty-four significant items? In such stupidity, how could they possibly have done as well as they did in reproducing the Folio? Did they omit their twenty-four significant items simply because they could not remember them? If so, then how much the more conspicuous is their trouble with their own polos’. Difficult indeed is it to believe that the composition of the Contention and the True Tragedy came from the memory cf actorreporters - even that of the actors who played the rSles of Suffolk and Warwick.

As for irregularities or discrepancies, let us now note some that are in the Folio - some that must be charged to the author himself and not to any one else. From 2 Henry VI, we begin with this:

Re-enter Whitmore with Suffolk’s- body. Whit. There~ let his head and lifeless body Ite, Until the Queen his mistress bury it. Exit. 1. Gent. 0 barbarous and bloody spectacled His body will I bear unto the King. If he revenge it not, yet will his friends; So will the Queen, that living held him dear. (2H.VI, IV. i. 142-147’) 29

Whitmore has just beheaded Suffolk and here we see him bringing in Suffolk’s "head and lifeless body” and the First Gentleman planning to take the body to the King and Queen. Later in the 30 play, the Queen is shown with Suffolk’s head lamenting as follows:

Oft have I heard that grief softens the mind And makes it fearful and degenerate; Think therefore on revenge and cease to weep. But who can cease to weep and look on this? Here may his head lie on my throbbing breast; But where’s the body that I should embrace? (2H.VI, IV. iv. 1-6)

Yes, where is the body? It was the torso and not the head that the First Gentleman was to bring to the King and Queen. Why should the Queen now have the head and not the body? All this is confusion. In the Contention, it is not. There we read the Captain’s explicit command:

Off with his head, and send it to the Queene, And ransomelesse this prisoner shall go free. To see it safe delivered unto her. Come lets goe. Exet omnes. (Cent., IV. i. 75-78)

31 Later the Queen is shown with Suffolk’s head.

Gloucester, in 2 Henry VI, reading from the articles of peace contracted between the French and English kings by Suffolk, reads as follows:

“Imprimis, It is agreed between© the French king Charles, and William de la Pole, Marquess of Suffolk©, ambassador for Henry King of England, that the said Henry shall espouse the Lady Margaret, daughter unto Reignier King of Naples, Sicilia, and Jerusalem, and crown her Queen of England ere the thirtieth of May next ensuing. Item, that the duchy of Anjou and the county of Maine shall be released and delivered to the King her father” - Lets the paper fall. (2H.VI, I. i. 43-52)

The corresponding passage in the Contention is:

Imprimis, It Is agreed between© the French King Charles, and William de la Poule, Mrquesse of Suffolk, Embassador for Henry King of England, that the said Henry shal wed and espouse the Ladie Mrgaret, daughter to Raynard King of Mples, Cyssels, and Jerusalem, and crown© her Queen© of England, ere the 30 of the next month. Item. It is further agreed betwene them, that the Dutches Of An joy and of Mine, shall be released and delivered over to the King her fa. Duke Humphrey lets it fall. ~~ (^nt/, "TT"i . 40-48) .

In s Henry VI, the Cardinal, reading the articles for Humphrey, repeats the item which Humphrey did not finish - the last one of the passages above. But he does not read this last item as Humphrey road it. Here is the way he reads it:

"Item, It is further agreed between them, that the duchies of Anjou and Mine shall be released and delivered over to the King her father, and she sent over of the King of England* s own proper cost and charges, without having any dowry.** (2H.VI, I. i. 57-62)

And herein lies a discrepancy: why did not the Cardinal read the last item as Humphrey had read it? And above all (Please note this because it is not only significant here but will also be significant at a later place in this study), why did the Cardinal re-read the item in question just as it appears In the Contention? For the sake of consistency, it seems the author of 2 Henry VI would not have changed the reading of the last item when it came to the Cardinal’s hands. In the Contention, the Cardinal reads exactly in accordance with what Humphrey had read before him.

Again in 2 Henry VT, we find discrepancies in connection with the conjuring scene:

Boling. I have heard her reported to be a Woman of an invincible spirit; 32 Mother Jordan, be you prostrate, and grovel on the Earth; John Southwell, read you; and let us to our work. Here thoy do the ceremonies belonging, and make tie circle; Bollngbroke^or"Southwell reads?, h Conjure te, M etc. It thunders and lightens terribly; then the spirit riseth. * ' 'Spir. Ask what thou wilt. That Ijkd said and done*. Boling. ’’First, of the King: what shall of him become? 1 * Spir. The duke yet lives, that Henry shall depose; But Him outlive, and die a violent death. Boling. What fate awaits the Duke of Suffolk? Spir. By water shall he die, and take his end. Boling. What shall befall the Duke of Somerset? Spir. Let him shun castles; Safer shall he be upon the sandy plains Than where castles mounted stand. (2H.VI, I. iv. 8-40)

A bit later we read the following:

York.

Now, pray, my lord, let’s see the devil’s writ. What have we here? Rea ds. The duke yet lives, that Henry shall depose; But him outlive, and die a violent death.

Well, to the rest: Tell me, what fate awaits the Duke of Suffolk? By water shall he die, and take his end. - What shall betide the Duke of Somerset? - Let him shun castles; Safer shall ho be upon the sandy plains. Than where castles mounted stand. (2H.VI, I. iv. 58-72)

Now what are the discrepancies to be noted in these passages? It is first explicitly said that John Southwell is to read Eleanor’s questions; then it is said that Bolingbroke or Southwell is to read. But it is Bolingbroke that later actually does the reading. In the Contention, nothing is said beforehand as to who is going to read, but when the time comes for the reading, it is Bolingbroke that does it. Why all this inconsistency in the Folio? Why did the author not have Southwell to read as first announced? And above all, why did he do as the author of the Contention did - have Bolingbroke 33 to do the reading? Furthermore, why did the author of 2 Henry VI not have York to read one of Eleanor’s questions as Bolingbroke had previously read it? They both read from the same paper. Surely the question had not been changed while the paper was being transferred from Bolingbroke to York. The question I refer to is.:. w What shall befall the Duke of Somerset?” York in re-reading reads as follows: ”Uhat shall betide the Duke of Somerset?” And above all again, why did the Folio author have York to re-road this, question exactly as it appears, 34 in the Content!on? Consistency demands that the question should have been the same in both places.

Buckingham, in 2 Henry VI, questions. King Henry as follows:

What answer makes your Grace to the rebels* supplication? (2H.VI, IV. iv. 7)

And Henry gives the following answer:

I’ll send some holy bishop to entreat. (2H.VI, IV. iv. 9)

In the Pont ent ion, nothing is said of the King* s sending a bishop to Cade and his followers. The King first says 35 there that he will go himself, but he does not. He sends 36 Buckingham and Clifford with an army. The author of 2 Henry VI evidently forgot that Henry was to send a "holy bishop," for later we find Buckingham and Clifford appearing before the 37 rebels, as in the Contention. Why did not the author of 2 Henry VI send a ’’holy bishop"? History would have supported 38 his doing so. Why the inconsistency? And why did the Folio author finally haw Buckingham and Clifford to meet Cade, as is done in the Contention?

In 2 Henry VI, we find still another irregularity or discrepancy. Salisbury in praising York for the latter’s success in an Irish expedition says:

and, brother York, thy acts in Ireland, In bringing them to civil discipline, Thy late exploits done in the heart of France, When thou wort regent for our sovereign, Have made thee fear’d and honour’d of the people. (2H.VI, I. i. 194-198)

History reveals but one expedition by York against the 39 so how can the author of 2 Henry VI here be praising 40 York for that sole expedition while later in Act 111 he 41 has him starting on it and in Act V just returning from it? This is a genuine discrepancy, and the author of the Contention likewise commits it.

In Henry Vl,we find one discrepancy that calls for our consideration. Margret, gloating over the capture of York, speaks as follows:

Look, York’. I stain* d this m pkin with the blood That valiant Clifford, with his rapier’s point, Wde issue from the bosom of the boy; And if thine eyes can water for his death, I give thee this to dry thy cheeks withal. (3H.VI, I. iv. 79-83)

Later when a messenger is reporting York* s murder to Edward and Richard, we read the following:

But only by the ireful arm Of unrelenting Clifford aid the Queen, Who crown’d the gracious duke in high despite, Laugh’d in his face; and when with grief he wept, The ruthless queen gave him to dry his cheeks A napkin steeped in the harmless blood Of' sweet youw Rutland, by rough Clifford slain» (3H.VI, 11. i. 57-63)

Did York weep before or after the Queen gave him the napkin? These two passages are at variance, and the True shows the same inconsistency.

We thus see that the a ctor—reporters of Mr. Alexander and Miss Doran were able to avoid discrepancies or inconsistencies as well as follow or commit them. But by what phenomenal power were they able to avoid discrepancies or irregularities so skilfully in one place, follow some one else so exactly in making them in another place, and make, all by themselves, an untold number of them in still many other places when their memories failed in the role-recalling process? Is it not much more logical and easy to believe that there was no avoiding and following of discrepancies on the part of actor-reporters? that there actually were no a ctor-reporters? that the author of 2 Henry VI was writing with the Contention, or a play closely similar to it, before him? and that in spite of his model he made some errors all his own and blindly followed his model in making still others?

The transposition of lines is no indication that the

42 Quartos were reported versions of the Folio, Surely the author of the Folio plays could have used lines from the Quarto plays as he saw fit. He could have used a Quarto line earlier or later in the Folio than it was used in the Quartos. The opposite situation, of course, would surely hold for the author of the Quarto plays. We do not need to suppose that an actor-reporter transposed lines because he could not remember at what particular passage a certain line came in. There are, to be sure, indications that the author of the Quartos was recalling or trying to remember his own lines - lines from the Contention to the True Tragedy, lines or phrases that are not in 2 and 3 Henry VX at all. For example, consider the following:

And thou brave Warwihe, thrice -valiant sonne(Cent, ,1.1.123) Cride still for Warwike his thri’se valiant son(T .T.,ll.iii. 17) My Lord, I saw him in the thi ekest. throng (Cout.,V. 1 i 1.9) Thy noble father in the thi ckost (T ,T. ,IX .11l .16) But with my sword press© in the thi ckgfc thronges(T .T. .V.iv.lB) But Yorke can tame and headlong pull them down© (Cent., X XI. i. 192) But follow me, and you shall pull them down(Coni., IV.viil.lo3) Tush were itten times higher, lie pull it dawne(T.T.,111.11.136)

The author of the Quartos areated the italicized phrases himself and. he used them again and again - he used a particular phrase whenever it was the particular phrafs© ho needed. If the author was an actor-reporter, then he was using his own lines or phrases wherever and v/henover they aptly applied. And if he used his own linos or phrases in this manner, why should he have not so used the lines of the Folio which he was reproducing? Must we suppose that every time he transposed a Folio line or phrase in the Quartos he had forgotten its exact position in the Folio?

Thus far in this “we have ascertained that the Contention and the True Tragedy cannot be reported versions of 2_ and 3 Henry VI . It is wholly illogical to believe that in the Quartos even an actor-reporter would have omitted, whether deliberately or not, a great deal of material vital to characterisation and dramatic effect. Yet if an actor/ reporter has given us the Contention and the True Tragedy from 2 Henry VI and 3 Henry VI, that is exactly what he omitted. In fact, practically everything he omitted is vital to characterization or dramatic effect. In the second place, it is difficult to reconcile an actor-reporter’s aciding a considerable amount of unimportant material with his apparent eagerness to omit vitally important and significant material. If his memory failed him and he felt obligated to compensate with additions, then why should he trouble himself to see that several of his additions closely follow contemporary chronicle sources? Wny omissions, additions, or changes could not be due to an actor-reporter’s forgetfulness; consequently, no one flaw or corruption in the Quarto texts can be definitely attributed to some one’s bad memory. many of the flaws or corruptions that have been pointed out in the Contention and the True

Tragedy arc not flaws or corruptions at all, and it is hard to see just why they should have been pointed out as such. Others of the indicated corruptions, of course, are real corruptions, but they are such because of secondary manipulation of some kind in taking the Quartos from some source other than 2_ and 3 Henry VI, and not because of the faulty memory of an a ctor-reporter who «as. trying to recall the two latter plays. There is no reason for believing that the two actors who played the roles of Suffolk and' Warwick in the Folio plays, rather than the actors who played the roles of any other characters, wrote the Quarto plays. An a ctor-reporter could hardly b© so careful and skilful as to avoid Folio discrepancies or inconsistencies on the one hand, and so careless, yea stupid, on the other as to commit as many blunders as have been attributed to the author of the Contention and the True‘Tragedy. Finally, the transposition in one work of a line from another has no serious meaning by wa& of establishing the Contention and the True Tragedy as reported, and incidentally corrupt, versions of 2 and 3 Henry VI. As long as a transposed line or phrase fits a new context, everything is well, and I am aware of no line or phrase transposed from the Folio that does not fit well into its new context in the Quartos. Besides, there is strong evidence that the author of the Quartos, rather than always trying to make random use of lines or phrases from the Folio, was actually recalling and using again a certain line or phrase of his own.

And of course it is equally illogical to believe that the Contention and the True Tragedy camo from 2 and 3 Henry VI by stenographic report. What has been said against the actor report can for the most part also be said against the report by stenographer. Certainly no stenographer, or any one associated with him, would have omitted the vast amount of material vital to characterication and dramatic effect - practically one half of the plays being reported, as we shall letter see more, specifically. Nor would he have omitted only material that was thus, vitally important and at the same time have added the considerable amount of unimportant material, much of which shows independent labor* In the first place, the stenographer could hardly have been so poor- as to miss one half of what he was reporting, and in tlie second place, he never could have omitted only material that'was vital or important as. he wrote down his report. And if the stenographer furnished a full report of the plays, neither he nor any one else, in editing the report, would have done those things which we have said the a ctor-reporter would not have done. Furthermore, no stenographer, nor Monographer-editor, would have been skilful in avoiding Folio discrepancies and at the same time careless and stupid in creating discrepancies all his own.

1 Doran, op* cit*> p* 18. - In this study X have normalized the u* s,~~v r s, and w* s *

2 Doran, op. cit., pp. 13-14; Alexander, op. oil., pp. 63- 64.

3 Doran, op. cit., p. 14.

4 Hall, °P* cit., p. 271.

5 Doran, op. cit., p. 13.

6 Boswell-Stone, op. cit., pp. 325, 528.

7 Doran, op. cit., p. 13.

8 Hall, op. cit., pp. 254 and 271; Boswell-Stone, op. cit., p. 319, note 1.

9 Doran, op. cit., pp. 17-18.

10 Ibid., pp.,17-18.

11 Ibid., pp. 25-26.

12 Idem*

13 1 quote this passage from the Clarendon Press Facsimile (1902) of the 1623 Folio Edition.

14 Likewise quoted from the Clarendon Press Facsimile,

15 Doran, op. cit., p. 25.

16 Doran, op. cit., pp. 14-15.

17 Malone, op* cit . ; Vol. 13, p. 226.

18 Halliwell, op. cit., p. 184.

19 Wright, W* A., The. Works oi Shakespeare, Vol. 5, p. 152.

20 Com, of Errors, V, 1, 195-196, 331; L.L.L., V, ii, 76-77; T* And., Ul7 ii, 23; Uth., 11, i, 209; Trollus and Cressida, ii, ii, 56-60.

21 Cause: Meas* for Meas., V, 1, 301-302; faming of the Shrew, 111, i, 85-86; All tell, 111, ii, 118*119; W* Tale, V, ill, 54-56. how: Two Gent, of Ver*, 11, v, 17; Com, of Errors, 111, ii, 95; AlTs tell, 111, v, 71; 2H*Vi, V, i, 73; and Rom* and Jul., IV, iii, 30-32.

22 A 1 exa nder, op. cit., pp. 55-63 •

23 • Holinshed, Raphael, Chronicles(Second Edition), ill, 657

24 Hoilnshed, oo* pit,, p. 657 •

Holinshed gives the following bit of interesting information in his account of the parliament held it Westminister in the ninth year of Richard Il’s reign: ”Alss by authoritie of this parlement, Roger lox-d Mortimer carlo of March, sonne and hoire of Edmund Mortimer earle of March, and of the ladie Philip oldest daughter and hoire unto Lionell duke of Clarence, third sonne to king Edward the third, was established heire apparant to the crown© of this realms, and shortlie after so

proclaimed. * . .This Roger earle of March had issue Edmund, Roger, Anne, Ales, & Eleanor. . . . "(See nollnshed, op. cit., ill, p. 443). Practically the same account is found in Fabyan(See Fahyan, Robert, Now Chronicle s of England and Franco, Manry Ellis Edition, London, 18117 p. 533).

26 Whole Contention, 11, 11.

27 No doubt the person responsible for the Whole Contention was influenced by one of the two following passages, the first from Stow, the second from Holinshed: (1) "Hee/Edward 111/had issue by the Ladie Philip his wife, seaven sonnes, Edward the Bia eke Prince, William of Hatfield that, dyed young, Leonel Duke of Clarence, John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster, Edmond of Langley carle of Cambridge & Duke of Yorke, William of Windsor that dyed without issue, Tho. of Woodstocke Earle of Buckingham, & Duke of Glocester”(See Stow, op. cit., p. 277). * . .(2) "He had issue by his wife queene Philip 7 sonnes, Edward prince of Wales, William of Hatfield that died yoong, Lionell duke of Clarence, John of Gant duke of Lancaster, Edmund of Langlie earle of Cambridge & after created duke of Yorke, Thomas of Woodstoke erle of Buckingham after made duke of Glocester and an other William which died likewise yoong" (See Holinshed, op. cit., iii, p. £l2). The passage from Stow provides a basis for two of the errors of the Whole Contention - namely, that William of Windsor ms Edward 1 s sixth son and that Thomas of Woodstock was the seventh; but for tile third error it does not so provide. Now if the Whole Content!on was influenced by the Holinshed passage, then all

three of its errors are errors of secondary manipulation. But if it was: influenced by the passage from Stow( though I do not believe it was), then only its third error - namely, that Thoms of Woodstock was the Duke of York - is such an error. With this, however, the question rises as to how the other two errors reached the Stow passage. In a later passage, his account of York’s claim to the crown, Stow gives Edward’s issue as it should be given(Stow, op. cit., pp. 409-410); so quite clearly he was not intentionally at fault in the first passage. Either there was a slip of the author’s pen or there was secondary manipulation. Certainly there vas no confused memory of an actor-reporter. And since there was no actor-reporter for the Stow passage, why confine ourselves, to one for the genealogical scene of the Contention?

28 Doran, op. cit., pp. 77-78; Alexander, op. cit., pp. 74-82.

29 2 Henry VI, IV, i, 68-69 and stage direction after line 138.

30 Ibid., IV, iv. Stage direction at beginning of scene.

31 Contention, IV, iv. Stage direction at beginning of scene*

32 I quote the passages in this paragraph from the Clarendon Press Facsimile of the 1623 Folio Edition.

33 Contention, I, iv, 21-29.

34 Ibid., I, iv, 27.

35 Ibid., IV, iv, 4.

36 Ibid., IV, iv, 18-22.

37 2 Henry VI, IV, iv, 39-40 and viii. Stage direction after line 5. Contention, IV, viii. Stage direction at beginning of scene.

38 Holinshed, op. cit., ill, 634.

39 Ibid., ill, pp. 629, 657, and 655.

40 2 Henry VI, 111, i, 309-314.

