Critical history Henry VI, Part 3

1 critical history

1.1 true tragedy reported text
1.2 true tragedy draft
1.3 differences between true tragedy , 3 henry vi
1.4 montague problem

critical history

some critics argue henry vi trilogy first ever plays based on recent english history, , such, deserve elevated position in canon, , more central role in shakespearean criticism. according f.p. wilson example, there no evidence dramatist before defeat of spanish armada in 1588 dared put upon public stage play based upon english history [...] far know, shakespeare first. however, not critics agree wilson here. example, michael taylor argues there @ least thirty-nine history plays prior 1592, including two-part christopher marlowe play tamburlaine (1587), thomas lodge s wounds of civil war (1588), anonymous troublesome reign of king john (1588), edmund ironside (1590 – anonymous), robert green s selimus (1591) , anonymous play, true tragedy of richard iii (1591). paola pugliatti, however, argues case may somewhere between wilson , taylor s argument; shakespeare may not have been first bring english history before audience of public playhouse, first treat in manner of mature historian rather in manner of worshipper of historical, political , religious myth.

another issue discussed amongst critics quality of play. along 1 henry vi, 3 henry vi has traditionally been seen 1 of shakespeare s weakest plays, critics citing amount of violence indicative of shakespeare s artistic immaturity , inability handle chronicle sources, when compared more nuanced , far less violent second historical tetralogy (richard ii, 1 henry iv, 2 henry iv , henry v). example, critics such e.m.w. tillyard, irving ribner , a.p. rossiter have claimed play violates neoclassical precepts of drama, dictate violence , battle should never shown mimetically on stage, should reported digetically in dialogue. view based on traditional notions of distinction between high , low art, distinction based partly upon philip sidney s apology poetry (1579). based on work of horace, sidney criticised gorboduc showing many battles , being violent when have been more artistic verbally represent such scenes. belief play showed violence crude, appealing ignorant masses, , therefore low art. on other hand, play elevated above such direct representation of violence , instead relied on writer s ability verbalise , skill diegesis, considered artistically superior , therefore, high art. writing in 1605, ben jonson commented in masque of blackness showing battles on stage vulgar, better delighted pleaseth eye, contenteth ear. based upon these theories, 3 henry vi, 4 on-stage battles , multiple scenes of violence , murder, considered coarse play little recommend intelligentsia.

on other hand, however, writers thomas heywood , thomas nashe praised battle scenes in general oftentimes being intrinsic play , not vulgar distractions illiterate. in piers penniless supplication devil (1592), nashe praised didactic element of drama depicted battle , martial action, arguing such plays way of teaching both history , military tactics masses; in such plays our forefather s valiant acts (that have lain long buried in rusty brass , worm-eaten books) revived. nashe argued plays depict glorious national causes past rekindle patriotic fervour has been lost in puerility of insipid present, , such plays provide rare exercise of virtue in reproof these degenerate effeminate days of ours. similarly, in apology actors (1612), heywood writes, bewitching thing lively , well-spirited action, hath power new mould hearts of spectators, , fashion them shape of noble , notable attempt. more recently, speaking of 1 henry vi, michael goldman has argued battle scenes vital overall movement , purpose of play; sweep of athletic bodies across stage used not provide exciting spectacle focus , clarify, render dramatic, entire unwieldy chronicle.

in line thinking, recent scholarship has tended @ play being more complete dramatic text, rather series of battle scenes loosely strung flimsy narrative. modern productions in particular have done bring re-evaluation (such peter hall s , john barton s in 1963 , 1964, terry hands in 1977, michael bogdanov s in 1986, adrian nobles in 1988, katie mitchell s in 1994, edward hall s in 2000 , michael boyd s in 2000 , 2006). based upon revised way of thinking, , looking @ play more complex has traditionally been allowed for, critics argue play juxtaposes stirring aesthetic appeal of martial action discursive reflection on political causes , social consequences.

the question of artistic integrity, however, not critical disagreement 3 henry vi has provoked. there numerous other issues critics divided, not least aspect of concerns relationship true tragedy.

true tragedy reported text

josiah boydell illustration of father , son tragedy act 2, scene 5, engraved john ogborne shakspeare gallery pall mall (1794)

over years, critics have debated connection between true tragedy , 3 henry vi. 4 main theories have emerged:

critical opinion favoured samuel johnson s theory true tragedy bad quarto, memorial reconstruction. edmond malone challenged johnson s theory in 1790, suggesting true tragedy draft of shakespeare s 3 henry vi. malone s view dominant 1 until 1929, when peter alexander re-established dominance of bad quarto theory.

one of alexander s main arguments hinged on start of act 4, scene 1, richard , clarence reproach edward favouring wife s relatives on themselves. in true tragedy, after edward has been informed of warwick s allegiance lancastrians, upbraided brothers recent actions;

clarence

...lord hastings deserves,

to have daughter , heir of lord hungerford.



edward

and then? our should so.



clarence

ay, , such thing lord scales

did deserve @ hands, have the

daughter of lord bonfield, , left your

brothers go seek elsewhere.

