No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
Recently the old question of the quarto-folio relationship of the York and Lancaster plays has come to the fore again—this time in exhaustive studies made by Mr. Alexander and Miss Doran in favor of the theory that the Quartos, the Contention and the True Tragedy, are pirated or reported versions of the Folio plays—2 Henry VI and 3 Henry VI respectively—following rather than preceding 2 and 3 Henry VI. They hold that the Contention and the True Tragedy were written by actors who had played in 2 and 3 Henry VI and written from memory with the possible aid of a few scattered, isolated manuscript or printed parts. Rather am I in accord with the position 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, and the Folio all came separately or independently. I am not sure that Professor Brooke now holds exactly this position, since his review of Alexander's study contains some qualifications, but I believe it is right, and submit here my evidence for so believing.
1 Peter Alexander, Shakespeare's Henry VI and Richard III (Cambridge, 1929).
2 Madeleine Doran, Henry VI—Parts II and III, Their Relation to the Contention and the True Tragedy (Iowa City, 1928).
3 Doran, op. cit., p. 83; Alexander, op. cit., p. 115.
4 Doran, op. cit., pp. 77–78 and 82–83; Alexander, op. cit., p. 115.
6 Tucker Brooke, “The Authorship of the Second and Third Parts of King Henry VI,” Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, xvii (1912), pp. 141–211.
6 Tucker Brooke, JEGP, xxix, 442–446, reviewing Alexander's book.
7 I wish here to acknowledge my indebtedness to Professor R. A. Law for helpful criticism and advice given me in the writing of this paper.
8 All references in this paper to the Folio plays, 2 and 3 Henry VI, are based on W. A. Neilson's 1906 Cambridge Edition of Shakespeare, unless otherwise indicated.
9 All references in this paper to the Quarto plays are based on the Praetorius Facsimiles unless otherwise indicated.
10 Cf. Miss Doran, op. cit., p. 51.
11 Doran, op. cit., pp. 10–27; Alexander, op. cit., pp. 51–116.
12 Doran, op. cit., p. 18.—In this paper I have normalized the u's, v's, and w's.
13 Doran, op. cit., pp. 13–14; Alexander, op. cit., pp. 63–64.
14 Doran, op. cit., p. 14.
15 Hall, op. cit., p. 271.
16 Doran, op. cit., p. 13.
17 Boswell-Stone, op. cit., pp. 325, 528.
18 Doran, op. cit., p. 13.
19 Hall, op. cit., pp. 264 and 271; Boswell-Stone, op. cit., p. 319, note 1.
20 Doran, op. cit., pp. 17–18.
21 Ibid., pp. 17–18.
22 Ibid., pp. 25–26.
23 Idem.
24 I quote this passage from the Clarendon Press Facsimile (1902) of the 1623 Folio Edition.
26 Likewise quoted from the Clarendon Press Facsimile.
26 Doran, op. cit., p. 25.
27 Doran, op. cit., pp. 14–15.
28 Isaac Reed, The Plays of William Shakespeare, Fifth Edition (London, 1803), xiii, 226.
29 James Orchard Halliwell, The First Sketches of the Second and Third Parts of King Henry the Sixth (London, 1843), p. 184.
30 W. A. Wright, The Works of Shakespeare (London and New York, 1895), v, 152.
31 Com. of Errors, v, 1, 195–196, 331; L.L.L., v, ii, 76–77; T. And., iii, ii, 23; Oth., ii, i, 209; Troilus and Cressida, ii, ii, 56–60.
31a Cause: Meas. for Meas., v, i, 301–302; Taming of the Shrew, iii, i, 85–86; All's Well, iii, ii, 118–119; W. Tale, v, iii, 54–56. How: Two Gent. of Ver., ii, v, 17; Com. of Errors, iii, ii, 95; All's Well, iii, v, 71; 2H.VI, v, i, 73; and Rom. and Jul., iv, iii, 30–32.
33 Raphael Holinshed, Chronicles (Second Edition), iii, 657.
33a Holinshed, op. cit., p. 657.
