The Dating of Shakespeare's History Plays

Dating Shakespeare’s Plays: The Dating of Shakespeare’s History Plays

The Dating of Shakespeare’s History Plays By Kevin Gilvary

he ‘scholarly consensus’ on the dating of Wells and Taylor suggest that Shakespeare cannot Shakespeare’s History plays in general have written any plays in the 1580s because he derives from the magisterial work of Sir would then have had a period in the 1590s when TEdmund Chambers. He gave us a neat scheme of he wrote no plays. Wells and Taylor state the date dates for almost forty plays apparently composed of composition of The Life and Death of King John between 1590 and 1610, at the rate of two a year, as 1596, notwithstanding their own admission comprising a comedy and either a history or a that the play “could be, and has been, dated in tragedy. Chambers had proceeded with caution any year in the decade between these two termini” and devoted seventy pages to his discussions of [i.e. between Meres’ list in 1598 and Holinshed’s the ‘Problem of Authenticity’ and ‘The Problem of Chronicles in 1587]. Chronology’. His ordered list of dates is qualified: Date of Composition There is much of conjecture, even as regards the order, and still more as regards the ascriptions to particular years. These are There is no direct evidence for the date of partly arranged to provide a fairly even flow of composition of any of Shakespeare’s plays. As production when plague and other inhibitions Stephen Greenblatt sums up (Will in the World: did not interrupt it (Chambers, WS, I, 269). How Shakespeare became Shakespeare, 2004: 13):

Later scholars, however, have not followed such Those springs [of Shakespeare’s art] would be a cautious approach, but have simply accepted difficult enough to glimpse if biographers could his dates as ‘fact’ rather than ‘conjecture’. Wells draw upon letters and diaries, contemporary and Taylor (in William Shakespeare: A Textual memoirs and interviews, books with revealing marginalia, notes and first drafts. Nothing of Companion) follow Chambers in giving a the kind survives. detailed account of the ‘Canon and Chronology of Shakespeare’s plays’ and offer a very similar In the absence of such direct evidence for the date pattern of dating. Yet a comment in answer to of composition of any of Shakespeare’s plays, many Honigmann’s attempt to offer earlier dates implies assertions and proposals have become gradually their own lack of firm evidence about the dates of accepted as ‘fact’ in ‘scholarly consensus’. the plays:

Curiosity abhors a vacuum, and the urge Stationers’ Register to push Shakespeare’s first play farther and farther back into the 1580s is palpably The Stationers’ Register (SR) notes the intention designed to fill the black hole of our ignorance of a publisher to publish a work, establishing a about those years; but since we must then kind of copyright as well as an ‘imprimatur’ – an spread the same number of plays over a larger official licence to go to print. Chambers quotes number of years, by filling one big vacuum the dates and the entries of Shakespeare’s plays in the 1580s, we simply create other vacuums in the Stationers’ Register and assumes that elsewhere (Wells & Taylor, TxC, 97).

Title page to the anonymous first quarto of Troublesome Raigne of King John, Part I, 1591. It has generally been believed that this play was by another author, but some scholars have argued that it was an early version by Shakespeare which he later revised.

most of the history plays were composed shortly then there is doubt: The Famous Victories of Henry before their registration, e.g. Henry V is said to V was registered in 1594 but, according to the title have been composed in 1599 and published in page, this play was not published until 1598. 1600. This assumption has been followed by later commentators, yet is open to question: some Publications: Quartos (& an Octavo) plays, which are thought to have been composed c. 1591, e.g. 1 Henry VI were not recorded in the The title page of a published play often gives useful SR until the publication of the First Folio (1623). information, including the date of publication. Similarly, not all printed plays had been registered Sir Edmund Chambers in William Shakespeare: A in the SR, e.g. there is no entry for The First Part Study of Facts and Problems quotes the dates for of the Contention (2 Henry VI). An entry in the the actual publication of the plays in quarto as SR is probably only useful as a final date terminus( mentioned in their title pages. ante quem) for the composition of a play, but even

