Printer Friendly

Shakespeare as co-author: the case of 1 henry VI.

I.

THOUGH included in the First Folio as part of a trilogy, I Henry VI (gener-ally considered to be "hare), the vi," in Henslowe's list of plays acted at the Rose in 1592-93) is an independent play. The Contention and True Tragedy, acted by Pembroke's Men, are advertised on their title pages as a play and its sequel, like Tamburlaine, Parts I and II or 1 and 2 Henry IV: the titles are The First Part of the Contention betwixt the Two Famous Houses of York and Lancaster and The True Tragedie of Richard Duke of Yorke and the death of good King Henrie the siXt, with the whole contention between the two houses Lancaster and Yorke. In 1619, a Quarto edition of the two plays was published with the title The Whole Contention betweene the two Famous Houses, Lancaster and Yorke ... Divided into two Parts.

In some respects, the action of these two plays, in both Quarto and Folio versions, can be seen as continuous. Where True Tragedy and 3 Henry VI begin, in medias res, with Warwick's "I wonder how the king escaped our hands?" and York describing the flight of Henry VI from the battle, the earlier play ends with an exchange between Warwick and York proclaiming "a glorious day' of victory, saying 'the King is fled to London" (2 Henry VI, 5.3.24, 29; 3 Henry VI, 1.1). (1) Though I Henry VI ends with a scene between Queen Margaret and Suffolk, including the ominous closing lines by Suffolk, "Margaret shall now be Queen, and rule the King, / But I will rule both her, the King, and realm" (1 Henry VI, 5.5.107-8), which can be said to anticipate the action of 2 Henry VI, the links between / Henry VI and the other two plays are less pronounced than in 2 and 3 Henry VI. In the RSC productions of 2000 and 2006, directed by Michael Boyd, treating the plays as a cycle, it was apparent that 1 Henry VI was in some ways a different kind of play from the other two. As the subtitle of the 1619 Quarto suggests, The Contention and True Tragedy could be seen as comprising a single tragic action, with the separate but connected "Tragicall ends of the good Duke Humfrey, Richard Duke of Yorke, and King Henry the sixt," occurring in The Contention, 3.2, True Tragedy, 1.4, and True. Tragedy, 5.6 One structural oddity is that Talbot, the principal figure in 1 Henry VI, is never mentioned in the other two plays. (2) A partial explanation for this anomaly may lie in the order of composition of the three plays: in all probability, I Henry VI was written after the other two.

Two pieces of external evidence make I Henry VI, according to Gary Taylor, "the most securely dated of all Shakespeare's early work"--though there is no reason to assume that the text of 1 Henry VI, as printed in the First Folio in 1623, many years after its first performance, is identical with the play as acted in 1592 by Strange's Men. Henslowe's Diary lists a first performance of this play, particularly well attended, on March 3, 1592: "ne," in Henslowe's entry for "harey the vi," can only refer to a new play, given the unusually high gate receipts. (3) Praise of this play, with its portrait of "brave Talbot," in Thomas Nashe's Pierce Penniless, entered in the Stationers' Register on August 2, 1592, confirms a date before June 1592, when the theatres were closed for several months because of plague. The extremely short time between March and June 1592 renders it virtually impossible for the plays to have been written and performed in the order in which they appear in the First Folio, as a sequence of three plays. The fact that versions of 2 and 3 Henry VI were performed by a different company, Pembroke's Men, is further evidence that the order of composition and performance was 2, 3, and 1, with 1 Henry VI the last to be performed. As Edward Burns says, "there is in fact nothing in I Henry VI that we need to know to follow the story of Parts Two and Three," though in this"free-standing piece," it might be possible for members of the audience (or the dramatist) to "draw on ... knowledge of the two earlier plays." (4 )

1 Henry VI is definitely a "Talbot play.- The largest part in the play. Talbot was the kind of role in which Alleyn excelled. Nashe, praising the history play as a genre by the means of which "our forefathers" can be "raised from the Grave of Oblivion", singles out as example Alleyn's performance as the heroic, doomed warrior Talbot, bringing him alive again before an audience: Talbot, who dies nobly in the company of the son he has trained in the principles of chivalry, is both an exemplary heroic figure and a tragic victim. In the play. Talbot is contrasted with two sets of adversaries: the French, led by Joan la Pucelle, an ambiguous figure with supernatural powers associated with witchcraft, and the selfish, squabbling English courtiers, who undermine
  How would it have joyd brave To/bot (the terror of the French) to
  thinke that after he had lyne two hundred yeare in his Tomb, he
  should triumph againe on the Stage. and have his bones newe embalmed
  with the teares of ten thousand spectators at least (at severall
  times) who, in the Tragedian that represents his person. imagine they
  behold him fresh bleeding ... There is no immortalitie can be given a
  man on earth like unto Playes. (5)


his prowess in battle and eventually are responsible for his death. Both Talbot and Joan, the two leading characters, are dead before the end of act 4, and Queen Margaret, a principal figure in 2 and 3 Henry VI, appears for the first time in act 5--significantly, shortly after Joan, another powerful, dangerous woman, departs from the stage. Though the English scenes in 1 Henry VI can be said to prefigure the principal concerns of 2 and 3 Henry VI--the rivalry of Duke Humphrey and Winchester, and of York and Somerset, the ambition of Suffolk, the ineffectuality of the well-meaning King--in the two later plays war in France is replaced by civil war, presented as civil butchery, murderously destructive. Surprisingly, the association of the two warring factions with the red and white rose of York and Lancaster, prominent in 1 Henry VI, 2.4, is, except for one line, never mentioned in The Contention, and mentioned only in three lines and a stage direction in True Tragedy. (6)

Even with considerable doubling, I Henry VI, in the version preserved in the First Folio, requires a larger cast than The Contention, Edward II, and Titus Andronicus, plays known to have been performed by Pembroke's Men. At least fourteen adult male actors and three or four boys are required, along with at least eight extras, some mute and some with a few lines to speak. With doubling, Edward II can be performed by a company of eleven men and two boys, Titus Andronicus by twelve men (five of them in roles permitting doubling) and three boys, and The Contention, as Scott McMillin has shown, by eleven men and four boys. (7) 1 Henry VI, 1.3 includes two rival sets of servingmen and a third set of Mayor's officers (six or more extras), with lines to speak for five minor characters. 3.1 and 3.2 present considerable problems for the company, even with doubling. 3.1 has nine principal characters and at least four servingmen, and 3.2, a battle scene, has a whole new set of characters, eight or nine, along with six to eight extras, three of whom have lines to speak. Only thirty-two lines, a soliloquy and a brief scene with Joan and five extras, one of them offstage, allow actors to change costumes, permitting some doubling. There is a considerable amount of spectacle and pageantry in I Henry VI, far more than in Edward II or Edward III, with specific references to "the walls" and "the turrets" calling for the use of an upper stage. Battle scenes (1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 3.2, 3.3) with stage directions like "they are beaten back by the English with great loss," "enter . with scaling ladders," and "the French leap over the walls in their shirts" illustrate this element of spectacle, and require a large number of extras. It is likely that the play was designed to take advantage of the facilities available at the Rose, where it was performed, with great success, in 1592 and 1593. (8)

A possible doubling chart follows. Actors 1-6, with the longest roles, would not need to double, though actors 3 and 6, not in act 1, could be Messengers in 1.1. King Henry VI, who comments on his"tender years" and is spoken of as "a child" in 3.1, may have been played by a boy actor in this scene, and possibly in later scenes of the play. Actors 7-10 could double in French and English roles, and actors 11--.14 could play a number of roles. Several characters appear in one scene only.

II.

Though, as with Edward III and Titus Andronicus, critics generally agree that I Henry VI is a collaborative play, there is no consensus as to the authors involved or the portions of the play attributed to each of them. Dover Wilson (1952) and Gary Taylor (1995) present arguments for Thomas Nashe as the author of act 1. That would accord with the pattern of Titus Andronicus, in which the opening scenes of the play are assigned to one author, the rest of the play to another, with the second author responsible for the "plot," the overall structural pattern. Dover Wilson points out several striking parallels with works by Nashe. In 1.2, the opening dialogue between the Dauphin and Alencon includes three echoes of Nashe: An inconsistency noted by Dover Wilson sets act 1 apart from the rest of the play: Winchester, Humphrey of Gloucester's bitter enemy, is a cardinal in 1.3, a bishop in acts 3 and 4, and newly "call'd unto a cardinal's degree" (5.1.29) and dressed in scarlet robes in act 5. Athough he does not attribute act I to Nashe, Marco Mincoff points out stylistic characteristics in this part of the play he considers un-Shakespearean: "an excess of inversions," a "staccato abruptness": "Me they concern; Regent I am of France," "His ransom there is none but I shall pay" (1.84, 148). Paul Vincent, in his unpublished PhD thesis, has shown that in the frequency of grammatical inversions (seventy-three in act 1, one every 8.2 lines, as against only thirty-six in the rest of the play) and classical and biblical allusions (nearly as many in act 1 as in the other four acts combined), act 1 can be seen as anomalous. (10) Taylor cites several other anomalies in act I, in stage directions and linguistic detail (stage directions beginning "Here," verbs ending "eth," both common in act 1 and rare even in early Shakespeare). but these cannot be considered reliable evidence of authorship. Even if some of Taylor's arguments are discounted, there is solid evidence to support the conclusion that the author of act 1 is "not Shakespeare," with Nashe as a likely author of these opening scenes. (11)

