Talk:Henry VI, Part 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of Wikipedia's Elizabethan theatre coverage, and has come to the attention of WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, an attempt to create a comprehensive and detailed resource on the theatre and dramatic literature in England between 1558 and 1642. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (just like any other article!), or visit WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
 |
Henry VI, Part 1 is part of WikiProject Shakespeare, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
[edit] War of Roses
I thought the "War of Roses" cycle comprised more than four plays. Isn't it the following?
- Henry IV, part 1
- Henry IV, part 2
- Henry V
- Henry VI, part 1
- Henry VI, part 2
- Henry VI, part 3
- 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)
[edit] Bias Against Shakespeare
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)
- 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)
-
- Much better. Many thanks. Ronald Collinson 23:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Authorship
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