41 Ibid., V, i. Stage direction at beginning of scene and lines 1-2.

42 Doran, op. cit., pp. 15-20.

CHAPTER V EVIDENCE OF A LOST TEXT FROM WHICH THE QUARTO AND FOLIO PLAYS CAME INDEPENDENTLY

k mugful analysis convinces me that. the Wholo Contention of 1619 ms not printed from the Content!oxi and the True Tragedy as we now have them. The Whole Conten uion gives certain historical inf oration th? t Its predecessors do not give. In the genealogical scene, for example, it informs us that tho Biack Prince had a son Edward, v.ho. was born at Angoleame, and that the Duke of Clarence had only one daughter, Philippe, who was married to Edmund Mortimer, the Earl of Mzreh and Ulster. It also informs us that William of Hatfield, William of Windsor, and the Black son Edward all died young, and to give us this information it makes use of Holinshed’s expression "who died young.” All of this infer nation 1 is historically accurate, but none of it is In the Contention, and for that matter, the italicised parts of it are not in 2 Henry VI. Why should an editor, for that was the capacity of Thomas Pavier, the man responsible for the existence of the Whole Contention, concern himself beyond his editorial duties to add new source material? Why should he add material that the author of 2 Henry VI also saw fit to use in part?

Furthermore, if Pavier in the Whole Contention had been really correcting the Contention and the True .Tragedy, as is sometimes supposed of him, then why did he correct so well one corruption in those plays, that of the genealogical 2 scene, and leave other corruptions, either the real or the so-called ones, .practically untouched? Why should he have accidentally made several revisions in close accordance with the Folio texts? For example, consider the italicized parts in the following collations:

Quartos

This- night when I was laid in bed, I dreampt that This ray staffs mine Office badge in Court, Was broke in two, and on the ends were plac’d The heads of the Ca rdina 11 of Winchester, And William de la Pouls first Duke of Suffolk©. (Cent., 1.it.15-19)

Whole Contention

; This night when 1 was laid in bed, I dreampt That this my staffs, mine Office badge in Court, Was broke in twain©, by whom I cannot gesse: But as I thinke by the Cardinally What It bodes God knows; and on the ends were pla c’d The heads of Edmund Duke of Somerset, And ’William de la Pole, first Duke of Suffolks. (Whole Cent., Pt♦ I. I. i 1)

Folio

Me th ou glit this staff, mine office badge in court. Was broke in twain; by whom I have forgot, But, as I think, it was by the Cardinal; And on “the pieces, of the broken wand Were plac’d the heads of Edmund Duke of Somerset, And William de la Pole, first Duke of Suffolk. This was my dream; what it doth bode, Cod knows. T2E.Vl,irii .25-31)

Quartos

lie come after you, for I cannot go before, But ere it be long, lie go before them all, Despight of all that soeke to cross© me thus. (C0nt.,T.1i.44-46)

He knower his mister loves to be a loft Humphrey * Faith my Lord, it is but a ba so Uli nd That can sore no higher than a Falkons pitch. (C 0ut.,11.1.10-12)

Seven Harles, twelve IM rons, and then the reverend Bishops. (C0nt.,1.i.8)

/Omitted/*

Hang him with his. penny-in ckhorne. (Coni.,lV.ii. 68)

Henry and his sonne are gone. (Cont.,V.vi.Bo)

Whole Contention

lie come after you, for I cannot go before. As long as Gloster boa res thi s ba s e and humble minde: Wore I a man and .Protector as he is, Ida reach to th’ Crown®, or make some hop headlasso . And doing but a woman ila not bahi nda For Inlaying of iwj part, in spite of all that seek to cross© me thus.. (Whole Cont.,Pt.l.l.ii)

They know their master sores a Faulcons pitch. num. Faith my lord, it’s but a base minde. That soros no higher then a bird can sore. (Whole Cont.,Pt.l.ll.i)

Seven Earles, twelve Barons, and twenty reverend Byshops. (Whole Gout.,Pt.l.ll.i)

She bee.res a Dukes whole revenuewes on her ba eke. Whole Gent., Pt. I .I. iii )

Hang him with his pen and inkehorne• Twhole Cont.,Pt. I.IV. ii)

Bing Henry, and the Prince, his sonne are gone. (Whole Coni.,Pt.ll.V.vi)

Folio

Follow I must; I cannot go before, While 01oucoster bears this base and humble, mind. Were I a man, a duke, arid next of blood, I would remove these todi ou s stumbli ngblocks And smooth my vay upon their headless ne eks; And, being a woman, I will not be sla ck To play my part in Fortune* s pa gea nt. (2H.V1,1.ii.61-67)

They know their master loves to be aloft And bears his thoughts above his falcon’s pi tch. Glou. My Lord, ’tis but a base ignoble mind

That, mounts no higher than a bird can sore. T2H.V1.11.i.11-14) Seven earls, twelve barons, and twenty reverend bi shops. (2H.V1,1.i.8)

She bears a duke's ~revenues on her ba ok. TsTTVI ,1 .ill .83)

Hang him with his pen and ink-horn. (2H.VI, IV.il .116-7)

King Henry and the Prince his son are gone. (3H.V1,V.vi.89)

Never indeed could Pavier in working from the Contention and tho True Tragedy have accidentally come to use so many phrases traceable only to the Folio. Surely he was not printing from the C ontenti on and the True Tragedy. Moreover, why did Pavior make a few minor corrections such as n who” for ”whoso” and ’’lean© fac’d" for “leave fast” and at the same time leave other mistakes such as n crouch” for “crutch” and “him” for “them” uncorrected? Why did he put a question nark in some places where needed and in many others not put 3. it? For example 9 consider in the Contention and th© Whole 4 ’ Contention tho Cardinal-Humphrey-Suff oik quarrel already discussed from another angle in this study, in the short / course of eight lines, four question marks are really needed and all but one are lacking in the Content!on. In the Wholo Contention, one of the three missing marks is supplied correctly while two are supplied incorrectly. With this array of facts before us, we cannot believe that favier printed his Whole Contenti on from the oldor Contention and True Tragedy.

Equally apparent is it that 2 and 3 Henry VI did not — ** —l# MMMXW wwMMwmJfeMMMtHMima come from the W’hoxe Contention# I cannot belie ve that the author of the Folio wouK have omitted the accuxute historical information about the Black Prince’s son Edward, who was born at Angolesme, had ho been aware of such information; and Quite evidently he was not so aware, else he would not have written that Ri chard was the Black Prince* s "only son." Moreover, I cannot believe that he would have omitted the fact that Edmund Mortimer was also Earl of ulster had he known that fact, fl or do I believe that he would have failed to use the chronicle expression "who died young" and the historical information it conveys about the deaths of William of Hatfield, William of Windsor, and the Black Prince’s son Edward had the expression and its information been before him. The Folio author apparently consulted only one section of Holinshed’s chronicle for his information concerning the genealogical scene, the scene which contains all this additional information found in the Whole oontention but not in 2 Hoary VI. The additional information of the Whole Contention is found in sections of Holinshed considerably removed from that section which is unquestionably the source - almost veroauim source - of the Folio account of the 6 genealogical scene. The Folio author consulted only the one section in this matter, buu the author of the Whole Contention consulted the other sections as well. Furthermore, 1 cannot believe that the Folio author would have had the Cardinal

7 instead of York re-read the articles of peace between France and England bad the Whole Contentlon been the only version before him: there would have been no reason for his making the change. Clearly, then, the author & the Folio did not work from the Whole Contention.

But the fact that the Folio has several phrases which the Whole C oaten Li on lias, but which the Contention and the True Tragedy do not have, precludes any belief that the Folio came from these two latter plays. The author of* the Folio most certainly had some other version before him - a version showing the phrases common to the Folio and the Thole Centention.

Since the three sots, of plays did not come, any one directly from another, they certainly must have had a common source - a common version. In some places the Folio follows the phraseology of the Whole Contention; in others that of the Content!on and the True Tragedy. Several instances in which it follows the Whole C ont e n 11on rather than the Content!on and the True Tragedy have already been noted. Others will appear among the following collations:

Page and 11 ne in the Whole Contention

3:8 5:71 6:137 8:254

Yh ole Cant ent ion Part 1

twenty for all Lords grapple

Contention

then the all, for Lord graffle

2 Henry VI

twenty all for Lord grapple

Page and line in the Whole Contention

11:30 12:23 12:69 13:115 13:125 14:190 14:200 14:205 20:110 24:53 26: 68 30:9 30:36 31:103 31:110 32:170 36:20 37:125 38:196 38:198 33:198 z G•9'o z 43:10 46:44 46:54 48:173 33:189 49:8 50:3tag© Dir. 51:2-3 52:46 52:70 541 65 56:45 64:31

Whole Contention, Part I

to what 1 s into best a King worship master W or shi p Red proceedings affraid the call* t I am me helps be * gainst hungry his Yet ease thee down runs ome La cics the crutch crouch and thou 3 ord. • . walking C ourt the Peace nor lost 1 wants stands eterni z* d

Contention

unto what to the best King r-biostie my Lord La iostie •Phy red plain© proceeding a af f ea rd that, call it am I help© me b© well against angrie your Bu t case thy soul© ransomoa Brases for the crouch crouch Thou Lord. . .walking. Enter three oh four© Citizens below. the Court Pee ce I lost net want doth stand eternest

2 Henry VI

to wha t * s to th© best K 1 Majesty my Lord in josty red plain proceedings afraid tha t call it am I help me be well *gainst a ngry his But sase thy soul ransom La cies ths staff crut ch and thou Lord. . « walking. Then enter two or three citizens below. Court Pea ce I lost not want stands ©terniz* d

Kll these collations ai 1 © based upon the first of th© Contention playa. Just as uiny could bo based upon the second. In fact, many more than those indicated here could be taken from the first of those plays, but enough have been cited to show a common ground for the three sets of plays under consideration. Blind chance simply could not have operated to produce a blending of texts such as re-

vealed in the above collations.

The common ground for the three sets of plays we have been considering, I believe, was a lost version - probably 8 in manuscript. It was about the same length as either the Whole Contention or the two earlier Quartos, but of course far shorter than the Folio. The Contention and the True Tragedy were the first printed versions of the Contention plays, and they represent a very slight revision. The Folio, I think, represents still another and by far the most drastic revision of the original plays, before the Contention and True Tragedy were printed. The Whole Contention, on the other hand, represents the last revision of the originals, perhaps even as late as the year of its publication - 1619. It is, however, only slightly revisional, but no doubt a better reproductive job than the Contention and the True Tragedy.

Here a word should be said about the York and Lancaster Quartos of 1600 - the two of th© first part 'of the Contention and the one of the second part. These quartos unquestionably came from the two earlier quartos, the Content!cm of 1594 and the True Tragedy of 1595 - the two quartos which we

hitherto have boon considering along with the Whole Contention 9 Quarto of 1619. But they are not, as is too often implied, mere reprints of these two earlier quartos. Careful 10 11 such as those by Halliwell and Wright, conclusively prove this. Thore is unmistakable trace of a reviser. The trace, however, is found only in slight mechanical corrections and small verbal changes. With the exception of one or two lines, no doubt inadvertently omitted through printing, the Quartos of 1600 contain every line that the two earlier quartos contain. Ho attempt has been made to add new thought matter and nothing lias been done to correct- any factual mistakes of the latter plays. The following collations are enough to show the slightly revisional nature of those

qua r t os:

Page and Line of Ha Igy ’U? 11 ’i Bdi — tibn H Con tent! bn*’

5:8 10:10 11:2-0 12:30 13: 6

First Quartos

That I can reads no more With us us I cannot get no succour Now sir what yours? VlHaines get you gone

Second Quartos

That I can see no 'Wore With us I con get no succour Now, sir, what’s yours? VI Ila Ines get ye gone

Page an 4 Line of HallivwlPs Edition of the 11 Cbntention“

17:16

18:28 19:1

19:2

20:25 28:26 29:16

3 6:1

n "t o O i< • xo

38:23

41:13 44:12

ge and Line of la 111 ell’s Edilion of the u, i roe ~T ra go

126:6 135:33

136:18 147:8 148:15

17 6:4

176:23

181:4 186:7

First Quartos

Koger Sonnes That your are The King shall have notice Rhea Harner Take all the money that I have Ignomius And burne.s and spPiles the country as they go u/&ispla ce d. Si lou 1 d be after line Under the title of John Mortemor

This thrise famous Duke Tell them we thanke them all for their loving car©

Rhou Ah Wa rwi ke ? sh ou 1 d we report

To entercept Civill jars For 1 slaughter cf my son

Enter Oxford with drum and Souldiers & al crie, Oxf. Oxford, Oxford, for la nca star. Exi t.

Et tu Brute, wilt thou stab Caesar too? Yer I have no brothers

Second Quartos

Roger S ounnes That you are The King shall have notice Thee Horner Take all my money that 1 have Ignominious /The line is properly placed 7

Under the title of Sir John tortimer/An error. Loos not agree with Cadets later knighting hi mse if (Ha 11 iwe 11, op. cit., p. 53 )7 This famous Duke ' Tell them we thank© them for all their loving care

Thou.

Ah gentle larwicke, should we bat report /Halliwell says this is better meter than the line of the First Quarto. See Halliwell, op, cit., p. 1997 T l entercapt Gruell jars For slaughter of her son Enter Oxf or d wi th drum and souldlers & al crie ” Oxford, Oxford, for Lancaster” Exeunt. Wilt thou stab Caesar too? Ere I have no brother

Rarely indeed do the Quartos of 1600 desert the phraseology

of the earlier quartos for that peculiar to the Whole Cont-ent ion or the Folio, /vot counting differences in spelling, differences in older and later word forms, and obvious corrections of errors, I would say the following list contains just about all such desertions:

Page and Line ' n 11t'Q 11 8 n Edition of the ent ion w

la • XzX/ 223:26 57:6 72:7

Page a.nd Line i n i 1l 1 s jidJ. t.t p a ox Lao rue Tra gedy y

143:35 Irri , 7 r? QM X Q 178:25 180:29 186:7

First Quartos

My Lord Hornor Set London Bridge a fire Shall bo ate most

Gra cs t Let us Spoke Wondored I have no brothers

Second Quartan

faster Horner Set London Bridge on f ii ! e Shall be eterni z* d

Gra s’ d La t s Sa i de Wondred I have .10 brother

Third Quartop

Master HoDuer Set London Bridge a f izo Shall be stern!z 1 d

Gru c* nt Lets Spoke Wordered I have no brothers

Folio

My lord Horner Set London Bridge on fire Shall be oterniz*d

Gm c ’ d £ Omitted/" Sa Xd Wood I rod I have no brother

Thus, although the Quirt os of 1600 arc slight revisions of the Contention and the True Tragedy, one may readily see that they have nothing to show that they are even partly resultant of any version or versions other than those two plays. The few small verbal parallels with the Whole Contounion or the Folio mentioned above may be easily accounted for other than by assuming that the revisor working in the quartos under consideration necessarily had some version before him other than the Contention and the True

Tragedy» the only significance, 1 should say, that these Quartos cf 1600 have for our purpose in this study is that they are corroborative cf our position that, the many supposed corruptions of the Contention and the True Tragedy are not corruptions at all. In all the supposed corrupt!ons which we have fully discussed herein, the Quartos of 1600 concur with the two earlier quartos. For that matter we find the Whole Contention Quarto of 1619 practically likewise concurring, the only exception ceing in the matter of "doate*’ or '’dote. 1 ’ If those supposed corruptions were really corruptions, how is it possible that three different editors or revisers failed to correct them? in this one matter textual cumulation indeed argues that the supposed corruptions are not real ones; it TeSXiy testifies as to what was most probably in the lost original. Since the revisers .working in the Quartos of 1600 and the Wnole Contention Quarto of 1619 corrected so many of the real or unmistakable corruptions of the two earlier quartos - practically all of them - why would they have overlooked the many supposed corruptions had these supposed ones been real? 1 say ’’practically all of them,” for apparently there is only one case worth speaking of in which the revisers responsible for the Quartos of 1600 and the Whole Contention Quarto of 1619 failed to correct a real corruption or discrepancy of the Contention and the True Tragedy, and that case is the failure of the reviser of the Quartos of 1600 to correct the genealogical scene as given in the Contention. But the corruption connected with this scene is factual, and the reviser working in the Quartos of

1600 shows no evidence whatsoevoi' of having aide factual changes. Evidently lio interested merely in mechanical or verbal changes and not in questions of historical fact. The reviser working in the V/hole Contention Quarto, of course, probably did not have ho correct any corrupt ions in this genealogical scene, as wo have seen that ho worked from the correct lost original and not from tho Content! on. He did see fit, however, as we also have noticed, to add a few significant historical mt tors in this scene to t S' already contained in the lost original.

Miss Jane Lee gives the following estimate of the line differences between the Folio plays and the Fii*st Quarto 12 plays( the Contention and the True Tragedy):

Total

New

Altered

Old

2 Henry VI 3075 3"Henry VI 2902

ms 1021

840

520 1010

871

Guided by the marginal collations of Fumi vail and others in the Praetorius Facsimiles, I reach the following count:

Quarto Lines not in the Folio

Content!on True Tragedy

•163 157

now what do all these figures :nem If an a ctor-re porter is responsible for the existence of tho Contention and the True Tragedy? They simply mean that the a ctor-reporter left 1530 I ■ out of 5077 uncht n ihat he changed 1711, and th? t he omitted 2736 entirely. They further mean that he saw fit to add 620 new lines. Even assuming that the actorreporter was working from a complete manuscript, is it possible that he made such drastic changes despite the fact that he must have realized that by so doing he was greatly degrading his original? Surely not. If ho was depending to a large extent on his memory, why would it have led him to show an initiative in adding 620 new lines? in changing 1711 lines though practically all of them were good lines to begin with? and in dropping or omitting 2736 linos entirely - nearly one-half of the- plays being reproduced? Bid he not’ remember a single fragment of these 2736 lines? Is it possible that ho did not deem them good and worth while? Realty, can we ourselves look upon these 2736 lines as non-essential - as deserving to be cut by an a ctor-reportsr? Can we consider approximately one-half of a Shakespearean play as non-essential? Tn my we do not haw to do so: the Content ion and the True Tingedy are not reported versions of the Folio and there was no cutting of 2736 Folio lines by an a ctor-reporter. NoF 3id the versions a shorthand reporter or his editor, as ne have - Ireudy specif ioel ly pointed out in the preceding chapter»

Besides, who ms this a ctor-reporter that could create these 320 lines of now material, practically all of which is poetry, and good poetry at that? Who ma he, for example. that could write such verse as the following?

■ Aco» Wdlco&ie to hir lajid my loving friends of Trace, And welcome Summerset, and Oxford too. Once more lav# v»e spread our sailes abroad. And though our tackling be almost eonsnmde, And I£arwj.ks as cur maii-.e mast overthrown©, Tet warlike Lords raise you that sturdie post, That boaros the sttilos to bring us unto rest. And Ted and I as willing Pilots should 1 or once with at refull mindes guide on tho sterna. To bears us through that dangerous gulfe mat nerotoiore xiaoh swallowed up our friends* (T.T., V. iv. 1-11)

I will not stand aloofa and bid you fight, Bus wltn uy svoi'd press© in the thickest thronges, And single Edward from his. strongest guard, And hand to hand enforce him for uo ye eld, Or leave my bodie as of my thoughts. (T.T., V. iv. 17-21)

iaien tney dg gone, unen sal ejg they may come, And on the backside of my Orchard heore. There cast their Spolles in silence of the night. And so resolve us of the thing we wish. (Cont., 1. ii. 63-M) '

Humph» Thon is that wofull hours hard at hand. That my poore Lady should come by this way. In shamefull penance wandring in tho streetes. (Coat., 11. iv. 3-5)

■ $ he t?-. ed Practice Wfc by jjl pastry? u© that could change 1711 lines, mostly poetry, good poetry, into 1711 different lines, likewise mostly poetry and good poetry too? What is this actor-roporter*s name? Surely he must have been known in his day as a writer as well as an actor. Surely he must have left to his credit some literary work other than the Contention and the True Tragedy.