(ll.2074-2083)

this implies lord hastings set marry daughter of lord hungerford, , lord scales set marry daughter of lord bonfield. in 3 henry vi, however, lines different;

clarence

...lord hastings deserves

to have heir of lord hungerford.



edward

what of that? , grant,

and once, shall stand law.



richard

and yet methinks grace hath not done well

to give heir , daughter of lord scales

unto brother of loving bride;

she better have fitted me, or clarence,

but in bride bury brotherhood.



clarence

or else, not have bestowed heir,

of lord bonville on new wife s son,

and leave brothers go speed elsewhere.

(4.1.48-59)

this explains lord scales daughter (elizabeth de scales) marry lady grey s brother (anthony woodville, 2nd earl of rivers), , lady grey s son (thomas grey, 1st marquess of dorset) marry daughter of lord bonville (cecily bonville). such, based on inconsistency between scales marrying bonfield s daughter in true tragedy , scales daughter marrying grey s brother in 3 henry vi, alexander argued representation of scene in true tragedy nonsensical , came because reporter became confused married whom. furthermore, unlike account in true tragedy, version in 3 henry vi corresponds closely chronicle material found in hall ( heir of lord scales [edward] hath married wife s brother, heir of lord bonville , harrington hath given wife s son, , heir of lord hungerford hath granted lord hastings ). in relation mistakes this, has been argued no 1 understood writing, – no author – have made such error[s], parroting else s work of himself had dim understanding – is, reporter – have.

title page of 1594 quarto of lamentable romaine tragedie of titus andronicus

however, more telling difference between details of proposed marriages contrast between 2 names; bonfield in true tragedy , bonville in 3 henry vi. bonfield never mentioned in chronicles, , there no known historical personage of name. bonville on other hand mentioned numerous times both hall , holinshed, , known historical figure. however, there minor character named bonfield in robert greene play george greene, pinner of wakefield (1587–1590), member of group of staunch opponents of edward iii. george greene published in quarto in 1599, , title page states performed sussex s men. in 1594, sussex s men had performed titus andronicus, which, according title page of 1594 quarto, performed strange s men (i.e. derby s men) , pembroke s men. furthermore, according title page of 1595 octavo of true tragedy, performed pembroke s men. such, pembroke s men performed both true tragedy , titus andronicus, whereas sussex s men performed both george greene , titus andronicus, creating link between true tragedy , george greene, , perhaps suggesting either sussex s men have performed true tragedy or pembroke s men have performed george greene, or both. taken together, name of bonfield in 2 historically unrelated texts performed companies shared scripts , personnel indicates name non-authorial interpolation players. case further supported fact reported texts use material other plays. example, contention uses material christopher marlowe s tragical history of doctor faustus (c1592), edward ii (c1593) , line 3 henry vi; if our king henry had shook hands death (1.4.103).

more evidence of reporting found in act 2 scene 5. in scene, in true tragedy, after realising battle of towton lost, exeter, margaret , prince edward urge henry flee, exeter exclaiming, away lord vengeance comes along him (l.1270). however, totally unqualified – there no indication whatsoever of is. in 3 henry vi, however, line away; vengeance comes along them (l.124). in case, them warwick, richard , edward, of whom mentioned prince edward , margaret in lines preceding exeter s. such, line in true tragedy can understood if 1 refers equivalent scene in 3 henry vi. type of anomaly, vital pieces of qualifying information omitted, common in bad quartos.

a similar piece of evidence found in act 5, scene 1. after warwick , troops have entered coventry , awaiting arrival of oxford, somerset, montague , clarence, richard urges edward storm city , attack warwick immediately. in true tragedy, edward refuses, arguing no, other may set upon our backs/we ll stay till entered , follow them (ll.2742–2743). in 3 henry vi however, edward says, other foes may set upon our backs./stand in array: no doubt/will issue out again, , bid battle (ll.61–63). difference between 2 passages in true tragedy, edward knows more regiments coming ( ll stay till entered ), in context of play, has no way of knowing this, should unaware oxford, somerset, montague , clarence heading coventry. in 3 henry vi however, merely feels attacking bad idea leave rear defenceless ( other foes may set upon our backs ). suggests in true tragedy, reporter thinking ahead, anticipating arrival of others , anachronistically having character aware of inevitable arrival. again, omission of important information, illogical foreknowledge of events type of mistake characterises bad quartos in general.