33b Holinshed gives the following bit of interesting information in his account of the parliament held at Westminister in the ninth year of Richard II's reign: “Also by authoritie of this parlement, Roger lord Mortimer earle of March, sonne and heire of Edmund Mortimer earle of March, and of the ladie Philip eldest daughter and heire unto Lionell duke of Clarence, third sonne to king Edward the third, was established heire apparant to the crowne of this realme, and shortlie after so proclaimed. … This Roger earle of March had issue Edmund, Roger, Anne, Ales, & Eleanor. …” (See Holinshed, op. cit., iii, p. 448). Practically the same account is found in Fabyan (See Robert Fabyan, New Chronicles of England and France, Henry Ellis Edition, London, 1811, p. 533).
34 Whole Contention, ii, ii.
35 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 III] had issue by the Ladie Philip his wife, seaven sonnes, Edward the Blacke Prince, William of Hatfield that dyed young, Leonel Duke of Clarence, John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster, Edmond of Langley earle of Cambridge & Duke of Yorke, William of Windsor that dyed without issue, Tho. of Woodstocke Earle of Buckingham, & Duke of Glocester” (See John Stow, Annales or Generali Chronicle of England, continued and augmented by Edmond Howes, London, 1615, 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. 412). The passage from Stow provides a basis for two of the errors of the Whole Contention—namely, that William of Windsor was Edward's sixth son and that Thomas of Woodstock was the seventh; but for the third error it does not so provide. Now if the Whole Contention 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 Thomas 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 was 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?
36 Doran, op. cit., pp. 77–78; Alexander, op. cit., pp. 74–82.
37 2 Henry VI, iv, i, 68–69 and stage direction after line 138.
38 Ibid., iv, iv. Stage direction at beginning of scene.
39 Contention, iv, iv. Stage direction at beginning of scene.
40 I quote the passages in this paragraph from the Clarendon Press Facsimile of the 1623 Folio Edition.
41 Contention, i, iv, 21–29.
42 Ibid., i, iv, 27.
43 Ibid., iv, iv, 4.
44 Ibid., iv, iv, 18–22.
45 2 Henry VI, iv, iv, 39–40 and viii. Stage direction after line 5. Contention, iv, viii. Stage direction at beginning of scene.
46 Holinshed, op. cit., iii, 634.
47 Ibid., iii, pp. 629, 637, and 655.
48 2 Henry VI, iii, i, 309–314.
49 Ibid., v, i. Stage direction at beginning of scene and lines 1–2.
50 Doran, op. cit., pp. 15–20.
51 Holinshed, op. cit., iii, pp. 397, 412, and 448.—See also Robert Fabyan's New Chronicles of England and France (Henry Ellis Edition), p. 449.
52 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, ii, ii; 2 Henry VI, ii, ii, 9–62; and Holinshed, op. cit., iii, p. 657.
53 Contention, ii, i, 16–24.
54 Whole Contention, Part I, ii, i.
55 2 Henry VI, ii, ii, 18–19.
56 Holinshed, op. cit., iii, pp. 397, 412, 448, and 657.
57 Whole Contention, i, i.
58 For example, Doran, op. cit., p. 5, note 3.
59 Halliwell, op. cit., pp. 73–114 and 189–221.
60 Wright, op. cit.—See footnotes accompanying textual lines of 2 and 3 Henry VI.
61 Jane Lee, “On the Authorship of the Second and Third Parts of Henry VI, and Their Originals,” Transactions of the New Shakspere Society (1875–76), p. 266.
62 Tucker Brooke, op. cit., p. 183.
63 Doran, op. cit., p. 31 and p. 50.
64 Doran, op. cit., p. 50.
65 Doran, op. cit., p. 31 and p. 50.
66 See Doran, op. cit., pp. 37–41.
67 My own scansion.
68 Likewise my own scansion.
69 See Doran, op. cit., pp. 41–43.
70 The scansion in this and all the immediately following Folio passages is that of Miss Doran—her scansion of traces of supposedly older verse.
71 The scansion in this and all the immediately following Quarto passages is my own.
72 See Doran, op. cit., pp. 34–37.