Help


from Wikipedia
« »  
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.

1.921 seconds.