Though claims have been made for Shakespeare as author of acts 2-5 and thus the principal author of a collaborative play, the scenes most often attributed to Shakespeare are 2.4 (the Temple Garden scene), 4.3-4.7 (the death of Talbot). and the scenes involving Suffolk and Margaret (the later part of 5.3 and 5.5). Beginning with Chambers, scholars who have seen the play as the product of more than one author have singled out the Temple Garden scene, with its rivalry between two factions, the red rose of Lancaster and the white rose of York, as definitely by Shakespeare. Though the scenes in act 4, partly in stately blank verse and partly in couplets, are stylistically different from 2.4. these scenes as well are often assigned to Shakespeare. Chambers distinguishes six kinds of scenes in I Henry 1/1--scenes in the English court, scenes of war in France, the Temple Garden scene, the scenes leading up to Talbot's death, the scene in couplets when Talbot mourns the death of his son and dies. and the Suffolk-Margaret scenes in act 5--and argues that only the Temple Garden scene and some of the Talbot scenes in act 4 can be attributed to Shakespeare. Mincoff and Craig cite linguistic evidence (the relative frequency of feminine endings, tests involving vocabulary and function words) that make it likely that the Temple Garden scene and a large part of act 4 are Shakespearean. Several critics. including MincoIT, add the Suffolk-Margaret scenes near the end of the play, with their foreshadowing of the action of The Contention and 2 Henry VI, to the list of scenes that can be attributed to Shakespeare. (12)

Taylor, like Dover Wilson, argues that three or more authors are involved in the collaboration. Dover Wilson's version is that Shakespeare. at a relatively late stage, was called in to supply new or revised scenes, in a play "knocked together" in "haste" by Robert Greene "in collaboration with Nashe and perhaps Peele, but afterwards revised, in places drastically, by Shakespeare for stage production." (13) Taylor, less impressionistic and less convinced that the play is "poor drama" written to appeal to debased public taste, purports to find four authors, citing supposedly objective evidence to support the following distribution: Yet the grounds on which Taylor distinguishes Author W from Author Y and the two of them from Shakespeare, as author of 2.4 and the Talbot scenes in act 4, are exiguous. Taylor claims that the scene divisions in acts 3 and 5, absent from acts 1 and 2, indicate a separate author (17) for these parts of the play. But in fact the indications of scene divisions, extremely chaotic in the folio text of I Henry VI (where act 4 contains four scenes, the equivalent of 4.1-4.7 and 5.1-5.4 in the Cairncross edition, and act 5 contains one short scene only, 5.5). in no way support separate authorship. (14) As Marcus Dahl has pointed out, the use of "ye" instead of "you," relatively rare in Shakespeare and more common in acts 3 and 5 than in the rest of the play (twenty out of twenty-three instances), cannot be considered a reliable test of authorship, nor can the variant spellings Pucelle/Puzel, Burgonie/Burgundy. Oh/O, or the frequency of brackets in the scenes Taylor assigns to Author Y or W. All of these discrepancies can more easily be explained in other ways than by a multiplicity of authors. Taylor's arguments provide some support for a separate author for act I. but very little solid evidence for dividing up the play further. (15)

Brian Vickers, in "Thomas Kyd, Secret Sharer," agrees that Nashe is the author of act I. but assigns only 2. 4 and one scene in act 4 to Shakespeare, arguing that in these scenes, "both of which stand out from those around them in several prosodic aspects," Shakespeare was revising a play written by two other authors. According to Vickers, the author responsible for the bulk of the play (all of acts 3 and 5 and all but one scene in acts 2 and 4) was Thomas Kyd. (16) In his TLS essay, the evidence Vickers gives for Kyd as coauthor of the play consists entirely of parallel passages, "exact matches" between I Henry VI and plays by Kyd, twenty-seven passages altogether--nine from The Spanish Tragedy, seven from Soliman and Perseda, and eleven from Cornelia. Since that time, Vickers has revised his figures for these three plays to fourteen from The Spanish Tragedy, sixteen from Soliman and Per-seda, and fourteen from Cornelia, and in plays not previously accepted as by Kyd that Vickers attributes to that author, ten from Arden of Faversham, ten from Fair Em, and, in an extraordinarily high number of parallels, thirty-one from King Leir and forty-one from Edward III. The latter two plays require separate discussion, but for the three plays in Kyd's acknowledged canon as well as for Arden of Faversham and Fair Em, alternative explanations are possible, and the parallel passages do not prove common authorship. (17)

The method Vickers employs to establish "unique matches" is to use soft-ware designed for detecting plagiarism (http://www.plagiarism.tk) to detect identical three-word sequences in any two texts being collated, and then to check each match against a database of plays of the period. The unusually large number of such parallels between King Leir and the three canonical Kyd plays (over one hundred, according to Vickers) or between Arden of Faversham and these three plays (seventy-six, according to Vickers) provides a strong case for Kyd's authorship of the two anonymous plays. But in the case of 1 Henry VI, the parallels with The Spanish Tragedy, Soliman and Perseda, and Cornelia can be explained in a number of different ways.

All the passages cited from The Spanish Tragedy are common formulae, and do not indicate distinctive practice by a particular author: "blood of innocents," "break your necks," "mov'd with remorse," "thou didst force." All these are what Vickers calls rare matches, in that the exact wording does not occur elsewhere in the seventy-five texts on his database, but the parallels need not indicate a common author. The words "blood" and "remorse," after all, are central to the vocabulary of nearly all Elizabethan and Jacobean dra-matists. (18) The additional parallels in 147 Unique Matches (2012) can similarly be explained as common formulae, suitable for insertion in a line of iambic pentameter: "that will not," "make this marriage," "death from his," "and my countries." More unusual parallels of three to five words include "I gave in charge," "art thou prisoner," and "play'd/mist her part in this," and so are "created Duke of York," "will not trust thee," and "with the pitifull," from Vickers's later list of "unique matches."

But again they do not necessarily indicate Kyd as co-author. "Art thou prisoner" (ST, 1.2.153, / H6, 2.3.33) is appropriate to a different context in each play. "Poor Bel-inzperia mist her part in this" (ST, 4.4.140) refers literally to playing a role in a play- within-a-play, where "Pucelle hath bravely play'd her part in this" (1H6, 3.3.88) refers to her prowess in battle. The word "prisoner" occurs ten times in The Spanish Tragedy, eleven times in the plays of Marlowe. In the Shakespeare canon, "prisoner" occurs eighty-one times, including "thou art my prisoner" and "I am thy prisoner," while "trust" occurs 180 times in Shakespeare, including "I will not trust," "and will not trust," "we will not trust," "will I trust thee," and "I'll not trust thee." (19)

Some matches from Soliman and Perseda, initially striking because they include an unusual word or rhythmical and syntactic as well as verbal parallels, do not survive closer scrutiny. At least eight passages in Shakespeare and other writers of the period contain the words "you to forbear," and for "collop." Cairncross notes a closer parallel in Golding's translation of Ovid., Metamorphoses, v. 650-51: "my daughter ... a collop of mine owne flesh cut as well out of thine." (20) Other parallels, as in The Spanish Tragedy, are commonplaces. If, in the limited database of plays of this period used by Vickers in his TLS essay and 147 Unique Matches, the exact three words "with desire to," "my selfe will." "I owe him," "-that others have," and "deny me not" do not appear, that does not mean that these locutions are "preferred phrases" indicating a writer's "individual voice." A wider database, including plays written between 1596 and 1642 and poems of the period, might well contain all of these conventional three-word combinations:2' Some of the phrases of more than three words cited by Vickers are somewhat more unusual: "I weare this Rose," "the gates of heaven," and, a particularly striking instance: The contexts of the two "Alcides" passages differ considerably: the passage from I Henry VI is the opening line of a tribute to the dead Talbot, where the other passage comes from a comic speech by the braggart Basilisco, listing a series of heroes (Hercules, Achilles, Alexander, Pompey ...) who are all dead, as an argument for self-preservation: "the shrub is safe when the Cedar shaketh" (SP, 5.3.87). "I wear this rose" and its variants, "will i upon this party wear this rose," "pluck this/a red/white rose," "he wears this rose," and the white rose that I wear," occurs again and again in Shakespeare, thirteen times in I Henry VI, 2.4 (assigned by Vickers to Shakespeare). "Gates of heaven" occurs in 3 Henry VI as well as 1 Henry VI, and "gates of hell" three times in Marlowe.

