Talk:Henry VI, Part 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

War of Roses[edit]

I thought the "War of Roses" cycle comprised more than four plays. Isn't it the following?

  1. Henry IV, part 1
  2. Henry IV, part 2
  3. Henry V
  4. Henry VI, part 1
  5. Henry VI, part 2
  6. Henry VI, part 3
  7. Richard III
 --
 Viajero 08:29 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The Wars of the Roses start symbolically with Act 2 Scene 4 of Henry VI Part 1 (Plucking roses in the Temple Garden) and end with Richmond's victory in Richard III. (Actual history may be a little more complicated.) DavidCh0 16:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bias Against Shakespeare[edit]

The part of the article pertaining to historical accuracy is clearly biased. We cannot be certain that Shakespeare was completely unconcerned with 'historical accuracy', though the indicators do point that way. Though there is evident bias in the play, it is also unhelpful to say the superiority of English soldiers was 'illusory'. It may well have been the case that the French were outclassed; we do not know. Ronald Collinson 22:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that is an inane and badly-written section. I tried a quick rewrite; see what you think. The Singing Badger 23:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Many thanks. Ronald Collinson 23:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Authorship[edit]

Some scholars believe that the play has more than one author; some do not. The article cites one of them and makes it appear as though that scholar's opinion were a known fact. It is not. Carlo (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sentence you object to began "One estimate is that..." so it's difficult to accept your suggestion that this was presented as if it were known fact. I've no objection to what you have added, here, but it does seem to me that you have removed some quite useful information from an extremely short section which - contrary to your edit summary - does the exact opposite of "belabouring the point". I think this section needs a lot more material like that, not less. Can you explain your point a bit more fully? AndyJones (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It actually began with "There is stylistic evidence that Part 1 is not by Shakespeare alone" with absolutely no indication that the "stylistic evidence" is not the accepted wisdom. I searched my library, which isn't extensive, but has a lot more than one Shakespeare book in it, and I found no suggestion in any of them that Shakespeare was not the sole author, beyond a note in Boyce that it was an 18th and 19th century idea due to the play's treatment of Joan of Arc as a villain. The extra matter of the Signet Edition (which is pretty complete) the Dent Editions, All of Shakespeare, Spurgeon and the other books I've looked in simply treat is as assumed that Shakespeare is the sole author - beyond this one mention in Boyce, which dispenses with the idea. I'm not saying that people DON'T say that - I'm sure that some do. But it is the only proposal of authorship contained in the "Text" paragraph, and it seems to me to be the minority opinion. Carlo (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure it is the minority opinion. Before you deleted it, it was cited on this page to Edward Burns and to Gary Taylor. When was the Signet published? I've formed the impression that in the years following A S Cairncross's 2nd-edition Arden there was a feeling that Cairncross had "solved the problems" and established that the three plays were wholly Shakespearean and had been written in historical order. That seems to have been followed by a drift away from that opinion again in recent decades, towards the consensus that part 1 was a muti-authored "prequel" to the other two. (Check out Michael Wood if you're looking for a popular book that accepts this position.) AndyJones (talk) 08:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

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 pretty happy with how it's turned out, and as with The Two Gentlemen of Verona, The Taming of the Shrew, Henry VI, Part 2 and Henry VI, Part 3, I welcome feedback. Bertaut (talk) 02:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warwick[edit]

Surely Warwick is a conflation [to use the good term applied to Somerset] of the two Richards, Beauchamp and Neville, rather than a mistaken identification. Right into Part Two, the Kingmaker is claiming his predecessor (and father-in-law)'s French conquests. I cannot see any point to what Warwick does and says in the 'roses plucking' scene (II/ iv) unless he is the Warwick who continues through the trilogy. I know that some directors have cast a separate Warwick in Part One, but I think the distinction misguided.

Rogersansom (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

  • It's a good point, but when I wrote the little thing about the mistaken identity, I was going by what pretty much all modern editors say. For example, in Michael Taylor's Oxford edition after differentiating between Warwick Part 1 and Warwick Parts 2 & 3, he says "Barton and Hall's adaptation...conflates the two Warwicks into a single puzzling figure" (92). Michael Hattaway makes the same distinction on page 63 of the Cambridge edition - identifying Warwick part 1 as Richard de Beauchamp not Richard Neville (ie Warwick parts 2 & 3). Like you say, I can see a narrative continuity between the two characters (the BBC adaptation has Mark Wing-Davey play both, and it works fine), but critics seem to have focused on the lack of historical continuity in differentiating the two. I've added a reference to Taylor and Hattaway for now anyway. Bertaut (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrase in Have with You to Saffron-Walden[edit]

This is a very minor point, but the sentence in the article "Brooke believes that this statement is paraphrased in Nashe's later pamphlet Have with You to Saffron-Walden" isn't supported by the source text. He writes: "Editors have noted a strikingly similar allusion in Thomas Nashe’s preface to Have with you to Saffron Walden (1596). Brooke isn't drawing any conclusions: he's just noting that others have seen a similarity. Footnotes to p. 109, The first part of King Henry the Sixth (1918), Yale, OCLC 1079273. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've changed the wording of the paragraph to reflect this point. It's interesting none the less, as I personally haven't read the Brooke book, and I was going on what Taylor says in his Oxford Shakespeare edition; "Tucker Brooke thinks that there is here a strikingly similar allusion to..." Poor stuff from Taylor. Bertaut (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time: it was just a minor quibble when there's quite a lot of real work going on!--Old Moonraker (talk) 08:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Bertaut (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sweeping claims about critical discourse[edit]

