■ Bwlil HIIIII IHISiii ■ I 1111 ■nn UHHiil mmmm ■IIHH 1— ■ O ' T ~ O V > J) CV V N ... .0 O ^ "^ V -< / V ■\ »B* <* N ,'\ <> C.V * -^ r"% * v A o o ,* N c» c * ^ .0" -^ A^ A ' • ,*< vOo <* ^ ^ ', ^ <^ , •w %^ v w- \ ^. OO 1 / v < 4 ". ^O. 4?\ THE YALE SHAKESPEARE Edited by Wilbur L. Cross Tucker Brooke WlLLARD HlGLEY DURHAM Published under the Direction of the Department of English, Yale University, on the Fund Given to the Yale University Press in 1917 by the Members of the Kingsley Trust Association To Commemorate the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Founding of the Society • : The Yale Shakespeare '. • THE FIRST PART OF KING HENRY THE SIXTH EDITED BY TUCKER BROOKE P^rvgc££9 NEW HAVEN • YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON • HUMPHREY MILFORD OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS • MCMXVIII Copyright, 1918 By Yale University Press First published, December, 1918. FEB -8 1919 ©CU.5I2289 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE The Text 1 Notes ....... 106 Appendix A. Sources of the Play . . 128 Appendix B. The History of the Play . 133 Appendix C. The Authorship of the Play I. Shakespeare's Concern in It . . 138 II. The Author of the Original Play 1. Marlowe? .... 147 2. Greene? . . . .150 3. Peele? . . . .151 Appendix D. The Text of the Present Edi- tion . . . .154 Appendix E. Suggestions for Collateral Reading . . .155 Index of Words Glossed . . . .157 [DRAMATIS PERSONS King Henry the Sixth Duke of Bedford, Uncle to the King, Regent of France Duke of Gloucester, Uncle to the King, and Protector Bkhop° F of E Winchester, \ Great-Uncles to the King Richard Plantagenet, Son of Richard, late Earl of Cam- bridge; afterwards Duke of York Duke of Somerset Earl of Warwick Earl of Salisbury Earl of Suffolk Lord Talbot, afterwards Earl of Shrewsbury John Talbot, his Son Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March Sir John Fastolfe Sir William Glansdale Sir Thomas Gargrave Sir William Lucy Vernon, of the White-Rose, or York, Faction Basset, of the Red-Rose, or Lancaster, Faction Woodvile, Lieutenant of the Tower Mayor of London A Lawyer of the Temple Lords, Warders of the Tower, Mortimer's Keepers, Heralds, Officers, Soldiers, Messengers, and Attendants Charles, Dauphin of France (legitimately, King Charles VII) Reignier, Duke of Anjou, and titular King of Naples Duke of Burgundy Duke of Alencon Bastard of Orleans Governor of Paris General of the French Forces in Bordeaux Master-Gunner of Orleans, and his Son An old Shepherd, Father to Joan la Pucelle Margaret, Daughter to Reignier Countess of Auvergne Joan la Pucelle, commonly called Joan of Arc French Herald, Sergeant, and Sentinels; Porter to the Countess of Auvergne; Fiends appearing to La Pucelle Scene: London and Westminster; various parts of France.] The First Part of Henry the Sixth ACT FIRST Scene One [Westminster Abbey] Dead March. Enter the Funeral of King Henry the Fifth, attended on by the Duke of Bedford, Regent of France; the Duke of Gloucester, Protector; the Duke of Exeter; Warwick; the Bishop of Winchester; and the Duke of Somerset [with Heralds, <£f Henry V) deprived his heir of all titles of lobility. Lionel of Clarence, third son of Edward [II, was not the grandfather, as Warwick states in ine 83, but the great-great-grandfather of Plantage- let. See the genealogical table on next page. II. iv. 96. attached, not attainted. Literally, irrested, but not formally condemned, as by bill of tttainder, to the legal consequences of treason. It s evident that the speaker is splitting hairs, but it w be g jo I -a H 3 8= CD's *£ 2B«3 **H es s ■3° .a 1- .sUv p 4-> •°:2 Pi * Q £ S«M en " E £~ 2 Q O w O —0*0 jy o «J -lis £33 a p o O c ^ B .!-> CO s|- Xi o sQ o b a. - b-— CD E « 'S b B i- 8 -a 8 8 •£ o CO 1.8 -1 p ■* ~ E^2 s 0> 2 **> 3 SJ Q c In Si T3 >- w fc< is S °^ dfl o £.G s £ _C5S_ £5 «.sEo — bSt-H Slice cs -B oEdS So i 3 u I s2 -^ or- al q o ■-■ l-l 4J „ o co be S.S 03 •- el .Se -M — l «0 33 e ■oj: £? S* cS 90 0) «M £-* — _ x:~* a ° *£ OTi o a. D.5 am 2§ be CO o -B CQ King Henry the Sixth 1 17 does appear that Richard was permitted to succeed to his inheritances without the formal restoration to his blood which the play represents (III. i. 148 ff.). See D. N. B. II. v. 6. Nestor-like aged, in an age of care. That is, trebly aged by care. 'The care that has afflicted my life has made me as old as Nestor' (who lived through three mortal lifetimes). II. v. 7. Edmund Mortimer. The poet adopts without essential alteration the statement of the chroniclers. Holinshed says : 'Edmund Mortimer, the last earle of March of that name (which long time had beene restreined from his libertie . . .) deceassed without issue; whose inheritance descended to the lord Richard Plantagenet.' Modern commentators point out that the chronicles, and with them Shake- speare, are wrong, since this Mortimer died in free- dom in 1424. Apparently, they confused Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March, with his cousin, Sir John Mortimer, who after long captivity was executed in the same year (1424). It is evident, moreover, from the use of the word 'mother' rather than 'grand- mother' in line 74, that Shakespeare further confuses Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March, with an older Edmund Mortimer, his uncle, just as he does in the first part of Henry IV. (See note on I. iii. 145, 146 of that play in the present edition.) II. v. 96. the rest I wish thee gather. Probably gather is used in the well-authenticated Shakespear- ean sense of 'infer,' and Mortimer desires cautiously to remind his nephew of the full significance of his heirship; namely, the claim to the crown that it carries with it. II. v. 129. 'Or make my injuries an instrument for attaining my ambition.' The Folios read 'will' instead of ill, the latter being one of Theobald's convincing emendations. 118 The First Part of III. i. The historical place of this scene was Leicester, where Parliament met in 1426 (three years before the relief of Orleans depicted in Act I). Line 77 shows, however, that the dramatist thought of the events as occurring in London. King Henry, who plays a precocious part in the scene, was actually in his fifth year. III. i. 22, 23. Gloucester's third charge against! Winchester, as reported by the chroniclers, was thatt he had put men at arms and archers in ambush att the Southwark end of London Bridge, with intent I to slay the Protector if he attempted to pass that way to the young king at Eltham. The reference to the trap laid at the Tower alludes of course to the incident dramatized in I. iii. III. i. 51. Rome . . . Roam. The words were not identical in sound. Elsewhere in Shakespeare Rome rimes with 'doom,' 'groom,' 'room,' — words which have not essentially changed their pronuncia- tion, while roam has presumably the vowel sound in modern 'broad.' Probably the pun in the present line was consciously inexact. Otherwise one might argue that Shakespeare was not its author. III. i. 63. enter talk. On the precedent of the participle entertalking in Golding's translation of Ovid (1565-67), Hart changed this phrase to a single word: entertalk. The New English Dictionary does not recognize the word. III. i. 78-85. This reference to the use of pebble stones, when weapons were forbidden the adherents of the contending noblemen, appears to show that the author of the scene had recourse to the ancient chronicler Fabyan. The episode is not mentioned by Holinshed. III. i. 163-165. Richard Plantagenet inherited the earldom of Cambridge from his father and the duke- dom of York from his father's elder brother, who had died (at Agincourt; cf. Henry V, IV. vi.) without King Henry the Sixth 1 19 issue. To these great estates were added by inherit- ance from his mother's side the titles of the Morti- mers, Earls of March. III. i. 178, 179. King Henry's voyage to France occurred at the close of 1431, five years after the Parliament of Leicester which furnished the material for the opening portion of this scene. III. i. 185 S. d. Sennet. A sennet was a trumpet signal to mark the approach or departure of a pro- cession. III. i. 194. that fatal prophecy. The prophecy was very well known in Shakespeare's time — more so, doubtless, than in Henry Vs. Holinshed thus re- ports it: 'The king, being certified [of the birth of his son at Windsor] gaue God thanks . . . But, when he heard reported the place of his natiuitie, were it that he [had been] warned by some prophesie, or had some foreknowledge, or else iudged himselfe of his sonnes fortune, he said vnto the lord Fitz Hugh, his trustie chamberleine, these words: "My lord, I Henrie, borne at Monmouth, shall small time reigne, & much get; and Henrie, borne at Windsore, shall long reigne, and all loose: but as God will, so be it." ' III. ii. S. d. The story of the capture of Rouen is apocryphal. This city remained in the hands of the English till 1449, eighteen years after Joan of Arc had been burned there. The particular stratagem here related may have been suggested by two differ- ent anecdotes found in the chroniclers, one referring to the capture of the castle of Cornill (Corville ?) by the English, the other to the capture of Le Mans by the French. III. ii. 22. Where. This is Rowe's emendation, adopted regularly by subsequent editors. The Folios read Here, which may well be defended: Joan's signal is not to distinguish the safest passageway, but to 120 The First Part of indicate the practicability of that by which she entered. III. ii. 28. Talbonites. A derivative formed from a Latinized version of Talbot's name: Talbo, Tal- bonis (though Talbottus is the form used by Camden) . Modern editors seem all to accept Theobald's ca- cophonous emendation, 'Talbotites.' N. E. D. rec- ognizes neither word. III. ii. 40. the pride of France. Compare the pride of Gallia (IV. vi. 15). These sonorous phrases mean hardly more than 'the French.' They are echoes of Marlowe, who had rung the changes upon 'the pride of Asia/ 'the pride of Graecia.' III. ii. 40 S. d. Alencon. The Folios make Reignier enter here, not Aleneon, and for the speak- er's name in lines 23 and 33 above they have 'Reig./ not 'Alen/ This, probably, is only a careless slip. It is not at all likely