Though there are many parallels with Cornelia, a translation from a French original, all may reflect the common vocabulary of the period or a generic resemblance: "inferior to none," "lay them gently/level," "[the] bodies of the dead," "When he perceiv'd," "If Death be, "be wedded to, "shall turn to," "with hope to," "tune not thy," "day or night," "to venge this outrage or revenge my wrongs/ to venge this wrong." (22) A problem with citing parallel passages from Kyd is that the canon of his works is uncertain, and that the database Vickers is using is small. Even if phrases like "blood of innocents" or "bodies of the dead" do not appear in the limited corpus of works on the database, these are highly conventional phrases., characteristic of the period. If the words "day or night" or "with hope to" do not appear on Vickers's database, they can hardly be called characteristic of a particular author. According to Charles Forker, writing about echoes from Peele's The Troublesome Reign of King John to be found in such plays as Richard II and Mar-lowe's Edward II, "verbal imitation was a stock-in-trade of the commercial theatre, and ... popular dramatists such as Peele, Marlowe, Kyd, and Shakespeare all practised it to varying degrees." As MacDonald Jackson says in his critique of Vickers' TLS essay, "it is clear that dramatists of the late .1580s and early 1590s drew on a common stock of phrases and that they borrowed from, and were influenced by, one another." In this essay, Jackson uses a method similar to that of Vickers to show that at least as many parallels can be found between Arden of Faversham, attributed to Kyd by Vickers, and two early Shakespearean texts, The Taming of the Shrew and 2 Henry VI, as the matches Vickers cites with works by Kyd. (23)

Marina Tarlinskaja, in "Revising the Kyd canon," provides evidence from stylistic detail and versification that would suggest a collaboration of three authors: Shakespeare, Nashe, and a third author (Taylor's "Y"), who may well be Kyd. On the basis of a series of stylistic criteria, Tarlinskaja argues for the extension of the Kyd canon from three to seven plays, including the "Y" scenes of I Henry VI. In this paper, she finds a clear distinction in the handling of the blank verse line (in such things as deviations from the iambic pattern, inversions, and disyllabic scansion of suffixes in words like "distinction" or "ambiti-ous" ) in passages in / Henry VI that can be assigned to Kyd, Nashe, and Shakespeare. According to Tarlinskaja's prosodic tests, where seven "Kyd" texts show an overall stylistic homogeneity (scores ranging from 10.0 to 12.0, with the "Y" scenes in 1 Henry VI at 10.5), the "Shakespeare" scenes of 1 Henry VI have a much lower score of 5.5, and the "Nashe" passages in Act I are even more sharply differentiated from passages that can be assigned to Shakespeare and to "Y." (24) There is a very strong case for assigning the authorship of Arden of Faversham to Kyd. Vickers has identified thirty-six exact matches between Arden of Faversham and Soliman and Perseda and thirty-two between Arden of Faversham and The Spanish Tragedy. Several of these cannot be considered commonplaces, and must represent either common authorship or conscious imitation. The first of these passages, as Vickers concedes, is "the most famous line in The Spanish Tragedy, frequently parodied," and thus could be an example of imitation rather than indicating common authorship. As Jackson argues, "it is just as likely that the author of Arden of Faversham echoed Kyd's unforgettable line." Nevertheless, the sheer number of parallels, as well as the close agreement in detail, is striking. (26)

There are fewer parallels between Arden of Faversham and I henry Though some, like "to pay him," can please him," and "Why, what is he?" can be considered commonplaces, three matches, echoing one another in their metrical pattern as well as in verbal detail, may well be either deliberate imitation or evidence of the same author.

An additional complication is the large number of parallels between Marlowe's Edward II and Arden of Faversham, two plays plainly by different authors, as well as parallels between Edward II and Soliman and Perseda. If, as is likely, the parallels are deliberate borrowing, it is not clear whether Marlowe or Kyd is the borrower. Kyd and Marlowe were close associates in 1591, at one point "writing in one chamber" in the service of Lord Strange. (27) Edward II, published in 1594 after Marlowe's death, was written for Pembroke's Men sometime between 1591 and 1593. Arden of Faversham, with no indication on the title page of an acting company, was registered with the Stationers' Company in April 1592 and Soliman and Perseda registered in November 1592, with Quartos of both plays published that year. In these three plays the likely line of descent is Edward II, Arden of Faversham, and Soliman and Perseda. The Spanish Tragedy is earlier than any of these plays. One commentator says that Kyd in these passages "makes little or no attempt to disguise the theft from Marlowe." (28) Though the case for Kyd's authorship of Arden of Faversham remains strong, it is evident from this complex network of borrowings and echoes that the "rare matches" Vickers cites do not in themselves prove common authorship of works in which such passages occur.

A particularly interesting set of parallels cited by Vickers and by Thomas McNeal in an essay in Shakespeare Quarterly (1958) consists of passages from The True .Chronicle History of King Leir, a play performed by the Queen's Men at the Rose in April 1594. According to Vickers, both this play and the parallel passages in I Henry VI were written by Kyd. (29) The similarities are striking, both in their"sheer number (over one hundred altogether, according to Vickers) and in the close agreement of details. Many of the parallel passages come from an episode in King Leir that Shakespeare did not draw on a decade later in writing King Lear, a scene out of romance, the Gallian King's courtship of the exiled Cordella. The equivalent scene in 1 Henry VI is Suffolk's courtship of Margaret in act 5, and differs in tone because Suffolk, rather than a virtuous young monarch, is a morally suspect figure, ambitious and corrupt. In one passage full of such verbal parallels, "the golden sceptre" of "a queen" and "a rich imperial crown" are the temptations of earthly power and riches, to which both Margaret and Suffolk succumb, where in the other Gardena rejects the trappings of wealth. (30) The Gallian King says "Your birth's too high for any but a king" (King Leir, 7.110), where Suffolk, in a later scene, says "Her peerless feature, joined with her birth, Approves her fit for none but for a king" (5.5.68-69). The scenes in King Leir in the tradition of romance are full of such echoes, with phrases like "wondrous praise," "chief/rare perfections," and wandering in "a labyrinth of love" abounding. (31)

There are two possible explanations for these close parallels, which are unlikely to be the result of chance. Though such phrases as "fairest creature" or "I dare not speak," cited by Vickers, are part of a common vocabulary, available to any author of the period, others would appear to be conscious echoes. If Kyd is the author of King Leir and of act 5 of I Henry VI, then the passages can be seen as illustrative of what Vickers calls "self-plagiarism," an author's recycling of "preferred phrases" in different works. (32) But if Shakespeare, rather than Kyd, is the author of the Margaret/Suffolk scenes in I Henry VI, then he could be drawing on the work of another author, in a play known to him in 1594. when these scenes are likely to have been written, as well as in 1605, when he wrote King Lear. Some support for the second possibility is provided by McNeal, who lists as many parallels between King Leir and other plays written by Shakespeare in the 1590s as the parallels with act 5 of I Henry VI. At least two passages in 2 Henry VI show Queen Margaret as more like King Leir's Ragan and Gonorill than like Cordella: "Would make thee quickly hop without thy head" (2H6, 1.3.138) echoes Ragan's "Or I will make him hop without a head" (King Leir, 15. 28); and Ragan's "These foolish men are nothing but mere pity, /And melt as butter doth against the sun" (King Leir, 25.17-18) finds an echo in Margaret's equally coldhearted "Free lords, cold snow melts with the sun's hot beams. 1 Henry my lord is cold in great affairs, 1 Too full of foolish pity" (2 Henry VI, 3.1.223-35) (33) McNeal goes on to cite four parallels with A Midsummer Night's Dream, three with Two Gentlemen of Verona, three with Romeo and Juliet, and four with The Merchant of Venice. Such passages, involving the power parents exercise over their children, can be seen as Shakespeare's recycling or reworking the rejection scene in King Lein with its contrast of flattery and plain speaking or disobedience, long before he wrote his own version of that scene in King Lear. These similarities (or the similarity, often cited, of a conscience-stricken murderer in King Leir to the two Murderers assigned to kill Clarence, in Richard do not indicate common authorship of King Leir and these other plays, but do suggest that Shakespeare was familiar enough with this play performed by the Queen's Men to be able to draw on it in detail on several occasions, reworking its materials. (34)

Other parallels cited by Vickers in 147 Unique Matches, from scenes other than the courtship scene, include a number that could be considered commonplaces: "in good will," "I am unworthy," "content with any," "and left us," "ne're so much," and, in four-word matches, "I trust ere long" and "set a glosse on/upon." But several parallels are too close to be anything but conscious imitation or an indication of common authorship. Most of these passages are from Talbot scenes in acts 2 and 3, assigned by Vickers to Kyd:. "And think me but the shadow of my selfe" (King Leii; 14.17) is virtually identical in phrasing with "No, no, I am but shadow of my self" (1H6, 2.3.49), in an exchange between Talbot and the Countess of Auvergne. Two lines spoken by the dying Duke of Bedford, "Lord Talbot, do not so dishonour me" and "And will be partner of your weal and woe" (1H6, 3.2.88, 90), are recycled as "Then do not so dishonour me. my lords" (King Leir, 6.41) and "As make me partner of your pilgrimage" (King Leir, 4.15), two lines in entirely different contexts. Another passage from the same scene in 1 Henry VI, spoken by a cowardly knight fleeing from battle, "Ay, all the Talbots of the world, to save my life" (3.2.106), reappears in King Leir as an indication of honor and loyalty: ''Oh, had I now to give thee 1 The monarchy of all the spacious world, 1 To save his life" (King Leir, 19.268-70). Leir's reunion with Cordelia contains the line "Oh, if you love me as you do profess" (King Leir, 24.32), a close parallel to "And if you love me, as you say you do" (1116, 3.1.106), from a speech apparently also echoed in Kyd's Soliman and Perseda.