true tragedy draft

steven urkowitz has spoken @ great length debate between bad quarto theory , draft theory, coming down firmly on side of draft. urkowitz argues quarto of 2 henry vi , octavo of 3 henry vi present scholars unique opportunity see play evolving, shakespeare edited , rewrote sections; texts of 2 , 3 henry vi offer particularly rich illustrations of textual variation , theatrical transformation. urkowitz argues bonfield/bonville variant in true tragedy/3 henry vi dramatically defensible because still supports clarence s complaint against edward , motivates ensuing defection lancastrians. change therefore, gets across intent of chronicle history. urkowitz argues such fine-tuning of dramatic themes , actions staples of professional theatrical writing. such, differences in texts types of differences 1 tends find in texts altered original form, , urkowitz cites eric rasmussen, e.a.j. honigmann , grace ioppolo supporting view. particularly refers case of richard brinsley sheridan s school scandal (1777), existed in earlier form, sheridan, in two-part play slanderers , sir peter teazel, , argues contain same type of modifications found in henry vi plays.

urkowitz not alone in finding evidence support draft theory. 1 of main arguments draft theory how true tragedy , 3 henry vi use holinshed , hall. whereas in true tragedy, shakespeare uses hall more holinshed, in 3 henry vi use of hall , holinshed equal. argument difference cannot accounted faulty reporting, , instead must represent revision on shakespeare s part; nature of differences between true tragedy , 3 henry vi in terms of factual details, diction, , interpretive commentary hall , holinshed reasonably suggests direction of change, presence of informed agency @ work in revising play reported true tragedy.

an example of can found when clarence returns yorkist forces in act 5, scene 1. in true tragedy, turn anticipated;

clarence

clarence, clarence lancaster.



edward

et tu, brute, wilt thou stab caesar too?

a parley sir, george of clarence.



sound parley, , richard , clarence whisper together, , clarence takes red rose out of hat, , throws @ warwick.



warwick

come clarence come, thou wilt if warwick call.



clarence

father of warwick, know means?

i throw mine infamy @ thee.

(ll.2762-2768)

in version of scene, richard shown responsible turning clarence yorkist side; whatever says during parley convinces clarence rejoin brothers. how incident represented in hall; richard duke of gloucester, brother [clarence , edward], though had been made arbiter between them, first rode [clarence] , him communed secretly; him came king edward , secretness used him in conclusion no unnatural war fraternal amity concluded , proclaimed , both brethren lovingly embraced, , familiarly communed together.

in 3 henry vi however, scene plays out differently;

enter clarence drum , soldiers bearing colours.



warwick

and lo, george of clarence sweeps along.

of force enough bid brother battle:

with whom, in upright zeal right, prevails

more nature of brother s love

come clarence, come: thou wilt if warwick call.



clarence

father of warwick, know means?



he shows red rose.



look here, throw infamy @ thee.

(5.1.76-82)

this version of scene corresponds holinshed, richard plays no part in clarence s decision; duke of clarence began weigh himself great inconvenience brother king edward, himself , younger brother duke of gloucester fallen through dissension betwixt them (which had been compassed , brought pass politic working of earl of warwick). argument here difference in 3 henry vi not result of faulty reporting, or interpolation on part of reporter, must represent authorial agency, hence, true tragedy must represent earlier draft of 3 henry vi.

thomas stothard illustration of death of prince edward; engraved augustus fox (1824)

also important in argument action implied taking place between act 5, scene 4 , act 5, scene 5. in both true tragedy , 3 henry vi, after margaret rallies troops, exit stage sounds of battle, followed entry of victorious yorkists. difference in 2 texts in presentation of victory. in true tragedy, margaret, prince edward, oxford , somerset introduced together, taken captive @ same time, how incident reported in hall; lancastrian leaders captured in field , brought yorkist camp together. however, in 3 henry vi, margaret, oxford , somerset introduced initially, , subsequently prince edward led camp (l.11; , lo youthful edward comes ). separate capture of edward follows holinshed, outlines edward fled field, captured in nearby house, , brought camp alone fellow lancastrians, prisoners there. again, implication shakespeare used hall when composing true tragedy, time after 1594, , whatever reason, modified thinking, , changed scene reflect account in holinshed instead.