That there is unscannable poetry in the Contention and the True Tragedy no one familiar with those plays will deny. Professor Tucker Brooke estimates that five per cent

13 or more of the lines are irregular. But there is also no inconsiderable amount of irregular verse in the Folio, as one may readily see upon examination. Likewise no fine can deny that in the Contention and ths True Tragedy there is poetry imbedded in prose and prose in poetry. The same is true for the Folio. Nothing, it seems to me, is to be taken from those irregularities in rhythm and motor by way of showing that the Contention and the True Traedy came from the Folio. Miss Toran, who, to my. knowledge, is the only person to use them for that purpose, is far from convincing. She thinks that the Folio plays themselves underwent revision before going to the printer and that tills revision is revealed in 14 what sho calls Provisional areas/ Her general conclusion 15 is as follows:

The Pol io text could not have com© froia the Quarto texts themselves bo muse, the traces of older veise showing through prose in the Folio are not in the Quartos; the Folio and Quartos could not havo come from a common original, because the revls.lonal prose in the Folio, half obliterating the older verse, is found likewise in ths 'Quartos; the Quartos must hawecomo fre o bo cause of the presence in them of tho revised material in the Folio, both of the upper stiutum of prose and of the verse which appears printed with faulty line-divisions.

I shall consider merely Miss Doran’s fundamental proposition, which is that traces of older verse showing through th© prose of the so-called rovisioml areas of the Folio do not appear 16 as verse in the Quartos. This proposition sho fails to establish, in the first place for the simple reason that she seemingly can find only four instances of apparent proof in both parts of the Contention plays - four out of tmo long parts of a play* She fails in the second place because there is evidence in no loss than three of her four instances contradictory to her proposition. Consider first the following prose lines from one ; of Hiss Doran’s revislonal aruas in the 17 Folio:

z I / / / .Glvu. Npw fetch' me a st/Sol . ' f ■„ and Now, sirrah, if you mein to save yourself from whipping, le£p ne this stdol and run avr z y. 13 (2H.VI, ll* i. 141-144)

Now consider the same passage printed as poetry in the Contention:

Humph* Wow £etch me ast cole hither by, by. z Now” sirrah, If you to your .Wife frori whipping. Leap© me over this stdole and away, 19 (Cont. ? IT. i. 114-116)

Surely we here have poetic prose from tho Folio printed at least as rhytlamic poetry in the Duartes. Fron; another 20 revisiomi area let us compare the following:

/ / / / y2l Mok cau. th© Bik© of lark hath taught yw this. (2H.VI, IV. 11. 162)

/ / f Staffl the Duke of Yorke hath taught you that» (Cont., IV. 11. 88)

a a tad in still another revisional area consider the following. The italicized parts indicate pair dial phrasing:

auaiWuZßy.dfa>«7 'to ay t<hi Protector I .' aA ybur wppli eetione/to hie lordship? Lot me k®« th«n, ’l/t Im ua !e ? ■ (2H.VI, I. iii. 14-17)

Cy.ee ne. Are your sut®s to his grace. Let ug 7<- them first. Look© on th am ' d of luzt c'.Ce. (Cant., I. Hi. 12-13)

Suf. L p?at*s y /^ s the~Dukl" of e /ff oik, far enclosing the commons of Holford 7 s How now. sir knave*. ~ ' /.vm rnrr^w" — ~— . Suffolk^. Ha the he stole thy wir c, tha t g s one ha jury indeed. Blit what say you? A complaint a ya. last the Duke of for on closing the commonp of lonu Melford?" " ’ r- Howynaw sir (Coat., I. ill. 18-36)

Suf, Who is there? / / Enter servant. . / / Take this fellow in, and send/for his master with a_ pdrSQiva nt pr/se nt 1/. /V. e l ll nea r moire of your m/tter before the King. z (2H.VI. I. iii. 36-39) , Syffolke> X marry thfs is something like, Whose within there? / * / Kntpr one or tyo. Sirra, take in this~'f Jllow and keSpe him close, And s end out ,a PiXrs f or^ his maister straight, Weele here more~of thfs before the KiSg. ni> 29-33)

From all this one can readily see that many of Miss Doran’s Folio traces of older verse imbedded in prose do have a Quarto parallel printed as verse. Her basic proposition falls in the face of contradictory evidence; so her dependent propositions likewise fall or at least become.void. Nothing from the irregularity of the poetry and the prose in the Quartos and the Folio can be used to show that the former plays came from the latter ones. Both the Quartos and the Folio have much poetry printed s prose and prose printed as poetry.

In another connection, we have already mentioned ) the Cardinal’s re-reading of the last item of the terms of alliance contracted between England and France by Suffolk. This re-reading of that item by the Cardinal, I believe, tells still another interesting story and one of extreme importance. It tells us, I believe, that the author of 2 Henry VI Ind a model play before him and that the model in question was the Content!on or another play closely similar to it - exactly the same so far as the last item of the articles is concerned. Why did not the author of

2 Henry VI rewrite this last item as he had previously written it in his own play? Why did he not have the Cardinal see it as Humphrey had seen it? Why did he rewrite it differently? - exactly as it is written first and last in the Contention? In rewriting he simply looked at his model instead of his own work; hence the inconsistency as we have it. And the model, to be sure, was not a chronicle account, for no chronicle account has exactly the same phraseology as the Contention in this matter. If the author of the Folio had a model in his writing of 2 Henry Vl,he could have easily had one in writing 3 Henry VI.

In no loss clear manner can we see what happened when tte Folio author committed the inconsistencies connected with the conjuring scene and the appearance of Buckingham and Clifford before Cade. Why did he do as the author of the Contention did - have Bolingbroke read Eleanor’s questions - when he had already said that Southwell would read? Evidently he forgot what he had already said, and I strongly suspect, that he followed the Contention,or a play closely similar to it, as his model in actually having Bolingbroke to do the reading. Why did he not hive York read Eleanor’s question about Somerset as he had previously had Bolin broke read it? And what is more, why did he have him read it exactly as it is written in the Contention? My belief is that in rewriting he simply looked at his model instead of what he had already written. And again, the model was not a chronicle account * Moreover, why did Henry not actually send a “holy Bishop” to meet Cade, as he first announced he would? Why did the Folio author not follow Holinshed in this matter, as he apparently first intended to do? And above all, why did he finally do what the author of the Contention consistently did - have Buckingham and Clifford meet Cade? Once again he must have forgotten what he had previously written and must have followed his model play instead.

Mr. W. W. Greg, in connection with the passage re-read by the Cardinal, suggests the following interpretation:

An author, repeating a passage, TtXght not trouble to turn back to what he had already written and might unconsciously alter its form in some inessential manner. Messages and conversations are often not exactly repeated, and probably no greater care would be thought necessary in rendering a written document. But the significant point is that the passage is to be read, and would be actually read from a script on the stage. This script would not vary, and the words, therefore, would not vary on the stage. Neither would they vary in a report, so far as this was correct J The fact, therefore, that the inconsistency occurs in Henry VI and not in the Contention may be evidence that the former is the original and the latter a report. 24

In other words, Mr. Greg suggests that the author of 2 Henry VI is responsible for the discrepancy in the passage re-read. Then some one wrote for the stage the script of the entire passage to be read and corrected the discrepancy therein but did not correct it in the original play. Later a reporter of some kind, in writing the Contention, wrote the passage

without the discrepancy. While Mr. Greg’s suggested interpretation might be possible in this one matter, my interpretation is not only equally possible but much more probable. To prove that the Contention and the True Tragedy are reported versions of 2 and 3 Henry VI, one must first satisfactorily explain why the reporter, be he actor or stenographer, omitted 2736 lines out of 5977, nearly half of the lines he was reporting, and at that 2736 lines highly significant in characterization and dramatic effect; why he consistently omitted only such lines or material as was thus significant; why he went beyond his reporting and showed initiative in adding no inconsiderable amount of material directly out of the chronicles; why any corruptions in the Contention and the True Tragedy that may actually be considered such should not be attributed to the faulty printing, copying, editing, or even the faulty stenographic reporting, of a common lost play rather than to a faulty reporting of 2 and 3 Henry VI; how the similarities and dissimilarities between the three sets of plays - the First quartos, the Folio plays, and the Whole Contention - are to be justified or satisfactorily accounted for by any theory other than that all three sets came independently from a common lost play; why the reporter would have changed as many as 1711 of the 5977 lines practically all of which were good lines to begin with; and who the actor- or stenographerreporter might have been that would have had the initiative as well as the ability to write and add 620 completely new

lines of fa.MY good poetry.

When one satisfactorily explains all these things, there might be some reason for believing that Mr. Greg’s suggested interpretation in connection with the passage re-read by the Cardinal is correct. But not until then. Right now all corroborative evidence is behind the interpretation given for this passage. If Mr. Greg’s reporter theory is not applicable anywhere else in the plays under consideration, then why should we invoke it for this one passage alone? Especially so when that one passage, too, can be explained or interpreted as all other parts of the plays are explained or interpreted - that is, under the theory of a lost play?

Briefly I conclude this first part of my study as follows: (1) that the Contention and the True Tragedy cannot be reported versions cf 2 and 3 Henry VI, for hardly would their reporter have omitted practically one-half of the Folio lines - highly significant lines, never would he have consistently omitted nothing but such linos, hardly would he have forgotten what part of the one-half he did not deliberately reject, and hardly would he have had a desire to go beyond the plays he was reporting and add a considerable amount of material that goes back to the chronicle sources; (2) that from textual corruptions or prose and verse irregularities nothing- is to be construed as evidence that the Contention and the True Tragedy were reported from 2 and 3 Henry VI, for such corruptions or irregularities

may easily have arisen through some means other than reporting from the latter plays; (3) that the Contention and the True Tragedy came from a text, now lost, much shorter than 2 and 3 Henry VI; (4) that this lost text formed the original of the Contention plays; (5) that the Contention and the True Tragedy represent only a revision of the lost original text; (6) that they represent a poor reproductive job, possibly an unauthorized one; (7) that the Folio plays are later revisions of the lost original, made before the printing of the Contention and the True Tragedy, and the Whole Contention is a revision even possibly as late as the year of its publication - 1619; (8) that the Quartos of 1600, which are slight revisions of the Contention and the True Tragedy and thereby something more than mere reprints, are really significant by way of showing that the supposed corruptions of the latter plays are not real corruptions, and incidentally that those plays are not reported versions of 2 and 3 Henry VI; and (9) that the author of 2 and 3 Henry VI rejected and changed much material of the lost version, but that principally he added to what he found there.

1 Holinshed, op. cit., iii, pp. 397, 412, and 448. - See also Fabyan, op. cit., p. 449.

2 ■ That the genealogical scene in the Whole Contention is comparatively well done is immediately clear from a consultation of Holinshed and the Folio. See Whole Contention 11, 2 Henry VI, 11, ii, 9-62; and Holinshed, op. cit., iii, p. 657.

3 C ont ent ion, 11, 1,16-24.

4 Whole Cantention. Part I, 11, i.

5 2 Henry VI, 11, ii, 18-19.

6 Holinshed, op. cit., iii, pp. 597, 412, 448, and 657.

7 Whale ■ C ont ent i on, I, i •

8 See Greg, W. W», in PILLA., \Tol. L, Sept., 1935, PP* 919-920, commenting on my paper “Tho York and Lancaster Quarto-Folio Sequence,” published in PMIA, Sept., 1933.

9 For example, Doran, op. cit., p, 5, note 3.

10 Halliwell, op, cit,, pp, 73-114 and 189-221.

11 Wright, op.cit. - See footnotes accompanying textual lines of 2 and 3 Henry VI.

12 Lee, Jane, op* cit., p. 266.

13 Brooks., Tucker, op. cit., p. 183. 14 Doran, op. cit., p. 31 and p. 50. 15 Ibid., p. 50.

16 ibid., p. 31 and p. 50.

17 Ibid., PP. 57-41.

18 My own scansion.

19 Likewise my own scansion.

20 Doran, op. nit.» pp. 41-43. me scan s £ On in this and all the immediately following f olio pa:;sages is that of Miss 'Doran. - her scansion of traces of supposedly older verse. 22 The scansion in this and all the immediately following Quarto passages is. my own. ' 23

24 Greg, op* cipp. 919-920.

PART II THE RELATION OF RICHARD III TO THE TRUE TRAGEDY AND 3 HENRY VI

THE RELATION OF RICHARD III TO THE TRUE TRAGEDY AND 3 HENRY VI

Mr. Alfred W. Pollard, writing in the Times Literary Supplement for Sept. 27, 1918, if I interpret him correctly, holds that Richard 111 links itself as readily to the True Tragedy as it does to 3 Henry VI - that it is just as much 2 a continuation of the former play as of the latter. At any rate he fails to give all the facts necessary to a complete understanding of the matter. And Peter Alexander, in his Shakespeare* s Henry VI and Richard 111, despite tie implications of that title, is utterly silent on this point. The whole matter certainly needs consideration. As I see it, Richard 111 is a continuation of 3 Henry VI rather than of the True Tragedy, and I herewith present evidence for this conclusion. Never should we lose sight of the fact that the thread of connection for the Folio tetralogy is from Folio play to Folio play, and not from Quarto play to Folio play, that the guiding or connecting hand in the Folio plays was ever the same.

In setting forth my belief that Richard 111 is a sequel to Henry VI rather than to the True Tragedy, I shall show that certain parts of Richard 111 are motivated by details which are in 3 Henry VI but are not in the True Tragedy.

The first of such details to attract our attention is that of Richard’s detailed statement of his plan to get the crown. This detailed statement is not in the True Tragedy. There is a plan in the True Tragedy but it is general and not detailed. In the True Tragedy, we find the general plan expressed as follows:

Tut I can smile, and murder when I smile, I crie content, to that that greeues me most. 3

The play of 3 Henry VI presents its detailed plan by continuing from where this general plan leaves, off:

Why, I can smile, and murder whiles I smile, And cry ’Content’ to that which grieves my heart. And v?et my cheeks with artificial tears,

And frame my face to all occasions. I’ll drawn more sailers than the mermaid shall; I’ll slay more gazers than the basilisk;

I*ll play the orator as well as Nestor Deceive more silly than Ulysses could, And, like a Sinon, take another Troy. 4

This detailed plan is exactly the plan which Richard carries out in Richard 111. For example, in that play Richard deceives Clarence by pretending that he will help him to get out of 5 prison; he tells Anne that he will wet Henry’s grave with 6 repentant tears; ho tells her that he has actually wept because 7 he could not claim her beauty for himself; he persuades her through his power of expression, and in spite of her intense 8 hatred for him, to wear his ring and be his queen; he fiendishly 9 10 11 has Clarence, Rivers, Grey, Vaughan, Hastings, and his two 12 nephews put to death; he pretends to King Edward that he hates

13 enmity and desires both peace and love; he pretends comfort 14 for ths Queen and his mother on the death of the King; he trios to deceive the people by telling them of King Edward’s 15 bastardy; he effectively deceives and persuades the people 16 into believing that he does not want the crown; he persuades Queen Elisabeth, in spite of her hatred for him, to plead 1? his suit of marriage to her daughter; and he ignores his 18 promise to give the Duke of Buckingham an earldom. From these examples we most assuredly of Richard’s tears, - his artificial tears; we see him pretending to be something that he is not, framing his "face to all occasions"; we see him rival the mermaid in calling men to their death; we see him slay those who my be "gazing" upon his ways of getting the

crown, or those who may be looking toward the crown for themselves; we see him in th© role of Nestor; and we see his deception, both Ulysses- and Sinon-like in its nature.

Furthermore, it should be noticed that the detailed plan emphasizes the expression W I will.” This emphasis, it seems to me, might indicate that the author of 3 Henry VI was contemplating a later play in which Richard would carry out his determinations of the present play, and Richard 111 I believe, is a fulfillment of that contemplation.

In the same soliloquy with this detailed plan of how the crown is to be obtained are three direct statements of Ri chard *s intention to get the- crown. Two of them are not in the True Tragedy. They are contained in the following passages

Then, since this earth affords no joy to me, But to command, to check, to o’erbear such As are of better person than myself, I’ 11 make my heaven to dream upon the crown. And, whiles I live, to account this world but hell, Until my mls-shaped trunk that bears this head Be round impaled with a glorious crown.

And yet I know not how to get the crown, For many lives stand between me and home: And I, - like one lost in a thorny wood,

That rends the thorns and is rent with the thorns, Seeking a way and straying from the way; Hot knowing how to find the open air, But toiling desperately to find it out, - Torment myself to catch the English crown: And from that torment I will free ‘Myself, Or hew my way out with a bloody axe. 19

The one direct statement will ch is common to the two plays is found in the last line of the soliloquy in each play. In

the True Tragedy it is:

20 Tush were it ten times higher, I le pull it down.

In 3 Henry VI it is:

21 Tut, were it further off, I*ll pluck it down.

Unquestionably the two additional statements made in 3 Henry VI gave more explicit motivation for the fulfillment of Richard’s intentions in Richard 111 than did the single statement in the True Tragedy.

At tills paint it might be interesting to note in passing that the two foregoing additional statements of Richard’s intention to get the crown are strongly motivated by a preceding detail not in the True Tragedy, that of Richard’s questioning himself as to whether he should try to cut off the ’’causes 1 ’ that keep him from the crown. In fact, the two additional statements are direct, explicit answers to the questioning. They are Richard’s final decision in the matter. The questioning is in the same speech with the two additional statements and is as follows:

Why, then, I do but dreo* on sovereignty, Like one that stands upon a promontory And spies a far-off shore where ho would tread, Wishing his foot were equal with his eye, And chides the sea that sunders him from thence, Saying, he’ll lade it dry to have his way. So do I wish the crown, being so far off; And so I chide the means that keeps me from it; And so I say. I’ll cut the causes off,

Flattering me with impossibilities. My eye’s too quick, my heart o’ erweens too much. Unless my hand and strength could equal them. Well, say there is no kingdom then for Richard; What other pleasure can the world afford? 22

Only the last line of this passage is found in the True Tragedy.

Furthermore, in the True Tragedy Richard 1 s intention or determination to get the crown is. not mentioned again, after its original announcement in the famous soliloquy, until the 23 very end of the play. But such is not the case in 3 Henry VI. In that play there are two additional statements between the soliloquy and the end of the play which mention Richard’s intention or determination to get the crown. > In one place Richard says the following to himself in answer to King Edward’s threat of vengeance upon him and Clarence in case they do not love and respect the Queen:

24 I hear, yet say not much, but think the more.

In another place Clarence’s desertion of Edward prompts Richard to speak as follows to himself J

Not I: My thoughts aim at a further matter; I Stay not for the love of Edward, but the crown. 25

From these two additional statements we once see a more explicit motivation of Richard 111 in 3 Henry VI than we do in the True Tragedy.

Continuity our investigation, we find that there is still one other additional detail about Richard in 3 henry VI which prepares for the writing of Ri cha rd ill. This detail is 26 Richard’s actual deed of stabbing young Prince Edward. The 27 True Tragedy merely refers to Richard 1 s killing the Prince. This slight change, it seems to me, gives a more definite and unmistakable foundation for the many allusions made in 28 Richard 111 to Richard as the murderer of the Young Prince. This additional detail also motivates two powerful dramatic

incidents, of Richard 111, the incident cf Ri chard’s admitting 29 to Anne that he was the murderer of the Prince, and the in-30 cident of the visit made by the Prince’s ghost to Richard.