These parallels, like those cited by McNeal, can be explained in a number of ways. If Kyd is the author of King Leir and the author of the scenes in 1 Henry VI containing these extracts, then the passages could, as Vickers argues, be examples of an author's recycling of "preferred phrases." But if these scenes from 1 Henry VI are by Shakespeare rather than Kyd, then there are at least two possibilities. If 1 Henry VI (a version of which was performed at the Rose in March 1592) was the earlier play, then the author of King Leir may have been drawing on 1 Henry Vi, imitating and adapting a number of details. Since we do not know when King Leir was written, and since the entry in Henslowe's diary for April 1594 evidently refers to this play as one in the repertory of the Queen's Men rather than as a new play, it is also possible that King Leir was available for Shakespeare to use in adapting passages in I Henry VI, as, from the evidence cited by McNeal, he did in several other plays written during the 1590s. (35)

As Charles Forker has shown, both Marlowe and Shakespeare drew on another Queen's Men play, George Peele's The Troublesome Reign of King John. recycling and reworking lines where there is no possibility of common authorship:

An earlier study by Rupert Taylor lists 32 parallels between Troublesome Reign and Edward II, which he considers conclusive proof "that one author was imitating the other." (36) Rupert Taylor also lists twenty-two parallels between Troublesome Reign and Marlowe's The Massacre at Paris, and at least six close matches between Peele's Edward I and Edward II. Here again the parallels suggest deliberate imitation, with Marlowe probably the borrower in each case. (37)

Edward III provides the largest number of substantive parallels with 1 Henty V/--forty-one overall, of which at least twelve cannot be explained as commonplaces, but must be either deliberate imitations or evidence of common authorship. Matters are complicated here because both works have two or more authors, with Shakespeare generally accepted as the author of at least four scenes in Edward III ( I .2, 2.1, 2.2, and 4.4) and of a number of scenes in 1 Henry V/ (2.4 and parts of act 4. as a minimum). But though such three-word matches as "let us resolve," "my tender youth," "with his armie." and "thee with thine" can be considered commonplaces, likely to turn up in a wider database than the one Vickers uses, other parallels are striking in their close agreement in detail. All the passages from Edward III quoted below are from scenes Vickers assigns to Kyd and not to Shakespeare. I list them in the order in which they appear in Edward M. Even if, as appears likely. Kyd is co-author of Edward ///, that in itself does not prove that he is recycling his own material and not imitating another dramatist. (38)

These resemblances, nearly all of which come from scenes of war in a history play, may be in part generic, even when they are conscious echoes. All but one of the passages quoted from / Henry V/ come from the scenes featuring the antagonists Talbot and Joan, set in France, and all the extracts from Edward /// are from similar scenes. The death of the Talbots, father and son (in the penultimate extract), was a famous scene, and the equivalent episode in Edward III, where the young prince addresses the old, wounded Audley, may be imitating the earlier play. We know that "harey the vi" was performed in March 1592, and Richard Proudfoot dates Edward III 1593. The Contention and True Tragedy, versions of 2 and 3 Henry VI performed by Pembroke's Men, are almost certainly earlier than either play. The LFAS database, which lists only exact matches of three words or more (and thus would not include some of the matches above, like "My arms shall be thy grave") shows a roughly similar number of exact matches for 1H6, 2116, and 3H6 with E3: 22, 20, and 26. (39)

Thomas Merriam and Hugh Craig, like Vickers and Taylor, find three authors collaborating in 1 Henry VI, but argue that the third author is Marlowe. Merriam, who also considered Marlowe rather than Kyd the co-author of Edward III, finds close verbal parallels between Marlowe's Doctor Faustus and one scene involving Joan in I Henry VI (5.3.1-44). Though he argues, like Vickers, that the "exact sequence of words" he quotes "occurs nowhere else in English verse drama of the period," the parallels, like those Vickers cites, do not necessarily constitute evidence of common authorship. Merriam cites "aid me in this enterprise," "plumed crest," and "regions under earth," and Craig, supplementing Merriam's account, adds further parallels from different scenes in 1 Henry VI: "famous through the world," "monstrous treachery," "his envious heart/envious malice of thy swelling heart." All of these, with the possible exception of "aid me in this enterprise," can be considered commonplaces rather than revealing the hidden signature of a particular author. (40) "Enterprise," used in this sense, is a Marlovian word, occurring twice in Faustus 1604. three times in Faustus 1616, and three times in The Massacre at Paris. In a similar context, Faustus in 1604 calls on students of necromancy to "aid me in this attempt" (1.1.1 13). "Regions under earth," like "aid me in this enterprise" (1146.5.3.7), occurs in the scene where Joan summons demonic spirits, who "forsake" her (5.3.29). The scene is clearly influenced by Doctor Faustus, and the earlier scene in which her French allies tell Joan "we will make thee famous through the world" (3.3.13) may well echo Tamburlaine, "famous through the world" (3.3.83), with a further parallel in Faustus 1616 "famous through all Italy" (4.1.59). But these parallels are more likely to be conscious imitation than evidence of common authorship. "Plumed crest'', "monstrous treachery/treason/traitor/villainy", and "envious" in association with "heart" are all commonplaces. Though the LFAS database lists 37 "unique" exact matches between /H6 and Marlowe, nearly all of them, like "sons and husbands," "leave this town," "no other king," "draw on thee" can be considered commonplaces. The rare exceptions, like the parallel between "Whose bloody deeds shall make all Europe quake" (1H6, 1.1.156) and "Which lately made all Europe quake for feare" (1Tam, 3.3.135) are formulaic passages, and probably conscious echoes of a famous play.

Here and in an earlier essay, Merriam cites the evidence of function words (like "to" and "but") to illustrate differences in common practice in texts by Marlowe and Shakespeare, as well as a close affinity to the Marlowe passages in the forty-four lines of this scene (an extremely small sample from which to draw a conclusion). In the earlier essay. Merriam, counting both function words and the relative frequency of words "preferred" by Marlowe over Shakespeare (words like "mighty," "fiery," "town"), makes a case for Marlowe as part-author of Shakespeare's early history plays. His conclusion is that such plays as 1 Henry VI are "Shakespeare's incorporation and revision of original writing by Marlowe." (41) Craig. again using for comparison both "marker words", used more by Marlowe than his contemporaries, and function words, tests three scenes in I Henry VI involving Joan against Marlowe and several other dramatists of the period, including Kyd. His conclusion is that "it seems very likely that Marlowe wrote the middle part of the play involving Joan of Arc." Later in this essay, Craig goes on to argue that Marlowe also wrote the Jack Cade sequences in 2 Henry VI, and here again the conclusion seems unwarranted from the relatively skimpy evidence he provides. It would be difficult for any author of the 1590s to write a scene in which devils are summoned and appear on stage without being influenced by Doctor Faustus, and possible echoes of Tamburlaine in 2 Henry VI are evidence only of the popularity of Marlowe's plays, widely imitated by other dramatists. (42)

III.

What most of these critics ignore, claiming scenes in acts 2-5 of 1 Henry VI for different authors, is that the text of the play that appears in the First Folio of 1623 is very unlikely to be the same text that was acted by Strange's Men in 1592. As G. E. Bentley says in The Profession of Dramatist in Shakespeare's Time: We know that in 1594 or shortly afterwards, 1Henry VI passed into the ownership of the Chamberlain's Men and entered into their repertory, along with
  The refurbishing of old plays in the repertory seems to have been the
  universal practice in the London theatres from 1590 to 1642. As a
  rough rule of thumb one might say that almost any play first printed
  more than ten years after composition and known to have been kept in
  active repertory by the company which owned it is most likely to
  contain revisions by the author or. in many cases, by another
  playwright working for the same company. (43)


2 and 3 Heniy VI, which, under different titles, had been in the repertory of Pembroke's Men. (44) The epilogue to Henry V calls the attention of the 1599 audience to the three parts of Henry VI as plays "which oft our stage has shown" (Epilogue, 13). With 2 and 3 Henry VI, two distinct versions of each play exist, one of the texts in all probability a revised version, but no equivalent of The Contention and True Tragedy exists for 1 Henry VI.