however, theory true tragedy may draft not imply not represent bad quarto well. traditionally, critics (such alexander, mckerrow , urkowitz) have looked @ problem either-or situation; true tragedy either reported text or draft, there has been argument may both. example, theory supported randall martin in oxford shakespeare edition of play. theory advanced roger warren in oxford shakespeare edition of 2 henry vi. crux of argument both evidence bad quarto theory , evidence draft theory compelling neither able refute other. such, if play contains evidence of being both reported text , draft, must both; i.e. true tragedy represents reported text of draft of 3 henry vi. shakespeare wrote version of play, staged. shortly after staging, of actors constructed bad quarto , had published. in meantime, shakespeare had rewritten play form found in first folio. martin argues theory can account strong evidence both reporting , revision, , theory gaining increased support in late twentieth/early twenty-first century.

differences between true tragedy , 3 henry vi

if 1 accepts shakespeare made conscious decision use holinshed more during re-editing of true tragedy, 1 must ask why may have done so. true tragedy 1 thousand lines shorter 3 henry vi, , whilst many of differences simple aesthetic changes , alternate phraseology (much of attributable inaccurate reporting), 1 major difference between 2 runs throughout how each handle violence. on whole, 3 henry vi far more restrained in depiction of war, whereas true tragedy has more explicit , sustained on-stage combat , more royal processions , celebrations after combat. more 3 henry vi, true tragedy conforms so-called tudor myth wars of roses god s punishment people straying path laid out them, , means of purging country of evil , opening way righteous tudor dynasty establish peace. traditionally, has been common way of interpreting entire octalogy; advocated , elaborated upon critics diverse august wilhelm schlegel, hermann ulrici, georg gottfried gervinus, irving ribner, m.m. reese, robert rentoul reed, and, famously, e.m.w. tillyard, whom phrase tudor myth associated.

some critics, however, such henry ansgar kelly, a.p. rossiter, a.l. french, david frey, j.p. brockbank, david riggs, michael hattaway, michael taylor, randall martin , ronald knowles, argue main reason shakespeare chose use holinshed rather hall, holinshed s attitude violence less celebratory hall s, patriotic fervour less pronounced, , attitude carnage more ambiguous; i.e. shakespeare had become less enamoured of tudor view of history, , altered play accordingly. paola pugliatti puts it, source manipulation , sheer invention may read distinctly critical gesture, in show need question official historiographical tradition.

examples of difference in depictions of violence between true tragedy , 3 henry vi include act 2, scene 6; in true tragedy, stage direction dictates clifford enter arrow in neck , whereas in 3 henry vi, enters wounded. in act 4, scene 3, when warwick surprises edward in tent, in 3 henry vi, richard , hastings flee, in true tragedy, there short battle between warwick s , richard s soldiers. similarly, in true tragedy, act 5, scene 5 begins alarms battle, york flies, chambers discharged. enter king, clarence , gloucester , rest, , make great shout, , cry york, york , , queen taken, , prince , oxford , somerset, , sound , enter again. 3 henry vi begins far less grandiose flourish. enter edward, gloucester, clarence, , soldiers, queen margaret, oxford , somerset prisoners.

taking of these differences account, argument shakespeare reconceived action, toning down sound , fury, , thereby altering overall effect , meaning of 3 henry vi play attitude war more rueful.

montague problem

another aspect of play has provoked critical disagreement character of montague. introduced in act 1, scene 1 yorkist supporter fought @ battle of st albans (dramatised @ end of 2 henry vi), , accompanies york, richard, edward, warwick , norfolk battlefield london in pursuit of henry, margaret , clifford. in act 1, scene 2, upon realising margaret set attack, york sends montague london warwick; brother montague shall post london./let noble warwick, cobham, , rest/whom have left protectors of king,/with powerful policy strengthen (ll.55–58). montague duly leaves, , when warwick returns in act 2, scene 1, accompanied character called montague, introduces apparently new character; ...therefore warwick came seek out,/and therefore comes brother montague. (ll.166–167).

as such, character of montague seems represent 2 separate historical personages in play, , whilst not unusual in shakespearean histories, manner of dual representation is. example, in 1 henry vi , 2 henry vi, character of somerset represents both john beaufort, 1st duke of somerset , younger brother, edmund beaufort, 2nd duke of somerset. similarly, in 3 henry vi, character called somerset represents both henry beaufort, 3rd duke of somerset , younger brother edmund beaufort, 4th duke of somerset. however, both somerset in 1 henry vi , 2 henry vi , somerset in 3 henry vi presented consistent characters within play, i.e. somerset in 1 henry vi , 2 henry vi not represent john beaufort , edmund beaufort @ others; consistently same character in milieu of play. same true of somerset in 3 henry vi; character, same person.