that Alencon and Reignier were both on the walls (upper stage) in addition to Charles, Joan, and the Bastard; and the three cases just noted are the only mentions of Reignier in this scene or the next. III. ii. 50. good grey-beard. John, Duke of Bed- ford, third son of Henry IV, was only about forty- five years of age when he died in 1435. Here his death is antedated, being thrown back into the life- time of Joan, whom he actually survived by four years, and his age is greatly exaggerated. Bedford is called by Hume 'the most accomplished prince of his age, a skilful politician, as well as a good gen- eral.' Shakespeare, in the second part of Henry IV, paints an unfavorable portrait of him in his youth, as Prince John of Lancaster. III. ii. 81. And as his father here was conqueror. Henry V captured Rouen in 1518, after a long siege. Shakespeare's play of Henry V does not allude to this conquest. III. ii. 82, 83. Holinshed tells how Richard I King Henry the Sixth 121 'willed his heart to be conueied vnto Rouen, and there buried; in testimonie of the loue which he had euer borne vnto that citie for the stedfast faith and tried loialtie at all times found in the citizens there.' III. ii. 95, 96. This story is told of Uther Pen- dragon (King Arthur's father) by Geoffrey of Mon- mouth, followed by Malory (I. iv) and by Harding. Holinshed's later compilation refers the exploit to Pendragon's brother. Marlowe's Tamburlaine simi- larly puts his foes to flight when afflicted with mortal sickness. III. iii. 19, 20. Burgundy's actual abandonment of the English for the French occurred several years after Joan's death. Knight, however, called attention to a letter (which the authors of the play can hardly have known), written by Joan to Burgundy on the very day of Charles VII's coronation at Rheims (July 17, 1429). In this she makes use of much the same arguments as in the scene before us. III. iii. 69-73. The facts, as accurately stated by the chroniclers, are here greatly distorted. The Duke of Orleans, captured at Agincourt in 1415, was kept prisoner in England till 1440. His release thus took place five years after Burgundy's defection, and is stated to have been largely by reason of Burgundy's efforts. III. iii. 85. Done like a Frenchman, etc. The apparent inconsistency of this line in Joan's mouth has been much discussed. It is not in character, but is a clear appeal from the original author of the play to the prejudice of his audience. Hart thinks that Joan, as an inhabitant of Lorraine, 'would not hesi- tate to speak thus of the French people.' But if Lorraine was not strictly French, neither was Bur- gundy. Warburton suggested that the line was 'an offering of the poet to his royal mistress's resentment for Henry the Fourth's last great turn in religion, in 122 The First Part of the year 1593/ i.e., his renunciation of Protes- tantism. III. iv. 18. I do remember how my father said. Malone acutely cited this line in defence of his contention that this play is not by Shakespeare or by the author of the early versions of 2 and 8 Henry VI. The author of the present play, he argued, did not know that Henry VI was a nine-months' infant when his father died. Shakespeare did know this (cf. Epilogue to Henry V), and so did the author of the True Tragedy (3 Henry VI), neither of whom could therefore have written Part I. On the other hand, it might be explained that we have here one of Shakespeare's purposeful tamperings with dramatic time. There is an advantage in making the King appear older than he really was without reminding the reader that the whole long time from infancy to maturity has elapsed since the play began (with the funeral of Henry V). III. iv. 26. We here create you Earl of Shrews- bury. Talbot was thus ennobled in 1442, eleven years after the coronation of Henry, to which the king in- vites him in the next line. III. iv. 38, 39. 'By the ancient common law . . . striking in the king's court of justice, or drawing a sword therein, was a capital felony.' (Blackstone.) IV. i. Henneman notes the 'curious relation' which this scene bears to the previous one (III. iv). 'Both have the King in Paris; both have identically the same actors; both have the same two situations, viz., Talbot's interview with the King, and the quarrel of Vernon and Basset, the followers respectively of York and Somerset. But the second scene is developed far beyond the former, and the spirit of the two is equally different. One is condensed and compressed; the other elaborated and heightened by fresh details.' Annotators have observed that when Henry VI was King Henry the Sixth 123 crowned at Paris (1431), Talbot was still a prisoner to the French, Exeter was dead, and Gloucester in England serving as the King's lieutenant. IV. i. 19. Patay. The Folios erroneously print 'Poictiers,' doubtless from confusion in the composi- tor's mind with the Black Prince's great victory at Poitiers seventy-three years before (1356). For the battle of Patay, cf. note on I. i. 110, 111. IV. i. 181 S. d. Flourish. Modern editors place this 'Flourish' in the stage direction following line 173, after the exit of the king. It probably belongs there. IV. ii. A lapse of twenty-two years, from Henry's coronation (1431) to Talbot's last campaign (1453), is covered rather skilfully by the concluding portion of the previous scene. IV. ii. 10, 11. my three attendants, Lean famine, quartering steel, and climbing fire. These words fur- nish a significant parallel to those in the Prologue preceding Act I of Henry V, lines 6-8: 'and at his heels, Leash'd in like hounds, should famine, sword, and fire Crouch for employment.' The figures are not identical, but each bears the Shakespearean stamp, and both (more particularly that in the present play) are reminiscent of a speech which the chroniclers report. Henry V to have made to the besieged citizens of Rouen. IV. iii. 47. vulture of sedition. A figurative allu- sion to the vulture which fed in the bosom of the bound Prometheus. IV. iii. 50. scarce cold conqueror. Henry V had been dead thirty-one years when Talbot fell, but the hyperbole is dramatically effective and tends in a very Shakespearean way to give cohesion and the sense of rapid movement. 124 The First Part of IV. iv. Modern editors designate this scene as occurring on 'Other Plains in Gascony,' but it is evi- dent that there is no change of place, since Lucy continues upon the stage. (The later Folios inserted an 'Exit' after the last line of scene iii, but there is none in the original text.) IV. iv. 13. Whither, my lord? Lucy impatiently echoes the question, which he scorns to answer. His concern is with the person from whom, not the one to whom, he is sent. IV. vi. 44. On that advantage. Perhaps this can be construed in the sense of 'for the sake of that ad- vantage,' i.e., personal safety. In that case the phrase must be understood as modifying fly in line 46. This, however, is strained, and it may be better to interpret 'Fie on that advantage' and supply an excla- mation point for the comma at the end of line 45. IV. vii. 63-71. Great Earl of Washford, etc. Great interest attaches to this list of Talbot's titles. No source for it has been discovered earlier than an epitaph of Talbot printed in 1599 (in Richard Crompton's Mansion of Magnanimitie), which runs thus: 'here lieth the right noble knight, Iohn Talbott, Earle of Shrewsbury, Washford, Waterford, and Valence, Lord Talbot of Goodrige, and Vrchengfield, Lord Strange of the blacke Meere, Lord Verdon of Alton, Lord Crumwell of Wingfield, Lord Louetoft of Worsop, Lord Furniuall of Sheffield, Lord Faulcon- brige, knight of the most noble order of S. George, S. Michaell, and the Golden fleece, Great Marshall to king Henry the sixt of his realme of France . . / It will be seen that this agrees almost verbatim with the text of the play, the only alterations in the latter being the omission of one title and the addition of a few words for metrical purposes. The prose of the epitaph is therefore treated in the very manner in which in the Roman plays Shakespeare treated much of the prose of North's Plutarch, and the whole King Henry the Sixth 12 5 passage has a strong Shakespearean flavor. Are we, then, to infer that Shakespeare made his alteration of the play not earlier than 1599, at about the time when he was writing Henry V? See Appendix on The History of the Play. IV. vii. 89, 94. 'em. The First Folio has 'him' in both cases, owing probably to misreading of 'hem' (i.e., 'em) in the manuscript. V. i. 1, 2. Two events, separated by a consider- able time, are here combined: the intervention of the Emperor Sigismund and the Pope in 1435 to secure peace in France, and the proposal to marry Henry to the daughter of the Count of Armagnac in 1442. Both these incidents long antedated Talbot's death. V. iii. 1. The regent conquers. Historically, Bed- ford was regent of France when Joan was captured in 1430, but York is of course intended both here and in IV. vi. 2 (cf. IV. i. 162, 163). V. iii. 6. monarch of the north. Evil spirits were identified with various quarters of the compass, par- ticularly the east and the north. V. iii. 29 S. d. Burgundy and York fight. So the Folio editions. Modern editors make the fight take place between Joan and York, but without justifica- tion. Joan's power has now disappeared and her part is passive. Probably the Exit after line 29, though in the old texts, should be omitted, leaving Joan a spectator of the fight which follows. V. iii. 63. Twinkling another counterfeited beam. That is, each twinkling beam, reflected by the water, seems doubled. V. iii. 68. is she not here? This is the reading of the First Folio. The second, third, and fourth, appar- ently troubled by the fact that the line has but four feet, added 'thy prisoner' after here, and they have been followed by most modern editors, though the words supplied are quite otiose. 