If Shakespeare revised the text of "Harey the vi" in 1594 or afterwards to make it conform more closely to the two later plays in the sequence, then the scenes most likely to be revised, or added to the play, are 5.3.45-195 and 5.5. which introduce the adulterous love of Suffolk and Queen Margaret, a major theme in the later plays. Cairncross sees "the insertion of the Margaret-Suffolk material" by Shakespeare as a way of adapting 1 Henry Vito two plays written and performed earlier. Vincent explicitly presents these scenes as added to a pre-existing text, performed without these scenes in 1592, and ending with 5.4 and its proclamation of "a solemn peace" (5.4.174) between the victorious English and the defeated French. One anomaly is that in 5.5 the King is an adult, old enough to marry, where in earlier scenes he is referred to as a "child" (3.1.132), and probably played by a boy actor. (45)

Act 4 of I Henry VI is disputed territory. The action of 4.2-4.7 is continuous, presenting a coherent narrative in a series of short scenes (not indicated as separate scenes in the Folio, other than by stage directions "Enter" and "Exit/Exeunt"), with Talbot as the central figure. These scenes follow directly from 4.1, which ends with Exeter's speech on the damaging effects of the "jarring discord" (4.1.188) of the factious courtiers. In 4.2 the heroic Talbot leads his troops into battle. "unconquer'd" in the face of "pale Destruction" (4.2.27, 32); in 4.3 and 4.4 first York and then Somerset refuse to send aid to Talbot, "betray'd" by the "strife" of his supposed allies (4.4.39). In 4.5 and 4.6 Talbot and his son John demonstrate their courage and adherence to a chivalric code, choosing certain death before shame: in 4.7 the body of young Talbot is brought on stage and his father dies. This scene, and the entire sequence. ends with the choric figure Sir William Lucy eulogizing Talbot as an exemplary figure. On the face of it, act 4 would appear to present a clear, coherent action entirely in keeping with the earlier scenes in the play, and to be the work of a single author.

However, with rare exceptions, critics divide up the sequence among several authors, parcelling out bits and pieces in various ways. Taylor allots 4.24.7.32 to Shakespeare, but assigns 4.1 and 4.7.33-96 to another author, on the grounds that the passages he considers Shakespearean have a greater percentage of feminine endings and in the Folio text use the spelling "0" rather than "Oh". Craig argues that Shakespeare wrote "the scene depicting Talbot's last battle" (by which he could mean either 4.5-4.7 or 4.2-4.7), but also claims that the scenes in which Joan appears are by a different author from the rest of the play. Presumably, this would mean that the lines by Joan on the dead Talbot (4.7.37-43, 72-76, 87-90) are an interpolation. (46) Vickers advances three different hypotheses for dividing up act 4. In "Incomplete Shakespeare" (2007) he argues that three scenes in act 4 (4.3 through 4.5) are by Shakespeare; in "Thomas Kyd, Secret Sharer" (2008) he claims that unspecified "new evidence" would rule out 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5, but that a "scene for York" in act 4 is by Shakespeare; and in his most recent essay, "Shakespeare and Authorship Studies" (2011) he assigns two scenes in act 4 to Shakespeare, accepting 4.5 but rejecting 4.4, and attributing 4.2 to Shake-speare. (47)

Mincoff assigns all of 4.2-4.7 to Shakespeare, but argues that"if Shakespeare revised the play somewhere about 1594," 4.2 and possibly other parts of the Talbot sequence may have undergone revision. Dover Wilson and Pearlman argue that 4.5 is a revised version of 4.6, and that Shakespeare probably intended 4.6 to be deleted. Pearlman attributed both of these scenes to Shakespeare, where Dover Wilson argued that in 4.5 Shakespeare was revising a scene by Greene or Nashe. (48) This part of the sequence, from 4.5.16 to 4.7.32, is entirely in couplets. Despite Dover Wilson's claim that the diction of 4.6 is "poverty-stricken" and Pearlman's assertion that 4.5 is "of an entirely different character," with "a highly figured rhetoric" absent from 4.6, the distinction they purport to find is highly subjective and open to challenge. The language is formal and sententious throughout, the couplets similar in their syntax and rhetorical structure. Except for the stychomythia in the exchange, there is no essential difference in rhetorical patterning, the use of balance and antithesis within the couplet, in passages like these: As Vickers points out, one distinction between the couplets in 4.5 and those in 4.6-4.7 is the proportion of end-stopped and enjambed couplets. In 4.5, there are fifty lines of couplets, all end-stopped, where in 4.6, fifty of fifty-six lines are end-stopped (nearly 15 percent enjambed) and in 4.7, twenty-nine of thirty-two lines are end-stopped (slightly under 10 percent enjambed).
  Tai. Part of thy father may be sav'd in thee. John. No part of him
  but will be sham'd in me.
  (4.5.38-39)
  and
  By me I nothing gain and if I stay
  'Tis but the shortening of my life a day ...
  All these and more we hazard by thy stay;
  All these are sav'd if thou will fly away.
  (4.6.36-37, 40 41) (49)


The use of run-on lines does lead to a difference in style in passages like this one. from 4.6, discussed by Vickers: But where Vickers sees such a passage as having "a counterproductive effect in rhymed couplets, destroying their rationale," the product of "a bookish dramatist of an older generation" rather than Shakespeare, it would be equally possible to explain the passage as appropriate for describing the action of a battle scene. There is no reason to identify the closed couplets as Shakespearean and the eniambed couplets as Shakespearean. (50)

One anomaly pointed out by Pearlman does suggest that 'Shakespeare may have revised 4.3-4.4, with traces of the unrevised text remaining in the Folio. Sir William Lucy is a choric figure who comments on how the "vulture of sedition" (4.3.47) in the quarrelling courtiers York and Somerset is responsible for the death of Talbot, and at the end of 4.7 pays tribute to the dead hero. Though in modern editions Lucy enters near the beginning of 4.3 and remains onstage until the end of 4.4, in the Folio his speeches in 4.3 (including the "vulture of sedition" speech) are assigned to a Messenger, and Lucy enters for the first time to the cue "Here is Sir William Lucy" in 4.4.10. (51)

There is thus no firm evidence for attributing 1 Henry VI to three or more authors or for dividing up act 4 between two authors. I would offer the following conjectural account of the genesis of the play--recognizing, of course, that it is no more than conjecture, and that another reconstruction of the composition and early performances of "harey the vi" would be possible. After Pembroke's Men had performed The Contention and True Tragedy, versions of the plays given the titles 2 and 3 Henry VI in the 1623 Folio, Strange's Men commissioned a history play on a related subject with a leading role designed for Edward Alleyn and parts for several actors later associated with Shakespeare in the Chamberlain's Men.. Shakespeare, I would argue, was responsible for drawing up the "plot," a scene-by-scene plan for the play as a whole, and assigned the actual writing of act 1 to Thomas Nashe--in much the way that, a few years earlier. Shakespeare had delegated responsibility for act 1 of Titus Andronicus to George Peele. (52) Vincent, Min-coff, and Pearlman, on the grounds that "the play is not stylistically of one piece," argue that the Folio text of 1 Henry VI shows evidence of revision by Shakespeare. In its initial performances at the Rose in 1592, according to Vincent, the play ended with 5.4.173-74 ("Hang up your ensigns, let your
  The ireful Bastard Orleans, that drew blood From thee. my boy. and
  had the maidenhood Of thy first lichi. I soon encountered. And
  Interchanging blows. I quickly shed Some of his bastard blood.
  (4.6.16-20)


drums be still, 1 For here we entertain a solemn peace") and did not include the love scene between the ambitious Suffolk and Margaret in 5.3. 45-195 or 5.5, in which Suffolk arranges a marriage between Henry VI and Margaret. (53) When I Henry VI was first acted by the Chamberlain's Men, together with the newly renamed Parts Two and Three, in 1594 or shortly afterwards, Shakespeare. I would argue, undertook a revision of this play as well as the other two. Since no Quarto edition of the play, or any edition earlier than 1623, exists, it is impossible to reconstruct the play in the version performed in 1592 by Strange's Men, though it is likely that some scenes in acts 2 though 5, the parts of the play for which Shakespeare was originally responsible, were revised, with particular attention to providing links with the action of the two other plays and with Richard III, a play performed for the first time by the Chamberlain's Men in 1594.

In the "plot" drawn up by Shakespeare and in the play as performed, both in its earlier and its revised version, the play featured a large number of battle scenes, pitting an English army led by the heroic, doomed Talbot against a French army led by the charismatic, demonic Joan. These scenes, set in France, were juxtaposed with scenes of domestic discord, giving prominence to the rivalry of the Yorkist and Lancastrian factions, and of the corrupt prelate Winchester and Humphrey of Gloucester. The damaging effects of "private discord" are a recurrent theme--expressed, for example, in Lucy's lines on the dangers facing Talbot (4.4.22) and in the pleas of the young King in 3.1 to avoid "civil dissension ... 1 That gnaws the bowels of the commonwealth" (3.1.72-73). The epilogue to Henry V, which provides firm evidence for performances of all three plays, in one version or another, by the Chamberlain's Men after 1594 (and possibly even a revival not long before 1599), (54) suggests that the overall effect of the three Henry VI plays is tragic, emphasizing the decline of heroism and chivalric conduct:
  Henry the Sixth. in infant bands crowned King Of France and England.
  did this king succeed.  Whose state so many had the managing That
  they lost France and made his England bleed, Which oft our stage has
  shown; and for their sake In your fair minds let this acceptance
  take.
  (Henry V, Epilogue, 9-14) (55)


Bibliography Arden of Faversham. Edited by Martin White. 2nd ed. London: New Mermaids, 2007.

Bentley, Gerald E. The Profession of Dramatist in Shakespeare's Time, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1971.

Bevington, David. From Mankind to Marlowe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962..

Chambers, E. K. William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930.

Chernaik, Warren. The Cambridge Introduction to Shakespeare's History Plays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

A Concordance to the Plays, Poems, and Translations of Christopher Marlowe, ed. Robert Fehrenbach et al. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1982.