Turning now to a consideration of King Henry VI, we also discover details in 3 Henry VI and not in the True Tragedy which motivate Richard 111. Here, we find the following: Henry’s wishing for the peaceful, secure life of a shopherd in 31 preference to the tempestuous, insecure life of a king; Henry’s 32 having a prayer book when captured in Northern England;Henry*s conversation concerning oaths with his captors, his revealing tie lightness of their oaths, and his desire that they do not break their latest oath to King Edward as they broke the oath 33 which they once made to him; Henry’s grief for his subjects’ 34 woe; and Henry* s believing that his ineod, pity, mildness, mercy, and absence of oppression will hold the people to him and keep 35 them from going to Edward. These items certainly sharpen or

emphasize Henry’s piety and saintliness, and the two qualities are carried over into Richard 111. In that play, Henry VI is always referred to as either the holy or the saintly man 36 killed by Richard, and Richard’s fiendishness is sharpened with a constant reminder of the fact that Richard killed 37 holy and saintly Harry. Truly, in this characterization of Henry, the author of Richard 111 found ample preparation in 3 Henry VI, but most certainly not in the True Tragedy.

In the prophecy by King Henry in 3 Henry VI that the 38 young Earl of Richmond would some day bo king of England, 39 we haw another detail which is not in the True .Tragedy. This prophecy clearly motivates Richard 111. In that play 40 Richmond is singled out as the personal conqueror of Richard, and in order to motivate and suggest the end of the drama - Richmond’s overthrowing Richard and.becoming the king of 41 England - We author often refers to this prophecy made by

42 King Henry in 3 Henry VI. His referring to this prophecy, which is not in the True Tragedy, is clear evidence, it seems to mo, that Richard 111 is a continuation of 3 Henry VI rather than of the True Tragedy.

Going further, we find that 3 Henry VI has the incident 43 of Clarence’s stabbing the Prince and the True Tragedy does not. This incident is unmistakable preparation for Clarence’s dreaming in Richard 111 that he sees the shadowy angel of Prince Edward beckoning him to hell to answer for his part 44 in the foul murder. Again we see that Richard lIX is a continuation of 3 Henry VI and not of the True Tragedy.

In the last place, let us notice the emphasis which 3 Henry VI places on the "wanton lust" of King Edward. That play has the following items which the True Tragedy does not have: Richard’a insinuation of Edward’s lustful fondness for 45 46 women; Richard’s speaking of Edward’s lustful nature; and Clarence’s reason for deserting Edward - namely, his con-

eluding that Edward married Lady Grey "for wanton lust" instead 47 of for the honor 5 , strength, and safety of his country. These items clearly prepare for Edward’s reputation for lasciviousness in Richard Hl. In that play, Richard not only begrudges 48 Edward’s "capers" but also uses them to advantage in his 49 attempt bo poison the minds of the people Edward. I reca.ll only one reference in the True Tragedy to Edward’s reputation for lewd behavior*, and that is made by young Prince Edward when he rebukes the three York brothers at Tewksbury:

I know my dutie, you are all undutiful. Lascivious Edward, and thou perjurd George, And thou mlshapes Dicke, I tell Vou all, lam your better, traytors as you. be. 50

51 This same reference is in 3 Henry VI. Thus do we note that the lasciviousness of Edward is mentioned four times in 3 Henry VI and one time in the True Tragedy. Clearly Ri* chard 111 at this point finds a much more definite preparation in 3 Henry Vl'than in the True Tragedy.

We have seen that in many eases th© True Tragedy does; not definitely and forcefully prepare for Ri chard 111. We have seen in other cases that it has no preparatory or motivating material at all. Unquestionably Richard 111 assumes that its reader has a preparatory knowledge which the True Tragedy does not give but which 3 Henry VI does give; and since 3 Henry VI motivates everything in Richard 111 that the True Tragedy could possibly motivate, and since it motivates many things that the True Tragedy does not motivate, we must believe that Rich?xrd 111 is a continuation of 3 Henry VI rather than of the True Tragedy« Richard 111 remains in the Folio thread of connection for the York-mn caster tetralogy, and there is the same guiding hand or authorship, it seems, for that thread throughout •

1 The sobstimte of this Part If for the most part contained in an article of the author’s published in Studies in Philology for October, 1932. The form and context however, have here been changed considerably. *

2 The gist of Mr. POllard* s ar game nt is in the following words: ’’But that the two plays/the True Tragedy and Richard 111/ were in the first instance plotted separately is shown by the violence which each has suffered in the effort to link them together. In the case of the True Tragedie(lll Henry VI) the violence is done to the character of 1 that valiant Crookbackt prodegie, ’ who as a cold-blooded hypocrite and murderer gives its name to Richard 111. . . Jhe backward link from Richard 111 to 111 Henry VI and the True T ragedie was provided at the expense of chronology • • •It was the plotter of Ri chard 111 who had the last word in the True Tragedie, and used it to thrust at the end of Scene xii(III Henry VI, 111. ii) a soliloquy which makes hay of the va lia nt Crookba ck 1 s cha ra cter. °

3 True Tragedy, sc. xii, 11. 126-127

4

3 Henry VI, 111, ii, 184-190.

5

Richard 111, I, i, 106-116.

6

Ibid., I, ii, 216

7

Ibid., I, ii, 152-167

3

Ibid., I, ii, 202-225. Also IV, i, G 6-82.

9

Ibid., I, iv.

10

Ibid., 111, iii.

11

Ibid., 111, iv.

12

Ibid., IV, ill.

13 Ibid., 11, i, 52-61.

14 Ibid., 11, ii, 101-111.

15 Ibid., 111, v, 85-94.

16 Ibid., 111, vli, 141-219.

17 Ibid., IV, iv, 196-431.

xs Ibid,, IV, ii, 86-126.

19 3 Henry VI, 111, ii, 165-181.

20 True Tragedy, sc. xii, 1. 136

21

3 Henry VI, 111, 11, 195.

22 Ibid., 111, ii, 134-147

23 Irue Tragody, 50.xxv,11.75-82; sc.xxvi,ll.2l-25 and 11.31-34

24 3 Henry VI, IV, i, 83.

25 '' Ibid., IV, i, 124-126.

26 Ibid., V, v, 39.

27 True Tragedy, sc. xxv, 11. 23-27.

28 Richard 111, I, 1, 154; I, ii, 10-11, 93-94, 182, 240- 242; IV, iv, 25; V, 1,4; V, iii, 119-120.

29 Ibid., I, 11, 132.

30 Ibid., V, 11, 118-12,0.

31 3 Henry VI, 11, V, 21-54,

32 Ibid., 111, 1. Stag© direction before line 13.

33 Ibid., 111, i, 72-92.

34 Ibid., 11, v, 111.

35 Ibid., IV, viii, 33-50.

36 Richard 111, I, 11, 5-11, 102-104; IV, 1, 66-70; IV, iv, 22-25; V, 1, 1-9. 37 Idem. 38 3 Henry VI, IV, vi, 73-74. 39 In the True Tragedy(sc. xix, 11. 14-22), King Henry expresses hop© in Richmond, but he does not directly prophesy that he will be king. 40 Richard 111,V,v. Stage direction at beginning of scene. 41 Ibid., V, v.

42 Ibid., IV, ii, 98-194; V, ill, 128-130 43 3 henry VI, V, v, 40. 44 Richard 111, I, iv, 52-57. 45 3 Henry VI, 11, i, 41-42. ■ x4h .pTyoii mi.i— 1»» w. 46 Ibid., 111, ii, 129.

47 IbU M 111, ill, 208-211. 48 Richard 111, I, i, 8-13. 49 Ibid., 111, v, 8-84. 50 True Tragedy, sc. xxiv, 11. 72-75. 51 3 Henry VI, V, v, 33-37.

PART III THE PLACE OF 1 HENRY VI IN THE YORK-LANCASTER TETRALOGY

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

Under date of March 3, 1592, Henslowe’s Diary records* the acting of the "new" play "Harry the Si sth." In 1 Henry VI as we now have it, the General of Bordeaux addresses Talbot 2 as "our nation’s terror and their bloody scourge," and Thomas Na. she in his famous allusion to a Talbot play(Piers Penilless, Stationers’ Register, Aug. 8, 1592) speaks of him as "brave 3 Talbot the terror of the French." All this, without question, to the same play, "Harry the Sixth," or the earliest form or version of what we now call 1 Henry VI.

Few critics indeed have committed themselves definitely as to the proper place of 1 Henry VI in the sequence of the 4 York-Lancaster tetralogy. Of the earlier critics Malone and 5 Dr. Johnson have placed the play before 2 and 3 Henry VI.

Others have not definitely committed themselves* Capell, however, did conjecture that the play was written "some 6 considerable time" after 2 and 3 Henry VI . Of the comparatively recent critics Henneman in 1900 concluded that there was an original "Talbot” or "Harry the Sixth" play, that 2 and 3 Henry VI "may have existed in incomplete shape before 1 "Henry VI assumed its present form," and that "Richard HI served as a conclusion after 2 and 3 Henry VI had been put into final form," And in 1918 Professor Tucker Brooke took the position that there was a "Talbot" or "Harry the Sixth" play before 2 and 3 Henry VI, most probably by Peele, and that this play was later revised by Shakespeare about 1600, not only after the other plays cf the Folio tetralogy but even after 8 Henry V, which was a direct inspiration for the revision. Gaw in 1926, it seems, fused the positions of Henneman and 9 Brooke in his theory of two revisions of the.play.

1 The Yale Shakespeare, The Part cf King Henry the Sixth, p. 133.

2 1 Henry VI, IV, ii, 16. All references to the Folio plays in this part of the study are to the Yale Shakespeare Edition unless otherwise indicated.

3 The Yale Shakespeare, The First Part of King Henry the Sixth, p. 133.

4 Malone, op. cit., Vol. 13, pp. 179, 182.

5 Johnson, Dr. Samuel, op.cit., Vol. 13, pp. 178-179.

6 The Yale Shakespeare, The First Part of King Henry the Sixth, p. 139, Note 1.

7 Henneman, John Bell, in PMLA, Vol. XV, pp. 290-296

8 The Yale Shakespeare, The First Part of King Henry the Sixth, pp. 133-137, 151-154,

9 few, Allison, The Origin and Development of "1 Henry VI," pp. 162-168.

CHAPTER II PROFESSOR BROOKE'S THEORY CONCERNING THE "REVISION" IN 1 HENRY VI, WITH THE SUGGESTION OF AN OPPOSING THEORY

t h These recent critics are justified in conj ecturi was an original "Talbot” or "Harry the Sixth" play before 2 and 5 Henry VI and Richard 111 and that there was a later revised form of that play. But one cannot always agree with them as to when the revision was done. Especially is it hard to follow Professor Brooke in his placing the revision as late as 1600 rifht after, and with the immediate inspiration of, Henry V. It would be easier to place the revision immediately after the composition of Richard 111, for reasons that I shall now set forth.

As evidence that the revision of 1 Henry VI came about 1600, just after the composition of Henry V, Professor Brooke cites the following: (1) Talbot f s epitaph(l Henry VI, IV. vii. 60-71) and (2) passages in 1 Henry VI that ’’seem reminiscent 1 of Henry V.” Let us examine this evidence.

In 1 Henry VI Sir William Lucy in surveying the English captives and the English dead inquires as follows for Talbot:

But where 1 s the great Alcides of the field, Valiant Lord Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury? Created for his rare succes.se in Armes, Great Earl of Washford,Wat erfor d, and Valence, Lord Talbot of Goodrig and Urchinfield,

Lord Strange of. Bia ckmere, Lord Verdon of Alton, Lord Cromwell of Wingefield, Lord Fumiya 11 of Sheffeild The thrice victorious Lord of Falconbrifee, Knight of the noble order of S. George, Worthy S. Michael and the Golden Fleece, Great Mirshall to Henry the Sixth, Of all his warres within the realms Of France. (1 Henry VI, as quoted from the 1623 Folio, p. 114)

This is the famous Talbot epitaph, and Professor Brooke says 2 that it is "almost verbatim" with the following epitaph printed in Richard Crompton’s Minsion of Magnanimitie of 1599:

Here lieth the right Ytoble knight, John Talbott Earle of Shrewsbury, Washford/ Waterford, and Valence, Lord Talbot, of Goodrige, and Lord Strange of the blank*. feere, Lord Verdon of Alton, Lord Crwwell of Lord Louetoft of Worsop, Lord Furniuall. of Sheffield, ' Lord knight of the most noble order of S. George, S. Micha ell, and the Golden fleece. Great mrshall' to king Henry the sixt of his ma Imo of, Franca..: who the battell of BurdeauK in the yea re of our Lord 3

From this material Professor Brooke asks if we are not "to infer that Shakespeare made his alteration of the play not earlier than 1599, at about the time when he was writing 4 Henry V." Then a little bit later he answers; as follows: "Unless some earlier printed source than is now erring to Crompton’s Mansion of Magnanimitie, 1599/can be found for Talbot’s, epitaph, it will be bard to establish a date prior 5 to 1599 for the revised play.”

But let us see if Professor Brooke is justified in his conclusion. In the first place, we shall cite the following materials by way of getting the full story of the epitaph matter before us, quoting first and more fully from Crompton’s Efe. ns ion of tfe.gnanimitie;

Also did not the Duke of Bur bundle when he beseeged 'the town© of Cretoy with ten thousand men, hearing of the camming of the Lord Talbot raise his siege, the sayd Lord Talbot sending him word that he would give him battell: if he would not, that the said Earle would wast and destroy his country in Picardy, and according to his promise so he did. Was not John Lord Talbot for his approved prowess© and tried valiancy performed in the war res of France, created Earle of Shrewsburie, about the ninteenth yea re of Henrie the sixt, and after sent again© with 3000 men into Normandie for the better defence thereof, who neither forgot his duty, nor foreslowed his business©, but daily labored, and hourely studied how to molest and indanger his enemies. Did not the kings Counsell then send the said Earle with an army into Aquitaine at the earnest sute of the Magistrates and inhabitants of the citie of Bordeaux, who received him and his power into that ci tie by a postern© gate, where they slue many of the Captaines, and others of the Frenchmen, and so was Burdeaux taken by the said Earle, which he fortified, and after rode into the countrey thereabout, and obtained divers cities and townes without dint of svjord. And among others, did not he take the strong town© of Castillon in Perigot? where the French king whe he understood thereof, assembled twenty thousand men, and entred into Aquitaine,(where Castillon is) and besieged the said towwe of Castillon with a strong siege: whereupon the Earle of Shrewsbury assembled 800 horsemen and 5000 footmen, and went to the rescue of the said town©, in which battell very valiantly h© behaved himself©, and there was slain© with a small shot: and this ms the end of this noble Earle, after he had with much honor, more fame, and

great renowne, served his Prince in warns foure and twenty years in France, and was honourably interred amongst them, on whose Tombe is ingraven as foilowe th. Here lieth the right noble knight, John Talbott Earle of Shrewsbury, Washford", Waterford, and Valence, Lord Talbot of Goodrige and Vrchengfield, Lord Strange of the blacke Meere, Lord Verdon of Alton, Lord Crumwell of Wingfield, Lord Lovetoft ofWorsop, Lord Fu'rnlual of Sheffield, Lord Faulconbrige, knight, of the most noble order of S. Geroge, S« MicHaell, and the Golden fleece, Great Marsha I'l toking Henry the sixt of his realm© cf France: who died in the battell of Burdeaux in the year© of our Lord 1453. 6

Im Ul9 Ralph Brooke, in his Catalogue and Succession of the Kings, Princes, Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, and Vicounts of This Realm© of England, writes as follows:

John Lord Talbot, Strange of Blakmer, Fumiuall & Verdon, Gouernor of Antoye and feyneTTsonne of Richard Talbot, Baron Talbot of Castle Gode ri c, and brother and heyre male of Gilbert Lord Talbot) was created Earle of Shrewsbury by Letters Patents, bearing date at Windsore, the 20. day of By, in the 19. year© of king Henry the sixt. And by another Letters Patents, dated at Westminster, the 17. of July, the 24. of king Henry the sixt, he was made Earle of Weshford, & Steward of England, and after Marshall of France; and being sent to succour them of Burdeaux, tooke the Towne, and placed therein a Garrison; and' proceeding further into the Country, to releeue the Towne of Castellon in Aquitaine, which the English had recoueredT”'(the French" hauing on all sides begirt the same) at which time, a great battaile being then fought, this John was with the shot of a Piece there slaine, the 7. of July, 1453. the 32. of King Henry the sixt. He married two wiues, the first was Matild, daughter and onely heyre of Thoms Neuill, Lord Furniuall, by whom he had issue, John Talbot Earle of Shrewsbury; Sir Christopher Talbot, and Sir Humfrey Talbot knights. His second wife was eldest daughter and co heyre of Ri chard Beauchamp© Earle of Warwi eke, by whom he had issue, John Talbot Viscount Lisle, vnto whom his Father gaue the Lordship of Panswike, Whaddon* Morton, Wotton, Schirborne, Poly cot, and other Lands in Shropshire; Sir 'Humfrey" Talbot knight, slaine in Mont-Sinay; Elizabeth, wife to John

Mowbray Duke of Norfolk©; and Elian or married to Thomas Butler, of Sudely Castle in Giocoster shire. This John being slain© as aforesaid, with John Viscount Lisle his sonne, his body was buried in a Toombe at Roane in Normandy, whereon this Epitaph© is written. Here lyeth the right Noble Knight, John Talbot Earle of Shrewsbury, Earleoof Weshford, Waterford and Valence, Lord Talbot of Goodrich and Orchenfield, Lord Strange of Blakmer, Lord Verdon of Acton, Lord Cromwell of Wingfield, Lord Louetofte of Worsop, Lord Furniuall of Sheffeild, Lord Faulconbridge, Knight of the Noble Order of S» George, S. Michael!, and €Ke golden Fleece^great Marshaling King Henry' the sixt of "his Rea lme~of Fran ce, whb died in ’ Burdeaux, 1453. 7

These quotations from Crompton and Brooke, together with the Talbot titles as quoted from 1 Henry VI above, are the three earliest printings of the epitaph material now extant. Placing the quotations in three parallel columns, we read as follows, beginning with the epitaph proper and the immediate sentence introducing it:

C r ompt 0n(1599}

Am 4 this Was the ©mt ox this i oble Earle, after he had with honor, more fame, and great renowns, served his Prince in warns four© and twenty years in Franco, and was honorably interred amongst them, on whoso Tombe is ingrauenjs folio we th. /vh rgina 1 reference: ’’lnscription on the tomb of John first Earle of

Brooke(1619)

This John being slain© as aforesaid, with John Viscount Lisle his sonne, his body was buried in a Toombe at Roane i n Normandy, whereon this Epitaph is written.