126 The First Part of V. iii. 75. [Aside]. This stage direction, here and in the following lines, is added by modern editors. It will be observed that the speeches so marked are only partially inaudible. V. iii. 78, 79. A quasi-proverbial saying, found in Titus Andronicus (II. i. 82, 83) and elsewhere. V. iv. S. d. Rouen. Modern editors place this scene at the 'Camp of the Duke of York, in Anjou,' to connect it with the previous scene which they put 'Before Angiers.' Really there are here two scenes, which, save for the authority of convention, ought to be separated. The first, dealing with the death of Joan in 1431, must be localized at Rouen. The second, beginning at line 94, dramatizes the peace negotia- tions which took place at Arras in 1435. With the meeting between Joan and her father should be con- trasted the different treatment of the same theme in Act IV, scene xi, of Schiller's play. (Schiller, for dramatic effect, places the father's denunciation at Rheims immediately after the coronation of Charles VII.) V. iv. 74. Alenconl that notorious Machiavel. The reference to Machiavelli (1469-1527) is an anachro- nism in York's mouth, but no modern figure was more familiarly talked of by the Elizabethans. By them he was regarded as the symbol of heartless ambition. It is very likely that in coupling Alencon with Machiavel the author intended a by-reference to the notorious Duke of Alencon who came a wooing to Queen Elizabeth in 1579 and aroused the violent antipathy of her subjects. V. iv. 121. poison'd. This can perhaps be in- terpreted to mean that the throat poisoned by choler chokes the voice. Many editors, however, and with good reason, accept Theobald's emendation, 'prison'd.' V. v. 93. Among the people gather up a tenth. Levy a special tax of ten per cent on incomes. Suf- King Henry the Sixth 127 folk's levy, however, is stated to have been a fifteenth, not a tenth, and in the first scene of the second part of the play we have the correct figure: 'That Suffolk should demand a whole fifteenth For costs and charges in transporting her!' (2 Henry VI, I. i. 134, 135.) APPENDIX A Sources of the Play The historical material in 1 Henry VI is arranged with a total disregard to chronology, as the notes on various passages indicate. The earliest event por- trayed is the funeral of Henry V on November 7, 1422; the latest the recovery of Talbot's body after his death on July 17, 1453. In some parts, the play is certainly based upon Shakespeare's favorite au- thority, the second edition of Raphael Holinshed's Chronicle of England (1587). Close following of this book is evident when the introduction of Joan of Arc (I. ii. 46-150) is compared with Holinshed's words: 'In time of this siege at Orleance . . . vnto Charles the Dolphin, at Chinon, as he was in verie great care and studie how to wrestle against the Eng- lish nation . . . was caried a yoong wench of an eighteene yeeres old, called lone Are, by name of hir father (a sorie sheepheard) lames of Are, and Isabell hir mother ; brought vp poorelie in their trade of keep- ing cattell ... Of fauour was she counted likesome, of person stronglie made and manlie, of courage great, hardie, and stout withall: an vnderstander of counsels though she were not at them; great sem- blance of chastitie both of bodie and behauiour. . . . A person (as their bookes make hir) raised vp by power diuine, onelie for succour to the French estate then deepelie in distresse. . . . From saint Katharins church of Fierbois in Touraine (where she neuer had beene and knew not) in a secret place there among old iron, appointed she hir sword to be sought out and brought hir, that with fiue floure delices was grauen on both sides, wherewith she fought and did King Henry the Sixth 129 manie slaughters by hir owne hands. . . . Vnto the Dolphin into his gallerie when first she was brought, and he shadowing himself e behind, setting other gaie lords before him to trie hir cunning, from all the com- panie, with a salutation . . . she pickt him out alone ; who therevpon had hir to the end of the gallerie, where she held him an houre in secret and priuate talke, that of his priuie chamber was thought verie long, and therefore would haue broken it off; but he made them a sign to let hir saie on. In which (among other), as likelie it was, she set out vnto him the singular feats (forsooth) giuen her to vnderstand by reuelation diuine, that in vertue of that sword shee should atchiue; which were, how with honor and vic- torie shee would raise the siege at Orleance, set him in state of the crowne of France, and driue the Eng- lish out of the countrie, thereby he to inioie the king- dome alone. Heerevpon he hartened at full, ap- pointed hir a sufficient armie with absolute power to lead them, and they obedientlie to doo as she bad them.' The first edition of Holinshed (1577) and the other earlier English chroniclers are here briefer and quite different, containing no suggestion of the words out of which lines 60-68, 98-101, 118 ff. of the play are developed. 1 Holinshed, however, is by no means the basis of the entire play. Several scenes — those of Talbot and the Countess of Auvergne, the rose- plucking in the Temple Garden, Plantagenet's inter- view with Mortimer, and Suffolk's capture of Mar- garet — have no discovered source. The first of these was probably borrowed from the legend of some popu- lar warrior or outlaw, 2 the others are fanciful embel- lishments of history. i Holinshed is certainly the source also of IV. i. 18 ff. See infra, p. 144. 2 The resemblance to Robin Hood stories, suggested by several critics, is of the vaguest. 130 The First Part of In some cases, again, the drama deserts Holinshed in order to make use of the older and generally more detailed chronicle of Edward Halle (The Union of Lancaster and York, 1548). This seems to be true of the dialogue between Talbot and his son in IV. v and vi. Holinshed contents himself with a bare sum- mary of the battle at Castillon: 'though he [Talbot] first with manfull courage, and sore fighting wan the entrie of their [the French] campe; yet at length they compassed him about, and shooting him through the thigh with an handgun, slue his horsse, and finally killed him lieng on the ground, whome they durst neuer looke in the face, while he stood on his feet. 1 It was said, that after he perceiued there was no remedie, but present losse of the battell, he coun- selled his sonne, the lord Lisle, to saue himselfe by flight, sith the same could not redound to anie great reproch in him, this being the first iournie [day of battle] in which he had beene present. Manie words he vsed to persuade him to haue saued his life; but nature so wrought in the son, that neither desire of life, nor feare of death, could either cause him to shrinke, or conueie himselfe out of the danger, and so there manfullie ended his life with his said father.' Halle, on the other hand, paints the whole scene far more graphically, and suggests some of the actual words which the dramatist puts into Talbot's mouth: 'When the Englishmen were come to the place where the Frenchmen were encamped, in the which (as Eneas Siluius testifieth) were iii. C. peces of brasse, beside diuers other small peces, and subtill Engynes to the Englishmen vnknowen, and nothing suspected, they lyghted al on fote, the erle of Shrewesbury only except, which because of his age, rode on a litle hakeney, and fought fiercely with the Frenchmen, & i These words, repeated from Halle, are echoed in I. i. 138-140 of the play. King Henry the Siacth !3i gat thentre of their campe, and by fyne force entered into the same. This conflicte continued in doubtfull iudgement of victory ii. longe houres: durynge which fight the lordes of Montamban and Humadayre, with a great companye of Frenchmen entered the battayle, and began a new felde, & sodaynly the Gonners per- ceiuynge the Englishmen to approche nere, discharged their ordinaunce, and slew iii. C. persons, nere to the erle, who perceiuynge the imminent ieopardy, and subtile labirynth, in the which he and hys people were enclosed and illaqueate, despicynge his awne sauegarde, and desirynge the life of his entierly and welbeloued sonne the lord Lisle, willed, aduertised, and counsailled hym to departe out of the felde, and to saue hym selfe. But when the sonne had aun- swered that it was neither honest nor natural for him, to leue his father in the extreme ieopardye of his life, and that he woulde taste of that draught, which his father and Parent should assay and begyn: The noble erle & comfortable capitayn sayd to him: Oh sonne sonne, I thy father, which onely hath bene the terror and scourge of the French people so many yeres, which hath subuerted so many townes, and profligate and discomfited so many of them in open battayle, and marcial conflict, neither can here dye, for the honor of my countrey, without great laude and perpetuall fame, nor flye or departe without perpetuall shame and continualle infamy. But be- cause this is thy first iourney and enterprise, neither thy flyeng shall redounde to thy shame, nor thy death to thy glory: for as hardy a man wisely flieth, as a temerarious person folishely abidethe, therefore ye fleyng of me shalbe ye dishonor, not only of me & my progenie, but also a discomfiture of all my com- pany: thy departure shall saue thy lyfe, and make the able another tyme, if I be slayn to reuenge my death and to do honor to thy Prince and profyt to his Realme. But nature so wrought in the sonne, that 132 King Henry the Sixth neither desire of lyfe, nor thought of securitie, could withdraw or pluck him from his natural father: Who consideryng the constancy of his chyld, and the great daunger that they stode in, comforted his souldiours, cheared his Capitayns, and valeauntly set on his enemies, and slew of them more in number than he had in his company. But his enemies hauyng a greater company of men, & more abundaunce of ordinaunce then before had bene sene in a battayle, fyrst shot him through the thyghe with a handgonne, and slew his horse, & cowardly killed him, lyenge on the ground, whome they neuer durste loke in the face, whyle he stode on his fete, and with him, there dyed manfully hys sonne the lord Lisle. . . .' Verbal echoes of the passage above are probably to be found in lines 18, 40, 45, 46 of IV. v and in line 30 of the next scene. 