THE THREE PARTS OF HENRY THE SIXTH

Tbe three parts of Henry VI present a more difficult problem with regard to authorship than any other group contained in the First Folio. The obscurities caused by the processes of revision and collaboration are increased by the fact that the plays belong to the period of Shakespeare's apprenticeship, when it is to be presumed that his style was less individual and more under the influence of his predecessors than it was later.

The First Part of Henry VI is not found in print till it appears in the First Folio. But on March 3, 15972, a play called Henry VI was acted at the Rose Theatre by Lord Strange's company, and had a successful run. From a reference by Nash we learn that Talbot had been a popular figure in a recent play, and this may have been our 1 Henry VI, either as we have it, or in an earlier form.

As to authorship, there is no external evidence but the fact of its inclusion in the First Folio. Internal evidence has led almost all critics to the conclusion that it is the work of several hands. But there is little general agreement as to who the other dramatists were, and which parts ought to be assigned to each. Shakespeare is usually credited with the scene (11. iv.) in the Temple Gardens, in which the red and white roses are chosen as emblems of the rival houses; by many with the wooing of Margaret by Suffolk (v. iii.); and by others, with the last fight of Talbot (IV. ii.-vii.). His collaborators, or, according to others, his predecessors, in the construction of the drama, are supposed to have been Marlowe and Greene, with less assurance Peele, and with still less Lodge. But the grounds of the assignment of the various passages to these authors are in the highest degree precarious.

The material for the plot was drawn chiefly from the Chronicles of Holinsbed, or of Halle, whose narrative for this period Holinshed paraphrases. A few details may have been derived from Fabian. The material thus obtained was treated with great freedom. Verbal borrowings are very rare, and chronological sequence is often entirely disregarded. Thus the calamities to the English reported by the First Messenger in 1. i. as having occurred by the date of the funeral of Henry V in 1422 are either quite unhistorical, as in the case of the loss of Orleans and Poictiers, which were not held by the English at that time, or are antedated by from seven to twentynine years, as in the case of the loss of Rheims, Guysors, Paris, and Guienne. Again, Talbot's death in the drama precedes the capture of Jeanne d'Arc; but in fact he lived till 1453, while the Maid was burned in 1431. The reconciliation which she is represented as bringing about between Burgundy and Charles VII did not occur till four years after her death. Nor is there more care for internal consistency. Paris is represented as lost by the English in 1. i., yet Henry VI is crowned there in iv. i., and in v. ii. the Parisians are revolting to the French. Several picturesque incidents have no basis in the chronicle. Such are the interview of Talbot. with the Countess of Auvergne in 11. iii., and the plucking of the roses in i. iv. 28–45, with its sequel in iv. i. 78–161. The device of disguising soldiers as countrymen bearing sacks for the capture of Rouen is unhistorical. Rouen was not lost by the English till 1449 ; but a trick similar to that in the play is described by Holinshed as having been used by the French for the capture of Cornill in 1441.

In the case of 2 and 3 Henry VI, the situation is complicated by the existence of two other plays on the same subject, which contain a large amount of matter in common with the two Shakespearean dramas. The First Part of the Contention of the two famous Houses of Yorke and Lancaster was printed in quarto in 1594, reprinted in 1600, and again with alterations in 1619. The True Tragedie of Richard Duke of Yorke appeared in quarto in 1595, was reprinted in 1600,

and again with alterations in 1619. These two third editions formed a single quarto, called The Whole Contention. The Second and Third Parts of Henry VI are found first in the Folio of 16%). “Out of 3075 lines, there are in Part 2 some 1715 new lines ; some 840 altered lines (mans bat very slightly altered); and some 520 old lines. In Part 3, out of 2902 lines, there are about 1021 new lines, about 871 altered lines, and about 1010 old lines." (J. Lee.) With regard to the authorship of these plays a great variety of views has been put forth, ranging from the ascription of all four to Shakespeare to the substantial denial of any significant Shakespearean element in any of then). As to chronological order, some have argued that The First Part of the Contention and The True Tragedie are corrupt transcripts of 2 and 3 Henry VI; others, and these greatly in the majority, that 2 and 3 Henry VI are founded upon the other two plays. The following positions may now be regarded as accepted by the safer modern critics : — (1) that The First Part of the Contention and The True Tragedie are the earlier plays; (2) that these are the work of several authors, including Marlowe and Greene, and perhaps Peele; (3) that 2 and 3 Henry VI are a revision by Shakespeare of the other two plays. Opinion is still divided on these points: — (1) whether Shakespeare had a hand in the earlier plays; (2) whether he had the assistance of Marlowe in the revision. Miss J. Lee's -conclusion is as follows:-" I believe that Shakespeare was the author of Henry VI, Parts 2 and 3, and that there is some ground for concluding that Marlowe was his fellow-worker: that Henry VI, Parts 2 and 3, were written about the year 1590 : that they were not original plays, but were founded on ... The Contention and The True Tragedie: and that Marlowe and Greene, and possibly Peele, were the writers of these older plays, which were written some time, perhaps some years, before 2 and 3 Henry V'1."