There were only two publications of history accepting that the tetralogy 1, 2, 3 Henry VI– plays in quarto after 1616. A collection of ten Richard III was written before the tetralogy Richard plays attributed to Shakespeare was issued in 1619 II, 1, 2 Henry VI–Henry V, both the director, by Pavier. Only eight of those plays are recognised Michael Boyd, and the company believed that the now as Shakespearean, including three history eight plays were conceived as a continuous sweep plays: Henry V, Henry VI Part 2, Henry VI Part of history – an octology. Members of the ensemble 3 (these two combined as a single play titled have given fascinating accounts of the endeavour The Whole Contention between the Two Famous in Smallwood’s edition The Players of Shakespeare Houses, Lancaster and York), and two other plays 6: Essays in the Performance of Shakespeare’s History attributed to Shakespeare, A Yorkshire Tragedy Plays (Cambridge: CUP, 2007). and Sir John Oldcastle. In 1622, sixth quartos appeared of 1 Henry IV and Richard III. The Use of Sources First Folio contained 36 plays by Shakespeare, eighteen of which had not been published before, Geoffrey Bullough in Narrative and Dramatic including three history plays: King John, 1 Henry Sources of Shakespeare conducted a very thorough VI and Henry VIII. review of the sources used by Shakespeare. In volume III, he dealt with “the earlier history Two Tetralogies or an Octology? plays” and in volume IV with “the later plays”. He concluded that the main sources for the Apart from King John and Henry VIII, the plays fall History plays were Hall and Holinshed. Further neatly into two groups of four, and it is generally examination of sources is given in more recent supposed that they were conceived in two separate editions of individual plays, e.g. in the Arden, New groups. Some commentators envisage an original Cambridge and Oxford Shakespeare editions. grouping of four plays (1, 2, 3 Henry VI–Richard Edward Hall, The Union of the Two Noble III), which treated events continuously from the and Illustre Famelies of Lancastre and Yorke funeral of Henry V (1422) to the accession of (1548–50). Bullough argues that the author began Henry VII (1485). These four plays are usually his plan for both the tetralogies by studying Hall’s referred to as ‘The First Tetralogy’, although it is moralising narrative of English History from not absolutely certain that they were composed Henry IV to Henry VIII. Hall (?1498–1547) before the so-called ‘Second Tetralogy’, or even relied on previous chroniclers, especially Polydore whether they were conceived as four plays from Vergil’s account in Latin, Historia Anglica the outset. Others see an initial grouping of (1512–13, later editions, inc. 1545) and, in turn, three plays, First Part of the Contention–Tragedy influenced other writers, e.g. Richard Grafton, A of Richard Duke of York–Richard III, eventually Chronicle at Large and Meere History of the Affayres being expanded with a prequel, to emerge as the of Englande (1569). tetralogy 1, 2, 3 Henry VI–Richard III. Hall emphasised the providential pattern Similarly, most commentators see the four plays, of history in the coming of the Tudors, which Richard II, 1, 2 Henry VI– Henry V, as conceived ended the disastrous Civil Wars. Hall’s account at the outset and written later, thus forming the begins half-way through the reign of Richard II ‘Second Tetralogy.’ Some commentators envisage in 1387 with the quarrel between Bolingbroke another grouping of three plays, I Henry IV–2 and Mowbray – exactly where Shakespeare Henry IV–Henry V, as a trilogy emerging from begins Richard II. Hall’s Chapter Titles anticipate the anonymous Famous Victories of Henry V, Shakespeare’s plays: eventually being expanded with their own prequel to emerge as the tetralogy Richard II, 1, 2 Henry i The unquiet time of King Henry the VI–Henry V. Most see these four plays as being Fourth conceived as a continuous series from the initial ii The victorious acts of King Henry the feud between Bolingbroke and Mowbray. Fifth iii The troublous season of King Henry the In 2005–08, the Royal Shakespeare Company Sixth performed these eight History plays in sequence, iv The prosperous reign of King Edward the which they readily called an octology. While Fourth