1 i It is fair to observe that the verbal indebtedness to Halle is not as close as the indebtedness to Holinshed in the extract given on p. 128, and is very likely a debt at. second hand. That is, Halle's dialogue between father and son may have been utilized by the original author of the play, and Shakespeare, rewriting the scene without direct refer- ence to Halle, may have removed much of Halle's wording, though leaving enough to show that Shakespeare's authority, Holinshed, did not furnish all the material. Moreover, it is impossible to say whether the original dramatist used Halle's Chronicle itself or resorted to the later work of Grafton (1569), for Grafton incorporates the entire pas- sage verbatim. The only change he makes is to remove three words of Halle, which he evidently regarded as archaic. Instead of 'illaqueate' he reads 'wrapped'; in- stead of 'profligate and discomfited,' 'discomfited' alone; and instead of 'temerarious,' 'rashe.' APPENDIX B The History of the Play The drama now known as 1 Henry VI is first heard of as 'Harry the Sixth' on March 3, 1592. Upon that afternoon it was acted at the Rose Theatre by Lord Strange's Men (Shakespeare's company), who had begun their temporary occupancy of the Rose about a fortnight before (February 19). Philip Henslowe's diary notes that the play was new on March 3, and that the first performance brought the manager the unusually large sum of <£3 16s. 8d. It was then repeated with gradually diminishing fre- quency and returns: the diary records fourteen (possibly fifteen) productions up to June 19, 1592. Harry the Sixth appears to have been, as Fleay calls it, the most popular play of its season. Clear evi- dence of its effect upon the audiences at this time is given in Thomas Nashe's Pierce Penniless, written in the summer of 1592 and licensed for the press on August 8. Nashe uses the play to illustrate his argu- ment that the drama may exert a valuable moral in- fluence. 'How would it haue ioyed braue Talbot (the terror of the French),' he writes, 'to thinke that after he had lyne two hundred yeares in his Tombe, he should triumphe againe on the Stage, and haue his bones newe embalmed with the teares of ten thou- sand spectators at least (at seuerall times), who, in the Tragedian that represents his person, imagine they behold him fresh bleeding.' (McKerrow's ed. I. 212.) There is no reason for doubting that the play re- ferred to in both the documents of 1592 just cited is 1 Henry VI. There seems nothing, however, to 134 The First Part of justify the usual assumption that this play had al- ready received Shakespeare's additions, and was therefore in 1592 a revised version of a still earlier drama. Henslowe directly and Nashe by implication testify that their play was new. The same conclu- sion is warranted by the evident sensation it created in 1592 and particularly by the absence of the smallest hint of its existence previously. The only fair inference, then, from the facts known is that the play of Harry the Sixth, dealing largely with Talbot's wars in France, was composed about the beginning of the year 1592, and that this was later remodelled by Shakespeare into 1 Henry VI. It is not easy to say when the remodelling and the consequent revival of the play on the stage occurred. In the absence of positive records, critics have natu- rally inclined to the assumption that a work clearly not equal to Shakespeare's ordinary performances must have been produced very early in his career. Against this are to be weighed the following con- siderations: (1) The success of Henslowe's play was proved but not completely exploited in 1592. Accord- ing to the usual methods of the time a revised version would not be called for till after the lapse of several years. Marlowe's Doctor Faustus, originally pro- duced about 1589, still held the stage in no seriously altered form from September, 1594, till October, 1597. The first extensive adaptation recorded was paid for, November 22, 1602. The Jew of Malta, acted without change from February, 1592, till June, 1596, was revived in 1601. The old Hamlet, per- formed between 1589 and 1594, was rewritten by Shakespeare about 1601. (2) 1 Henry VI, as we have it, is arranged to serve as a prologue to 2 and 8 Henry VI. Shake- speare clearly revised our play with these dramas in his mind, and probably not till after he had com- pleted his revision of them. King Henry the Sixth 135 (3) The earlier (pre-Shakespearean) versions of 2 and 8 Henry VI were printed in 1594 and 1595 respectively, these texts presumably becoming acces- sible to the publishers after the revised dramas sup- planted them for stage purposes. The fact that no such text of the early 1 Henry VI was printed would suggest that that play was reserved either till it was too late to warrant publishers to trade upon its former popularity or till Shakespeare's company began to take more stringent measures to prevent the publication of any play-texts. (4) A mutual connection exists between 1 Henry VI and Henry V (cf. note on IV. ii. 10, 11). Several passages in our play seem reminiscent of the other (written in 1599). It is a plausible hypothesis at least that 1 Henry VI was revised in order on the one hand to profit by the popular interest in Henry V and on the other to link that play with 2 Henry VI, thus completing the chain of history dramas from Richard II to Richard III. 1 i It is often argued that the priority of 1 Henry VI to Henry V is proved by the closing lines of the epilogue to the latter play: 'Henry the Sixth, in infant bands crown'd 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 hath shown; and, for their sake, In your fair minds let this acceptance take.' Dogmatism on the point is not justifiable, but the perform- ance of Harry the Sixth in 1592 (and afterward) by Shake- speare's company explains the allusion quite as well as the assumption that the revised 1 Henry VI had already been acted. I find it easier to read in the lines of the epilogue a modestly veiled hint that if Henry V proved a success, Shakespeare was thinking of following it up by a revised version of Harry the Sixth, than to believe that he really meant to imply that the Henry VI plays as now known were such excellent works as to make amends for any de- fects in Henry V. The epilogue to 2 Henry IV promised 136 The First Part of (5) The most positive evidence of the date of the Shakespearean additions to 1 Henry VI is that dis- cussed in the note on IV. vii. 63-71. Unless some earlier printed source than is now known can be found for Talbot's epitaph, it will be hard to estab- lish a date prior to 1599 for the revised play. The idea that Shakespeare could not about 1600 have done work as apparently immature as that which he contributed to 1 Henry VI, or have sanctioned the performance at that time of so poor a play, is not in consonance with facts. Shakespeare's company un- doubtedly produced worse plays during this period when the public taste seemed to warrant them (e.g., A Yorkshire Tragedy in 1605), and the Shakespear- ean parts of 1 Henry VI are assuredly not as un- worthy of the author of Henry V as is The Merry Wives of Windsor (ca. 1600) unworthy of the author of Twelfth Night and Much Ado About Nothing. On November 8, 1623, the publishers of the Shakespeare Folio, Blount and Jaggard, entered our play for publication under the rather surprising title of 'The thirde parte of Henry ye Sixt.' The work now known as 1 Henry VI is certainly meant, for 2 and S Henry VI (in their early forms) had both been previously licensed, 1 and the Blount-Jaggard license specifically refers only to such of Shake- speare's plays 'as are not formerly entred to other men.' It is probable that in thus listing as the third part the drama which by historical sequence became in the Folio the first part, the publishers meant more the audience Henry V , 'if you be not too much cloyed.' The epilogue to Henry V reminds them how they have in the past applauded Henry VI. Is it not the intention to suggest: 'Perhaps you may have those plays again' (with Harry the Sixth worked over so as to fill its place in the series) ? i When Millington assigned the early versions of 2 and 3 Henry VI to Pavier, April 19, 1602, he called them 'the first and second parte of Henry the VI.' King Henry the Sixth 137 than simply that this was the last part remaining un- licensed. It seems fair to assume that they so thought of it because they remembered it as the latest of Shakespeare's Henry VI plays to be produced on the stage. Since Shakespeare's death, 1 Henry VI has had only the scantiest stage history. Most subsequent adaptations of the Henry VI cycle ignore the first part. However, J. H. Merivale's compilation, Rich- ard, Duke of York, acted by Edmund Kean, December 22, 1817, and published the same year, opens with three scenes closely following II. iv, II. v, III. i, and IV. i of our play. An abridgment of the three Henry VI plays {'Henry VI. A Tragedy in Five Acts. Condensed from Shakespeare, and arranged for the Stage') was prepared by the eminent actor-manager, Charles Kemble (1775-1854), and first printed from the only known copy in volume ii of the Henry Irving Shake- speare. This work begins like Merivale's with the Temple Garden scene, and like it ignores the scenes in France. 1 Henry VI furnished Kemble with the material for Act I (approximately) of his adaptation, which seems never to have been acted. On March 13, 1738, 'by desire of several Ladies of Quality' the play of 'Henry 6th, part 1st/ was performed for the benefit of the actor Dennis Delane (died, 1750), who acted Talbot to the Suffolk of Walker and the Joan of Arc of Mrs. Hallam. The notice 'not acted fifty years,' affixed to the announce- ment of this performance, appears to be a most con- servative under-statement. The most remarkable recent production was that given by the F. R. Benson company at the Stratford Memorial Festival in May, 1906. Mr. Benson here 'made a triumphant Talbot, and the audience seemed never weary of recalling him.' {Athenaum, May 12, 1906.) APPENDIX C The Authorship of the Play I. Shakespeare's Cohcern in It With regard to the connection of Shakespeare with 1 Henry VI four different opinions have been put forward : (1) Shakespeare had no part in the play. This was apparently the view of Richard Farmer, who says {Essay on the Learning of Shakespeare, 1767): 'Henry the sixth hath ever been doubted; and [Nashe's allusion in Pierce Penniless] may give us reason to believe it was previous to our Author. . . . I have no doubt but Henry the sixth had the same Author with Edward the third.' Malone 1 and Drake 2 took the negative position strongly, and Collier flirted with it, 3 while more recently Dowden (ShaJcspere: His Mind and Art, 173; ShaJcspere Primer, etc.) and Furnivall (Introduction to Leopold ShaJcspere) have virtually denied any real trace of Shakespeare in the work. (2) Shakespeare wrote the entire play. Samuel Johnson favored this hypothesis, arguing that 'from mere inferiority nothing can be inferred; in the pro- ductions of wit there will be inequality.' He was supported by his colleague Steevens, who remarks: i Boswell-Malone Shakespeare, 1823, v. 246: 'I am there- fore decisively of opinion that this play was not written by Shakspeare'; ibid., xviii. 