Craig, Hugh, and Arthur F. Kinney, ed. Shakespeare, Computers, and the Mystery of Authorship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Crawford, Charles. "The Authorship of Arden of Faversham." Shakespeare Jahrbuch 39 (1903): 74-86.

Dahl, Marcus, "The Authorship of The First Part of Henry Sixth." Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Bristol, 2004.

Forker, Charles R. The Troublesome Reign. Richard Ii. and the Date of King John." Shakespeare Survey 63 (2010): 127-48.

The Harvard Concordance to Shakespeare. ed. Martin Spevack, 2 vols. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag. 1973.

Henslowe 's Diary. Edited by R. A. Foakes. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2002.

Jackson. MacDonald R "New Research on the Dramatic Canon of Thomas Kyd." Research Opportunities in Medieval and Renaissance Drama 47 (2008): 107-27.

--. "Shakespeare and the Quarrel Scene in Arden of Faversham." Shakespeare Quarterly 57 (2006): 249-293.

Knutson, Roslyn. The Repertory of Shakespeare's Company Fayetteville: Univeristy of Arkansas Press. 1991.

Kyd, Thomas. Works. Edited by Frederick S. Boas. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1962.

Law, R. A. "Richard the Third, Act 1, Scene 4." PMLA 37(1912): 117-41.

Marlowe, Christopher. Edward II: Edited by H. B. Charlton and R. D. Waller. 2nd ed. London: Methuen, 1955.

--. Edited by Charles R. Forker. Manchester: Revels Plays. 1994.

McMillin, Scott. "Casting for Pembroke's Men: The Henry V/ Quartos and The Taming of A Shrew" Shakespeare Quarterly 23 (1972): 141-59.

McNeal, Thomas. "Margaret of Anjou: Romantic Princess and Troubled Queen." Shakespeare Quarterly 9 (1958): 1-10.

Merriam. Thomas. "Tamburlaine Stalks in Henry VI." Computers and the Humanities 30(1996): 267-291.

--. "Faustian Joan". Notes cti Queries 247 (June 2002): 218-20.

Mincoff, Marco. "The Composition of Henry VI, Part 1 " (1956). In Studies in English Renaissance Drama, 234-42. Sofia: University Press, 2009.

Nashe. Thomas. Pierce Penniless His Supplication toil/me Dive/I. London. 1592. Nicholl. Charles. The Reckoning: The Death of Christopher Marlowe. London: Picador, 1963.

Pearlman. E. "Shakespeare at Work: The Two Talbots." Philological Quarterly 75 (1996): 1-22.

Rasmussen. Eric. "The Revision of Scripts." In A New History of Early English Drama, ed. John D. Cox and David Scott Kastan. 441-60. New York: Columbia University Press. 1997.

Shakespeare, William, I Henry VI. Edited by John. Dover Wilson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968.

--. I henry VI. Edited by Andrew S, Cairncross. London: Arden 2,1969.

--. 1 Henry VI. Edited by Edward Burns. London: Arden 3.2000.

--.2 Henry VI. Edited by Ronald Knowles. London: Arden 3,2001.

--. 3 Henry V/. Edited by John D. Cox and Eric Rasmussen. London: Arden 3, 2001.

--. Henry V. Edited by Gary Taylor. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.

--. Henry V. Edited by T. W. Craik. London: Arden 3,1995.

--. The Whole Contention. London, 1619.

Stern, Tiffany. Documents of Performance in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Tarlinskaja, Marina. "Revising the Kyd Canon" (2008). an unpublished paper delivered at the London Forum for Authorship Studies.

Taylor, Gary. "Shakespeare and Others: The Authorship of Henry the Sixth, Part One." Medieval and Renaissance. Drama in England7 (1995).: 145-205.

Taylor, Rupert. "A Tentative Chronology of Marlowe and Some Other Elizabethan Plays." PMLA 51 (1936): 643-88.

The True Chronicle History of King Leir. Edited by Donald M. Michie. New York: Garland, 1991.

Vickers. Brian. "Incomplete Shakespeare; or, Denying co-authorship in. I Heniy VI." Shakespeare Quarterly 58 (2007): 311-57.

--"Thomas Kyd, Secret Sharer". TLS. 1,8 April 2008: 13-15.

--"The Authors of King Edward Ill." British Academy lecture, 19 October 2009.

(http://www.britac.ac.ukknstiles/assets/8756.mp3).

--. "The Marriage of Philology and Informatics." British Academy Review 14 (November 2009): 41-44.

--. "Shakespeare and"Authorship Studies in the Twenty-first Century." Shake-speare Quarterly 62 (2011): 106-40.

--. 147 Unique Matches in 1 Henry VI between Kid's scenes (1.832 hues) and the extended Kyd canon. (unpublished paper, dated 5 March 2012).

Vincent, Paul. "Structuring and Revision in 1 Henry VI." Philological Quarterly 84 (2005): 377-402.

--"When Harey Met Shakespeare: The 'Genesis of The First Part of Henry the Sixth." Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Auckland, 2005.

Wells, Stanley and Gary Taylor. William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.

Notes

(1.) The Whole Contention (London, 1619). title page. Where texts of The Contention and True Tragedy agree with the Folio texts, I quote from 2 Henry VI, ed. Knowles and 3 Henry. VI, ed. Cox and Rasmussen. Quotations from I Henry VI. except noted. are from 1 Henry V1, ed. Cairncross.

(2.) On the absence of references to Talbot in The Contention and True Tragedy. see 1 Homy VI, ed. Dover Wilson, xiii.

(3.) Wells and Taylor, William Shakespeare, 112-13; Henslowe's Diary,16.

(4.) 1 Henry VI, ed. Burns, 5-6. 69-73. According to Dover Wilson, "whereas 1 Henry VI was written by a person or persons who knew all about 2 Henry VI." the other two plays "display complete ignorance of the drama which ostensibly precedes them" (1 Henry VI, ed. Wilson. xi-xii).

(5.) Nashe, 26. See the discussion of this passage and of Talbot's role in 1 Henry VI in Chernaik, Shakespeare's History Plays. 10-11, 28-30. If Nashe is co-author of 1 Henry VI, he is praising his own work-not an uncommon phenomenon. Alleyn is not explicitly mentioned in this passage. but shortly afterward Nashe says, "Not Ras-citts nor Aesope those Tragedians admired before Christ was borne, could ever per-forme more in action, than famous Ned Allen" (27).

(6.) See Gary Taylor, "Shakespeare and Others." 150.

(7.) .See McMillin. "Casting for Pembroke's Men." 141-59. McMillin argues that the order of scenes in the Folio text of 2 Henry VI makes some of the doubling in The Contention impossible. and that this version of the play requires a somewhat larger cast. On doubling in Edward II, see Bevington, From Mankind to Marlowe, 136-39.

(8.) I Henry VI, s.d., 1.2. 2.1. On spectacle and pageantry in 1 Henry VI as a play particularly suited to the Rose. see 1 Henry VI, ed. Cairncross, p. liv; and 1 Henry VI, ed. Burns, 9-18. According to Burns. there are more scenes using the upper stage in 1 Henry VI than in any other play in the Shakespeare canon (12).

(9.) ! Henry VI, ed. Dover Wilson. xxii-xxvi. The parallel passages in Nashe are from his satirical pamphlet Have with you to Saffron Walden. Four Letters Confuted. Summer's Last Will and Testament. and The Terrors of the Night. The text quoted is altered from Cairncross's text in 1.2.7.

(10.) I Henry VI, ed, Dover Wilson, xii; Mincoff, "Composition of Henry VI, Pan I," 234-42; Vincent, "Structuring and Revision.- 2005. 203, 216.

(11.) Gary Taylor. "Shakespeare and Others.- 154-62. 174. In his unpublished PhD thesis, Marcus Dahl casts doubt on several of Taylor's arguments supporting Nashe's authorship of act 1. including the use of "Here- as a stage direction: see Dahl, "Authorship of The First Part of Henry Sixth." 2004.

(12.) Chambers, William Shakespeare, 1.290-1; Mincoff. "Composition of Henry VI Part 1," 234-39; Hugh Craig. "The three parts of Henry VI," in Craig and Kinney. Shakespeare, Computers, 51-53.

(13.)I Henry VI, ed. Wilson. xxx. xxxix-xl.

(14.) Taylor. "Shakespeare and Others," 155-57, 164-69. The scene divisions in 'Henry VI, ed. Wilson, are the same as in the Cairncross edition. Other modern editions subdivide acts 4 and 5 differently: Burns has four scenes in act 4 and four in act 5.

(15.) Taylor, "Shakespeare and Others," 161-4, 168-70. According to Marcus Dahl in his unpublished thesis, linguistic analysis (largely based on function words) also provides no support for Taylor's ascription of sections of the play to four different authors.

(16.) Vickers, "Thomas Kyd," 2008,13-15. In a later essay, "Shakespeare and Authorship Studies," (2011), Vickers argues that two scenes in act 4. 4.2 and 4.5. are by Shakespeare.

