No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
L. 2 and 3 Henry VI— Which Holinshed?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
Extract
In a recent article in the Review of English Studies Mr. R. B. McKerrow opens the question of the use of the 1577 or the 1587 edition of Holinshed's Chronicles as a source for 2 Henry VI and gives it as his judgment that the Contention is based on the first edition. In making a study of this question, I have compared in detail the original editions of both the 1577 and the 1587 versions of the history with the Folio texts of 1, 2, and 3 Henry VI instead of with the Quartos, since in my opinion the Folios are the earlier. Such an investigation furnishes distinct evidence that the dramatist used the 1587 Holinshed and not the first edition.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1935
References
1 “A Note on ‘Henry VI, Part II’ and ‘The Contention of York and Lancaster’,” RES, ix (April, 1933), 157–169.
2 Though in his article Mr. McKerrow is ambiguous on the question of the priority of the two plays, in correspondence with me he has written that “the Folio as a whole represented the play in its original form, the printed Contention being merely a bad version of it.” With the history of the plays as he has thus outlined it, I am essentially in accord.
3 Both Miss Madeleine Doran (“ ‘Henry VI, Parts II and III’,” University of Iowa Humanistic Studies, iv, 1–88 [August 15, 1928] and Mr. Peter Alexander (Shakespeare's Henry VI and Richard III, 1929) have supported this theory. I shall endeavor, in another paper, to establish this same belief further on the grounds of a closer similarity between the Folio and Holinshed than between the Quartos and Holinshed.
4 He used also Hall's Chronicles constantly and Fabyan's Chronicles occasionally.
5 The treatment of sources in 1 Henry VI is identical with that in 2 and 3 Henry VI. For the episode of the installation of Winchester as Cardinal in 1 Henry VI it is more probable that Hall than that the 1577 Holinshed was used; and twelve separate instances concerning Joan of Arc show the use of the 1587 Holinshed alone. There is no evidence of the use of the 1577 edition in 1 Henry VI.
6 Holinshed (1587), p. 623.
7 Hall, p. 222; Hollinshed (1577), p. 1268.
8 Ibid., pp. 207 f.
9 2 Henry VI, ii, iii, 58, s. d.
10 Holinshed (1587), p. 626.
11 Ibid., p. 622; Hall, p. 201.
12 In an article in RES for July, 1933, Mr. McKerrow has corrected his former statement that the 1587 Holinshed has Thomas for John.
13 Holinshed (1587), p. 657. The italics are mine.
14 2 Henry VI, ii, ii, 10–17.
15 Holinshed (1577), p. 999; (1587), p. 412. The italics are mine.
16 Holinshed (1587), p. 657.
17 2 Henry VI, ii, ii, 18–20.
18 Holinshed (1577), p. 997; (1587), p. 411.
19 Holinshed (1587), p. 657. The italics are mine.
20 2 Henry VI, ii, ii, 34–38.
21 Holinshed (1577), p. 1050; (1587), p. 448. The Alice of this point in the Contention may thus have come as easily from the second as from the first edition of Holinshed. The italics are mine.
22 Holinshed (1587), pp. 657 f.
23 Henry VI, ii, ii, 43–56.
24 Holinshed (1577), p. 1050; (1587), p. 448.
25 3 Henry VI, ii, v, 5–10.
26 Holinshed (1577), p. 1311; (1587), p. 665.
27 Hall, p. 256; Holinshed (1577), p. 1311.
28 Holinshed (1587), p. 658.
29 3 Henry VI, i, i, 194–200.
30 Ibid., iii, i, 76–78.
31 Holinshed (1587), p. 691.