I Henry V1(1623)

./No tomb, no epitaph, no inscription are mentioned in 1 Henry VI, consequently, there is no introductory sentence corresponding to Crompton and Brooke. But after he applies the various titles to Talbot in 1 Henry VI, Sir William Lucy then speaks as follows: Give me their bodies, that I my bear them hence, And give them burial as beseems their

Crompton(ls99)

Here lieth the right noble knight, John Talbot

Earle of Shrewsbury

Washford

Lord Talbot of Coodrige, and. Vr chengf ield

Lord Strange of the blacke Meere

Lord Verdon of Alton

Lord Crumwell of Wingefield

Lord Louetoft of Woreop

Lord Faulconbrige

the most noble order

S* George, S. Mi ahaell

king Henry the sixt

who died in the battell of Bur- deaux in the yea re of our Lord 1453

Brooke(1619)

Here lyeth the right noble Knight, John STbSt

Earle of Shrewsbury

Earle of Weshford

Lord Talbot of Goodrich and Orchenfield

Lord Strange of Blakmer

Lord Verdon of Acton

Lord Cromwell of Wingfield

Lord Louetofte of Wore op

Lord Faulconbridge

the Noble ordei 1

S, George, 3, Mi chaell

King Henry the Sixt

who died in the battaile of Burdeaux, 1453

1 Henry V1(1623)

worth J J r

Valiant Lord Talbot

Earle of Shrewsbury

Great Earle of Washford Lord Talbot of Goodrig and Vrchinfield

Lord Strange of Biackmere

Lord Verdon of Alton

Lord Cromwell of Wingfield

The thrice victorious Lord of Falconbridge

the Noble Order

S. deorge, worthy S. Michael

Henry the sixt

Analyzing the parallels offered thus far, we find some striking differences between the three sources <£ material. In the first place, in 1 Henry VI, the epitaph material is not presented as an epitaph but merely names the titles of a great mn. Indeed, there is no mention of a tomb, as is

true of the other two sources. Only after the various titles have been given, does Sir William Lucy speak of burying the 8 bodies of Talbot and his son. In the second place, in the very introductory sentence to the epitaph, the first parallel listed above, as in Crompton and Brooke, where we would expect the closest possible parallelism if the latter were dependent upon the former, there is the widest possible difference. If Brooke ms copying Crompton, why would he be so different from him? Why would he add the fact that Talbot’s son, Viscount Lisle, was slain, while Crompton does not even mention this son anywhere? Why would he add the highly significant statement that Talbot was buried at Roane in Normandy, while Crompton merely says that he was buried ’’amongst them,” not making it clear by any means as to what or whom he is referring in them? Clearly, it seems to me, Brooke vias not following Crompton.

Pursuing the parallels further, we note that Crompton wrote Washford and Brooke in the same place wrote Earle of leshford. Now it is conceivable that Brooke, in copying Crompton, might have changed Washford to Washford, but why would he have added Earle of? And more significantly, why would this addition have closely tallied with the ’’Great Earle of gaaMord” of 1 Henry VI? Also why would Brooke, if he were copying Crompton, leave out the the of Crompton* s ”Lord

Strange of the blacke Meere" in accordance with 1 Henry VI? And why would he, exactly paralleling 1 Henry VI, omit the most of Crompton 1 s "the most noble order”? Moreover, why would the author of 1 Henry VI, if he were following Crompton, write "the thrice victorious Lord of Falconbridge," whereas Crompton has only "Lord Fau 1 conbr ige"? No doubt the phrase "thrice victorious" in connection with Talbot was well in the air or well established long before Crompton wrote, as is evidenced, for instance, by the following from the late fifteenth century 9 Cronique tartiniane: "Jehan de Tallebot, tres renomme en armes." It indeed seems, then, that there is all the more evidence that Brooke did not come from Crompton. If so, there is all the more evidence that 1 Henry VI likewise did not come from Crompton, for surely we are not to believe that Brooke and the author or reviser of 1 Henry VI, working independently of each other, but both using Crompton, coincidentally omitted "the" and "most," and added "Earl of," in exactly the same places. Nor are we to believe that Brooke used both Crompton and 1 Henry VI. Certainly he would not have copied practically every word of the former, so far as the epitaph proper is concerned, and then have turned to the latter for the two insignificant omissions "the" and "most" and the insignifleant addition "Earle of" noted above. Surely he would have shown more indebtedness to 1 Henny VI than that, especially when

there would have been much opportunity for his doing so. Also it is inconceivable that a herald' and historian like Brooke, in 1619, would have turned to a play that had not even been published and no doubt load not been acted for years, and that, only for such little and such insignificant, yet to us today, highly significant, information or guidance as we have noted. Nor will any one, reading the full, accounts of the epitaph proper, quoted above, and immediately seeing thereby that Crompton and Brooke are much more like each other in the epitaph than they are like 1 Henry VI, say that those two took their accounts from 1 Henry VI. Even the mere fact alone, that 1 Henry VI does not have the title ’’Lord Louetoft of Worsop” and the other two texts do is evidence enough: that those two did not get the epitaph from 1 Henry VI.

But we need not stop with the epitaph proper and its introductory sentence. There are many convincing parallels in the Talbot material quoted just before that and sentence. And this material, if we hold that both Brooke and the author or reviser of 1 Henry VI got the epitaph from Crompton, certainly would have been read by Brooke and that author or reviser and would have shown some influence upon them. But let us see what the following column-analysis will have to tell:

Cyo>wpton(ls99)

Brooke(1619)

1 Henry V1(1623)

Also did not the Duke of Burgundie when ho besieged the towne of Oretoy with ten

Crompton(ls99)

thousand men, hearing of the comming of the Lord Talbot raise his siege, the sayd Lord Talbot sending him word that he would glue him battell: if he would not, that the said Earle would wast and destroy his countrey in Picardy, and according to his promise so he did.

fes not John Lord Talbot for his approued prowess© and tided valiancy performed in the warres. of France, created Earle of Shrewsburie,about, the ninteenth year© of Henrie the sixt, ana aftor sent again© with 3000 men into Normandie for the better defence thereof, who neither forgot his duty, nor forslowod his business©, but daily labored, and hourely studied how to molest and indanger his enemies.

Did not the kings counsell then send the said Earle with

Brooke(1619)

John Lord Talbot Strange of Bia ckmer, Furniuall & Verdon, Gouernor of Ani oye and Biyne, (sonne of Richard Talbot, Baron Talbot of Ca st le Gode ri c, and brother and hey re male of Gilbert Lord Talbot)~was created Earle of Shrewsbury by Letters Patents bearing date at Windsore , the 20. day of My, in the 19. year© of king Henry the sixt. And by another Letters Patents, dated at Westminister, the 17, of July, the 24. of king Henry the sixt, he was made Earle of Weshford, & St ova rd of England, and after Marshall of France*

And /Ta Ibot/bei ng sent to succour them of Burdens,

1 Henry V1(1623)

But where’s the great Alcides of the field. Valiant Lord Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury? Created for his rare successe in Armes, Great Earl of Washf or< Waterford, and Valence, Lord Talbot of Goodrig and Urchinfield, Lord Strange of Bia ckmere, Lord Verdon of Alton, Lord Cromwell of Wingefield, Lord Furniua.ll of Sheffeild, The thrice victorious Lord of Falconbri dge, Knight of the noble order of S. George, Worthy-S. Mi chael and the Golden Fleece, Great Harsha 11 to Henry the Sisth Of all his warres within the readme of France.

Alcides of the

/There is fighting at Burdeaux, but there is nothing of

Crompton(ls99)

an army into Aquitaine at the earnest sute of the magistrates sand inhabitants of the citie of Burdeux, who received him and his power into that citie by a posterns gate, where they slue many of the captained, and others of the Frenchman, and so was Burdeux taken by the said Earle, which ho fortified, and after rode into the countrey thereabout, and obtained diners cities and townes without dint of sword. And among olliers, did not he take the strong towns on ~ n Perigot? where the French king who he understood thereof, assembled twenty thousand men, and entred into Aquitaine (where Cast!llon is) and besieged the said town© of Cast!lion with a strong siege: whereupon the Earle of Shrewsbury assembled horsemen and 5000 f ootmen, and went to the rescue of the said towns.

Brooke(1619)

tooke the te>vyie,and placed therein a Garrison; and proceeding further into the country, to releeue the Towne of Castellon in Aquitaine, whi ch tiie English had recouered.

1 Henry V1(1623)

the facts as given by Crompton and Brooke. Cast!lion is not even menti

Countess. I thought. I should have seen some Hercules, A second Hector. • • 16 /speaking of Talbot/ Lucy. But where’ s

Crompton(ls99)

Brooke(1619)

1 Henry V1(1623)

the great Alcides of the field? 11 /speaking of Talbot/

Talbot. Here, said they /Talbot * s ca pt or s/ i s the terror cf the French(l«iv,42) /said of Talbot/

'"’Oir" nation’ s terror and their bloody scourge* 12 /speaking of Talbot/

Lncy. Is Talbot slain, the Frenchmen*s only scourge, Your kingdom* s. terror and black Hemesis? 13

famous Talbot-Son John Scene, wherein Talbot and his son John both try to get each other to flee but wherein both refuse/ 14

/Second scone between Talbot and his son John, wherein Talbot praises hi son’s valor in the fighting and again asks him to flee, but wherein the son again refuses and

Prompton(ls99)

Very valiantly he/Ta 1 bot/beha vcd himself©, and ther e/pastillon/ was slain© with a small shot: and this was the end of this noble Earle, after he had with mu ch honor, more fame, and great renowne, served his Prince in warns. four© and twenty years in France, and was honorably interred amongst ; them, on whose Tomb© is ingrauen as follow©th.

Brooke(1619)

(the French haulng on all sides begirt the same/Ca stellon/O at which time, a great battaile being then f ought, _this John /Talbot/'was with”the shot of a Piece there /pa stell 0n7 3 ne > the 7. of July, 1453. the 32. of King Henry ( the sixt. . . this Talbot/being slain© as aforesaid, with John Viscount Lisle his sonne, his body was buried in a Toombs at Roa no in Horaandy whereon this Epitaph© is written.

1 Henry V1(1623)

the two together again go to the fighting/ 15

/The famous death scene between Talbot and his son John/ 16

/Sir William Lucy*s coming to get the bodies of Talbot and .his son John, his. designating Talbot with the various titles(not in an epitaph, of course), and his expressing his intent to bury them hence. We are not told exact’ ly how Talbot and his son John are wounded, nor how or

He/Talbot/married two wines,,the first was fetild daughter and onely heyre of Thomas Haulll, Lord Furniuall by whom he had issue, John Talbot, Earle of Shrev/sbury; Sir Christopher Talbot, and Sir Humfrey Talbot knights. His second wife was Margaret, eldest daughter and co heyre of Richard Beauchamp© Earle

Crompton(ls99)

Brooke(1619)

1 Henry V1(1623)

of Warwick©, by whom he had issue, John Talbot Viscount Lisle, vnto whom his Father gau© the Lordship of Panswike, Whaddon, Morton, Wotton,'S shirborne, Poly cot, and. other lands in Shropshire; Sir Humfrey Talbot slain© in Mont-Simy; Elizabeth, wife to John Mowbray Duke of Norfolk©; and El la nor married to Thomas Butler of Sudely Castle in cTocestershire.

Q,uite evidently, as seen from those parallels., Brooke’s account did not come from Crompton. Else why did he omit much oi Crompton’s material - material that would have added all the more to his picture of Talbot? Why did he add a great number of now facts? Clearly, he must have got these facts from some other source; and if he did, why could he have not got Hie epitaph from that source also - especially so, since his rendition of that epitaph, as wo have seen, is not by any means verbatim with that of Crompton? Moreover, if Brook© followed Crompton in these parallels, why did he not show at least some similarity in phraseology with him - especially if he had not hesitated in copying the epitaph from him? And similarly, only even more so, we may argue as to 1 Henry VI ’ s coming from Crompton and Brooke’s coming from 1 Henry VI. Yet the parallels from Crompton and Brooke appear within a space immediately before the epitaph, and if Brooke and the author or reviser of 1 Henry VI had followed Crompton for the epitaph, surely they would have read the introductory material and it would have shown at least some discernible influence upon them.

Furthermore, after carefully collating Brooke in this introductory Talbot material with several known standard works, such as State Papers, Camden, Hall, Holinshed, and Stow, works to which one might expect him to have been indebted, I find a great abundance of evidence that he positively did not get his information from them. Some of those works are practically without any of Brooke’s information; Brooke gives much information that is found in none of them; often where there is any similarity at all in fact, there is contradiction in detail; and never is there the least bit of similarity of phrase. And of course, as to the epitaph, none of the works mentioned contains it. None of them says, as Brooke does, that Talbot was buried in a tomb in Roane in Normandy. Indeed, three of them. Hall, Holinshed, and Stow, instead of saying Ulis with Brooke, explicitly state that he was buried in 17 Whitechurch, Shropshire• Not a single one of the works oven mentions any epitaph, much less gives in full the one that Brooke gives.

Then if Brooke and 1 Henry VI did not come from Crompton, and Brooke* s source in the Talbot matter is not known, how

are we to explain the similarities of the three texts in the epitaph proper? The obvious explanation, of course, is that all three texts, so far as the epitaph is concerned, have come from a common lost text or lost independent stems of that text, the original text most probably containing practically no Taito t material other than the epitaph proper, and the epitaph material being always quoted material and consequently of such nature as not to invite great variations from time to time, yet of such nature as to make quite possible the definite and significant variations we have noted. To me this is the only theory by which we can explaing so much subtraction and addition of factual material, and moreover, subtraction and addition that would hardly be conceivable if Brooke and the author or reviser of 1 Henry VI had been following Crompton directly; can explain changes in factual material that could hardly have taken place if Brooke and 1 Henry VI were under the direct influence of Crompton; can explain how two writers, working independently of each other but both using a common source, coincidentally hit upon the same definite changes, in corresponding places; can explain how Brooke copied practically a whole passage, the epitaph proper, from Crompton, then turned to 1 Henry VI, a play that had not at the time been published and had probably not been acted for years, for some three or four insignificant, but nevertheless to us now, significant, changes; and can explain how Brooke copied, though not exactly by any means, one passage or statement from Crompton, namely, the epitaph proper, and did not at all copy many accompanying passages or statements that certainly would have been under his eye along with the passage or statement copied.

Needless to say, perhaps, if there was a lost common text or texts, at least the original lost text existed well before 1599, the date of the earliest known printing of the epitaph, that of Crompton. To be more exact, it nay easily have been in existence in time for the early lost Talbot play or what I believe was the Shakespearean revision of that play immediately after Richard 111. Professor Brooke, then, it seems, has erred in citing the epitaph as evidence for his theory that Shakespeare revised 1 Henry VI as late as 1600.

Moreover, 'nothing from metrical tests manifests itself in favor of Professor Brooke 1 s holding that the epitaph material was added by Shakespeare as late as 1600. As a matter of fact, such tests are decidedly in favor of a much earlier date? for that addition, if it actually was an addition For comparative purposes I have worked out two sets of figures for the 1 Henry VI scene in which the epitaph appears - one set for the entire scene and another for the particular episode of that scene in which the epitaph appears, namely, that in which Sir William Lucy looks for the bodies of Talbot and his son and obtains them for burial. The figures thus worked out are as follows:

Whole Scene Episode

Total number of lines 96 46 Number of riming lines , 52 4 Number of end-stopped lines 88 45 Mimbor of run-on lines 8 1 Number of feminine endings 8 6 Number of speeches 20 11 Number of speeches ending within line 2 2 Number of weak endings 1 0 % riming lines 54 B*7

% end-stopped lines 97.7 97.8 % run-on lines 2.3 2.2 % feminine endings 2.3 13.0 % speeches ending within line 10.0 18.0

Placing certain of these figures along side the corresponding standard ones for the whole play of 1 Henry VI, those for Richard 111, and those for Henry V, we get the following:

Scene Episode 1 HenryVl Richardlll Henry V 19 19 19 % riming lines 54 8.7 10 3.5 3.2 % run-on lines 2.3 2.2 10.4 13.1 21.8 % feminine endings 2.3 13.0 8.2 19.5 20.5 % speeches ending within line 10 18 0.5 2.9 18.3 No. of weak endings 1 0 4 4 2

These figures show that the versification of the episode, on the whole, is about as close as that of the entire scene to that of 1 Henry VI. And every figure except that for the percentage of speeches ending within the line actually shows the versification of both the entire scene and the episode to be closer to that of Richard 111 than to that of Henry V, the figure for the percentage of run-on lines showing so decidedly. Easy is it to account for the marked drop in the percentage of riming lines indicated in the figure for the episode as compared with that for the scene: The material of the episode

is largely made up of proper names that could not be expressed in rime. And even at that, the author of the episode resorted, in the last five lines, to that device. Now as for the percentage of speeches ending within the line: The figures for that item show the versification for both the entire scene and for the episode decidedly closer to those for Henry V than to either those of Richard 111 or those of 1 Henry VI as a whole. But resorting again to standard figures, we find that the figures for the scene and the episode are also very close to the corresponding figures for the following plays much earlier than Henry V, using Professor 20 Brooke’s own dates and figures for those plays:

Scene, 10%; episode, 18%; Love’s Labour*s Lost(ls9o), 10%; Two Gentlemen of Verona(ls9l), 5♦ 8%; A Midsummer Night ’s Dream (1594 - same year is for Ri cha rd I11‘), 17.3%; Ri cha rd 11 (1595), 773%;' King J0hn(1595), 12.1%; and Romeo and Juliet(ls9s), 14.9%.

Clearly, so far as the percentage of speeches ending within the line is concerned, both the scene and the episode could have been written by Shakespeare much earlier than 1599 or 1600, the time when Professor Brooke would have them written. They could easily have been written as early as 1590, or they could have been so written even in 1594 or 1595, right after Richard 111, when, as I have indicated, I personally believe

the re visional material was put into the early Henry VI play.

Incidentally, on the other hand, it may be said in connection with the scene and episode figures for the percentage of riming lines, run-on lines, and feminine endings given above, that there is no Shakespearean play as late as Henry V that shows anything like corresponding figures SVch as t$ permit us to think that the Henry VI scene and episode might have been written as late as Henry V or some later play. A. mere glance at any table of standard figures will immediately 21 show this, A the glancer would car ef uin ar in mind, perhaps, the observation made above on the relative drop in the percentage of riming lines in the episode as compared to the corresponding percentage in the entire scene - namely, that the IoU/ PercehtA/e is certainly to be accounted for by the wide prevalence cf historical proper-name material in the episode that does not at all lend itself to rime expression.

Professor H. D. Gray states that it is impossible to arrive at a satisfactory chronology of Shakespeare's plays from considering singly either feminine endings, run-on lines, or speeches ending within the line* He maintains that only by a percentage-average of these three can a satisfactory chronology 22 be obtained. If Gray is right, then the scene and episode were

written much earlier than 1599 or 1600. For this percentageaverage we find the following figures:

23 Scene, 4.8%; episode, 11.1%; 1 Henry VX, 6.3%; 3 Henry VI, 8%; Richard 111, 11.8%; Henry V, 20%; and The 53.8%.

These figures, it will be seen, indicate a much earlier date than Professor Brooke’s 1599 or 1600 for the composition of the epitaph material. Metrical figures again closely conform to the theory that the old Henry VI play was revised soon after the composition of Richard 111.

Without laying undue stress on metrical tests in determining the date of a play, we might as well consider the metrics of two scenes in 1 Henry VI which Professor Brooke rightly says are generally assumed to be scenes added, entirely or for 24 the most part, by Shakespeare when he revised the old play. Those scenes are the famous Temple-Garden scene(lX.iv) and the scene in which York interviews Mortimer(ll.v)• For these two scenes X have worked out the following figures:

Temple-Garden Scene York-Mortimer Scene No. of lines 134 129 No. of riming lines 6 4 No. of end-stopped lines 131 122 No. run-on lines 3 7

No. of feminine endings lines 32 4 No. of speeches 47 18 No. of speeches ending within line 3 0 No. of weak endings 0 0 riming lines 4.5 3 % run-on lines 2.2 5 % feminine endings lines 23.9 3 % speeches ending within the line 6.4 0

Placing certain of these figures along side the corresponding 25 standard ones for th© entire play of 1 Henry VI, for Richard 111 and for Henry V, we get the following:

Temple-Garden York-Mortimer IH.VI R.III H.V.

% riming lines 4,5 3 10 3.5 3.2 % run-on lines 2.2 5 10,413.1 21.8 % feminine endings lines 23.9 3 8.2 19.5 20.5 % speeches ending within line 6.4 0 .5 2.9 18.3

Hot a single column of the figures for the two scenes in question points to a versification as late as that of Henry V that does not equally point to one as early hs Ri chard 111, but most of them are so widely divergent from the corresponding ones for Henry V as to Indicate that the two scenes could certainly not have been written as late as Henry V. Most of them are decidedly closer to the figures for Richard 111, closer even than they are to 1 Henry VI as a whole, and therefore if the figures are to be taken to mean anything

as to Uie time of the composition of the two scenes, it is that they were written decidedly closer to the time of Richard 111 than to that of Henry V or of 1 Henry VI taken as a whole.