(17.) I am grateful to Brian Vickers for sending me his 147 Unique Matches in 1 Henry VI between Kyd's scenes (1,832 lines) and the extended Kyd canon (dated .5 March 2012). Vickers describes the method he uses in establishing "unique matches" in Vickers, "Thomas Kyd," (2008) and in Vickers, "Manage of Philaloro," (November 2009).

(18.) Lam grateful to Marcus Dahl for providing me with a marked-up copy of 1 Henry VI, indicating three-word parallels. Though the number of rare matches (27) with the seven plays attributed to Kyd in this database is relatively large. the LFAS database shows a greater number of rare matches with plays attributed to Greene (sixty-nine) and Marlowe (thirty-seven) and the number of rare matches with other Shakespeare texts (two hundred) is much higher. Part of the explanation might lie in the number of texts included: seven Kyd texts, sixteen by Greene, thirty-six by Shakespeare.

(19.) Quotations from Kyd are from Thomas Kyd, Works, ed. Boas. I have consulted A Concordance to the Plays. Poems, and Translations of Christopher Marlowe and The Harvard Concordance to Shakespeare.

(20.) 1 Henry Vi, ed. Cairncross, 122. A third parallel cited by Vickers, "I may have liberty" (SP, 3.1.96), 1H6, 3.4.42) uses the phrase very differently in the two passages.

(21.) Vickers, "Thomas Kyd," (2008), 13-15. In this essay. Vickers's database includes seventy-five plays and in 147 Unique Matches (2012) "68 plays thought to have been performed before 1596.

(22.) The parallels with Fair Em can also be dismissed as commonplaces: "the one of us," "we will presently," "to support this," and even the somewhat more extensive "and daughter to a / the King" and "in duty, I am bound / I am bound by duty." The text of Fair Em. in its only edition, is chaotic and unreliable. In the LFAS database, there are fewer matches between Fair Em and 1 Henry V1 than in any other two of the ninety-five plays included.

(23.) Jackson, "New Research," (2008), 107-27 (118); Forker, Troublesome Reign, 127-148 (137).

(24.) Marina Tarlinskaja, "Revising the Kyd canon" (2008), a paper delivered at the LFAS seminar, accessible on the LFAS Web site. The "Kyd" texts are The Spanish Tragedy, Soliman and Perseda. Cornelia, Fair Em, Arden of Faversham, 1 Henri VI (T), and King Leir.

(25.) Arden of Faversham. ed. White; Vickers, "Thomas Kyd," (2008), 14. Crawford, "Authorship," 81-85, lists fifty-three parallels from Soliman and Perseda alone.

(26.) Jackson. "New Research," (2008), 118. For arguments that Shakespeare is author of at least scenes 6 and 8 of Arden of Faversham, see Jackson. "Shakespeare and the Quarrel Scene," (2006), 249-93.

(27.) See Nicholl. "The Reckoning," 42-3, 225-26. 288-89.

(28.) The parallels are listed in Marlowe. Edward 11, ed. Charlton and Waller, 18-19. See also Crawford. "Authorship." 81.

(29.) McNeal, "Margaret of Anjau," 1-10; Vickers, "Thomas Kyd," (2008), 14-15.

(30.) King Leir, ed. Michie, 7.116-19; 1H6, 5.3.117-19; McNeal, "Margaret of Anjau," 4. The words "golden scepter in my/thy hand" also appear in Marlowe's Dido Queen of Carthage and Lyly's Woman in the Moon, according to the LFAS database.

(31.) King Leir, 4.4.16-17, 7.47; 1H6, 5.3.188, 190.5.5.11-12.

(32.) Vickers, "Thomas Kyd." (2008). 13-14.

(33.) See McNeal. "Margaret of Anjau," 8.

(34.) Ibid., 6-7. For the parallel with the murder of Clarence, see ibid.. 9-10; :and Law, "Richard the Third," 117-41.

(35.) See Hens/owe's Diary. 21. King Leir was one of live plays put on in a season of eight days in April 1594. with the repertory divided between the Queen's Men and Sussex's Men. The other plays included The Jew of Malta and Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay.

(36.) Forker. Troublesome Reign, 128-32; Marlowe, Edward II, ed. Forker. 15-16: Rupert Taylor, "Tentative Chronology," 648.

(37.) Two lines in Edward I are reproduced almost verbatim in Edward II: "It is but temporall you can inflict" (E/.5.880) / 'Tis but temporal that thou canst inflict" (E2, 3.4.22); and "Hence feigned weeds, unfeigned is my grief / are my woes" (El. 25.2519; E2, 4.7.96).

(38.) Once again. I am grateful to Brian Vickers for providing me with a copy of 147 .Unique Matches. In "The Authors of King Edward III," British Academy lecture, 19 October 2009. Vickers argues for Kyd and Shakespeare as co-authors of this play (http://www.britac.ac.uklcnsflles/assets/8756.mp3).

(39.) I am grateful to Marcus Dahl for providing me with a list of exact matches between Edward Hi and /, 2, and 3 Henry VI and with a similar list of parallels between/ Henry VI and Marlowe, from the LFMS database.

(40.) Merriam. 2002. 218-20; Craig and Kinney, 59-61. Merriam's case for Marlowe as part-author is weakened by the uncertain state of Marlowe's text and canon: Faustus 1616. which Merriam cites, is known to include passages not by Marlowe..

(41.) Merriam. "Faustian Joan," (2002), 218-20; Merriam. "Tamburlaine." (1996), 267-91.

(42.) Craig and Kinney. Shakespeare. Computers, 57-68; for Cade and Marlowe, see ibid., 70-77. Vickers. "Shakespeare and Authorship Studies," (2011), 121-26. is critical of Craig's methodology, especially in his improbable assignment of the Jack Cade scenes in 2 Henry VI to Marlowe.

(43.) Bentley. Profession of Dramatist, 263. See also Rasmussen. "Revision of Scripts," 441-60. The Bentley passage is quoted in Vincent. "Structuring and Revision" (2005), which argues that Shakespeare revised the play in 1594, when it was first performed by the Chamberlain's Men.

(44.) See Knutson. Repertory. 59. 165. 188-89. Knutson dates the revival of the three Henry VI plays by the Chamberlain's Men 1594-96. though she does not comment on possible revision at this time.

(45.) I Henry VI, ed. Cairncross, xxxvi; Vincent. "Structuring and Revision," 378-80.

(46.) Taylor. "Shakespeare and Others." 156. 163-69; Craig and Kinney. Shakespeare, Computers. 61-64, 68.

(47.) Vickers, "Incomplete Shakespeare," (2007). 326-28. 332. 337-43; "Thomas Kyd," (2008), IS; "Shakespeare and Authorship Studies." (2011). 123-4. Vickers consistently attributes 4.6 and 4.7 to Kyd.

(48.) Mincoff. "Composition," 236-39; / Henry VI, ed. Dover Wilson. pp. xliii- xlvii; Pearlman, "Shakespeare at Work," 1-22. According to Pearlman. the Folio text inadvertently includes "both an initial draft (4.6) and a much improved version of the scene of the Talbots' death" (2).

(49.) 1 Henry VI, ed. Wilson, xlv; Pearlman, "Shakespeare at Work," 6,. 17.

(50.) Vickers, "Incomplete Shakespeare," (2007). 340-43. Dover Wilson similarly characterizes the couplets of 4.5 as "end-stopped as couplets should be" (xlv). Mincoff, in contrast, sees the run-on lines in 4.3 and 4.4, as well as the "frequent run-on lines and medial pauses" in passages in couplets in 4.5-4.7, as indicative of a "comparatively late period" (Mincoff, "Composition," 237-8).

(51.) See Pearlman."Shakespeare at Work," 21-2.; and 1 Henry VI, ed. Cairncross, xvi--xviii. To add to the confusion. York addresses the Messenger, "Lucy, farewell" (4.3.43). Cairncross suggests that these changes may not be authorial, but due to a "stage adapter" or prompter, not fully aware of "authorial inconsistencies" (I Henry VI, ed. Caimcross, xvii--xviii).

(52.) The best account of the "plot scenario" in the Elizabethan and Jacobean theater is Stern, Documents of Performance, 9-35.

(53.) Mincoff. "Composition," 242; Vincent, "Structuring and Revision," 379-80.

(54.) Editors of Henry V regularly annotate "which oft our stage has shown" as specifically alluding to performances of "the three parts of H6." See, for example. the notes on Epilogue, 12-13, in Henry V. ed. Craik (Arden 3, 1995) and Henry V, ed. Taylor.

(55.0 In writing this essay, I am grateful for the advice and assistance of Brian Vickers and Marcus Dahl, and for comments on earlier drafts by Marcus Dahl, Richard Proucifoot, and Tom Rutter.
Actor 1                       Talbot
Actor 2               Humphrey of Gloucester
Actor 3               York
Actor 4               Winchester
Actor 5               Dauphin
Actor 6 and/or Boy 4  King Henry VI
Actor 7               Bastard, Suffolk
Actor 8               Regnier, Mortimer, Fastolf
Actor 9               Burgundy, Somerset. Master Gunner
Actor 10              Aleijon. Warwick
Actor 11              Exeter, Mayor. General
Actor 12              Bedford. Basset, Lucy
Actor 13              Salisbury, Shepherd, Messenger
Actor 14              Messenger. Woodville, Vernon
Boy 1                 Joan
Boy 2                 Countess, Margaret
Boy 3                 Gunner's Boy, John Talbot
[Boy 4                King Henry VI]
At least 8 extras (needed in 1.3, 3.1-3.2, and other scenes)

Charles.  Mars his true moving, even as the heavens So in the earth,
            to this day is not known ... Otherwhiles the l'amish'd
          English, like pale ghosts. Faintly besiege us one hour in a
                                    month.