The entire presentation of the authorship/attribution debate in this article is deeply flawed. It doesn't make the slightest sense to say that there is no consensus and back it up by putting 1960s critics against 1990s and later. The total muddling of 20th century criticism makes it look as if there was no critical debate just a squabble over entrenched positions. This is not the case, and one needs statements like "the majority of recent critics suggests" or "currently the debate seems to be moving towards", etc. Above all, there needs to be a clear distinction between critics who wrote before the emergence of the New Bibliography / the Oxford Complete Works. Computers have revolutionized attribution studies and the voices of even the most eminent critics that predate these new approaches (e.g. Dover Wilson) must be presented as outdated. grovel (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir William Lucy[edit]

...why does he redirect here? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably the second best option—the best being High Sheriff of Warwickshire, to which I've redirected it. Good catch, FIM! —jameslucas (" " / +) 13:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Belatedly, but thanks for the info JamesLucas! Cheers, O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 14:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with Orléans?[edit]

SHIFT+[1-8] seems an odd title for a Duc. Jcmckeown (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcmckeown: I can't disagree with that statement, but I have to believe I'm missing something. Clarify, please? —jameslucas (" " / +) 13:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JamesLucas, this is in reference to the article text, section "Characters", under The French. Jcmckeown (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jcmckeown: What does 'SHIFT+[1-8]' mean? Is that text displaying in your browser? I don't see it in either the article text or the code. —jameslucas (" " / +) 16:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
oh... how embarassing. there is indeed a browser add-on interfering with pages. Apologies for the disturbance. Jcmckeown (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No harm done! In fact, I was able to improve a redirect because your comment caused me to see one from March (above) that I missed 9 months ago. Wikipedia thrives on confusion and resolution, not silence! —jameslucas (" " / +) 17:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Henry VI, Part 1. 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:

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

checkY 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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Henry VI, Part 1. 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:

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

checkY 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)[reply]

Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March description[edit]

Is it fair to describe Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March as "a conflation of Sir Edmund Mortimer and his nephew, Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March". it is true that in Henry IV, Part 1 the character is clearly an amalgamation of uncle and nephew in terms of their life story (though whether is is a case of artistic licence or error on Shakespeare's part is open to question), but I do not think this is clearly the case in Henry VI, Part 1. While the 5th Earl of March's life does not fit with the character here (in that he was not a prisoner in the Tower of London and died relatively young), Sir Edmund Mortimer's life is an even worse fit for the character here as he died even earlier and was not a prisoner in the Tower. Thus I think, unless a source can be provided to show other have claimed this, the claim is problematic. Dunarc (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves, it's Edwards Burns' edition of the play for the Arden Shakespeare that goes into detail on this. I don't have a copy to hand right now, so I'll have to get back to you in a day or two. What I can confirm is that Michael Taylor says in the Oxford Shakespeare edition that the character is an amalgamation of three real historical figures, although the only one he names is the 5th Earl. Michael Hattaway in the New Cambridge Shakespeare also identifies him with the 5th Earl and John Mortimer (the 5th Earl's cousin). Certainly though, one way or the other, adding a reference is a good idea. Bertaut (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - a reference would be great. Dunarc (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dunarc As promised, I checked out Burns, and the reference is on page 110 of his edition of the play; footnote 14. It's a long-winded note, but at the end of discussing Sir Edmund Mortimer, Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March, and John Mortimer, Burns says, "So the figure in the play is a conflation of three historical Mortimers; the known rebel (Sir Edmund), his brother the unfortunate prisoner (John), and the historically loyal uncle of Richard (5th Earl)." If you're happy enough with that, we can throw in a reference. Bertaut (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for doing this Bertaut. I think that would be great and avoid any confusion. Dunarc (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Earl of Warwick[edit]

So could we explain a bit more the identity of this character. I'm aware that, historically, the Earl of Warwick during the time depicted in the play was the Beauchamp earl, and not the more famous Richard Neville. But the role of Warwick in the play - picking out the White Rose, identifying himself strongly with York - seems to suggest this is an anchronistic appearance by the Kingmaker, doesn't it? If scholars argue otherwise, this could perhaps be explained in more detail in the footnote? john k (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So what change do you propose? I assume you've seen the section "Warwick" above on this talk page where @Rogersansom: and @Bertaut: discuss the rationale? I've checked Edward Burns' Arden edition too which has a long footnote saying the same thing as everyone else, namely that they were two different characters in history and that Barton & Hall conflate them. I don't think it's open to us Wikipedians to resolve the point (per: WP:NOR). @John K: do you want to suggest some wording? AndyJones (talk) 08:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about no link on the character name, and the explanation being "A conflation of Richard de Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick and Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick"? john k (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My misgiving with that is that we'd need a source which suggests that Shakespeare conflated them and, so far, I can only with confidence say that we have sources that Barton and Hall did so. I'll take a look later on to see if I have anything more. AndyJones (talk) 12:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If Barton and Hall conflate them, and Shakespeare follows Barton and Hall, then the character is logically a conflation, no? john k (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why that language, which is basically the same as that already used for the Duke of Somerset, would be a problem. john k (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just to clarify, Burns doesn't mean Edward Hall, he means Peter Hall, who was born over 300 years after Shakespeare died. AndyJones (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I've taken another look at Burns. He confirms that Mortimer and Somerset are conflations but does not agree that Warwick is. Indeed, he describes the character as "indistinct" if he is meant to be the Kingmaker, comparing the "peaceable" character of Warwick in 1H6 with the "irascible" one of 2H6 and 3H6. So I still think we need a different source before we can resolve this. AndyJones (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Indistinct" I don't think warrants simply stating that he is Beauchamp and not Neville! I agree that we probably shouldn't say he's a conflation, though. john k (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Henry_VI,_Part_1&oldid=1207623200"