And for the average of the percentages of run-on lines, feminine endings lines, and speeches ending within the line, according to Professor Gray’s theory, I cite the following:

Temple-Garden York-Mortimer 1 H.VI R.II I V 26 26 26 10.8 2.7 6.3 11.8 20.2

According to this, the two scones could not have been written as late as Henry V, and the York-Mortimer scene is considerably removed from both 1 Henry VI as a whole and from Ricliard 111. To be sure, according to Professor Gray’s complete table for Shakespeare’s. plays, there is no single play with anything - like such a low average percentage as that for this latter sc«ne Could that possibly mean that it was really not Shakespearean? Anyway, for our purposes here, the low average percentage is much closer to that of 1 Henry VI and Ricliard 111 than it is to that of Henry V. And the average percentage for the Temple-Carden scene, the reader will note, is exceedingly

close to that of Richard 111.

Into the question whether metrical tests have any value in determining the time when a play or any part of it was written, we shall not enter here, but one thing is evident, from what we have pointed out, and that is that the versification of no single scene or episode which we have considered, and every one we have considered is generally accepted as revisional, even begins to measure up, on the whole, to that of Henry V. Always the metrical tests, on the whole, are rather in favor of a time close to that of Richard 111 as the most probable time for the composition of the revisional parts And since the tests point so decidedly a versification as late as 1599 or 1600, the inevitable conclusion is in favor of an earlier time of composition. One thing, to be sure, is certain, even if metrical matters do not -prove the exact date. That is that they most certainly do not strengthen Professor Br ooke * s the ory•

Now, for his second and only other piece of evidence for placing the revision as late as 1600, namely, that of 28 passages in 1 Henry VI that ’’seem reminiscent of Henry V, n Professor Brooke offers only one such passage out of "several” which he says are therein, and that is th© following:

1 Henry VI: Ta lb ot. You tempt the fury of my three

attendants, 29 Lean famine, quartering steel, and climbing fire.

Henry V: Prologue. Then should the warlike Harry, like himself, Assume the part of Mars; and at his heels, Leash'd in like hounds, should famine, sword, and fire Crouch for employment. 30

But. possibly Professor Brooke also had the following in mind as one of his 11 remini scent” passages. At least it is tie only other passage that I can find that might possibly be taken as such:

1 Henry VI: Alen yon. They /the English/want their porridge and their fat bull beeves: Either they must be dieted like rules And have their provender tied to their mouths. Or piteous they will look, like unowned mice. 31

Henry V: Constable. And then give them /the English/great meals of beef and iron and steel, they will eat like wolves and fight like devils. 32

The latter parallel informs us that the English were great eaters of beef, and the former one cites three common attendants upon, or employees of, great warriors. But both pieces of information came directly from the chronicles and there is no striking similarity in phrase. The Constable, in Hall’s Chronicle, encourages the French captains with this:

For you must understand,' kepe Englishman one moneth from hys warm bed, fat befo, and stale drynke, and let him that season tast colde and suffre hunger, you then shall se his courage abated, hys bodye waxe leane and bare, and ever desirous to return© into hys own countrey. 33

And Holinshed speaks of Henry V’s dealings with the people of Rouen as follows:

And, after he /Henry v/had well considered the craftie cautell of his enemies, with a fierce countenance, and bold spirit, he reprooved them; both for their subtill dealing with him, and their malapert presumption, in that they should seeme to go about to teach him what belonged to the dutie of a conquerour. And therefore, since it appeared that the same was unknown© unto them, he declared that the goddesse of battoll, called Bellona, had three handmaidens, ever of necessitie attending upon hir, as blood, fire, and famine. And whereas it laie in his choise to use them all three, (yea, two or one of them, at his pleasure,) he had appointed onelie the meekest maid of those three damsels to punish them of that citie, till they were brought to reason. 34

Besides, both pieces of information were most probably in the air in Elizabethan times and commonly known. They could easily have been put into 1 Henry VI before Henry V. They are not necessarily ’’reminiscences” at all.

There is, to be sure, much material in 1 Henry VI which deals with King Henry the Fifth but which is not in the play of Henry V - for example, the following: Exeter 1 s reminding the other lords of their oaths to Henry the Fifth to quell the

35 Dauphin; Bedford’s remembering these oaths and his preparing 36 for France; Exeter’s having been ordained ’’special governor” 37 of Henry the Sixth; Henry V* s not being able to "brook” the 38 39 Cardinal; the Cardinal’s having “contriv’d” Henry V* s death; Henry V* s having beheaded the Earl of Cambridge for levying 40 an army and trying to put Mortimer on the throne; Henry V* s 41 prophesying about his gaining all and Henry Vl’a losing all; Henry V’s saying of Talbot that "a stouter champion never 43 handled sword-’*; Henry V* s prophesying of the Cardinal that “if once” he came “to be a cardinal, ” he would make his cap

43 co-equal with the crown”; and Salisbury’s having trained 44 Henry the Fifth to war. Could these or any of them be Professor Brooke’s ‘’reminiscences”? But as I have said, they are not reminiscent of the play Henry Vat all. Besides, 45 five of the items are in both Hall and Holinshed and the other four must have been dramatic creations; and certainly they could have been incorporated in our play before Henry V. Besides, if these references to the nan Henry the Fifth are “reminiscences," then there are many "reminiscences." in the 46 other plays of the york-Lancaster tetralogy, but no one claims that those plays wore revised after Henry V.

1 The Yale Shakespeare, The First Part of King Henry _the Sixth, pp. 135-136.

2 Ibid., p• 124. 3 Crompton, Richard, The Mi nsion of IMgnanimitie(ls99), Signature E 4(Copy in the “Hunt ington Library) . 4 The Yale Shakespeare, The First Part of King Henry th Sixth, p• 125.

5 Ibid., p. 136.

6 Crompton, op. cit., pp. Ei - E 4(Copy in the Huntington Library)•

7 Brooke, Ralph, A Catalogue and Succession of the Kings, Princes, Dukes, Wrquesses, Earls, and Vi counts of This Realm© of EnglandCl6l9),pp7 196-197. * ~

8 1 Henry VI, IV, vii, 85-86.

9 e "Cronique Martiniane," in Bibliotheque Du XV— Siecle edited by J. B. Champion, Vol. 2, p. 63.

10 1 Henry VI, 11, ill, 19-20.

11 Ibid., IV, vii, 60.

12 Ibid., IV, ii, 16.

13 Ibid., IV, vii, 77-78.

14 Ibid., IV, v.

15 Ibid., IV, vi.

16

Ibid., IV, vii.

17 Hall, op.cit., pp. 229-230; Holinshed, 1808 Edition of the Chronicle, p. 236; Stow, op.cit ♦, p. 392.

18 Neilson, W. A. and Thorndike, A. H., The Facts about Shakespeare, 1931 Edition, p. 72.

19 Brooke, Tucker, Shakespeare of Stratford( 1926), p. 127.

20 Ibid., p. 127 and inserted sheet opposite p. 120.

21 See Neilson and Thorndide, op.cit., p. 72, or Brooke, Tucker, Shakespeare of Stratford(l926), p. 127.

22 Gray, H. D., "Chronology of Shakespeare*s Plays,” in Modern Language Notes(l9sl), Vol. 46, p. 148.

23 For the full-play figures in this table, see Gray, H. D., op.cit., p. 148.

24 The Yale Shakespeare, The First Part of King Henry the Sixth, pp. 141-142.

25 Brooke, Tucker, Shakespeare of Stratford(l926), p. 127.

26 Gray, H. D., op. cit., p. 148.

27 Ibid., p. 148.

28 The Yale Shakespeare, The First Part of King Henry the Sixth, p. 135.

29 1 Henry VI, IV, ii, 10-11. 30 Henry V, Prologue, 5-8. 31 1 Henry VI, I, ii, 9-12. 32 Henry V, 111, vii, 165-168.

33 Boswell-Stone, op. cit., p. 185, Note 3.

34 Ibid., p. 166.

35 1 Henry VI, I, 1, 162-164. 36 Ibid., I, i, 165-166. 37 Ibid., I, i, 170-172. 38 Ibid., I, ill, 23-24. 39 Ibid., I, Hi, 33-34. 40 Ibid., 11, v, 82-92. 41 ibid., XII, i, 194-200. 42 Ibid., 111, iv, 17-19.

43 ibid., V, i, 30-33.

44 Ibid., .1, iv, 79.

45 Boswell-Stone, op. cit., pp. 208, 209, 2'13, 224, 236.

46 2 Henry VI, I, i, 76-104, 11. iii. 34, IV. viii. 37-40, 59-61; 3 Henry VI, I. 1. 107-109, 140, 11. ii. 37-38, 150-162, vi. 15, 111. i. 76-77, iii. 85-90.

CHAPTER III MORE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE SUGGESTED THEORY OF THE RE- VISION IN 1 HENRY VI

Then if Professor Brooke is not justified in placing the revision about 1600, after Henry V, what further evidence is there for our placing it right after the composition of Richard III? But first, let us list the following material from which to work:

A. Material that makes for connection between 1 Henry VI and the other plays of the Folio tetralogy -

1. Reminders in 1 Henry VI of the coming conflict - the Wars of the Roses - which largely occupies the other plays of the tetralogy: (1) Bedford’s invoking the Ghost of Henry 1 the Fifth to keep the realm from “civil broils”; (2) Warwick’s prophesying the great coming conflict between the York and 2 Lancaster factions; (3) York’s going to Parliament “to be restored to his blood” or “to get some good from his ill in 3 some way”; (4) Exeter’s foreseeing the coming discord between the peers and the losing of France - his relating Henry the Fifth’ prophecy about his gaining all and Henry the Sixth’s losing 4 all; (5) Exeter’s reminding us of the passion in York’s heart 5 and again of the coming conflict and ruin; (6) the Second Messenger’s speaking of tie English sedition within and of its 6 hurrying the loss of France; and (7) the Cardinal’s planning to make Humphrey "stoop and bend or sack" the "country with 7 mutiny.”

2* Traits of characterization in 1 Henry VI that are consistent with the characterization of the same characters in 8 9 the other plays of the tetralogy: Eleanor’s pride; Winchester’s greed, imperiousness, malice, ambition, hypocrisy, lying, 10 scheming; Suffolk’s pride, framing the law to suit himself,

passion for Birgaret, scheming, utter selfishness; York’s impatience with getting Ids rights, his ambition, Ids secret abiding his time, his. eagerness and readiness to fight, sternness, power; Somerset’s pride, jealousy toward York; Henry the Sixth’s piety, virtue, sweetness, weakness, studiousness, bookishness; Margaret’s charm, courage - “more than in women commonly is soon."

3. Specially significant plot linkings between 1 Henry VI and tile other plays of the tetralogy: (1) Suffolk’s going 11 to France in 1 Henry VI as henry’s procurator and his returning 12 as such in 2 Henry VI : (2) Suffolk’s resolution, in 1 Henry VI, 13 that Margaret shall rule the King and he shall rule her and 14 the fulfillment of that resolution in 2 Henny Vi; (3) an echo of the 1 Henry VI enmity between Gloucester and the Cardinal in 2 Henry VI where the Cardinal, upon th© first conflict between himself and Gloucester in that, play, .says to the _ 15 other lords, "Tis know* to you he /Gloucester/is mine enemy";

16 (4) an echo of the 1 Henry VI restoration of York in 3 Henry VI where Exeter sees York sitting on Henry’s throne and exclaims to him, "for shams’. Come down: he /Henry the Sixth/made thee Duke of York”; (5) an echo of the 1 Henry VI treatment of the 18 dislOValtY of York’s father to the crown of Henry the Fifth in 3 Henry VI whore Exeter in speaking to- York says, ”Thy 19 father was a traitor to the crown”; (6) Henry the Sixth’s banishing Fastolfe in 1 Henry VI with ’’Henceforth we banish 20 thee on pain of death” and Richard’s question in Richard 111 addressed to Margaret in regard to her banishment, "Mert thou 21 not banished on pain of death?” and (7) the reference in 22 Ri chard 111 to York * s 1 Henry VI warring in F ranco.

B* Material that makes against connection between 1 Henry VI and the other plays of the tetralogy -

1, Highly sensational, dramatically important material

in 1 Honry that is not even mentioned or referred to in the other plays of the tetralogy, when there was abundant opportunity for such reference and mention: (1) Suffolk’s 23 capture of Margaret; (2) the great Talbot; (3) the Temple- Garden or rose-plucking scene, the dramatic beginning of the Great Wars of the Roses, so prominent in the other plays of 24 25 the tetralogy; and (4) York’s interview with Mortimer.

2. Inconsistencies of characterization between 1 Henry VI 26 and the other plays of the tetralogy: Eleanor holds Gloucester 27 in awe in 1 Henry VI but docs not in the other plays. Winchester’s villainy is more specific, more open, more impressive in 1 Henry VI. Gloucester* s marked popularity with the common people, his reputation as the "Good Duke Humphrey,” and his general goodness, all of which predominantly chara the man in 2 Henry VI, are completely lacking in 1 Henry VI; f in the latter, quite contrary to what is in the former, there is no deliberate aim to make him good and popular; his popularity and goodness are not attested to by other characters, accusations against him are not deliberately presented as false; moreover, 28 Winchester’s charge of irreverence against him in 1 Henry VI is not in the other plays. The Warwick of 1 Henry VI and the Warwick of the other plays, though historically different 29 characters, are one and the same character dramatically; the great Warwick of 2 and 3 Henry VI, however, the Warwick next to Humphrey in popularity with the common people, famous for his “plain housekeeping,” the great “setter-up and puller-down of kings, 11 the %i nd-changing Warwick,” is absolutely missing in 1 Henry VI. Henry’s flash of passionate love for Margaret in — 1 Henry VI is never seen again. And Margaret is only apparently, not clearly and decisively, attracted to Suffolk in 1 Henry VI; there is no outburst of passion for him, or oven a hint of it, as is seen in 2 Henry VI; there is no hint whatsoever of her later cruelty and insincerity, no hint of a league with Suffolk 31 to rule England.

3. Special inconsistencies between 1 Henry VI and the other plays of the tetralogy: (1) In 1 Henry VI nothing is said in Henry* s explicit instructions to Suffolk to the effect 32 that the latter is to marry Margaret by proxy, yet upon his return with Margaret in 2 Henry VI that is exactly what he has done with apparent approval of the king. (2) In 1 Henry VI the King himself proposes that Suffolk get a tenth for ma telling 34 him with Margaret, but in 2 Henry VI it is Suffolk who demands 35 a whole fifteenth for making the match. And (3) in 1 Henry VI King Henry even before his father’s funeral and his own coronation ms old enough to hear his father say that Talbot was a great warrior and was so impressed that years later he could repeat 36 his father’s words; later, at the time of Henry V*s funeral, 37 he is actually an ”effeminate prince like a school boy”; at his own coronation still later, he himself says he is not 38 young yet not old, but in 2 Henry VI, 3 Henry VI , and Richard 111

39 he is represented as having been crowned at "nine months old."

Now all this evidence seems to me to establish tv/o facts - namely, (1) that there was a conscious, deliberate effort at adapting either 1 Henry VI to the other plays of the tetralogy or versa, and (2) that there must have been circumstances that made against the best possible adaptation. Indeed, no two plays or sots of plays could have so many points of close similarity or connection without showing such an effort to adapt them, and at the same time, so many dissimilarities or discrepancies without showing circumstances of difficulty in adaptation.

What we must do, then, if we can, is to ascertain further the most reasonable and acceptable for the adaptation in the sequence of the tetralogy.

First, let us assume the following possibilities of t sequence which at one time or another have been advanced:

1, That 1 Henry VI was written in its entirety, once and for all, before the other plays of the tetralogy.

2. That 1 Henry VI was written in its entirety, once and for all, after the other plays of the tetralogy.

Now "adaptation” under these two possibilities, as opposed to "revision," would mean that the adapter sat down with a completed play before him, or close at hand, that

he was thoroughly familiar with that play, and that he wrote a second play in its entirety as an adaptation to the other. He should have had no great difficulty in harmonizing what he had to write with what he had before him. Certainly he would have had no just cause for inserting such numerous and significant discrepancies as we listed above. He could hardly have been so faulty in memory as to commit them, and they do not signify any change in dramatic purpose. Certainly nothing was to be gained dramatically by the confusion of Henry the Sixth*s age, Suffolk’s proxy marriage, and Suffolk’s charge in transporting Margaret; by the failure even to refer in one play to some highly dramatic and unusually important scene in the other; and by the failure to utilize characterization in one play that really would have strengthened, and harmonized with, the characterization of the other. Adaptation of such a nature would have called for an adapter indeed inefficient.

Nor under the foregoing circumstances does multiple authorship on either or both sides of the adaptation make any difference. The point is that there was conscious, deliberate adaptation by some one, but that it is hard to conceive of him under the said circumstances. Even if only one of the collaborators did the adapting, he would have been responsible for editing to some degree the other’s part of the authorship. If not, then his office as adapter or editor becomes again inconceivable and his being collaborator, highly suspicious.

Much easier is it to believe that the first to be written of the plays under consideration was the old play of ”Harry the Sixth,” mentioned by Henslowe and Nashe; that this play is now lost; that 2 and 3 Henry VI and Richard 111 were next written without adaptation to "Harry the Sixth" and by an entirely different author or authors; that 1 Henry VT finally came, rather hastily, as a revision of "Harry the Sixth"; and that this "revision" involved an "adaptation" of the older "Harry the Sixth,” so as to harmonize it with the other plays of the tetralogy, by the author of 2 and 3 Henry VI and Richard 111, with the adaptation, no doubt, as his primary purpose.

Under this arrangement the adapter would not have been performing his functions as such by writing an entirely new play. His office would be to harmonize two plays by different authors, plays no doubt inconsistent with each other, by changing the play he was revising as little as possible, and by not allowing himself much time for his task.

In this way the discrepancies can be reasonably accounted for; the adapter has much more justification for overlooking them or letting them stand. In his efforts at adaptation he could easily have added highly sensational and dramatic touches in 1 Henry VI to which naturally there was no reference in ttie already written plays of the tetralogy; he could easily have overlooked the fact that prominent persons and scenes in / the original "Harry the Sixth" were not referred to in 2 and 5 Henry VI and Richard III; he could easily have overlooked such discrepancies in detail as Suffolk’s proxy marriage, Henry’s age at certain times, and Suffolk’s recompense for transporting Margaret, simply because he probably did not have 2 and 3 Henry VI and Richard 111 immediately at his hand; and he could easily have been restrained in changing

the characterization because he did not propose to revise the original play any more than was absolutely necessary and any more than could be quickly and conveniently done, especially since such changes would have necessitated practically a rewriting of the entire play that he was revising, and since he found nothing in the characters that made them absolutely contradictory of each other and not reconcilable in the reader* s mind; or possibly he was in a hurry and did not take time to recheck the other plays in this respect with the play he was revising and hurriedly adapting.

Of course, under this scheme all materials that make for connection between the plays are taken care of. Especially are those reminders in 1 Henry VI of the coining conflict, the Groat Wars of the Roses so prominent in the other plays of the tetralogy, given their most satisfactory explanation, for that.is indeed the very thing that an adapter, working after 2 and 3 Henry VI and Richard 111, would have added in 1 Henry VI by way of harmonizing it with those plays.

