Talk:Henry VI, Part 2

Recent edits

As y'all can see, I've done a small bit of work on the article! What I’ve done is pretty self explanatory really. I've reorganised it so that it's laid out correctly as per the standard layout of the WikiShakespeare project. I've added material everywhere. I've added some pictures, added a pretty thorough bibliography and added a couple of external links. I'm reading through the Oxford edition of Henry VI, Part 3 now, and then I'll do Henry VI, Part 1, so I'll probably pick up bits and pieces of info in them which I'll add here as I come across them. I'm pretty happy with how it's turned out, and as with The Two Gentlemen of Verona and The Taming of the Shrew, I welcome feedback. Bertaut (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Various Changes

I've made several changes to the page, most of which I hope will prove unobjectionable:

• Notes have been separated from citations.
• A citation style has been introduced that should make it easier to find the appropriate item in the list of secondary sources.
• Quotations have been compared with their originals and amended accordingly.
• Several new citations have been added.
• All citations have been templated and given sfnrefs; ISBN numbers, DOIs, URLs, &c., have been added where appropriate.
• I've removed several repetitious passages, some quotations and examples that appear superfluous, and words (mostly adverbs) that add little to the structure of the argument.

Alexrexpvt (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Streamlining the article

The articles on the three Henry VI plays are lengthy, and it seems superfluous to have the same material repeated in all of them. I've therefore deleted the material in italics below, and added a link to the identical material in the article on Henry VI, Part 1. Hopefully this streamlining of the article will meet with approval. NinaGreen (talk) 03:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a separate question concerning the date of composition however. Owing to the quarto title (The First Part of the Contention), and with the publication of True Tragedy in 1595, which makes no reference to 1 Henry VI, some critics have argued that 2 Henry VI and 3 Henry VI were written before 1 Henry VI. This theory was first suggested by E. K. Chambers in 1923, and revised by J. Dover Wilson in 1952. The theory is that The Contention and True Tragedy were conceived as a two-part play, but owing to their success, a prequel was created. Ronald Brunlees McKerrow argues that "if 2 Henry VI was written to continue the first part, it seems incomprehensible that it should contain no allusion to the prowess of Talbot." McKerrow also comments on the lack of reference to the symbolic use of roses in 2 Henry VI, whereas in 1 Henry VI and 3 Henry VI the device is mentioned numerous times. McKerrow concludes that 1 Henry VI was written closer to 3 Henry VI, and as we know 3 Henry VI was a sequel, it means that 1 Henry VI must have been written last. Eliot Slater comes to the same conclusion in his statistical examination of the vocabulary of all three Henry VI plays, arguing that 1 Henry VI was written either immediately before or immediately after 3 Henry VI, and so must have been written last. Likewise, Gary Taylor in his analysis of the authorship of 1 Henry VI, argues that the many discrepancies between 1 Henry VI and 2 Henry VI (such as the lack of reference to Talbot) coupled with similarities in the vocabulary, phraseology and tropes of 1 Henry VI and 3 Henry VI suggest 1 Henry VI was probably written last.

One argument against this theory is that 1 Henry VI is the weakest of the trilogy and therefore, logic would suggest it was written first. This argument suggests that Shakespeare could only have created such a weak play if it was his first attempt to turn his chronicle sources into drama. The standard response to this theory, and the one used by Dover Wilson in 1952 is that 1 Henry VI is significantly weaker than the other two plays, not because it was written first but because it was co-authored, and may have been Shakespeare's first attempt to collaborate with other dramatists. As such, all of the play's problems can be attributed to its co-authors rather than Shakespeare himself, who may have had a limited hand its composition.

As this implies, there is no critical consensus on this issue. Samuel Johnson, writing in his 1765 edition of The Plays of William Shakespeare, pre-empted the debate and argued that the plays were written in sequence; "It is apparent that [2 Henry VI] begins where the former ends, and continues the series of transactions, of which it presupposes the first part already written. This is a sufficient proof that the second and third parts were not written without dependence on the first." Numerous more recent scholars continue to uphold Johnson's argument. E.M.W. Tillyard, for example, writing in 1944, believes the plays were written in order, as does Andrew S. Cairncross in his editions of all three plays for the 2nd series of the Arden Shakespeare (1957, 1962 and 1964). E.A.J. Honigmann also agrees, in his 'early start' theory of 1982 (which argues that Shakespeare's first play was Titus Andronicus, which Honigmann posits was written in 1586). Likewise, Michael Hattaway, in both his 1990 New Cambridge Shakespeare edition of 1 Henry VI and his 1991 edition of 2 Henry VI argues that the evidence suggests 1 Henry VI was written first. In his 2001 introduction to Henry VI: Critical Essays, Thomas A. Pendleton makes a similar argument, as does Roger Warren, in his 2003 edition of 2 Henry VI for The Oxford Shakespeare.

On the other hand, Edward Burns, in his 2000 Arden Shakespeare 3rd series edition of 1 Henry VI and Ronald Knowles, in his 1999 Arden Shakespeare 3rd series edition of 2 Henry VI make the case that 2 Henry VI probably preceded 1 Henry VI. Similarly, Randall Martin, in his 2001 Oxford Shakespeare edition of 3 Henry VI argues that 1 Henry VI was almost certainly written last. In his 2003 Oxford edition of 1 Henry VI, Michael Taylor agrees with Martin. Additionally, it is worth noting that in the Oxford Shakespeare: Complete Works of 1986 and the 2nd edition of 2005, and in the Norton Shakespeare of 1997 and again in 2008, both 2 Henry VI and 3 Henry VI precede 1 Henry VI.

"... let's kill all the lawyers."

Dick: The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

I'm surprised that there's no analysis, nor even a simple mention of this line within the article, given that it's probably one of the few lines that anyone remembers from this play. Anyone? --24.212.139.102 (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

That is probably the best known quote from the play to be sure, but in the grand scheme of things, it's not overly important in a thematic sense. Just because it's a well known line doesn't warrant inclusion of a discussion in the article. However, having said that, if you did want to add something backed up by adequate sources, go right ahead , perhaps in the language section. Bertaut (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I made a decision a long time ago not to get overly involved in wikipedia, having been bitten once too often, so I'll leave this to others. -- 24.212.139.102 (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sometimes, it's not the most pleasant place on earth. I'd give my right arm for a few more people who knew more about Shakespeare (or literature in general) than they do about the MOS or WP:THIS/WP:THAT! Bertaut (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Margaret and Suffolk

This is my first time posting a comment/question on a Talk Page, so I apologize if my format is incorrect.

This article says, with respect to Margaret and Suffolk, that: "Another minor source may have been William Baldwin's The Mirror for Magistrates (1559; 2nd edition, 1578), a series of poems spoken by deceased, controversial historical figures, who have come forward to speak of their life and death, and to warn contemporary society not to make the same mistakes as they did. One such figure is Margaret of Anjou, and Roger Warren argues that Shakespeare may have taken the inspiration for Margaret's sorrowful departure from Suffolk (which is found nowhere in Hall, Holinshed or Grafton) from this poem."

I am trying to track down the basis for this comment. I cannot find anywhere that Roger Warren has argued that Mirror for Magistrates is a source for the relationship between Margaret and Suffolk. Rather, he says (Oxford Shakespeare, Henry VI Part 2, page 32) that Mirror may have provided a partial source for the lament of Eleanor, the Duchess of Gloucester. He further says, on the same page, that most likely Shakespeare used Mirror "to a much lesser extent" as a subsidiary source.

With respect to Margaret and Suffolk, Warren says (page 29) that there is no historical evidence that Margaret and Suffolk were lovers and that Shakespeare may have picked up the idea from a hint in Edward Hall's Union.

Does anyone know the basis for the above quote on Wikipedia? Further, can anyone help me track down Roger Warren? I thought he was at the University of Leicester, but do not see him on their website. I wanted to ask him about this. I am a doctoral candidate working on a thesis about the relationship between Samuel Daniel and Shakespeare and the source for the Margaret-Suffolk relationship is an important part of my thesis.

Musophilus (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. Your formatting is fine! I don't think you need worry too much about this, as it seem to be a simple case of incorrect information. So I'll delete it from the article. As regards contacting Warren, last I heard, he was in Leicester. It's very possible he's retired. The best thing to do would just be to contact the English department at the university, they'll be able to tell you exactly where he's hiding! Bertaut (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the feedback and the response. Since it sounds as if you might be knowledgeable on the topic, I will let you know of my particular interest in this and see if you have any further information. I am a PhD candidate, studying the relationship between Shakespeare and Samuel Daniel, contemporary poet and playwright of Shakespeare's. There are similarities in the way the two of them present the relationship between Margaret and Suffolk (Daniel in The Civil Wars and Shakespeare in 2H6) that do not seem to be explained by common sources. Hence I am looking for potential sources for Shakespeare's presentation of the romantic relationship between them. The consensus seems to be that there is no historical basis for this presentation and that he was inspired by a hint in Hall. If this is true, then it seems very likely that the Henry VI plays (1591-93) influenced Daniel's poem (1595), which is contrary to current thinking. Any thoughts on this or further thoughts on who would be interested in and/or knowledgeable about this topic. I'm not sure if this is an appropriate topic for the Talk Page of 2H6, so feel free to cut me off if not. 50.153.129.31 (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey, there's no problem with you posting about this here. You might also try posting on the talk page of the Samuel Daniel article, although from the looks of it, there aren't too many Daniel enthusiasts/experts around these here parts! To be honest, I wouldn't really be able to give you anything you don't probably already know. I'm okay when it comes to who influenced Shakespeare, not so great when going in the other direction. As regards Daniel, I wouldn't know much about him beyond Shakespeare's use of Civil Wars as a source for parts of the Henriad. Perhaps Tom Reedy or MarnetteD might be able to give you some advice. They'll both automatically be alerted that I've mentioned their names here, so if they have anything of interest for you, I'm sure they'll drop by. Bertaut (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Henry VI, Part 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011192520/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/88447-Edward-Halls-Rose-Rage-Is-Henry-VI-Trilogy-in-Full-Bloody-Bloom-Sept-17-Oct-18-in-NYC to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/88447-Edward-Halls-Rose-Rage-Is-Henry-VI-Trilogy-in-Full-Bloody-Bloom-Sept-17-Oct-18-in-NYC
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6SKKQUkPR?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.screenonline.org.uk%2Ftv%2Fid%2F527213%2Findex.html to http://www.screenonline.org.uk/tv/id/527213/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Henry VI, Part 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.screenonline.org.uk/tv/id/527213/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100611183330/http://shakespeare.emory.edu/illustrated_index.cfm to http://shakespeare.emory.edu/illustrated_index.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Death of Somerset in synopsis

I wonder if "the Duke of Somerset is killed by Richard" is perhaps ambiguous as to which Richard is being referred to, given that Richard was also the name of the Duke of York (as well as the first name of the real Salisbury and Warwick). A reader unfamiliar with the play, but aware of the history may in particular be confused as in reality York's son Richard (the later Richard III) whom Shakespeare has killing Somerset at St Albans was two years old at the time of the First Battle of St Albans and so did not actually fight at it (let alone kill a Duke...), but the other three Richards did. Thus I wonder if "the Duke of Somerset is killed by York's son Richard" would work better. Dunarc (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Good call. I've made the change. It's been a long time since I really looked at this page; could do with a bit of a rewrite in a few places. Bertaut (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it makes things clearer. Dunarc (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Authorship

I'm surprised that the article has no mention of the question of authorship, since many scholars believe there's a co-author. Oxford Publications actually credits all 3 parts to Shakespeare and Marlowe. Carlo (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)