The most important modification of this view by later critics is in the direction of finding Shakespearean elements in the two earlier plays, especially in the scenes in which Jack Cade plays a part. This may be accounted for by supposing either that Shakespeare had an incidental share in them when they were first composed, or (as is perhaps more likely) that “passages in the impressions of 1594 and 1595 of the two old plays were borrowed for use from the Second and Third Parts, as then performed on the stage.”. (Ward.) The chief objection to the former alternative lies in the charge of plagiarism implied in a famous passage in Greene's Groatsworth of Wit; which, being undoubtedly aimed at Shakespeare, tends, but not conclusively, to exclude him from collaboration in the plays to which Greene is supposed to allude as the source of the plagiarism.

The more general argument against Shakespeare's having had to do with the writing of any of these plays lies in the facts that the two earlier were acted by a company for whom he is not kņown to have written, and that the two later are not known to have been acted by his own company. These points seem more than counterbalanced, however, by the fact of their inclusion in the First Folio by Heminge and Condell.

The results of modern investigation, then, while far from conclusive, tend to the belief that there may be a slight Shakespearean element in the two older plays, that 2 and 3 Henry VI were produced by Shakespeare, working on the basis of the earlier plays, probably with the assistance of Marlowe, and that they were re-cast between 1590 and 1592.

The present text is based upon that of the First Folio, for all three parts.

THE FIRST PART OF HENRY THE SIXTH

(DRAMATIS PERSONÆ

KING HENRY VI.

Mayor of London. DUKE OF GLOUCESTER, uncle to the King, and Protec- WOODVILE, lieutenant of the Tower. tor.

VERNON, of the White Rose or York faction. DUKE OF BEDFORD, uncle to the King, and Regent of BASSET, of the Red Rose or Lancaster faction. France.

A Lawyer. Mortimer's Keepers. THOMAS BEAUFORT, duke of Exeter,

greatHENRY BEAUFORT, bishop of Winchester, uncles to CHARLES, Dauphin, and afterwards King, of France. and afterwards cardinal.

the King REIGNIER, duke of Anjou, and titular King of Naples. JOHN BEAUFORT, earl, afterwards duke, of Somerset. DUKE OF BURGUNDY. RICHARD PLANTAGENET, son of Richard late earl of DUKE OF ALENÇON. Cambridge, afterwards duke of York.

BASTARD OF ORLEANS. EARL OP WARWICK.

Governor of Paris. EARL OF SALISBURY.

Master-Gunner of Orleans and his Son. EARL OF SUFFOLK.

General of the French forces in Bourdeaux. LORD TALBOT, afterwards earl of Shrewsbury.

A French Sergeant. A Porter.
JOHN TALBOT, his son.

An old Shepherd, father to Joan la Pucelle.
EDMUND MORTIMER, earl of March.
SIR JOHN FASTOLFE.

MARGARET, daughter to Reignier, afterwards married SIR WILLIAM LUCY.

to King Henry SIR WILLIAM GLANSDALE.

COUNTESS OF AUVERGNE. SIR THOMAS GARGRAVE.

JOAN LA PUCELLE, commonly called Joan of Arc.
Lords, Wardens of the Tower, Heralds, Officers, Soldiers, Messengers, and Attendants.

Fiends appearing to La Pucelle.
SCENE: Partly in England and partly in France.]

ACT I

30

28

30

5

SCENE I. (Westminster Abbey.)
Dead March. Enter the Funeral of KING HENRY

THE FIFTH, attended on by the DUKE OF
Bedford, Regent of France; the DUKE OF
GLOUCESTER, Protector ; the DUKE OF EXE-
TER, the EARL OF WARWICK, the BISHOP OF
WINCHESTER, Heralds, etc.
Bed. Hung be the heavens with black, yield

day to night!
Comets, importing change of times and states,
Brandish your crystal tresses in the sky,
And with them scourge the bad revolting stars
That have consented unto Henry's death!
King Henry the Fifth, too famous to live long !
England ne'er lost a king of so much worth.
Glou. England ne'er had a king until his

time.
Virtue he had, deserving to command.
His brandish'd sword did blind men with his

beams;
His arms spread wider than a dragon's wings ;
His sparkling eyes, replete with wrathful fire,
More dazzled and drove back his enemies
Than mid-day sun fierce bent against their faces.
What should I say? His deeds exceed all

speech.
He ne'er lift up his hand but conquered.
Ere. We mourn in black; why mourn we

not in blood ?

Henry is dead and never shall revive.
Upon a wooden coffin we attend,
And death's dishonourable victory
We with our stately presence glorify,
Like captives bound to a triumphant car,
What! *shall we curse the planets of mishap
That plotted thus our glory's overthrow ?
Or shall we think the subtle-witted French
Conjurers and sorcerers, that afraid of him
By magic verses have contriv'd his end ?
Win. He was a king bless'd of the King of

kings.
Unto the French the dreadful judgement-day
So dreadful will not be as was his sight.
The battles of the Lord of hosts he fought ;
The Church's prayers made him so prosper-
Glou. The Church! where is it? Had not

churchmen pray'd,
His thread of life had not so soon decay'd.
None do you like but an effeminate prince,
Whom, like a school-boy, you may over-awe.
Win. Gloucester, whate'er we like, thou art

Protector
And lookest to command the Prince and realm.
Thy wife is proud ; she holdeth thee in awe,
More than God or religious churchmen may. 40
Glou. Name not religion, for thou lov'st the

flesh,
And ne'er throughout the year to church thou

go'st
Except it be to pray against thy foes

ous.

36

10

18