Now if an author had been making an adaptation to another play by writing an entirely new play, he would have probably had his own play immediately before him, he would have been thoroughly familiar with it in every detail, he would have had every opportunity and incentive for perfect adaptation in every respect, and nearly perfect adaptation would have resulted* But in the plays that we have under consideration and in light of the discrepancies or differences we have noted, our author was making no such adaptation. He must have been working under some such conditions as I have suggested.

Some critics place the revision and adaptation immediately after 3 Henry VI, and Professor Brooke, we have noticed, even puts it after Henry V, about 1600. But it seems to me more reasonable to place it, as 1 have already done, with some supporting evidence, rigtit after Richard. 111, and that, for the following additional reasons:

1. If the consistent and inconsistent items listed above establish a later revision and adaptation of "Harry the Sixth," as I believe they do, we cannot consistently stop after 2. and 3 Henry VI for that revision and adaptation. Of those items no inconsiderable number exists between 1 Henry VI and Richard 111 as well as between 1 Henry VI and 2 and 3 Henry VI. We shall therefore place the revision and adaptation after Ri chard 111.

2. 3 Henry VI and Richard 111, we have noticed, are very close to each other. The latter is no doubt an immediate sequel I to the former; there are many situations in the former that immediately motivate situations in the latter. And hard is it for me to believe that the one and same author of these two plays would have turned, upon his completion of 3 Henry VI, to a revision and adaptation of ’’Harry the Sixth" before writing Richard 111. To write Richard 111 just after he had finished 3 Henry VI is clearly the plan he mapped out in the latter, and there is no evidence that he deviated from that plan. And

a like continuity between 2 and 3 Henry VI argues against placing the revision and adaptation after 2 Henry VI.

3. The following speech of Richmond, the very last of Richard 111, which furnishes a sensational and dramatic ending to the long York-Lancaster conflict, does not indicate that the Temple-Garden scene of 1 Henry VI, a highly dramatic beginning of that conflict, had been written. If so, it would probably have been referred to in this Richmou speech:

Inter their bodies /the bodies of those that have been slain in the Battle of Bosworth/as become their births: Proclaim a pardon to the soldiers fled

That in submission will return to us; And then, as we have ta*en the sacrament,

We will unite the white rose and the red: Smile, heaven, upon this fair conjunction, That long have frown’d upon their enmity*. What traitor hears me, and says not amen? England hath long been mad and scarr’d herself; The brother blindly shea the brother* s blood, The father rashly slaughter’d his own son, The son, compell’d, been butcher to the sire: All this divided York and Lancaster,

Divided in their dire division, 0, now let Richmond and Elizabeth, The true succeeders of each royal house, By God*s fair ordinance conjoin together; And let their heirs - God, if they will be so, - Enrich the time to come with smooth-fac’d peace. With smiling plenty, and fair prosperous days*. Abate the edge of traitors, gracious Lord, That would reduce these bloody days again, And make poor England weep in streams of blood*. Let them not live to taste this land* s increase, That would with treason wound this fair land* s peace*. Now civil wounds are stopp'd, peace lives again: That she may long live here, God say amen* (Richard 111, V. iv. 28-54)

Richmond here emphasizes the fact that the conflict has ended. Why did he not at the same time refer to its highly dramatic and significant beginning? Why did he not refer

to the Temple-Garden, the place of that beginning? the actual plucking of the roses, or the choosing of sides, in that beginning? Probably because the famous Temple-Garden scene had not then been written.

4. Probably our author turned from Richard 111 to th© possibilities of hurriedly adapting th© old “Harry the Sixth" of another author to his own series of plays, and quite possibly the dramatic ending which Richmond gives to th© York-Lancaster conflict suggested to the author that he add the highly dramatic Temple-Garden scene in 1 Henry VI as the beginning of that conflict.

1 1 Henry VI, I, i, 52-56. 2 Ibid., 11, lv, 124-127. 3 Ibid., 11, v, 127-129.

4 Ibid., 111, i, 186-200.

5 Ibid., IV, i, 182-194.

6 Ibid., IV, ill, 47-53.

7 Ibid., V, i, 58-62.

8 Since most cf these traits are widely and readily evident in the plays under consideration, I shall give footnote reference only for the ones that might not be readily located.

9 1 Henry VI, I, i, 39-40; 2 Henry VI, I, ill, 78-94

10 1 Henry VI, 11, iv, 7-9; 2 Henry VI, 111, i, 238-242

11 1 Henry VI, V, v.

12 2 henry VI, I, I.

13 1 Henry VI, V, v, 103-108.

14 2 Henry VI, I, Hi, 53-59, 68-70, 102-103; 11, iv, 51-54; IV, iv, 15-18.

15 Ibid., I, i, 149.

16

17

3 Henry VI, I, i, 77.

18

19

3 Henry VI, I, i, 79.

20

21

22

Ibid., 111, v, 87.

1 Henry VI, 111, 1, 148-177

1 Henry VI, 11, iv, 90-103, v. 82-92.

1 Henry VI, IV, 1, 47.

Richard 111, I, iii, 167.

O*£

1 Henry VI, V, iii, 45-129

24

Ibid., 11, iv.

25

Ibid., 11, v.

26

Since most of these inconsistencies are widely and readily evident in the plays concerned, I shall document only the less prominent ones.

27

1 Henry VI, I, i, 39-40.

23

29

30

31

Ibid., I, Hi. 65, 111. 1. 49.

See Boswell-Stone, op. cit., p. 247, Note 1.

1 Henrv VI, V. v. 1-9, 79-101.

2 Henry VI, I. iii. 68-70, 97-103; IV. iv. 15-18.

32

33

34

35

36

37

3 b

1 Henry VI, V, v, 79-101.

2 Henry, VI, I, i, 1-16.

I Henry VI, V, v, 92-93.

2 Henry, VI, I, i, 133-135.

1 Henry VI, HI, iv, 17-19.

Ibis•, x, if 33—36*

Ibid., HI, iv, 17-19.

39 2 Henry VI, I. i. 94-95, IV. ix. 4; 3 Henry VI, I. 1. 112, 111. i. 76; Richard 111, 11. ill. 16-17.

40 See Gaw, op. cit., pp. 162-168, and Henneman, op.eit., Vol, XV, pp. 290-296.

GENERAL CONCLUSION

The various threads, and ramifications of* this investigation into the sequence of the plays of the York-Lancaster tetralogy may now be brought to a general head in the following conclusions:

1. 2_ and 3 Henry VI and their corresponding Quartos most likely came independently from earlier versions that 1 are now lost. Certainly the First Quartos of these plays were not written from the memory of actors who had played in the

Folio versions, nor did they come into existence through shorthand reporting of those versions.

2. Richard 111 is rather a continuation of 3 Henry VI than of the True,, Tragedy, and belongs to the Folio thread of connection for the York-Lan caster tetralogy, which had the same guiding hand or authorship throughout.

3. The old play "Harry the Sixth,” mentioned by Henslowe and Na she, was the early form of 1 Henry VI, and it was written before the other plays of the tetralogy.

4. 2 and 3 Henry VI and Richard 111, all of the same general authorship, following "Harry the Sixth," but independently, are by an author or authors that had no part in that play.

5. Henry VI is most probably a revision of "Harry the Sixth" and an adaptation to 2 and 5 Henry VI a.nd Richard 111, of the same authorship which was responsible for these last three 2 plays, and was composed soon after Richard 111 had been written.

6. Professor Tucker Brooke’s suggestion that the revision and adaptation might have come about 1600, Just after Henry V, fails to conviction because of scanty and unconvincing evidence.

1 Miss Lucille King, a fellow student of mine at the University of Texas, has recently had much to say about the Henry VI texts, both in a doctoral dissertation and in articles printed in various learned journals; and her opinion as to the origin and sequence of the Quarto and Folio texts of the Second and Third Parts, it seems, is very meh the same as mine# Her latest statement in the matter(?MLA, Sept., 1936), for instance, is as follows: “Thus, we have the choice of two conclusions. First, it is possible that the Quarto was based on the Folio with a few subsequent revisions from Holinshed. But it is far more probable - since these revisions seem incidental rather than purposeful - that a lost play, itself based principally on Hall, and revised from Holinshed, was the source of both Folio and Quarto text B*(PMLA,8 *(PMLA, LI, TIB). And Mr. W. S. Knickerbocker has just stated in the Sewanee Review (January-Mar ch, 1937) that he is convinced "that vestiges of a much earlier play remain imbedded in all four York-Lancaster playa(l, 11, 111 Henry VI and Richard III)," and goes on to say that "this imbedded play has all the evidences of having been an episodic drama." He promises to give us, in forthcoming numbers of the Review, the proof of his convictions. All that we can say at present Is* that these remarks of Mr. Knickerbocker arouse much interest, and that his convictions sound much in lino with our theory of the lost play or plays. We eagerly await his articles of proof.

2 Mr. Knickerbocker, likewise in the number of the Sewanee Review mentioned in the preceding note, indicates that ho believes Shakespeare revised "Harry the Sixth" "two or three years after the first production of the play," and again promises us proof of his theory in forthcoming articles. This belief, it would seem, indicates that Mr. Knickerbocker is not far, if at all away, from our theory of the revision immediately after the composition of Richard 111, and again we await his promised articles of proof with great interest.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BASIC TEXTS USED

1. Brooke, Tucker, Editor, The First Part of King Henry the Sixth(Yale Shakespeare), Yale University Press, New Haven, 1918.

2. Churchill, George 8., Editor, The Tragedy of Richard the Third (Tudor Edition), Macmillan, New York, 1919.

3. First Part of the Contention, the First Quarto of 1594, from the unique copy in the Bodleian Library, a facsimile by photolithography by C. Praetorius, with augmentations by F. J. Furnivall, London 1889.

4. Law, Robert A., Editor, The Third Part of Henry the the Sixth(Tudor Edition), Macmillan, New York, 1923.

5. Neilson, k., Editor, The Complete Dramatic and Poetic Works of William Shakespeare? 2 and 3 Henry VI, Houghton Mifflin and Company, Boston and New York, 1906.

6. The True Tragedio of Richard Duke of Yorke, the First Quarto of 1595, a facsimile by photolithography by Charles Praetorius, with Introduction by Thomas Tyler and other augmentations by F. J. Furnivall, London, 1891.

7. The Whole Contention, the Third Quarto of 1619, a facsimile by photolithography from the British Museum copy, by C. Praetorius, with augmentations by F. J. Furnivall, London, 1886.

SUPPLEMENTARY TEXTS USED

1. Alexander, Peter, Shakespeare* s Henry VI and Richard 111 , University Press, Cambridge, 1929,

2. Boswell-Stone, W. G., Shakespeare*s Holinshed, the Chronicle and the Historical Plays Compared, Chatto and Wlndus, London, 1907.

3. Brooke, Ralph, A Catalogue and Succession of the Kings, Princes, Dukes., Marquesses, Earles and Vi counts of This Realme of England, W. Jaggard, London, 1619/?hotostat of certain pages from copy in the Huntington Library/•

4. Brooke., Tucker, Editor, The Second Part of King Henry the Sixth!Yale Shakespeare), Yale University Press, New Haven, 1924.

5. Brooke, Tucker, Editor, The Third Part of King Henry the Sixth(Yale Shakespeare), Yale University Press, New Haven, 1924.

6. Brooke, Tucker, Shakespeare of Stratford, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1926.

7. Brooke, Tucker, "The Authorship of the Second and Third Parts of King Henry VI,” in Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, XVII(1912), 141-211.

8« Champion, J# 8., Editor, Croniquo Martiniane, in Bibliotheque Du Sieclo, Vol. 11, Baria, 1907.

9. Crawford, Jack R., Editor, The Tragedy of Richard the Third(Yale Shakespeare), Yale University Press, New Haven, 1927.

10. Crompton, Richard, The Muston of Mgnanimltie, for

F. Ponsonby, London, 1599/Photostat of certain pages from CoF/ in Huntington Library/•

11. Doran, Madeleine, Henry VI - Parts IX and 111, Their Relation to the "Contention" and the "True Tragedy," University of lowa, lowa City, 1928.

12. Fabyan, Robert, The hew Chronicles of England and France edited by Henry Ellis, London, 1811.

13. French, Robert D., Editor, The Life of Henry the Fifth (Yalo Shakespeare), Yale University Press, hew Haven, 1918.

14. Furnivall, F. J., "Discussion on 2 and 3 Henry VI, * in The Hew Shakspere Society’s Transactions, pp. 280-289, London, 1875-1876.

15. Gaw, Allison, The Origin and Development of 1 Henry VI University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1926.

16. Gray, H. D., "Chronology of Shakespeare * s Plays," in Modern language Kotos, XLVI(I93I), 147-150•

17. Greer, C. A., "The Relation of Richard 111 to The True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York and The Third Part of Henry VI,” in Studies in Philology, XXXX(I932), 543-fSO.

18. Greer, C. A., "The York and Lancaster Quarto-Folio Sequence," in MA, XLVIII (1933), 655-704.

19. dreg, W. W., Comment upon the author’s paper "The York and Lancaster Quarto-Folio Sequence," in PMLA, L(1935), 919-920.

20. Hall, Edward, Chronicle, edited by Henry Ellis, printed for J. Jolins on and others, London, 1809.

21. Halliwell, James 0., Editor, The First Sketches of the Second and Third Parts of King Henry the Sixth, printed for the Shakespeare Society, London, 1843.

22. Hart, H. C., Editor, The Second Part of King Hear the Sixth(Arden Edition), Methuen and CO., London, 1909,

23. Henneman, Jolin Bell, "The Episodes in Shakespeare’s 1 Henry VI, w in PMLA, XV(1900), 290-320.

24. Holinshed, Raphael, Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland, Vol. 11, for George Bishop, London, 1577.

25. Holinshed, Raphael, Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland, Vol. 111, J. Harrison and others, London, 1587.

26. Holinshed, Raphael, Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland, Vol. 111, for J. Johnson and others, London, 1808.

27. King, Lucille, "Text Sources of the Folio and Quarto Henry VI," in PMLA, LI (1936), 702-718.

28. King, Lucille, The Relations of the Henry VI Plays to the Chronicle Histories of Hall and Holinshed, Doctor’s

unpublished)in the University of Texas Library, 1936.

29. Knickerbocker, W. S., "Shakespearean Alarum," in the Sewanee Reviev/, XLV(I937), 91-105.

30. Lee, Jane, "On the Authorship of the Second and Third Parts of Henry VI, and Their Originals,” in The New Shakspere Society* s Transactions, pp. 219-279, London, 1875-1876.

31. Lorgan, Applet on, Editor, The Third Part of Henry the Sixth, in The Bankside Shakespeare, Vol. XX, the Shakespeare Society of New York, New York, 1892.

32. Neilson, W. A. and Thorndike, A. H., The Facts about Shakespeare, Macmillan, hew York, 1931.

33. Oliphant, E. H. C., Review of Alexander*s Shakespeare* s

Henry VI and Ri chard 111 , in Modern Language Notes, XLV(I93O), 543-546.

34. Peele, George, King Edward the Flrst(ls93). printed for the Malone Society, Oxford University Press, 1911.

35. Pollard, A. W*, "The York and Lancaster Plays in the Shakespeare Folio," in the Times Literary Supplement, Sept. 19 and 26, 1918, p. 452.

36. Reed, Isaac, Editor, The Plays of William Shakespeare, Vols. XII (Henry V), XIII(1 and 2 Henry VI), and XIV(3 Henry VI and Ri chard III); First Variorum Edition, London, 1803.

37. Shakespeare, William, Shakespeare* s Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies, edited by J. Homing© and H< Condell, London, 1623(First Folio)/Copy in the University of Texas Library/’.

38. Shakespeare, William, Shakespeare’s Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies, facsimile of the 1623 Folio, edited by Sidney Lee, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1902.

39. Shakespeare, William, Shakespeare’s Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies, published according to the true Original copies, printed by Tho. Cotes, for Robert Allot, London, 1632(Second Folio)/Copy in the University of Texas Libra

40. Stow, John, The Annales or Generali Chronicle of England, augmented by Edmond Howes, London, 1615.

41. The True Tragedy of Richard the Third(ls94) > printed for the Malone Society by Jolin Johnson at the Oxford University Press, 1929.

42. van Dam, B. A. P., "Shakespeare Problems Nearing Solut ion," in English Studi es, XII(1930), 81-97.

43. Wright, William Aldis, Editor, The Works of William Shakespeare, VOL. 2, and 3 Henry VI and Richard III) and Vol. IX(the Contention and the True Tragedy). Macmillan and Company, London, 1895.

TEXTS CONSULTED

1. Adams, Joseph Q., A Life of William Shakespeare Houghton Mifflin and Co., Boston and New York, 1923.

2. Adams, Joseph Q., Editor, The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth, in Chief Pre-Shakespearean Dramas, Houghton Mifflin and Co., New York, 1924.

3. Albright, Evelyn Dramatic Publication in England., 1580-1640, published "by the Modern Language Association of America, New York, 1927.

4. Arber, Edward, Editor, A Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London, Vols.* I-V, privately printed, London, 1875-1894.

5. Baldwin, T. W., Review of Gaw’s The Origin and Development df 1 Henry VI, in The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, XXV111(1929), 557-561.

6. Baldwin, T. W., The Organization and Personnel of the Shakespearean Company, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1927.

7. Bartlett, John, Concordance to Shakespeare, Wcmillan, London and New York, 1894.

8. Beaucourt, G. du Frasne do, Histoire de Charles VII Vols. I-VI, Alphonse Paris, 1881-1891.

9. Begg, Edleon, ’’Shakespeare’s Debt to Hall and Holinshed in Ri chard. 11.1, n in Studies in Philology, XXX11(1935), 189-196.

10. Bibliotheque Rationale: Catalogue General des Livres Imprimes, Vols. I-CXXXVII, Paris, 1897-1936.

11• Biagraphia Britannica, VI ? 3901-3909, printed for J. Walthon and others, London, 1763.

12. Bi agraphia Dramatica, Tpl. I, Part 2, compiled by David Erskine Baker, Isaac Roed, and Stephen Jones; London, 1812.

13. British Museum: Catalogue of Printed Books, Vols. IXCV, London, 1881-1900; Supplement, Vols. I-XIII, London, 1900- 1905.

14. Brooke, Ralph, A Catalogue and Succession of the Kings, Princes, Dukes, Marquesses, Earles, and Viscounts cf This Realms of England, London, 1622/Copy in the Nowberry Library, Chicago/.

15. Brooke, Ralph, A Discoverie of Certain Errours Published in Print in the Mich Commended Britannia, of 1594, London, 1596(?)/Copy in the Huntington Librarv/.

16. Brooke, Tucker, Cunliffe, J. W., and MacCracken, H. N., Editors, General Introduction;■Shakespeare’s Principal Plays, Third Edition, D. Appleton-Century Company, New York, 1935.

17. Brooke, Tucker, Review of Alexander’s Shakespeare’s Henry VI and Richard 111, in The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, XXIX (1930), 442-446.

18. Brooke, Tucker, The Tudor Dram, Houghton Mifflin and Company, Boston and Kev/ York, 1911.

19. Buchon, J. A., Editor, Collection des Chroniques Rationales Francises, Vols. X-XI (Chroniques de Mathieu de Coussy), Verdier© Librairo, Paris, 1826.

20. Buell, Llewellyn M., Editor, The Tragedy of King Richard the Second(Yale Shakespeare), Yale University Press, New Haven, 1921.

21. Burke, Ashworth P*, Peerage and Baronetage, London, 1934.

22. Calendar of the Patent Rolls, Preserved in the Public Record Office, for the Reign of Henry VI, Vols. I-VI, prepared under the superintendence of the Deputy Keeper of the Records, printed for his thjesty*s Stationery Office, Norwich and London, 1901-1910.