557: Part I is 'the entire or nearly the entire production of some ancient dramatist.' 2 Shakspeare and his Times, 1817, ii. 293: 'The hand of Shakspeare is nowhere visible throughout the entire of this "Drum-and-Trurnpet-Thing," as Mr. Morgan [Maurice Mor- gann] has justly termed it.' s Annals of the Stage, 1831, iii. 145: 'It is plausibly con- jectured that Shakespeare never touched the First Part of Henry VI as it stands in his works.' King Henry the Sixth 'This historical play might have been one of our author's earliest dramatick efforts; and almost every young poet begins his career by imitation. Shaks- peare therefore, till he felt his own strength, perhaps servilely conformed to the style and manner of his predecessors.' 1 Charles Knight in the Pictorial Shakspeare (1867) asserted with much greater posi- tiveness that all the three parts of Henry VI 'are, in the strictest sense of the word, Shakspeare's own plays,' and was followed by the American critics, Verplanck (1847) and Hudson. 2 Such has been the view almost unanimously of the Germans: Schlegel, Bodenstedt, Delius, Ulrici, Sarrazin, Brandl, Creize- nach (Gervinus is the honorable exception). The only recent British scholar to espouse this cause is, I believe, Courthope, 3 who in a remarkable Appendix 'On the Authenticity of Some of the Early Plays Assigned to Shakespeare and their Relationship to the Development of his Dramatic Genius' {History i Capell also should apparently be included among the believers in Shakespeare's exclusive authorship. In his introduction he anticipates and very quaintly develops the idea of Steevens's second sentence: 'We are quite in the dark as to when the first part was written; but should be apt to conjecture, that it was some considerable time after the other two; and perhaps when those two were re- touched. . . . And those two parts, even with all their re- touchings, being still much inferior to the other plays of that class, he may reasonably [sic] be supposed to have underwrit himself on purpose in the first, that it might the better match with those it belong'd to.' 2 'I can but give it as my firm and settled judgment that the main body of the play is certainly Shakespeare's; nor do I perceive any clear and decisive reason for calling in another hand to account for any part of it.' 3 Note, however, the historian Gairdner's passing remark (Studies in English History, 1881, 65): 'I dismiss altogether the hypothesis which some have advanced, that the First Part of Henry VI was not really Shakespeare's. So far as internal evidence goes, if in ability it be not equal to Shakespeare's best, it is too great for any other writer.' 140 The First Part of of English Poetry, vol. iv, 1903) goes even farther than Knight. (3) Shakespeare collaborated with other drama- tists to produce the play. Grant White (Essay on the Authorship of King Henry the Sixth, 1859) sup- poses that 'It is not improbable that Marlowe, Greene, Peele, and Shakespeare were all engaged upon it/ and suggests 'that within two or three years of Shake- speare's arrival in London, that is, about 1587 or 1588, he was engaged to assist Marlowe, Greene, and perhaps Peele, in dramatizing the events of King Henry the Sixth's reign.' Ingram (Marlowe and his Associates, 1904) writes that 1 Henry VI 'furnishes but slight evidence of containing much of the handi- work of the two men, Marlowe and Shakespeare, who are now believed [sic] to have jointly remodelled it'; and Hart (Arden Shakespeare, 1909) reasons: 'We are at liberty to place Part I, in so far as it is Shake- speare's, as his earliest work with a date of about 1589-90. ... I see no reason, therefore, to look for an imaginary earlier completed play. . . . We can imagine very easily that Shakespeare was invited to lend a hand to Greene and Peele.' (4) Shakespeare, working by himself, revised an earlier play of different authorship. Theobald seems first to have formulated this theory: 'Though there are several master-strokes in these three plays [of Henry VI], which incontestably betray the workman- ship of Shakspeare; yet I am almost doubtful whether they were entirely of his writing. And un- less they were wrote by him very early, I should rather imagine them to have been brought to him as a director of the stage; and so have received some finishing beauties at his hand.' 1 Such is the opinion of Coleridge, Gervinus, Staunton, Halliwell-Phillipps, i This is the sense also of Maurice Morgann's wild obiter dictum on the play, referred to in the quotation from Drake above. He alludes to Sir John Fastolfe, 'a name for ever King Henry the Sixth i*i and Dyce, the last of whom definitely repudiates the Grant White theory: 'not written by Shakespeare in conj unction with any other author or authors, but . . . a comparatively old drama, which he slightly altered and improved.' Fleay gives precise, but highly dubious, details {Life and Work of Shakspere, 1886) : 'About 1588-9 Marlowe plotted, and, in conjunction with Kyd (or Greene), Peele, and Lodge, wrote 1 Henry VI for the Queen's men. . . . In 1591-2 the Queen's men were in distress and sold, among other plays, 1 Henry VI to Lord Strange's men, who pro- duced it in 1592 with Shakspere's Talbot additions as a new play.' Rives (1874) argues that Shake- speare revised and expanded an old play dealing exclusively with the wars in France, and Henneman (1901) comes to much the same conclusion. Gray (1917) allows Shakespeare's revisionary labor a somewhat less wide, but still very extensive scope. Herford (Eversley Shakespeare), Rolfe, and Sir Sidney Lee limit the signs of his hand to a couple of scenes; while Ward, Gollancz and Schelling stress their belief that Shakespeare was not properly a reviser, but a 'contributor' of 'additions' to the original work. This last theory, with its differing implications, has vastly the largest number of upholders at the present time, and is indeed the only one that can be brought into reasonable harmony with the evidence. In regard to the particular scenes to be ascribed to Shakespeare there has been no radical variation among good critics. Nearly all credit Shakespeare dishonoured by a frequent exposure in that Drum-and- trumpet Thing called The first part of Henry VI., written doubtless, or rather exhibited, long before Shakespeare was born, tho' afterwards repaired, I think, and furbished up by him with here and there a little sentiment and diction.* (Essay on the Dramatic Character of Sir John Falstaff, 1777.) 142 The First Part of with II. iv (the Temple Garden dispute) ; a large majority also with II. v (the death of Mortimer), which naturally links itself with the foregoing, and with the whole or most of IV. ii-vii (Talbot's death). With less assurance V. iii. 45-195 (Suffolk's wooing of Margaret) is added. In all these there are strong indications of Shakespeare. Note the plays on words : 'I love no colours, and without all colour' (II. iv. 34) ; 'And in that ease, I'll tell thee my disease' (II. v. 44) ; 'And they shall find dear deer of us' (IV. ii. 54), together with the technical deer-hunting allusions in the last passage and the hawk, dog, horse references in II. iv. 11-14. Compare also the bold use of transferred adjectives, quite Shakespearean and quite unlike the general style of the play as a whole: 'In dumb significants' (II. iv. 26), 'this pale and maiden blossom' (II. iv. 47), 'this pale and angry rose' (II. iv. 107), 'my blood- drinking hate' (II. iv. 108), 'death and deadly night' (II. iv. 127), 'feet whose strengthless stay is numb' (II. v. 13), 'sweet enlargement' (II. v. 30), 'the dusky torch of Mortimer' (II. v. 122), 'your stately and air-braving towers' (IV. ii. 13), 'the process of his sandy hour' (IV. ii. 36), 'sleeping neglection' (IV. iii. 49), 'That ever living man of memory' (IV. iii. 51), 'bring thy father to his drooping chair' (IV. v. 5), 'bold-fac'd victory' (IV. vi. 12). Especially Shakespearean are the fanciful meta- phors and similes which abound in these scenes: 'Were growing time once ripen'd to my will' (II. iv. 99) ; 'I'll note you in my book of memory' (II. iv. 101); 'these gray locks, the pursuivants of Death' (II. v. 5) ; 'These eyes, like lamps whose wasting oil is spent' (II. v. 8) ; 'pithless arms, like to a wither'd vine That droops his sapless branches to the ground' (II. v. 11, 12); 'Just death, kind umpire of men's miseries' (II. v. 29) ; 'But now thy uncle is removing hence, As princes do their courts, when King Henry the Sixth 143 they are cloy'd With long continuance in a settled place' (II. v. 104-106); 'To wall thee from the lib- erty of flight' (IV. ii. 24) ; 'girdled with a waist of iron' (IV. iii. 20) ; 'ring'd about with bold adversity' (IV. iv. 14) ; 'Now thou art seal'd the son of chivalry' (IV. vi. 29) ; 'To save a paltry life and slay bright fame' (IV. vi. 45) ; 'Triumphant death, smear'd with captivity' (IV. vii. 3) ; 'inhearsed in the arms Of the most bloody nurser of his harms' (IV. vii. 46) ; 'Twinkling another counterfeited beam' (V. iii. 63). Consideration of the passages just cited, which are fairly representative, though of course not complete, will, I think, suggest a gradual decrease through the scenes concerned in the recognizable Shakespearean quality. The Temple Garden and Mortimer scenes are rather more positively like Shakespeare than the blank verse Talbot passages, and decidedly more so than the rimed Talbot passages (IV. iii. 28-46, IV. v. 16-vii. 50) or the Suffolk-Margaret scene. This is reasonable, since the first two scenes bear most ap- pearance of being spontaneous with the reviser of the play, and since Shakespeare's language is regularly bolder in blank verse than in rime. It would be hazardous to attempt to infer from the style alone the date at which Shakespeare wrote his scenes. 