case in similar passages in all Shakespeare's blank verse.'*
Has it special kinship with any characteristics of Mar-
12. In what way is the colloquy at the funeral of Henry
V dramatically significant.^
13. To what general presage in the dramatic develop-
ment does the threat of the Bishop of Winchester apper-
14. To what old notion does line 27, scene i, refer? By
what political situation is it called up?
15. What custom of scene setting probably suggested
the figure used by Bedford in the opening line?
16. How was Henry Beaufort related officially and by
birth to the political situation?
17. Why did the death of Henry V release Winchester
for the pursuit of his persona, ambitions?
18. To what attitude of Winchester in the relation to
the two successive kings does Gloucester refer in scene i,
19. What is the significant dramatic force of Bedford's
utterances in scene i, lines 48-51, and his following invoca-
tion to Henr}' V, lines 52-56?
20. What condition is set forth as the root of England's
dangerous weakness in the political situation between her-
self and France in scene i, lines 69-81, and also in Reig-
nier's comments, scene ii, line 17?
21. What is the first impression of La Pucelle from
a point of dramatic characterization?
22. Is it evident that Shakespeare intends the Dauphin
to seem personally enamored of Joan in addition to ad-
miring her valorous intent?
23. What is shown of the ambitions and characters of
KING HENRY VI Study Questions
Winchester and Gloucester in the quarrel between them in
scene iii? What is the historical account of the broil?
24. To whose retainers does the expression "tawny
coats" refer? Where does it occur and in the course of
25. What is the prevailing feeling of Talbot's lines
throughout scene v? Does it make the scene dramatically
striking as setting the key of the English view of Joan la
26. Is the retaking of Orleans after Salisbury's death
historically true or an invention for dramatic purposes?
27. Is the scene between the Countess d' Auvergne
and Talbot an illuminating one to manifest the force of his
personal power and place in the dramatic unfoldmcnt and
for its enrichment or is it of merely incidental moment —
a bit of dramatic color?
28. In what relations, respectively, to the political situa-
tion and to each other did the circumstances of birth and
successive office place Richard Plantagenet and John Beau-
29. How does the noble restraint in Warwick's cham-
pionship of Plantagenet in scene iv contrast with the
manner of speech of Somerset and his sympathizers ? Does
it seem intended as well to indicate the nature of War-
wick's personal assurance of power throughout all the sub-
30. What are striking characteristics of the treatment
of scene iv, dramatically and poetically?
31. In what way is the scene of the death of Mortimer
historically incon'oct? What probably caused the error?
32. In what light does the poet present the personal
character of Richard Plantagenet through his speech and
action in scenes iv and v?
33. Note the elegiac and gentle flow of the lines of
scene v, yet their conveyance of INIortimer's inspiration to
Plantagenet. What dramatic value has this as following
study Questions THE FIRST PART OF
the poetic but vigorous-manner of scene iv? How do these
two manners, as well as the substance of these scenes, indi-
cate the trend of events and the conflicting tides of feeling
that are carrying them on ?
34. What special element of dramatic force does the
opening scene of this act convey?
35. What special speech in scene i is definitely pro-
36. What three events actually separated by considerable
intervals does the poet combine in scene i?
37. To what previous affair does line 23 in scene i refer?
38. What action taken unforcseeingly by Henry — in
this act — is pregnant of his own future ill fate?
39. What does Joan mean to imply by her sarcastic
figure about darnel in the com in scene ii?
40. Is it historically true that Bedford died at the scene
of the skiiTnish before Rouen? Is the whole scene a dra-
matic fiction? Has it some basis in actual incidents in the
war in France? What is its value in picturesqueness and
41. How has Shakespeare used the true succession of
historical events in this act to suit his purposes of dramatic
42. What passage in scene iv carries on and emphasizes
the growing feud of York and Lancaster?
43. Does the scene carrying Burgundy's reversion to the
French cause seem too abrupt in its important development
to give the effect of even ordinary natural deliberation?
Does Joan's sarcastic comment (line 85) appear too weak
a remedy for this dramatic ineffectiveness?
44. In the English chronicles was more made of the
honor accorded in Paris to Henry's coronation there than
was actually understood in France?