23. Cambridge History of English Literature, Vol. V, Chapters 8-11, with corresponding bibliographies, G. P. Putnam* Sons, New York and Cambridge, 1910.

24. Camden, William, Anna les Rerum Anglic rum et Hibernicarum Regnante Elizabetha, Typis Guilielmi Stansblj, Impensis Simonis Waterson!, Londini, 1615.

25. Camden, William, Britannia, impensis George Bishop, London, 1594.

26. Camden, William, Camden* s Britannia, Newly Translated into English with Large Additions and Improvements, published by Edmund Gibson, printed by F. Collins for A. Swalle, London, 1695.

27. Camden, William, Remains of a Greater Work Concerning Britain, for S. Waterson, 1605/Fhotostat of certain pages from copy in the Huntington Library/".

28. Camden, William, Romines of a Greater Work Concerning Britain, J. Levitt for S. Waterson, 1614/cbpy in the Huntington Libra i‘y/.

29. Camden, William, Remains Concerning Britain, John

Russell Smith, London, 1870.

30. Chambers, E. K., The Elizabethan Stage, Vols. I-IV, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1923.

31. Chambers, E. K., William Shakespeare, Vols. I-11, the Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1930.

32. Chartier, Jean, Chronigue de Charles VII, Vols. I-111, Chez P. Jannet, Paris, 1858.

33. Cibber, Theophilus, The Lives cf the Poets of Great Britain and Ireland to the Time of Dean Swift, Vol. I, printed for R. Griffith's, London, 1753.

34. Collier, J. Payne, Editor, The Diary of Philip Henslowe, printed for the Shakespeare Society, London, 1845.

35. Collins, Arthur, The Baronetage of England, Vols. I-11, London, 1720/cbpies in the Newberry Library, Chicago/.

36. Collins, Arthur, The Peerage of England, Vols. I-IX, augmented and continued to the present time by Sir E. Brydges; F. C. and J. Rivington, London, 1812/Copies in the Newberry Library, Chi ca go/•

37. Crawford, Charles, A Concordance to the Works of Thoms Kyd, in Mi ter la 11 on zur Kunde des Alteren Englischen Drams, Old Series, Vol. XF, A, Vystprvyst # Lowain, 1906.

38. Crawford, Charles, The cardan ce, in zur Kunde, des .Alteren Engl is dien Dramas, Old Series,

Vol. KXXIV, and New Series, Vols. 11, 111, VI, and VII; A Uystpruyst, Louwin,?l9ll-1932.

39. Cristie, Mabel E., Henry Vl(biography), Houghton Mifflin, Boston and New York, 1922.

40. Cross, Tom Peete, A List of Books and Articles, Chief 1 Bibiiographica 1, Fifth Edition, The University of Chicago Press, 1928.

41. Daniel, Samuel, The Civile Warres betweene the Howses of La n castar and Vorke, printed at London by Simon Watersonne, 1609.

42. Davies, Godfrey, Bibliography of British History, Stuart Period, 1603-1714, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1928.

43. Delius, Nicholas, den Ursprungli chen Text des King Richard III,” in Jahrbu ch der Deuts chen Sha kespes re- Geaellschaft, VII(1872), 124-169, Weimar, 1872.

44. Delius, Nicholas, ”Zur Kritik der Doppeltexte des Shakespeare*schen King Henry Vl(Part 11-III),” in Jahr bu ch der Deutschen Shakespeare-Gesellschaft, XV(1880), Weimar, 1880.

45. Dictionary of Na tional Biography, Kia cm!llan and Company, London, 1885-1900.

46. Dingley, Thomas, History from Marble, Vols. I-11, compiled in the reign of Charles 11, printed in photolithography by Vincent Brooks, from the original in the possession of Sir Thomas E. Winnington, with an introduction and descriptive table of contents by John Gough Nichols, printed for the Camden Society, 1867-1868.

47. Disraeli, Isaac, Curl osi 11 es of Li t era jure, Vols. I-IV, edited by his son, from the fourteenth corrected London Edition, William Veazie, Boston, 1860.

48. Doyle, James E., The Official Baronage of England Vol. 111, Longmans, Green, and Company; London, 1886.

49. Drayton, Michaell, The Polyolbion, Vols. I-111, printed for the Spenser Society, /London/, 1889.

50. Ebisch, Via Iter, and S chucking. Levin L., A Shakespeare Bibliography, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1931.

51. Farmer, Richard, An Essay on the Learning of Shakespeare printed for T. Longman, London, 1789.

52. Farmer, Richard, Cursory Criticisms on the Edition of Shakespeare Published by Edmond !<ilone, printed for Hookham and Carpenter, London, 1792.

53. Fleay, F. G., A Biographical Chronicle of English Drama, 1559-1642, Vols. I-11, London, 1891.

54. Fleay, F. G., A Chronicle History of the Life and Work of William Shakespeare, John A Nimmo, London, 1886.

55. Fleay, F. G., A Chronicle History of the London Sta G. E. Stechert & Co., New York, 1909.

56. Fleay, F. G., "Who Wrote Henry VI ? M in Macmillan/s Massine, XXXIII (1876), 50-62.

57. Froissart, Joan, Chroniquos de Froissart, edited by J. A. Buchon in Collection des Chroniques Rationales Francaises Vols. XI-XXIV, Paris, 1824-1826.

58. Froissart, Jean, The Chronicle of Froissart, Vols. I-VI, translated out of the French by Sir John Bourchier, with an introduction by William Patonker; D. Nutt, London, 1901-1903.

59. Fuller, Thoms, The of the Worthies of England Vols. I-111, edited by P. Austin Nuttall, printed for Thoms Legg, London, 1840.

60. Furness, Horace Howard, Jr., Editor, The Tragedy of Richard the Third, in A Hew Variorum Edition of Shakespeare,

J. B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia, 1909.

61. Gairdner, James, Editor, Historical Collections of a Citizen of Lon don, Camden Society Reprints, New Series, Vdl. XVII, Westminster, 1876.

62. Gairdner, James, Editor, The Paston Letters, Vols. I-111 and Introduction, Archibald Constable and Co,, Westminster and London, 1900-1908.

G 3. Oairdner, James, Editor, Three Fifteenth Century Chronicles, Camden Society Reprints, New Series, Vol. XXVIII, Westminster, 1880.

64. Gentl e man * s Magazine: General Index to Fifty-Six Volumes(l73l-1786), Vols. I-11, compiled by Samuel Ayscough, London, 1818.

65. Gen tle man ’s Mazine: General Index( 1787-1818), Vols. 111-IV, London, 1821.

G 6. Gentleman*s Magazine, LX.III (1793) 9 London, 1793,

67. Gildou, Charles, The Lives and Characters of the English Drama tick Poets, printed for William Turner, London, 1699.

68. Grafton, Richard, Grafton’s Chronicle or History of England, Vols. I-11, printed for J. Johnson, London, 1809.

S 9. Granger, James, A Biographical History of England, Vols. I-111, printed for T. Davis, London, 1769-1774.

70. Gray, H. D., w The Purport of Shakespeare* s Contribution to 1 Henry Um* in XXXII(1917), 367-382.

71. Greer, C. A., Prototypes of Prince Hal and the "Irregular llumorists" in the Falstaffian Plays, Water’s Thesis(unpublished), University of Texas Library, 1927. TxU

72. Greg, W> W., A List of English Plays Written before 1643 and Printed before 1700, printed for the Bibliographical Society, London, 1900.

73. Grog, W. W., Editor, Eenslowe’s Diary, Vols. I-11, London, 1904-1908.

74. Greg, L. W., Two Elizabethan Stage Abridgements: The Battle of Alcazar & Orlando Furloso, printed for the Malone Society at the Oxford University Press, 1922.

75. Gross, Charles, Sources and Literature of English History from the Earliest Times to about 1485, Longmans, Green; London, 1915.

76. Guizot, M., A Popular History of France, Vol. 111, translated by Robert Black; Dana Estes and Charles E. Lauriat, Boston, 1869.

77. Hardy, Thomas D«, Syllabus of tho Documents Relating to nd and Other Kingdoms Contained in Rymer’s Foedera, Vol. 11, Longman & Co. and Triibner & Co., London, 1873.

78. Hardyng, John, The Chronicle of John Ihrdyng, printed for F. C. and J* Rivington, London, 1812.

79. Hearne, Thoms, Editor, John Leland’s ’’Collectanea,” Vols. I-VI, London, 1770.

80, Hemingway, Samuel 8., Editor, The First Part of King Henr*y the Four th (Yale Shakespeare), Yale University Press, New Haven, 1917.

81, Hemingway, Samuel 8., Editor, The Second Part of King Henry the Fourth(Ya 1 e Sha kespea re), Yals Unive rs it y Press, New Haven, 1921,

82. Historical Manuscripts Commission: A Guido to the Rep or ts on C oile ct ions of Manuscript s, printed under the authority of his Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, 1914.

83. Historical Manuscripts Commission: Reports, printed under the authority of his Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, 1874-

84. Historical Manuscripts Commission: Various volumes of collected manuscripts, especially the indexes to the various collections, London.

85. Jacob, Giles, The Poetical Register, or the Lives and Characters of All the English Poets-, Vol. 11, London, 1723.

86. Jaggard, William, Shakespeare Bibiiography, Shakespeare Press, Stratford-on-Avon, 1911.

87. Jahrbuch dor Dents chon Vols. I-LXXII (Bibliographies), Berlin and Weimar, 1865-1936*

88. King Henry V: The B'irst Quarto, 1600, a facsimile from the British Museum copy, edited by Arthur Symons, London, 1886.

89. King Henry V: The Third Quarto, 1608, a facsimile from the British Museum copy, edited by Arthur Symons, London, 1886.

90. King, Lucille, ”2and 3 Henry VI - Which Holinshed?” in PMA, L(1935), 745-752.

91. King, Lucille, "The Use of Hall’s Chronicles in the Folio and Quarto Texts of Henny VI / in the Philological Quarterly, XIII(1934), 321-332.

92. Knight, Charles, An Essay an the Three Parts of henry VI and Riohard 111, in Knight’s edition of Shakespeare, Vol. VII, pp. 1-119, London, 1843.

93. Grande Encyclopedic, Vol. XXX, Societe Anonym© de La Grande Encyelopedie, Paris.

94. Langbaine, Cora rd, An Account of the English Drama tick Poets, iirinted by L. L. for George West and Henry Clements, Oxford, 1691.

95. Langworthy, Charles A., "A Verse-Sentence Analysis of Shakespeare’s Plays,” in PMIA, XLVI(I93I), 738-751.

96. Law, Robert A., Review of Allison Gaw’s The Origin and Development of ”1 Henry VI,” in Modern Language Notes, XL1V(1929), 54-56.

97. Law, Robert A., "Richerd the Third, Act I, Scene 4," in PtOA, XXVII(1912), 117-141.

98. Law, Robert A., "Shakespeare’s Earliest Plays,” in Studies in Philology, XXVIII(1931), 631-638.

99. Lawrence, W. J., "The Secret of the Bad Quartos," in Criterion, April, 1931.

100. Lee, Sidney, A Life of William Shakespeare, John Murray, London, 1922.

101. The Library, Series 4, Vols. I-XI, printed for the Bibliographical Society at the Oxford University Press, 1920- 1932.

102. Lodge, Edmund, The Genoalogy of the Ext sting British Peerage, Saunders and Otley, London, 1834.

103. Falone, Edmond, "Dissertation on the Three Parts of King Henry VI,” in The Plays of William Shakespeare, Vol. XIV, pp. 219-263, edited by Isaac Reed, London, 1803.

104. McKerrow, R. 8., ”A. Note on Henry VI, Part 11, and The

Contention of York and Lancaster/’ in Review of English Studies 1XC1933), 167-169.

105. The Mirrour for Magistrates, newly imprinted at London by Henry Marsh, 1587/Copy in the Aitken Collection, University of Texas Library/.

106. Modern Humanities Research Association: Annual Bibliography of English Language and Literature, Cambridye, 1921 - •

107. Modern Language Association of America: Annual Bibliographies since Lerch, 1922.

108. Modern Language Notes: General Index of Volumes I-L, The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1935.

109. Monro, Cecil, Editor, Leiter s of mr ga re t of Anjou, printed for the Camden Society, Camden Reprints, Old Series, Vol. LXXXVI, Westminster, 1863.

110. Monthly Review? Indexes of Contributors and Articles First Series(l749-1789), compiled by Benjamin C. Nangle, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1934.

111. Moryson, Fynes, Shakespeare* s IXiropo, edited by Charles Hughes, Sherratt & Hughes, London, 1903.

112. Nicholas, Sir Harris, The Historic Peerage of England John Murray, London, 1857.

113. Nichols, John, Illustrations of the Literary History of the Eighteenth Century, Vols. I-VIII, especially the copious index in Vol. VIII, London, 1017-1858.

114. Nichols, John, Literary Anecdotes of ths Eighteenth Century, Vols. I-IX, especially the copious index in Vol, VII,

London, 1812-1815.

115. Northup, Clark 3., A Register of Bibliographies of the English Language and JJ-torature, Yale University frees, How Haven, 1925. ’

116. Notes and Queries, Various Indexes, London, 1850 - .

117. Notes and Queries, Second Series, Vol. VIII, p, 371; Vol. XI, p. 424; Fifth Series, Vol. I, p. 258.

118. Houvelle Biographi© Cenc'r^.l o * Vol. XLIV, published by k&L Firmin Didot, Paris, 1865.

119. Cran, C., The History of England from the Accession of Richard ll.to the Death of Richard 111(1377-1485), in The Politlcal Hi story of. Engle nd, Vol. IV, edited by William Hunt and Reginald L. Poole; Longmans, Green, and Co.; New York, 1906£Excellent Bibliography/*.

120. Pickersgill, H., f ’on th® Quarto and the Folio of Richard III," in The New Shakspere Transactions (1875), pp. 77-124, London, 1375.

121. Pollard, A. F., History of England from the Accession of Edmrd VI to the Death of Ell 1547-160 S), in The Poli 11 ca 1 His Lory of England, Vol. VI, edited by Tillaim Hunt and Reginald Poole; Longmans, Green and Co.; London and New York, 1929.

122. Pollard, A. W., Introduction to Peter Alexander’s Shakespeare’s Henry VI and Richard 111, University Press, Cambridge, 1929.

123, Pollard, A. W. and Redgrave, G. R., A, Short Title Catalogue of Books Printed in England, Scotland, & Ireland

and of English Books Printed Abroad 1475-1640, Ihe Bi bli ographi cal Society, London, 1926.

124. Pollard, A. W», Shakespeare Folios and Quartos, Methuen and Company, London, 1909.

125. Pollard, A. W. f Shakespeare* s Fight with the Pirates and the Problems of the Transmission of His Text, Alexander Mering, London, 1917 *

126. Pollard, A. W., "The Quartos of The Contention and Richard Duke of York,” in the Times Literary Supplement, Nov. 27, 1924, p. 797.

127. Pollard, A. W. and Wilson, Dover, ’The Stolne and Surreptitious Texts of Shakespeare,” in the Times Literary Supplement, Jan. 9 and 16, 1919, pp. 18 and 30.

128« Publications of the Modem Language Association of America.: Index(lBB4-1935), published the Association, Hew York, 1936.

129. Ramsay, Sir James H., Lancaster and York, Vols. I-11, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1892.

130. Read, Conyers, Bibliogiaphy of British History, Tudor Period, 1485-1603, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1933.

131. Registrum Abbatiaa Johannis Whet ha mate do, Vols. I-11, edited by Henry Thomas Riley in Rerum Britannicarum Medil Aevi Script ores; Longman & Co., and Trubner & Co., London, 1872-1873.

132. Richard the Third: The First Quarto of 1597, a facsimile in photolithography by William Griggs, with augmentations by P. A. Daniel, London, 1886.

133. Richard the Third? The Third Quarto of 1602, a facsimile

in photolithography by Charles Praetorius, with augmentations by P. A. De.niel, London, 1888.

134. Robertson, J. M., The Sha kespea re Gan on, Part IV, Division I: The First Part of "Henry VI Considered George Routledge A Sons, London, 1930.

135. Robertson, J. M., The Smkespeare Canon, Part IV, Division II: "The Second Part of Henry VI” and "The Third Part of Horry, VI," George Routledge and Sons, London, 1932.

136. Foyal Historical Society and the Camden Society: List and Index of Publications, edited by Hubert Hall, London, 1925.

137. Sampley, A. M., Studies in the Canon cf George, Peele*s Plays, Doctors Dissertation (unpublished) in the University of Texas Library, 1,930.

138. Schelling, F. E., Elizabethan Drama, 1558-1642, Vols. I-11, Houghton Mifflin and Company, Boston and New York, 1908.

139. Schelling, F. E., The English Chronicl e Play, Macmillan, Hew York, 1902.

140. Schmidt, Alexander, Shakespeare-Lexicon, Williams A Norite, London, 1886.

141. Seyferth, Paul, ”In Weldhem Verbaltnis Steht H6B zu The Contention betwixt the Two Famous Houses of Yorke and Lancaster und H6C zu The True Tragedie of Richard Duke of ■''V Yorke, and the Death of Good King Henrie the Sixth?” in Anglia., W.V(1916), 322-342.

142, Sharpe, Robert Bolos, The Real Lar of the Theaters published by the Modern Language Association df America, Hew lorA, 1935.

143. Spudding, James, "On the Corrected Edition of Richard III,”

in TNe New Shakspere Society* s Transa cti ons (1375), pp. 1-76, London, 1875.

144. Stevenson, Joseph, Editor, Letters and Papers Illustrative of _ Si®-5^2. English in Bianco during the Reign of Henry 2 -2 the Sixth, Vols. I-ll' ,in Re rum Britanni carum Medii Aevi 1-3 Scriptores, Vol. XXII ; Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts; London, 1861.

145. Studies in Philology: Bibliographies in later Volumes.

146. Studies in Philology; Index(VolB* I-XXV), University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1929.

147. Trevelyan, G. M», History of England; Longmans, Green and Co*, London and New York, 1934.

148. Thoms, Edward, Editor, The Plays of Christopher Lhrlowe E. P. Dutton & Co., Hew York, 1916*

149. Trussell, John, A Continuation of the Collection of the History sr? England, printed by M. D* for E* Dawson,

150. Vergil, Polydore, English History Comprising the Reigns of Henry Vland Richard 111, from an early translation preserved among the MSB. of the Old Royal Library in the British Museum, edited by Sir Henry Ellis, printed for the Camden Society, London, 1844.

151* Vickers, Kenneth H., England in the Later Middle Ages, in & History of England, Vol. 111, edited by Charles Oman, Second Edition, Methuen & Co., Lend on/Ex cel lent Bibliography/*.

152. Vickers, Kenneth H., Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, Archibald Constable and Company, London, 1907.

Waurin, Jehan de, ■ Croniques, ot c>, edited by William Hardy in Rerum Britanni carum Medii Aevi Scriptores, Vol*

1-5 XXXIX , Longmans and others, London, 1864-1891.

154. Weewr, John, An ci ent Fune ra 11 Monument s, printed by T. Harper, 1631/Copy in the Library of Congress/.

155. White, Richard Grant, Essay on the Authorship of the Three Parts of Henry VI, in White’s Works of William Shakespeare, Vol. VII, pp. 401-468, Boston, 1859.

156. Wood, Anthony, Athenae Qxonienses, Vols. I-V, edited by Philip Bliss, London, 1813-1820.

157. Wright, W. A., Editor, The Works of William Shakespeare, Vol. IX, The Chronicle Historic of Henry the Fifth(First Quarto), The Macmillan Company, Lew York, 1395.

158* Yea r* s lor k in En / ~11 sh Stu di es, Vols. I-XV, edited ©or the English Association, Oxford University Press, 1921-1936.