1 The diction does not seem to me that of the poet's earliest period; and Furnivall has observed that the proportion of extra-syllabled lines in the Temple Garden scene (about 26 per cent) 'forbids us supposing it is very early work.' It would also be ill-advised to set precise limits for Shakespeare's part in the play. His hand is most evident in the scenes just discussed, but Talbot's death must, I think, have been a conspicuous feature of the original pre- Shakespearean play, and it is unlikely that the re- viser here removed all traces of his predecessor. On i See the Appendix on The History of the Play, p. 134. 144 The First Part of the other hand, it is entirely reasonable to suspect Shakespearean penciling in scenes where the hand- ling is too light or too perfunctory to leave any defi- nite impression of genius. In particular, Mr. Gray finds evidence of the greater writer in the opening of III. i and in the Vernon-Basset quarrel (III. iv. 28 ff. and IV. i. 78 ff.). I am impressed by Henne- man's suggestion that IV. i as a whole is the reviser's replica of III. iv (cf. note on IV. i) : there seems to be nothing in the later scene which Shakespeare might not have written, and a positive clue may per- haps be found in the fact that Talbot's account of the Battle of Patay is here certainly taken from Holinshed rather than Halle. 1 Another hint of the same kind appears in I. ii in the adoption from Hol- inshed's second edition of the favorable view of Joan of Arc (which Holinshed explains that he derives from French sources), whereas the remainder of the play gives an inharmonious conception drawn from the earlier English chronicles. 2 The reviser's hand, presumably Shakespeare's, is evident in the way the close of 1 Henry VI is shaped to fit it as an introduction to Part II of the trilogy. Henneman states the relationship of the three parts with accuracy, if with undue caution: 'So specifically does I prepare for II and III in certain particulars that it is conceivable that I was written after II and that III had already been planned.' If he means in i Holinshed reports that Talbot had 'not past six thou- sand men' (cf. IV. i. 20 and also I. i. 112), while Halle gives him five thousand. 2 Two small points, which I have not seen mentioned, may have some bearing on the date of Shakespeare's re- vision: (1) The Mortimer scene, especially lines 67-81, sounds rather like a reminiscence of 1 Henry IV. (2) Margaret's vain efforts to make Suffolk attend to her questions and the retribution she takes (V. iii. 72-109) re- peat Falstaff's tactics with the Chief Justice {2 Henry IV, II. i. 184-211). It is possible, but hardly so likely, that the sequence was the other way. King Henry the Sixth 145 the case of Part I, not the original composition, but the reviser's adaptation, it is certain, I think, that I follows II. Note that the thirty-ninth line of the play, where Winchester says to Gloucester, 'Thy wife is proud; she holdeth thee in awe,' can only be ra- tionally explained as a preparation for Part II. The gibe means nothing as regards Part I. Again, the conclusion of Part I can only have been worked into an open advertisement for Part II, 'Margaret shall now be queen, and rule the king; But I will rule both her, the king, and realm,' after Parts II and III had passed into the posses- sion of Shakespeare's company, and been adapted for representation by them. The 1592 Harry the Sixth cannot well be imagined to have ended so, for Pem- broke's company appear at this time to have owned the early versions of Parts II and III. 1 It is not reasonable that Strange's company should have em- ployed a conclusion quite out of keeping with their main theme of Talbot's glory and explicable only as preparing the audience for the play of a rival company. That the original ending of the play was greatly changed by the reviser appears from textual evidence, which Fleay with characteristic subtlety noted, and, I think, characteristically misinterpreted. The mark- ing of acts and scenes in the only early edition — that of the Folio — is entirely regular as far as the close of Act III (save that the individual scenes of Acts I and II are not divided off) ; and it is extraordinarily chaotic in Acts IV and V. Practically the whole close of the play (from IV. i through V. iv) is given i Pembroke's Men are supposed to have sold these plays and others at the time of their distress in September, 1593 — a year and a half after Strange's (Shakespeare's) Men produced Harry the Sixth. Cf. Greg, Henslowe's Diary, ii. 85; Murray, English Dram. Companies, i. 65. (I do not agree with Murray's suggestion of a possible connection between Shakespeare and the Pembroke company.) 146 The First Part of as Act IV, Act V consisting only of the short last scene (V. v), and being marked at all probably merely in order to secure the conventional total of five acts. The six scenes dealing with Talbot's death (IV. ii-vii) are undivided and carelessly tacked on to IV. i, with which they have only a remote organic connection. From this Fleay argues that the Talbot scenes are a patch of new material, not corresponding to anything in the old play: 'It is plain that they were written subsequently to the rest of the play and inserted at a revival. They had to be inserted in such a manner as not to break the connection between this play and 2 Henry VI; and were put in the most convenient place, regardless of historic sequence.' I think the reverse is true: that it was the necessity of creating a spurious connection with 2 Henry VI which produced the disorder. Originally the Talbot scenes probably came nearer the end of the play and stood in closer relationship to their natural complement, the retributive overthrow of Joan (V. ii, iii. 1-44, iv. 1-93) and the final submission of the Dauphin (V. iv. 116-175). On this unhistorical, but very dramatic note of national vindication the old play may be sup- posed to have concluded. To change this note to that of pessimism and foreboding with which Part II opens was the reviser's problem. 1 It required a com- plete volte-face, which has been executed with dex- terity but probably at a cost to the effectiveness of this play (considered individually and not as the introduction to a great tetralogy) for which Shake- speare's improvement of the poetry in the Talbot scenes does not compensate. The patchwork is most painfully evident where the otherwise admirable Suffolk-Margaret-Reignier scene (V. iii. 45-195) is pasted in between two sections of the Joan story. i The clearest indication of an effort to prepare the audience for this new gloom in the close appears in the croaking speeches of Exeter, affixed to III. i and IV. i. King Henry the Sixth 147 The last scene in the play, constituting the entire Actus Quintus of the Folio, clearly belongs altogether to the later recension. The writing of so purely utilitarian a scene was small game for Shakespeare, but the execution is by no means un-Shakespearean. 1 Henneman's summary of Shakespeare's probable purpose in 1 Henry VI is, I think, fair and conserva- tive: 'To work up or rewrite the Talbot portions of the Chronicles, probably, though not necessarily, already crystallized into an old play on the triumph of "brave Talbot" over the French, which possessed the hated Joan of Arc scenes and all; to intensify the figure and character of Talbot; to work over or add scenes like those touching Talbot's death; to connect him with the deplorable struggles of the nobles ; to invent, by a happy poetical thought, the origin of the factions of the Red and White Roses in the Temple Garden; to sound at once the note of weakness in the king continued in the succeeding Parts, and thus con- vert the old Talbot material effectually into a Henry VI drama; and to close with the wooing of Margaret as specific introduction to Part II, — something like this seems the task that the dramatist set himself to perform.' II. The Author of the Original Play 1. Marlowe ? Henslowe's play of Harry the Sixth, if it followed somewhat the lines just suggested, undoubtedly de- served the popularity it attained. It was probably more effective on the stage than the expanded work which supplanted it, and in 1591-92 can have been i Gervinus pointed out (Shakespeare, 2d ed., 1850, i. 202) that if the Suffolk-Margaret scene and the last scene were omitted, and the play left to close with 'Winchester's peace' (V. iv), it would have a conclusion much better suited to the chief content. 