KING HENRY VI study Questions
45. In the king's final recommendation to the Lords of
Somerset and York does the poet seem to put a certain
sagacity with regard to the poHtical situation and not
nicrch^ to present an attitude of timidity on the king's
46. Of what formal dramatic method of carrying the
narrative and its prophecies does Exeter take the place in
scene i, as previously? '
47. What powerful dramatic effect is carried in scene
II? — especially with relation to the new important turn of
events? How do the lines of Talbot and the French gen-
48. To what historical fact in the jealous policy of
Somerset does York allude in scene iii, line 46?
49. What passage in scene iii sets forth with fine in-
dignation the general realization of the cause of delay in
succoring Talbot and lays it at Somerset's door?
50. What is the striking element of the scenes between
young Talbot and his father? also of the scene of Talbot's
51. What is the main object of the poet apparently in
referring the loss of the French provinces so pointedly to
the rivalries and enmities among the English nobility?
52. Referring to Exeter's exclamation in lines 28 and
29 of scene i, is the disregard of actual inters'als of his-
toric time frequently essential to the unity of a dramatic
53. What historical incidents are connected with the
English king's negotiations of marriage with the Earl of
54. What is tlie dramatic effect of the silence of the
fiends in scene iii?
55. Does the representation of Joan of Arc appear in-
consistent as comparing its latter end and its beginning?
56. What is the accepted historical version of the case
of Joan of Arc in her final tragedy ?
study Questions KING HENRY VI
57. How is Suffolk's scene with Margaret (scene iii)
significant of the power of the lords over young Henry?
What is the characteristic dramatic element of this scene,
as compared with the grim tenor of those in the midst of
which it is?
58. What quaint passage in Holinshed's Chronicles sets
forth the estate of King Reignier at the time of his daugh-
ter's betrothal to King Henry?
59. What does the poet make the secret underlying callsie
of Suffolk's effort to bring about the betrothal of Mar-
garet of Anjou and Henry? What political advantage
does Suffolk profess openly that he intends it to compass?
THE SECOND PART OF
KING HENRY VI
All the unsigned footnotes in this volume are by the
writer of the article to which they are appended. The in-
terpretation of the initials signed to the others is: I. G.
= Israel Gollancz, M.A. ; H. N. H.= Henry Norman
Hudson, A.M. ; C. H. H.= C. H. Herford, Litt.D.
By Henry Norman Hudson, A.M.
The Second Part of Henry the Sixth was never issued,
that we know of, with that title, or in its present state, till
in the folio of 1623, where it is printed with great clear-
ness and accuracy, but without any marking of the acts
and scenes. The play, however, is but an enlargement of
one that was entered at the Stationers', ]\Iarch 12, 1594;,
and published the same year with a title-page reading as
follows: "The First Part of the Contention betwixt the
two famous Houses of York and Lancaster ; with the death
of the good Duke Humphrey ; and the banishment and
death of the Duke of Suffolk ; and the tragical end of the
proud Cardinal of Winchester: With the notable rebellion
of Jack Cade; and the Duke of York's first claim unto the
crown. London : Printed by Thomas Creede for Thomas
Millington : and are to be sold at his shop under St. Peter's
Church in Cornwall. 1594."
In regard to The Third Part of Henry the Sixth, the
circumstances were so ncarl}- the same as to render it on
many accounts advisable to speak of them both together.
This, also, is but an enlargement of an older play, which
was originally published by itself, the title-page reading
thus: "The True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York,
and the death of the good King Henry the Sixth ; with
the whole contention between the two Houses Lancaster
and York: As it was sundry times acted by the Right
Honourable the Earl of Pembroke his Servants. Printed
at London by P. S. for Thomas ]Millington, and are to be
sold at his shop under St. Peter's Church in Cornwall.