Alen.     They want their porridge and their fat bull-beeves: Either
          they must be dieted like mules And have their provender
          tied to their mouths, Or piteous they will look, like
          drowned mice.

Later in the same scene, the Dauphin says of Joan:

          Was Mahomet inspired with a dove? ... Nor yet Saint
          Philip's daughters were like thee.

                                  (1.2.1-2, 7-12, 140, 143) (9)

Author Z (Nashe)            All of Act 1
Author X (Shakespeare)  2.4. 4.2-4.7
Author W                Act 2 aside from 2.4
Author Y                Act 3 and most of Act 5"

God knows. thou art a collop of my flesh    (1H6. 5.4.18)
They lopsi a collop of my tendrest member    (SPI 4.2.23)
Let me persuade you to forbear awhile      (1H6, 3.1.105)
And I commaund you to forbeare this place  (SP. 1 . 1 .4)

But where's the great Aickles of the field  (I H6, 4.7.60)
Where is that Ak'ides. surnamed Hercules?     (SP. 5.3.67)

What dismal outcry calls me from my rest?           (AF, 4.87)

What outcries pluck me from my naked bed?             (ST, 2.5.1)

Had I been wake you had not risen [rise in Q] so       (AF, 1.59)
soon

How now, my Lord, what makes you rise so soone?       (ST. 3.4.1)

Because her husband is abroad so late               (AF, 14. 270)

Why? because he walkt abroad so late                 (ST, 3.3.40)

1 loved him more than all the world beside           (AF, 14.406)

Dearer to me than all the world besides             (SP, 2.1.284)

Because she loved me more than ail the world         (.ST. 2.6.6)

What ails you woman, to cry so suddenly?             (AF. 14.298)

What ails you, madam, that your colour changes?      (SP. 2.1.49)

And hurt thy friend whose thoughts were free

from harm                                             (AF, 13.93)

To wrong my friend whose thoughts were ever true       (SP. 2.31)

And. in even closer parallels extending over six or more words

Mosby, leave protestations now, /And let us.      (AF 10.100-101)

Leave protestations now, and let us                  (SP, 1.4.30)

Did ever man escape as thou hast done?                (AF, 9.184)

Did you ever see wise man escape as I have done?    (SP. 2.2.1-2)
                                                             (25)
For every drop of his detested blood                 (.AF; 14.7)
For every drop of blood was drawn from him           (JH6, 2.2.8)
To warn him on the sudden from my house               (AF, 1.301)
Roused on the sudden from their drowsy beds        (7 H6, 2.2.23)
Why speaks thou not? What silence has thy tongue?     (AF, 8.125)
Why speak'st thou not? What ransom must I pay?     (7 H6, 5.4.33)

I have my wish in that I joy thy sight             (E2, 1.1.150)
1 have my wish in that 1 joy thy sight               (AF. 14.332)
Is this the love you bear your sovereign?
Is this the fruit your reconcilement bears?       (E2. 2.2.30-31)
Is this the end of all thy solemn oaths?
Is this the fruit thy reconcilement buds?          (AF, 1.185-86)
Look up, my lord. Baldock, this drowsiness /
Betides no good                                   (?2, 4.7.44-45)
This drowsiness in me bodes little good                (AF, 5.17)
Or, like the snaky wreath of Tisiphon,
Engirt the temples of his hateful head            (E2. 5.1.45-46)
That like the snakes of black Tisiphone
Sting me with their embracings                    (AF. 14.141-42)
Nay, to my death, for too long have 1 lived          (?2. 5.6.82)
But bear me hence, for I have lived too Long          (AF, 18.35)
The parallels between Edward 11 and Solirnan and Perseda are
equally close, and here again Kyd seems to be echoing Marlowe:
Thy worth, sweet friend, is far above my gifts:
Therefore to equal it, receive my heart.         (E2. 1.1.160-61)
And, sweet Perseda, accept this ring
To equall it: receive my hart to boote.           (SP, 1.2.39-40)
And when this favour Isabel forgets.
Then let her live abandoned and forlorn.          (E2, 1.4.296-97
Mv gratious Lord, when Erastus doth forget this favor.
Then let him live abandoned and forlorn.         (SP, 4.1.198-99)
Father, thy face should harbour no deceit             (E2, 4.7.8)
This face of thine should harbour no deceit          (SP, 3.1.72)
0. my stars!
Why do you lower unkindly on a king?              (E2. 4.7.62-63)
Ah heavens, that hitherto have smilde on me.
Why doe you so unkindly lowre on Solyman?         (SP, 5.4.82-83)
I tell thee, "tis not meet that one so false
Should come about the person of a prince          (E2, 5.2.103-4)
It is not meete that one so base as thou
Should come about the person of a King            (SP, 1.5.71-72)

Lysander.        You have her father's love. Demetrius.
               Let me have Hermia's: do you marry him.
                                                (MND. 1.1.93-94)
Cornwall.      The lady's love I long ago possessed:
               But until now I never had the father's.
                                            (King Leir. 5.39-40)
Capulet.       Graze where you will, you shall not house with me.
Lady Capulet.  Do as thou wilt, for 1 have done with thee.
Leir.          Look for no help henceforth from me nor mine:
               Shift as thou wilt and trust unto thyself.
                                          (King Leir, 3.1 17-18)
And see the tears distilling from mine      (TR. part 1. 1.140)
eyes

And let these tears, distilling from mine          (E2. 5.6.100)
eyes

Proud, and disturber of thy country's          (TR, part 1, 7.3)
peace

Thou proud disturber of thy country's                (E2, 2.5.9)
peace

A day / That tended not to some notorious     (TR, part 2. 8.82)
ill

Even now 1 curse the day

Wherein I did not some notorious ill

                                              (Titus Andronicus,
                                                     5.1.125-27)

I'll seize ... lands

Into my hands to pay my men of war (TR     (TR part 1, 1.313-14)

We seize unto our hands

His lands to fund our war in France            (R2, 2.1. 209-10)

Why lookst thou pale? The colour/ Flyes

thy face                                    (772. Part i. 4.229)

Why looks your grace so pale? ...

But now the blood of twenty thousand men

Did flourish in my face, and they are            (R2. 3.2.75-77)
tied

I'll take away those borrowed plumes of his           (E3, 1.1.85)
We'll pull his plumes and take away his train           (1H6, 3.3.7)
You are the lineal watchman of our peace                (E3, 1.1.36)
The special watchmen of our English weal               (1H6, 3.1.66)
His faithful subjects, and subverts his towns           (E3, 3.3.49)
Razeth your cities and subverts your towns             (IH6, 2.3.64)
Be numb, my joints, wax feeble, both mine arms.
Wither, my heart, that like a sapless tree          (E3, 3.3.216-17)
And pithless arms, like to a withered vine
That droops his sapless branches to the ground     (JH6, 2.5.1 1-12)
He means to bid us battle presently                     (E3, 3.3.44)
And means to give you battle presently                 (JH6. 5.2.13)
Ay. that approves thee, tyrant, what thou art:
/ No father                                        (E3, 3.3. 118-19)
Thou art no father, nor no friend of mine               (IH6, 5.4.9)
The prince, my lord, the prince! Oh, succour him!
'He's close encompassed in a world of odds           (E3, 3.4.32-33)
Let not your private discords keep away
The levied succours that should lend him aid.
While he, renowned noble gentleman.
Yield up his life into a world of odds.             (1H6, 4.4.22-25)
To swear allegiance to his majesty ...
Never to be but Edward's faithful friend              (E3, 4.1.6, 9)
Then swear allegiance to his majesty
As thou art knight, never to disobey               [1H6, 5.4.168-69)
And then I will attend your highness' pleasure          (E3, 4.3.54)
I will attend upon your lordship's leisure             (JH6, 5.1.55)
Your grace shall see a glorious day of this              (E3, 4.6.7)
We should have found a bloody day of this              (JH6, 4.7.34)
Dear Audley, if my tongue ring out thy end.
My arms shall be thy grave                           (E3. 4.7.28-29)
Now my old arms are young John Talbot's grave          (IH6, 4.7.32)
So that hereafter ages, when they read                 (E3, 5.1.229)
And that hereafter ages may behold                     (1H6, 2.2.10)
COPYRIGHT 2014 Associated University Presses
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2014 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Chernaik, Warren
Publication:Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England
Article Type:Essay
Date:Jan 1, 2014
Words:13097
Previous Article:Elizabeth Beeston, Sir Lewis Kirke, and the Cockpit's Management during the English civil wars.
Next Article:The only witness a tongueless child: hearing and reading the silent babes of titus andronicus and the winter's tale.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters