Page "Henry VI, Part 2" Paragraph 81
from
Wikipedia
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.
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.
Page 1 of 1.
1.921 seconds.