1595." In 1600 both plays were reissued, the text, the
Introduction THE SECOND PART OF
titles, and the publisher, being all the same as in the
former. It is to be observed that in these two editions no
author's name was given. A third issue of both plays
was put forth by Thomas Pavier in 1619, on the title-page
of which we have the words, — "Newly corrected and en-
larged : By William Shakespeare, Gent." As Pavier's text
was merely a reprint of Millington's, the words, "newly
corrected and enlarged," would seem to infer that the plays
were generally known or supposed to have been revised by
the author, and that the publisher committed this piece
of fraud, in order that his edition might be thought to
have the advantage of such revisal. It is not to be sup-
posed that either the withholding of the name in the first
two editions, or the giving of it in the third, proves any
thing as to the real authorship one way or the other; for
we have seen that the earlier editions of the Poet's plays
were often anonymous, and that his name was not seldom
pretended in case of plays that he had no hand in writ-
ing. The First Part of the Contention, and The True
Tragedy of Richard Duke of York, as they were called
in the old quartos, have been lately set forth with great
care and accuracy by Mr. Knight, in the form of supple-
ments, respectively, to the same plays in their revised and
finished state. As we believe Shakespeare to have been the
author of the plays in their original form, we shall, for
convenience, speak of them henceforth as the quarto-edi-
tions of what appeared in the folio of 1623 as the Second
and Third Farts of Henry the Sixth.
In the plays, then, thus entitled in the folio, with a few
trifling exceptions the entire plan, arrangement, concep-
tion, character, and more than half the language word for
word, are all the same as in the corresponding quartos.
Malone figured out that the two plays, in their present
state, contain 6,043 lines; and that of these 1,899, or
nearly one-third, were original in the folio, 2,373, some-
thing more than a third, were altered from the quarto, and
1,771, which is somewhat less than a third, were the same
in both. And he took the pains to mark the lines pecul-
KING HENRY VI Introduction
iar to the folio with asterisks, and those altered from
the quarto, with inverted coninias; leavintr those common
to both unmarked. In several editions, the Chiswick being
one, his marking, though not always correct, has been re-
peated. In the altered lines, however, a large part, cer-
tainly not less than half, of the alterations are very slight,
often involving nothing more than the change of an epi-
thet, or the transposition of a word, and nowise affecting
the sense. In many cases, moreover, the folio presents a
judicious elaboration and expansion of old thoughts, with
little or no addition of new ones; so that the diff'erence
properly regards but the execution, and scarce touches the
conception of the work. In the Second Part, again, the
alterations and additions are in the main diff'used pretty
equally through the whole play ; while in the Third Fart
the additions come much more in large masses, some en-
tire scenes being mostly new in the folio, and others nearly
the same as in the quarto. For example, in Act i. of the
Third Part, out of 581 lines in all, there are but 141 al-
tered from the quarto, and 104? original in the folio, thus
leaving 336 the same in both. And in the fourth scene
of that Act the proportion of altered and added lines is
considerably less, being just one-fourth of the whole. On
the other hand, in the sixth scene of Act iv. the propor-
tion is still more the other way, there being of 102 lines
only 14 either taken or altered from the quarto. It will
hardly be questioned that the best scenes, — the most char-
acteristic, the most Shakespearian, — in the play, are the
fourth in Act i., and the sixth in Act v. ; and these, as
may be seen by our notes, are the very scenes that w^ere
least improved or changed in the folio. Perhaps it should
be remarked, further, that nearly all the matter of the
quartos is retained in the folio, the rejections being very
few and small, so that the plays are lengthened just about
the amount of the additions made. All together, there-
fore, we may safely affirm that of the two plays the whole
conception and more than half the execution arc precisely
the same in the quarto and folio editions. Finally, be it
Introduction THE SECOND PART OF
observed, that in case of these two plays we have not
nearly so great a difference, either of quantity or of qual-
ity, between the quartos and the folio, as in case of The
Merry Wiv^es of Windsor and King Henry V.
