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
The question of priority of the Folio and Quarto plays concerning Henry VI has long beena moot one. Miss Madeleine Doran (“‘Henry VI, Parts II and III,‘” University of Iowa Humanistic Studies, iv, 188, August 15, 1928) and Mr. Peter Alexander (Shakespeare's Henry VI and Richard III, 1929) have contributed the most comprehensive recent discussion on the matter; but no one has yet investigated the question from the standpoint of sources. That is the purpose of this paper. Since in most instances the relation of the two different texts of the dramas to the histories is practically identical, it is worth while to notice only the passages in which the similarity of one text to Hall or to Holinshed is closer than that of the other text.
1 All references to Holinshed in this paper are to the 1587 edition: see my article on “2 and 3 Henry VI—Which Holinshed?” PMLA, l (September, 1935), 000. Italics throughout the paper are mine.—The selection of excerpts is not meant to convey the impression that they are additions or alterations in showing greater dependence on the Chronicles than the rest of the passage does. Citation of three lines of a seven-line speech, for instance, merely means that the remaining four lines in both Quarto and Folio are so similar to each other that it is impossible to ascertain which text is closer to the histories. Both texts may well be either very close to the Chronicles or very far from them. In fact, this whole paper is only part of a larger study which considers, line by line, the relation of both Folio and Quarto to Hall and Holinshed.
2 2 Henry VI, i.i.133–134.
3 Holinshed, p. 625; Hall, p. 205.
4 Holinshed, p. 629; Hall, p. 213.
5 2 Henry VI, i.i.194–196.
6 Contention, ii.135–137.
7 Holinshed, p. 657; Hall, p. 2.
8 2 Henry VI, ii.ii.10–17.
9 Contention, ll. 723–733.
10 Holinshed, p. 412.
11 Contention, ll. 734–736.
12 2 Henry VI, ii.ii.18–20.
13 Holinshed, p. 657; Hall, p. 2.
14 Holinshed, p. 411.
15 2 Henry VI, ii.ii.34–38.
16 Holinshed, p. 657; Hall, p. 2, omits the last Roger.
17 2 Henry VI, ii.ii.39–42
18 Holinshed, p. 656; Hall, p. 2.
19 Contention, ll. 749–751.
20 Holinshed, pp. 657 f.
21 2 Henry VI, ii.ii.43–52.
22 Contention, ll. 739–742.
23 Holinshed, p. 623; Hall, p. 202. Hall omits the excerpt from Polychronicon.
24 Contention, ll. 788–791.
25 2 Henry VI, ii.iii.9–13.
26 2 Henry VI, ii.iv.8–9.
27 Ibid., ii.iv.30–31.
28 Ibid., ii.iii.22–31.
29 Holinshed, p. 626; Hall, p. 208.
30 Ibid., p. 627; Hall, p. 209.
31 2 Henry VI, iii.i.128–32.
32 Contention, ll. 1028–30.
33 Holinshed, pp. 631 f.; Hall, p. 217.
34 Holinshed, p. 634; Hall, p. 220.
35 2 Henry VI, iv.iii.12–16.
36 2 Henry VI, iv.viii.23–26.
37 Holinshed, p. 634; Hall, p. 221.
38 Holinshed, p. 712; Hall, p. 343. Hall does not have the last sentence. The italics here are, of course, in the original.
39 Holinshed, p. 638. Hall does not record Richard's oath.
40 3 Henry VI, ii.iii.15–22.
41 Holinshed, p. 664; Hall, p. 255.
42 True Tragedy, ll. 931–940.
43 3 Henry VI, iii.i.76–78.
44 Holinshed, p. 691.
45 3 Henry VI, iii.ii.97–98.
46 Holinshed, p. 726; Hall, p. 366.
47 True Tragedy. ll. 1292–93.
48 3 Henry VI, iv.i.47–48; 51–58. Cf. Greer, C. A., “The York and Lancaster Quarto-Folio Sequence,” PMLA, xlviii: 669–670.
49 Hall, p. 271.
50 True Tragedy, ll. 1567–71.
51 3 Henry VI, v.v.9–10.
52 2 Henry VI, iv.vii. 115–119.
53 Holinshed, p. 634; Hall, p. 221.
54 Contention, ll. 1803–6.
55 For the use of Hall see my article on “The Use of Hall's Chronicles in the Folio and Quarto Texts of Henry VI,” PhQ, xiii (1934), 321–332.