montague however, seems represent 2 different people @ different times in play; i.e. character himself changes identities during play. seems represent salisbury, warwick s father (richard neville, 5th earl of salisbury – major character in 2 henry vi) , subsequently, seems represent salisbury s son , warwick s brother, john neville (1st marquis of montague – new character). in 3 henry vi, @ 1.1.14, 1.1.117–118 , 1.2.60, montague refers york brother . similarly, @ 1.2.4, 1.2.36 , 1.2.55, york refers montague brother . if montague here represents salisbury, reference 1 brother makes sense, salisbury york s brother-in-law (york married salisbury s sister, cecily neville). however, if montague here represents john neville, , york s references 1 brother inaccurate. subsequently, @ 2.1.168, warwick refers montague brother, , called marquis first time, neither descriptions of applied salisbury or character describes himself brother york. such, in 1.1 , 1.2, montague seems york s brother-in-law, , warwick s father, richard neville (i.e. salisbury), point forward, after re-introduction in act 2, seems represent salisbury s son , warwick s younger brother, john neville. salisbury major character in 2 henry vi, in both hall , holinshed s chronicles, , in reality, outlined in chronicles, killed @ pontefract in 1461 having been captured margaret @ battle of wakefield (depicted in 1.3 , 1.4).

interestingly, in true tragedy (which treats character of montague 1 consistent persona throughout play), salisbury s death reported richard;

thy noble father in thickest throngs,

cried full warwick, thrice valiant son,

until thousand swords beset,

and many wounds made in aged breast,

as tottering sat upon steed,

he waft hand me , cried aloud:

richard, commend me valiant son ,

and still cried warwick revenge death ,

and words tumbled off horse,

and noble salisbury gave ghost.

(ll.1075-1085)

in corresponding scene in 3 henry vi however, richard reports death of of warwick s brothers, thomas neville, never features character in of henry vi plays;

thy brother s blood thirsty earth hath drunk,

broached steely point of clifford s lance,

until thousand swords beset,

and in pangs of death cried,

like dismal clangor heard afar

warwick revenge, brother, revenge death.

so underneath belly of steeds,

that stained fetlocks in smoking blood,

the noble gentleman gave ghost.

(2.3.14-23)

it agreed amongst critics differences between these 2 passages represents authorial revision opposed faulty reporting, leading 1 ask question of why shakespeare removed references salisbury, , why wrote preceding lines warwick re-introduces montague brother. there no definitive answer question, nor there answer question of why shakespeare changed character s name salisbury montague , then, after act 1, equated him personage entirely.

obviously, such character discrepancy can create problem productions of play. example of 1 way in productions can resolve problem, in act 1, scene 1 of 1981 bbc shakespeare adaptation, montague not present in either persona of salisbury or of john neville. such, first 2 lines, brother, thou lov st , honour st arms,/let s fight out , not stand cavilling (ll.117–118), reassigned clarence , altered set on head father/if thou lov st , honour st arms,/let s fight out , not stand cavilling thus. montague s second line, , unto sea when came (l.210), entirely absent. character, montague introduced in act 1, scene 2, played michael byrne (as rest of production). first line in scene however, have reasons strong , forcible (l.3) reassigned clarence. later, when york giving men instructions, order montague, brother, thou shalt london presently (l.36) changed cousin, thou shalt london presently , , york s reiteration of order brother montague shall post london (l.54) changed hast london cousin montague. additionally, montague s brother, go, ll win them, fear not (l.60) changed cousin, go, ll win them, fear not. serves establish single figure york s cousin , warwick s brother (i.e. john neville).

how adaptation handles report of death of warwick , montague s brother thomas neville in act 2, scene 3 worth noting. text 3 henry vi reporting death of neville used, altered report becomes salisbury;

thy father s blood thirsty earth hath drunk,

broached steely point of clifford s lance,

until thousand swords beset,

and in pangs of death cried,

like dismal clangor heard afar

warwick revenge, son, revenge death.

so underneath belly of steeds,

that stained fetlocks in smoking blood,

the noble salisbury gave ghost.

(2.3.14-23)

from point forward, character remains consistent warwick s brother, , there no further alteration of text. such, in adaptation, character presented 1 figure throughout – of john neville, warwick s brother, salisbury s son , york s cousin, , lines seemingly contradict have been changed accordingly.