Thus far we have gone vipon the supposition, which, to
say the least, is not improbable, that the plays in hand
were originally written as they stand in the quartos, and
were afterwards rewritten by the same hand, which ac-
counts naturally enough for all the differences of the
quarto and folio editions ; and that the first publication was
probably surreptitious, and perhaps made from the original
draughts or sketches, after these were superseded on the
stage by the revised and finished copies. At all events,
that the quartos were in this case unauthorized may be
reasonably presumed, from the fact that the only other
publishing of Shakespeare's work by Millington was un-
questionably fraudulent. Dr. Johnson, hov/ever, thinks
there is no reason for supposing them to have been printed
from the first draughts of Shakespeare ; but that they
were "copies taken by some auditor, who wrote down dur-
ing the representation wh.at the time would permit ; then,
perhaps, filled up some of his omissions at a second or
third hearing, and, when he had by this method formed
something like a play, sent it to the printer." Perhaps it
will be deemed a sufficient answer to this, that there are
some passages in the quartos, which are entirely wanting
in the folio ; and that there are many passages of blank-
verse^ and some of them quite lengthy, standing exactly
the same in both : for it is clear that a reporter, as in
the case supposed, however much he might omit, would not
be very likely to add ; and that so correct an arrangement
of blank-verse could not well be attained by the ear alone.
Which brings us to the question, whether these plays in
their original form vrere written by Shakespeare. Malone,
as was seen in our preceding Introduction, maintains, at
great expense of labor and learning, that neither the First
Part, nor the quartos of the Second and Third Parts were
by Shakespeare ; and, moreover, that the originals of the
KING HENRY VI Introduction
Second and Third were not by the same author as the First.
Thus he liokls that the three plays, as we have them, were
the work of three several authors, Shakespeare being re-
sponsible only for the above-mentioned alterations and ad-
ditions; and that, on the strength of these, Heminge and
Condell took the strange liberty of including all three of
the plays in their edition, thus setting them forth to the
world as Shakespeare's genuine productions, the Second
and Third, becnuse he had somewjiat enlarged and im-
proved them, and tlie First, as being a "necessary introduc-
tion" to the other two.
So far as regards the First Part, Malone's position and
arguments were probably discussed enough in our Intro-
duction to that play. His only reason, apparently, for
supposing three several authors is precisely the same as
one of his main reasons for supposing two. The argu-
ment is so clear, brief, and conclusive, that we can well
afford room to state it, even though the statement involve
something of repetition. In the First Part, Act iii. sc. 4,
King Henr}^ says, — "I do remember how my father said."
But in one of the added lines of the Second Part, Act iv.
sc. 9, the same Henry says, — "But I was made a king at
nine months old." Now, as Shakespeare undoubtedly
wrote the additions to the Second Part, it is clear that he
knew the king was not of an age, at his father's death, to
remember any thing said by him: which concludes at once
that Shakespeare could not have written the First Part.
Again ; in one of the original lines of the Third Part, Act
i. sc. 1, the king says, — "When I was crown'd I was but
nine months old:" from which it comes equally clear and
conclusive, that the originals of the Second and Third
Parts could not have been written by the author of the
First. Thus far, however, we have but two authors proved
in the three plays ; it not appearing but that Shakespeare
may have written both the originals and the additions of the
Second and Third Parts. But the same principle, in an-
other instance, will soon nick him out of all but those addi-
tions. In an original passage of the Third Part, Act iii,
Introduction THE SECOND PART OF
sc. 2, King Edward, speaking of the Lady Elizabeth Grey,
says to Clarence and Gloster:
"This lady's husband liere, Sir Richard Grey,
At the battle of St. Albans did lose his life:
His lands then were seiz'd on by the conqueror.
Her suit is now to repossess those lands;
And silh in quarrel of the house of York
The noble gentleman did lose his life,
In honor we cannot deny her suit."
In King Richard III, Act i. sc. 3, Gloster says to the same
"In all which time, t/ou and your husband Grey
Were factious for the house of Lancaster; —
And, Rivers, so were you: — was not your husband
In Margaret's battle at St. Albans slain?"