148 The First Part of written only by a real poet and a skilled dramatist. There were not many such at this period. Marlowe was one, but I concur warmly in Mr. Gray's opinion that 'Marlowe himself cannot be read into this drama.' Marlowe's influence, however, is unquestion- ably apparent in the older parts of the play. Note, for example, the following echoes: 1 Li. 2: 'Comets, importing change of times and states' Marlowe's Lucan 527: 'And comets that presage the fall of kingdoms.' I.i.3: 'Brandish your crystal tresses in the sky.' Tamburlaine 1922: 'Shaking her silver tresses in the air.' Li. 22: 'Like captives bound to a triumphant car.' Edward II 174: 'With captive kings at his triumphant car.' Li. 36: 'Whom like a school-boy you may over-awe.' Edward II 1336 f.: 'As though your highness were a school-boy still, And must be awed and governed like a child.' Li. 46: 'Instead of gold we'll offer up our arms.' Jew of Malta 758 f.: 'Instead of gold, We'll send thee bullets wrapped in smoke and fire.' I.i.149: 'I'll hale the Dauphin headlong from his throne.' Tamburlaine 4021: 'Haling him headlong to the lowest hell.' I. vi. 11,12: 'Why ring not out the bells throughout the town? Dauphin, command the citizens make bonfires.' Tamburlaine 1335 f . : 'Ringing with joy their superstitious bells, And making bonfires for my overthrow.' i The line numbers for Marlowe's works are those of the Oxford edition. King Henry the Sixth 149 III. ii. 40: 'That hardly we escap'd the pride of France.' Tamburlaine 140: 'Lest you subdue the pride of Christendom.' Tamburlaine 3568: 'To overdare the pride of Graecia.' Dido 482: 'That after burnt the pride of Asia.' III. ii. 136: 'But kings and mightiest potentates must die.' Tamburlaine 4641: 'For Tamburlaine, the scourge of God, must die.' III. lit. IS: 'And we will make thee famous through the world.' Tamburlaine 2173: 'And makes my deeds infamous through the world.' III.iii.24: 'But be extirped from our provinces.' Faustus 122: 'And reign sole king of all our provinces.' IV.vii.32: 'Now my old arms are young John Talbot's grave.' Jew of Malta 1192: 'These arms of mine shall be thy sepulchre.' V.iv.34: 'Take her away; for she hath liv'd too long.' Edward II 2651: 'Nay, to my death, for too long have I lived.' V.iv.87,88: 'May never glorious sun reflex his beams Upon the country where you make abode.' Tamburlaine 969 f.: 'For neither rain can fall upon the earth, Nor sun reflex his virtuous beams thereon.' Marlowe's general influence is also traceable, as in I. vi, where the barbaric magnificence of the Dauphin's promises to Joan plagiarizes those of Tamburlaine to Zenocrate (Tamb. 278 ff.), and his promise that Joan's coffin shall be carried before the kings and queens of France recalls the second part of Marlowe's play (II. iii, III. ii). The concluding couplet of this same 150 The First Part of scene echoes the close of 1 Tamburlaine, Act III ; and the burial of Zenocrate is again clearly parodied in the burial of Salisbury (II. ii). 1 All this means mimicry, conscious or unconscious. Frequently the imitation degenerates into travesty, as in the weak mouthing of Bedford (I. i. 148-156) and the atrocious rot of the whole scene in which Salisbury is stricken (I. iv). Imagine Marlowe making his chief hero say at the height of passion: 'What chance is this, that suddenly hath cross'd us? Speak, Salisbury; at least, if thou canst speak,' etc. It is easier to conceive the mighty line to have at- tained the unsurpassable flatness of the messenger's words in II. iii. 29, 30: 'Stay, my Lord Talbot; for my Lady craves To know the cause of your abrupt departure.' The real proof that Marlowe did not write Harry the Sixth is the absence of any passion except in scenes which bear marks of revision. The lines are usually musical and sometimes charming, and the stage action is interesting, but they are not irradiated by the electric intensity that scintillates in Marlowe. Till Shakespeare vivifies him in the fourth act, Talbot himself is but a skeleton in armor. 2. Greene ? Greene has been very often suggested as the author of this play, most recently by Gray, though with reservations, and most positively by Hart. I see nothing that renders such an attribution reasonable: Hart's verbal parallels seem quite without demon- strative value. Greene's essays in the chronicle his- i Several of these similarities have been noted by Anders, Shakespeare's Books, p. 121. Sarrazin had previously men- tioned the resemblance of Joan's appeal to Burgundy (III. iii) and Tamburlaine's appeal to Theridamas (305 ff.). King Henry the Sixth 151 tory drama are notably characteristic, and evidence a method entirely unlike that of this play. He no- where exhibits any tendency toward patriotic themes or any interest in the facts of history. Rather in his quasi-historic plays, Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay and James IV (and in George-a-Greene if it be his), he yields to an apparently irresistible devotion for pastoral woodland settings, romantic love stories, quaint supernaturalism, and clownish roguery. Un- less one can fancy Joan's brief address to her fiends (V. iii. 1-24) to be akin in atmosphere or purpose to the magic humbuggery of Bacon and the fairy ma- chinery of Oberon, 1 Henry VI is wholly unlike Greene in all these points. It is unlike him both in the inflexibility with which it harps on the historical note, and in its absence of humor, sentiment, or pathos. Greene, of course, may have written the play, but it is less like his avowed work than that of any contemporary dramatist. 3. Peele ? It is not by a process of elimination merely that I arrive at George Peele as the most likely author of the old Harry the Sixth play. Indications of several kinds point in Peele's direction. He was at the time the work was produced distinctly the most con- spicuous exponent of jingoistic national pride — a trait of which Marlowe shows absolutely nothing and Greene hardly more. Peele had composed the pa- triotic masques to celebrate the Lord Mayoralty of Sir Wolstan Dixie in 1585 and of Sir William Web in 1591. His Polyhymnia (1590) lauded in martial strains 'the honourable Triumph at Tilt' when Sir Henry Lea formally resigned his post of Queen's Champion, and he again touched the same theme in Anglorum Feriae (1595), written in honor of the thirty-seventh anniversary of Elizabeth's accession. 152 The First Part of In 1589 he had twice come forth as the spokesman of the nation: in his Eclogue Gratulatory to the Earl of Essex 'for his welcome into England from Portu- gal/ and in his fine Farewell, 'Entituled to the famous and fortunate Generals of our English forces: Sir John Norris and Sir Francis Drake.' Later, again, in 1593, he linked the knighthood of his age with that of the past in The Honour of the Garter?- His plays of the same period, Edward I and The Battle of Alcazar, are equally filled with the praise of Eng- lish daring. No known author of 1591 has anything like the same claim on merely extrinsic evidence to be regarded as the author of a play in celebration of the martial exploits of the brave Lord Talbot. 2 General similarities between Peele's Edward I and 1 Henry VI have been often noted, particularly the unhappy resemblance in the defamation of the Span- ish Eleanor and the French Joan of Arc. One of the most insular of Britons, Peele was incapable of glorifying his countrymen without slandering the races they opposed. The undramatic line put into Joan's mouth (III. iii. 85), 'Done like a Frenchman: turn, and turn again!' is fairly characteristic of his bigotry. The verse of the older portions of the play — saccharine rather than strong, and the loose but animated structure are what one finds in Peele's recognized dramas. The imitation of Marlowe is iThis poem should be compared with Talbot's speech, 'When first this order was ordained,' etc. (IV. i. 33 ff.). 2 Peele's favorite epigram, which he affixes at least three times to his poems, might well serve as motto for 1 Henry VI: 'Gallia victa dedit flores, invicta leones Anglia, jus belli in flore, leone suum; O sic, O semper ferat Anglia laeta (or 'Elizabetha') triumphos, Inclyta Gallorum flore, leone suo.' King Henry the Sixth iss equally a feature of those which were produced after Tamburlaine. 1 The Countess of Auvergne episode, with its grace and lack of human warmth, seems to me like Peele's work. In its relation to the military plot, and par- ticularly in the military tableau with which it closes, it is very suggestive of the more elaborated Countess i Edward I 954: 'It is but temporal that you can inflict.' Edward II 1550: 'Tis but temporal that thou canst inflict.' Edward I 1165 f.: 'This comfort, madam, that your grace doth give Binds me in double duty whilst I live.' Edward II 1684 f.: 'These comforts that you give our woeful queen Bind us in kindness all at your command.' Edward I 2800: 'Hence, feigned weeds, unfeigned is my grief.' Edward II 1964: 'Hence, feigned weeds, unfeigned are my woes.' David <§• Bethsabe 12-14: 'The host of heaven . . . cast Their crystal armor at his conquering feet.' Tamburlaine 1932: 'There angels in their crystal armors fight.' David (f- Bethsabe 181: 'And makes their weapons wound the senseless winds.' Tamburlaine 1256: 'And make our strokes to wound the senseless air* ('lure' in first edition). Battle of Alcazar 190: 'The bells of Pluto ring revenge amain.' Edward II 1956: 'Let Pluto's bells ring out my fatal knell.' Battle of Alcazar 250: 'Tamburlaine, triumph not, for thou must die.' Tamburlaine 4641: 'For Tamburlaine, the Scourge of God, must die.' (The line numbers for Peele's plays are those of the Malone Society editions.) 154 The First Part of of Salisbury episode in the anonymous Edward III. I give my adhesion to the conjecture of Farmer, al- ready quoted, that 'Henry the sixth [in its earliest form] had the same Author with Edward the third/ and believe that author to have been Peele. 1 APPENDIX D The Text of the Present Edition The text of the present volume is, by permission of the Oxford University Press, that of the Oxford Shakespeare, edited by the late W. J. Craig, except for the following deviations : 1. The stage directions are those of the original Folio edition, necessary additional words being in- serted in square brackets. 2. The punctuation has been altered in many places, and the spelling normalized in the following instances: French place names in general (e.g., Champagne, Gisors, Poitiers, Bordeaux instead of Champaigne, Guysors, Poictiers, Bourdeaux) ; antic (antick), everywhere (every where), forfend (fore- fend), forgo (forego), immortaliz'd (immortalis'd), warlike (war-like). 3. The following alterations of the text have been made after collation with the Folio, readings of the present edition preceding and those of Craig follow- ing the colon. Except in the one case otherwise marked the changes all represent a return to the Folio text: I. ii. 41 gimmors: gimmals I.iv.28 CaU'd: Called 95 thee: thee, Nero I. v. 16 hungry-starved: hunger-starved i Cf. The Shakespeare Apocrypha, p. xxiii. King Henry the Sixth 155 I. vi.22 of: or (F) II. ii. 54 'tis: it is II. iv. 6 th' error: the error II. v. 71 Richard: King Richard III. i. 25, 114 sovereign: sov'reign 198 lose: should lose III. ii. 28 Talbonites: Talbotites III. iii. 76 wandering: wand'ring IV. i. 138 wavering: wav'ring IV. ii. 6 sovereign: sov'reign IV. iii. 28 makes : make IV. vii. 25 whether : whe'r 65 Verdon: Verdun V. iii. 68 here: here thy prisoner 153 country: county V. v. 39 lord: good lord 46 liberal: a liberal APPENDIX E Suggestions for Collateral Reading George Lockhart Rives: An Essay on the First, Second, and Third Parts of Henry the Sixth; Com- monly attributed to Shakespeare. 