Now, as nobody doubts that Shakespeare was the author of
King Richard III, it follows clearly and conclusively that
he could not have written the originals of the plays in
question. Thus we have three several authors fully proved
in case of Henry VI ; one for the First Part, another for
the originals, and a third for the additions, of the Second
We have been thus particular in stating this argument,
because it is by far the strongest that has been alleged on
that side from the internal evidence. And Malone him-
self lays great stress upon it: referring to such instances
as we have quoted, he says, — "Passages, discordant in mat-
ters of fact from his other plays are proved by this dis-
cordancy not to have been composed by him ; and these
discordant passages, being found in the original quarto
plays, prove that those pieces were composed by another
writer." Perhaps enough was said by way of answer to
this point in our Introduction to the First Part. Two dis-
crepancies of the same kind were there adduced, from
which, however, nobody thinks of inferring any such di-
versity of authorship. It will not take long to add two
more. In The First Part of Henry IV, Act i. sc. 3, the
KING HENRY VI introduction
king speaks of "the foolish IVIortimer" as Hotspur's
"brother-in-law," and a little after in the same scenes Hot-
spur boils over thus:
"And when I urg'd the ransom once again
Of my wife's brother, then his cheek look'd pale,
And on my face he turn'd an eye of death.
Trembling even at the name of Mortimer."
AncI again, the SaifiG speaker: *'Did Xing Richara, then,
proclaim my brother Edmund Mortimer heir to the crown?"
In Act iii. sc. 1, however, of the same play, we have Morti-
mer referring thus to Hotspur's wife: "Good father, tell
her, that she and my aunt Percy shall follow in your con-
duct speedily." Again; in the Third Part of Henry F,
Act i. sc. 1, the king says to York, —
"What title hast thou, traitor, to the crown?
Thy father was, as thou art, duke of York;"
as if York's title had come to him by inheritance. And
yet, a few lines before, Exeter, speaking of the present
king to York, says, — "He made thee duke of York ;" as
if the title had been conferred on him by express grant
from the king, which was indeed the case. It will be
worth the while to add, that both of these passages are
in the original form of the Third Part. And as the mat-
ter is rightly set forth in the First Part, one of the pas-
sages might be quoted to prove that the two plays were,
and the other, that they were not, by the same author.
Divers other instances more or less in point might easily
be adduced ; and indeed there are so many discrepancies of
this kind in Shakespeare's undoubted plays, that one may
well be surprised to find an editor urging them for such a
purpose. Besides, even according to Malone's showing,
one of the passages thus referred to, that touching the
Lady Elizabeth, was considerably altered by Shakespeare.
And if the Poet had been so careful to avoid such discrep-
ancies, as IMalone's argument supposes, it does not well ap-
pear why in altering the verse he did not correct the facts.
Introduction THE SECOND PART OF
Finally, one more instance of similar discrepancy may as
well be referred to, as, on Malone's principle, it will prove
that the Second and Third Parts in the quarto form must
have been by different authors ; so that we shall have four
authors in the case, one for each of the three parts in their
original state, and a fourth for the latter two in so far as
the folio differs from the quartos.
Of the other points in Malone's argument from the in-
ternal evidence, the only ones wortli fiOfieing may be
quickly despatched, as they call for little if any thing more
than a flat denial. The first is, that in his undoubted plays
we often find Shakespeare reproducing the same thoughts
in other, yet resembling, forms of expression ; and that
the quarto copies of the Second and Third Parts have not
the usual number of thoughts and expressions resembling
those to be met with in his other pla^^s, while the folio
additions are proportionably much more frequent in such
resemblances. Now, to affirm the reverse of this, were
probably nearer the truth. As Malone's method of rea-
soning was so highly figurative, Knight has here brought
the poAver of figures to bear, and shown that in the original
fonn of the two plays there are no less than fourteen such
resemblances; which is a greater number, proportionably,
than it will be easy to find in the additions.
The second of the points in question is, that the Shake-
spearian peculiarities of thought and speech occur more
frequently in the added portions. Which, even if it were
true, would prove nothing to the purpose, the additions
having of course been written some time after the originals,
and when the author had grown and ripened more out of
the common into his individual style of thought and speech.
Moreover, this argument would make with at least equal
force that Shakespeare did not, though no one questions
that he did, write the originals of his Hamlet and Romeo
and Juliet ; it being certain that what was afterwards added
to those plays in the revisal is proportionably much richer
in Shakespearian peculiarity. But, in the plays under
consideration, this is not true, as any one that has an eye
KING HENRY VI Introduction
for such things may be amply certified by the specimens
given in our notes. The cause of the matter's being other-
wise in this case may be, that the revising took place at a
less interval from the first writing, before the author's