1874. (Harness Prize Essay. Largely based on Grant White's earlier monograph on the same subject.) F. G. Fleay: Who Wrote 'Henry VI'? Macmillan's Magazine, November, 1875. Life and Work of Shakspere, 1886, 255-263. W. H. Egerton: Talbot's Tomb in the Parish Church of St. Alkmund's, Whitchurch. In Trans- actions of the Shropshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, viii. 413-440, 1885. (An interesting article dealing with the exhumation of Talbot's bones and the evidence derived from them concerning the manner of his death.) W. G. Boswell-Stone: Shakspere's Holinshed, ix. 205-242, 1896. 156 King Henry the Sixth J. B. Henneman: The Episodes in Shakespeare's I. Henry VI. In Publications of the Modern Lan- guage Association of America, xv. 290-320, 1900. (An admirable article.) Sir A. T. Quiller-Couch : Historical Tales from Shakespeare, 257-276, 1912. H. D. Gray: The Purport of Shakespeare's Con- tribution to 1 Henry VI. In Publications of the Mod- ern Language Association of America, xxxii. 367-382, 1917. The most elaborate edition of the play is that of H. C. Hart (Arden Shakespeare, Methuen, 1909. Considerable philological erudition is here vitiated by unsound judgment). Other helpful editions are W. J. Rolfe's (1882); Frank A. Marshall's in vol. i of the Henry Irving Shakespeare (1888), containing important introduction and notes ; and that in the New Grant White Shakespeare, vol. vi (Little, Brown & Co., 1912). Students of the play will find it interesting to compare the treatment of Joan of Arc and Talbot with the presentation of the same figures in Voltaire's travesty, La Pucelle d'Orleans (first authorized edi- tion, 1762), and in Schiller's ultra-romantic Jungfrau von Orleans (1801). Much important information regarding Sir John Fastolfe and a number of letters written by him will be found in the first volume of Gairdner's edition of the Paston Letters (1872). See also Gairdner, The Historical Element in Shakespeare's Falstaff in Studies in English History, 55-77, 1881; and L. W. Vernon Harcourt, The Two Sir John Fastolfs in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 1910, 47-62. The latter attempts, on interesting but not very convincing evidence, to identify Falstaff with a somewhat older and obscurer namesake of the Fastolfe of 1 Henry VI. INDEX OF WORDS GLOSSED (Figures in full-faced type refer to page-numbers) accidents: 87 (V. iii. 4) accomplices: 87 (V. ii. 9) Adonis' gardens: 24 (I. vi. 6) advance: 24 (I. vi. 1) advantage: 75 (IV. iv. 19); 79 (IV. vi. 44) affect: 84 (V. i. 7) agaz'd on: 6 (I. i. 126) all amort: 57 (III. ii. 124) alarum: 8 (I. ii. 18) alliance sake: 41 (II. v. 53) allotted: 89 (V. iii. 55) amaze: 83 (IV. vii. 84) an if: 49 (III. i. 152) antic: 81 (IV. vii. 18) appall'd: 10 (I. ii. 48) apparent spoil: 71 (IV. ii. 26) apprehension: 38 (II. iv. 102) as: 85 (V. i. 43) Astraea's daughter: 24 (I. vi. 4) attached: 38 (II. iv. 96) attainted: 38 (II. iv. 96) attorneyship, by: 103 (V. v. 56) band: 25 (II. i. S. d.) bandying: 69 (IV. i. 190) battle: 81 (IV. vii. 13) bearing-cloth: 16 (I. iii. 42) bears him on: 37 (II. iv. 86) become: 81 (IV. vii. 23) benefit, of: 100 (V. iv. 152) blood: 43 (II. v. 128) blood, in: 71 (IV. ii. 48) brave (vb.): 81 (IV. vii. 25) braves (n.) : 57 (III. ii. 123) break: 17 (I. iii. 82) break up: 14 (I. iii. 13) buckle: 11 (I. ii. 95) canker: 36 (II. iv. 68) canvass: 15 (I. iii. 36) captivate: 32 (II. iii. 42) cates: 34 (II. iii. 79) censure: 31 (II. iii. 10) certify: 32 (II. iii. 32); 68 (IV. i. 144) charge: 104 (V. v. 92) cheer appall'd: 10 (I. ii. 48) chosen shot: 20 (I. iv. 53) Circe, with: 89 (V. iii. 35) clubs: 17 (I. iii. 85) coffer of Darius: 25 (I. vi. 25) collop: 96 (V. iv. 18) colours: 35 (II. iv. 34) company, from: 104 (V. v. 100) comparison: 100 (V. iv. 150) conceit: 102 (V. v. 15) contriv'dst: 15 (I. iii. 34) conveyance: 14 (I. iii. 2) cooling card: 91 (V. iii. 84) cornets: 73 (IV. iii. 25) corrosive: 57 (III. iii. 3) court of guard: 25 (II. i. 4) crazy: 55 (III. ii. 89) darnel: 53 (III. ii. 44) Deborah, sword of: 12 (I. ii. 105) deck'd: 11 (I. ii. 99) degree: 38 (II. iv. Ill) 158 The First Part of despite: 54 (III. ii. 52) determin'd: 78 (IV. vi. 9) diffidence: 58 (III. iii. 10) digest: 69 (IV. i. 167) disable: 90 (V. iii. 67) disanimates: 50 (III. i. 182) discipline: 71 (IV. ii. 44) discover: 41 (II. v. 59) disease: 41 (II. v. 44) dismay: 57 (III. iii. 1) distrain'd: 16 (I. iii. 61) distress: 64 (IV. i. 37) dolphin or dogfish: 22 (I. iv. 107) doubtless: 82 (IV. vii. 44) dreadful: 5 (I. i. 110) either hand: 71 (IV. ii. 23) elect: 63 (IV. i. 4) employ: 58 (III. iii. 16) enter talk: 46 (III. i. 63) entertain'd: 19 (I. iv. 38) espials: 18 (I. iv. 8) event: 104 (V. v. 105) excursion: 53 (III. ii. 35 S. d.) exempt: 37 (II. iv. 93) exequies: 57 (III. ii. 133) exigent: 39 (II. v. 9) express: 20 (I. iv. 64) extirped: 58 (III. iii. 24) face: 93 (V. iii. 141) fact: 64 (IV. i. 30) familiar: 56 (III. ii. 122) fancv: 91 (V. iii. 91) feature: 103 (V. v. 68) fell: 89 (V. iii. 42) field . . . dispatch'd: 4 (Li. 72) flourish: 8 (I. ii. S. d.) fond: 33 (II. iii. 45) for: 89 (V. iii. 48) France his: 78 (IV. vi. 3) full scarce: 5 (I. i. 112) furnish'd: 64 (IV. i. 39) gather: 42 (II. v. 96) gather up: 104 (V. v. 93) giglot: 82 (IV. vii. 41) gimmors: 9 (I. ii. 41) gird: 48 (III. i. 131) girt: 50 (III. i. 170) give: 23 (I. v. 29) gleeks: 57 (III. ii. 123) Goliases: 9 (I. ii. 33) grows to: 100 (V. iv. 149) grudge: 50 (III. i. 175) grudging stomachs: 68 (IV. i. 141) guardant: 80 (IV. vii. 9) Hannibal, like: 23 (I. v. 21) hard-favour'd: 81 (IV. vii. 23) have with thee: 38 (II. iv. 114) head: 21 (I. iv. 100) Hecate: 54 (III. ii. 64) high terms: 11 (I. ii. 93) high-minded: 23 (I. v. 12) his: 1 (I. i. 10) hungry: 9 (I. ii. 28) immanity: 84 (V. i. 13) immodest: 67 (IV. i. 126) imperious: 45 (III. i. 44) inkhorn mate: 47 (III. i. 99) intermissive: 4 (I. i. 88) invention: 44 (III. i. 5) latter: 40 (II. v. 38) lead: 3 (Li. 64) leave: 21 (I. iv. 81) lies: 30 (II. ii. 41) lift: 2 (I. i. 16) like: 80 (IV. vi. 48) lingering: 75 (IV. iv. 19) linstock: 20 (I. iv. 56 S. d.) lither: 81 (IV. vii. 21) long of: 73 (IV. iii. 33) louted: 72 (IV. iii. 13) lowly: 59 (III. iii. 47) lucre: 100 (V. iv. 141) King Henry the Sixth 159 Machiavel: 97 (V. iv. 74) marish: 3 (I. i. 50) market-bell: 52 (III. ii. 16) Mars his true moving: 8 (I. ii. 1) masters: 49 (III. i. 144) maz'd: 71 (IV. ii. 47) mean: 12 (I. ii. 121) method of my pen: 44 (III. i. 13) misconceived: 97 (V. iv. 49) misconster: 34 (II. iii. 73) miser: 95 (V. iv. 7) monarch of the north: 88 (V. iii. 6) most extremes: 64 (IV. i. 38) motions: 17 (I. iii. 63) muleters: 54 (III. ii. 68) muse: 29 (II. ii. 19) must be: 20 (I. iv. 68) nephew: 41 (II. v. 64) noble: 96 (V. iv. 23) nor: 8 (I. ii. 17) objected: 36 (II. iv. 43) objections: 67 (IV. i. 129) obstacle: 95 (V. iv. 17) occasions: 49 (III. i. 154) Olivers and Rowlands: 9 (I. ii. 30) only in: 21 (I. iv. 97) order: 57 (III. ii. 1*26) other: 26 (II. i. 32) other whiles: 8 (I. ii. 7) out of hand: 55 (III. ii. 102) overpeer: 18 (I. iv. 11) pale: 71 (IV. ii. 45) park'd: 71 (IV. ii. 45) partaker: 38 (II. iv. 100) party: 35 (II. iv. 32) patronage: 45 (III. i. 48) peeFd: 15 (I. iii. 30) peevish: 94 (V. iii. 185) periapts: 87 (V. iii. 2) period: 70 (IV. ii. 17) peruse their wings: 71 (IV. ii. 43) pitch: 33 (II. iii. 55) pitch a field: 48 (III. i. 103) platforms: 28 (II. i. 77) poison'd: 99 (V. iv. 121) policy: 51 (III. ii. 2) practisants: 52 (III. ii. 20) practise: 26 (II. i. 25) prate: 67 (IV. i. 124) prejudice: 61 (III. iii. 91) presently: 33 (II. iii. 60) pretend (purpose) : 63 (IV. i. 6) pretend (portend): 65 (IV. i. 54) prevented: 65 (IV. i. 71) pride of France: 53 (III. ii. 40) privilege: 48 (III. i. 121) proditor: 15 (I. iii. 31) progeny: 60 (III. iii. 61) proper: 89 (V. iii. 37) pursuivants: 39 (II. v. 5) puzzel: 22 (I. iv. 107) pyramis: 25 (I. vi. 21) quaint: 66 (IV. i. 102) quell: 7 (Li. 163) quillets: 35 (II. iv. 17) quittance: 26 (II. i. 14) raging- wood: 81 (IV. vii. 35) rascal-like: 72 (IV. ii. 49) redress: 71 (IV. ii. 25) reflex: 98 (V. iv. 87) regard: 77 (IV. v. 22) reguerdon: 50 (III. i. 169) repugn: 66 (IV. i. 94) resolved: 62 (III. iv. 20) retreat: 24 (I. v. 39 S. d.) reverent: 45 (III. i. 49) Rhodope's of Memphis: 25 (I. vi. 22) 160 King Henry the Sixth riddling merchant: 33 (II. iii. 57) rive: 71 (IV. ii. 29) Roan: 3 (I. i. 65) Saint Martin's summer: 13 (I. ii. 131) Scythian Tomyris: 31 (II. iii. 6) secure: 26 (II. i. 11) sennet: 51 (III. i. 185 S. d.) sequestration: 40 (II. v. 25) several: 4 (I. i. 71) sibyls: 10 (I. ii. 56) significants: 35 (II. iv. 26) sire of Crete: 80 (IV. vi. 54) sleeping neglection: 74 (IV. iii. 49) smear'd: 80 (IV. vii. 3) some order: 57 (III. ii. 126) sometime: 85 (V. i. 31) sort (vb.) : 32 (II. iii. 27) sort (n.): 64 (IV. i. 39) spelling: 89 (V. iii. 31) stern, at chief est: 7 (I. i. 177) still: 9 (I. ii. 42) stomachs: 68 (IV. i. 141) style: 65 (IV. i. 50); 83 (IV. vii. 72) subscribe: 36 (II. iv. 44) substitutes: 87 (V. iii. 5) taint: 94 (V. iii. 182) Talbonites: 52 (III. ii. 28) tendering: 80 (IV. vii. 10) timeless: 95 (V. iv. 5) to: 52 (III. ii. 25) town, the very: 74 (IV. iv. 4) toy: 68 (IV. i. 145) traffic: 94 (V. iii. 163) train'd: 32 (II. iii. 35) triumph: 102 (V. v. 31) unapt: 92 (V. iii. 132) unavoided: 76 (IV. v. 8) unkind: 70 (IV. i. 193) unready: 27 (II. i. 39) vail: 88 (V. iii. 25) vulture of sedition: 74 (IV. iii. 47) warrant: 42 (II. v. 95) warranteth: 97 (V. iv. 61) warrantize: 14 (I. iii. 13) Winchester goose: 16 (I. iii. 53) with (by): 6 (I. i. 136) withal: 6 (I. i. 154) within: 68 (IV. i. 140) wont: 8 (I. ii. 14) worthless: 75 (IV. iv. 21) writhled: 32 (II. iii. 23) J699 „** y & y Sp ,\\ xX y %# ? *- * ^ I \ ,0 o ^ ^rffcdDiffes Deacidified using the Bookkeeper procei Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide Treatment Date: Feb. 2009 PreservationTechnologia A WORLD LEADER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATIO 111 Thomson Park Drive Cranberry Township, PA 16066 (724)779-2111 j> o v "'. % LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 014 094 927 9 UttUD&fl -Hu 8K8L mm lftt m Hn Hal