v The pitiful life of King Edward the Fifth Holinshed had sat as a juror to the enquiry that vi The tragical doings of King Richard the found Oxford not guilty of manslaughter in 1567. Third He had also issued a pamphlet in 1573 attacking a vii The politic governance of King Henry the man called Brown as the murderer involved in an Seventh viii The triumphant reign of King Henry the incident in Shooters Hill, thereby deflecting blame Eighth from Oxford (for details see Monstrous Adversary, Alan Nelson’s unsympathetic biography of Tillyard argued (and Bullough agreed) that Hall Oxford, pp. 48, 90–2). It is possible that Oxford provided the moral and providential framework had access to the same material as the editors and for the two tetralogies. While there has been contributors to Holinshed’s second edition in extended criticism of Tillyard’s view of the extent 1587, which would allow an earlier date than is 1 of a ‘Tudor myth’, most commentators editors generally proposed. agree that Hall provides some kind of moral Like Hall, A Mirrour for Magistrates (1559) framework for the plays. His work was prohibited influenced Shakespeare in providing a tragic and burnt under Mary for giving support to framework for his characters in that they often Henry VIII and Protestantism. owed their downfall to their own actions. The Raphael Holinshed, The Chronicles of Mirror for Magistrates contained nineteen first Englande, Scotlande, and Irelande. The first person narratives in its first edition (with seven edition appeared in two volumes in 1577 and the more in its second edition, 1563), in which ghosts second was greatly expanded into three volumes from English history, principally from Richard II in 1587. This second edition, which is often bound to Richard III, lament their own downfalls and together into a single book, comprises some 3½ warn future rulers to moderate their conduct. million words, about four times the length of These narratives were planned in three volumes: the First Folio and was thus both valuable and Volume 1: to the end of Edward IV’s bulky. Holinshed and his co-authors were more reign: Tresilian, Mortimer, like editors, as the work is really a compendium Gloucester, Mowbray, of previous chroniclers and geographers, drawing Richard II, Owen Glendower, especially on Hall, but also on writings by Northumberland, Cambridge, Robert Fabyan, The New Chronicles of England Salisbury, James 1 (of and France (1516), parts of Grafton’s Chronicle Scotland), Suffolk, Cade, York, Clifford, Worcester, Warwick, (1569) not used by Hall, John Stow’s Chronicles Henry VI, Clarence, Edward , and of England (1580) John Foxe’s Actes and IV; mention is made of three Monuments (1583). Bullough demonstrates how others – those of the duchess Holinshed is frequently the principal source for Eleanor and duke Humphrey the detailed material in the plays. In fact, so close of Gloucester (printed in 1578) is Shakespeare to Holinshed, e.g. in Canterbury’s and that of Somerset (printed speech in Henry V at 1.2, that Bullough believes 1563). the dramatist had the work open in front of him Volume 2: to the end of Richard III’s reign, contained only eight as he composed. Boswell-Stone established that tragedies: those of Woodville, for most readings the second edition was used by Hastings, Buckingham, Shakespeare, a view supported by Lucille King Collingbourne, Richard III, (see the section on 2 Henry VI). It is, however, just Shore’s Wife, Somerset and possible that the playwright used these sources the Blacksmith. independently of Holinshed. Volume 3: was planned to cover the There was a strong personal link between Oxford period to the end of Mary’s and Raphael Holinshed, who prepared the main reign. source for all the History plays. Holinshed was a There were over twenty other narratives covering member of Sir William Cecil’s household, where earlier generations printed in later versions. Oxford had been a ward and where his wife Anne Thus almost all the narratives in the Mirror for Cecil generally resided. Holinshed had dedicated Magistrates which influenced Shakespeare were to his first edition to Cecil in 1577. In addition, be found in the first edition of 1559.2

Samuel Daniel’s epic poem The First Fowre This is relevant to apportioning Authorship, Bookes of the Civile Wars was registered on as Oxford is far more likely to have had access 11 October 1594 and published twice in 1595 to these unusual sources than Shakespeare of (according to the title page), i.e. two years before Stratford. the registration and publication of Richard II. The first three books deal with the story of Richard References to Plays of Shakespeare II. Most commentators follow Chambers and Bullough in viewing this poem as derivative from Contemporary references to the history plays the Chronicles (to which it is very much closer) have been collected by Chambers with occasional and influential upon the play. Both play and poem additions noted in the Arden and Oxford make the Richard II’s Queen (historically aged Shakespeare editions. Some references seem to be ten) a mature woman. Both play and poem make to printed texts attributed to Meres, who praises the Prince and Hotspur (historically two years Shakespeare’s Richard II, Richard III and Henry IV, older than Bolingbroke) roughly contemporaries. but does not mention the Henry VI plays, which The dating of the history plays obviously affects were not attributed to Shakespeare until 1619. If our understanding of the direction of influence; some references, e.g. Henslowe’s 1598 mention of it is usually asserted that Daniel embarked on a gown for the character of Henry VIII, actually his epic poem before Shakespeare began his refer to costumes used in Shakespeare’s play, then tetralogy, but it is possible that Shakespeare’s much earlier dates are entailed. handling of various themes influenced Daniel. It is not thought that Shakespeare knew Daniel or References in the Plays to whether he knew that they were dealing with the External Events same material on a big scale. It is possible however that Daniel’s patron, Mary Sidney, brought him Some commentators, e.g. David Bevington in into contact with Oxford through her literary Tudor Drama and Politics (1968), believe that the salon. plays only reflect matters of contemporary concern Obscure Sources without alluding to specific events. Others, e.g. Christopher Highley in Shakespeare, Spenser and the Crisis in Ireland (1997), argue for precise Each of Shakespeare’s history plays shows references. Further consideration of this can be knowledge from at least one obscure source. The found in the sections on Richard II, 2 Henry VI great achievement of the dramatist is to integrate and Henry V. arcane details seamlessly into the dramatic narrative. Here is a sample of sources; more details Shakespeare’s Use of Existing Plays can be found in individual chapters:

King John The Wakefield Chronicle (in Shakespeare appears to have used a number of Manuscript) plays published anonymously in the 1590s: Richard II French Chronicles Histoire du Roy d’Angleterre Richard II Thomas of Woodstock(?1 Richard II) manuscript 1 Henry IV Legal case ivolving Sir John Troublesome Reign of King John 1591 (quarto) Fastolf of Nacton True Tragedie of Richard the Third 1594 (SR & 2 Henry IV anonymous play Hickscorer quarto) Henry V Latin Chronicle Gesta Henrici Famous Victories of Henry V 1594 (SR); 1598 Quinti (quarto) 1 Henry VI Talbot’s epitaph in the Arden of Faversham 1594 (SR); 1598 (quarto) Cathedral at Rouen Edward III 1595 (SR); 1596 (quarto) 2 Henry VI Grafton’s Chronicles (for the Simcox miracle) Some commentators, including Oxfordians, view 3 Henry VI Ovid’s Heroides these as early versions of plays by Shakespeare. Richard III Dr Legge’s Ricardus Tertius Henry VIII Margaret of Navarre’s Dream

Early Starter? Wells & Taylor, however, reject the idea that Shakespeare was an early starter: ‘We have little Most scholars agree that I Henry VI is among reason to suppose that Shakespeare began writing Shakespeare’s earliest plays. In Pierce Penniless in 1586.’ They list five arguments against earlier (1592), Nashe had defended the idea of plays, dates: especially those derived from the Chronicles: (1) Honigmann supposes that The Troublesome First, for the subject of them, (for the most Reign of John, King of England was written in part) it is borrowed out of our English 1590–1, then published in 1591 because the chronicles, wherein our forefathers’ valiant Queen’s Men were in financial difficulties. acts (that have lain long buried in rusty brass Wells & Taylor do not accept this. and worm-eaten books) are revived, and they (2) Honigmann’s chronology, by pushing themselves raised from the grave of oblivion, back the traditional dating of the early and brought to plead their aged honors in histories, creates a large gap between King open presence; than which, what can be a John (early 1591) and Richard II (1595), sharper reproof to these degenerate effeminate in which Shakespeare purportedly wrote days of ours? no history plays at all – a genre which, on Honigmann’s account, he had created almost single-handed, and which had been Ribner believes that few history plays (none of the staple of his early success. which was Shakespeare’s) had been performed (3) Likewise, after resounding and early on stage by the time of Pierce Penniless; from successes in tragedy (Titus 1586?, Romeo Ribner’s list, only a small number were derived 1591?), we are to suppose that Shakespeare from the Chronicles: Legge’s Ricardius Tertius (a did not write another tragedy for eight play in Latin, which is only known to have been years. performed in Cambridge in 1579), Peele’s Jack (4) All of Shakespeare’s histories, with the Straw (1587–90), the anonymous True Tragedy possible exception of Contention, must post Chronicle, of Richard the Third(1588–90), Peele’s Edward date publication of Holinshed’s second edition (1587: STC 13569), and I (1590–1) Marlowe’s Edward II (1591) and the most scholars have believed that the sudden anonymous Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth popularity of the genre owes something to (1588) and 1, 2 Troublesome Raigne of King John the swell of nationalism associated with (1588 – 89). the defeat of the Spanish Armada (August Both J. Dover Wilson (The Fortunes of Falstaff ) 1588). and E. M. W. Tillyard (Shakespeare’s History Plays) (5) Finally, Honigmann’s early dating asks us to proposed that Shakespeare had begun composing believe that Shakespeare was not mentioned his plays before 1590. E. A. J. Honigmann in by name in any surviving document for the first seven years of his playwriting career— Shakespeare: the ‘lost years’(1985) has developed years in which he allegedly dominated an alternative chronology, in particular for the theatrical life, writing a series of plays so history plays, thus suggesting that Nashe was successful that they were busily echoed and referring to various plays by Shakespeare in 1592. pillaged by all his elders and contemporaries. Honigmann proposed the following dates: These arguments suggest that dating some plays to 1586 Titus Andronicus the 1580s is unlikely, but it remains a possibility 1587 Two Gentlemen of Verona that the history plays were written earlier than has 1588 1 Henry VI Taming of The Shrew been generally supposed. 1589 2 Henry VI Comedy of Errors 1590 3 Henry VI; Richard III 1591 King John Romeo & Juliet Oxfordian Hypothesis: History Plays as Tudor Propaganda Although his premise that Shakespeare had a Catholic connection with Lancashire is doubted When ascribing the works of Shakespeare to by many, this does not disqualify Honigmann Edward de Vere, Oxfordians tend to date the from showing that the existing evidence can plays earlier. The following points apply to the support earlier dates than is usually proposed. history plays:

Other Cited Works (1) Oxford wrote history plays as instruments of Tudor Orthodoxy, mainly Anderson, Mark, “Shakespeare” by Another Name. from the mid 1580s when the Spanish threat New York: Gothem, 2005 was at its highest. The plays graphically Bevington, David, Tudor Drama and Politics, represent the futility of dissension and Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1968 disloyalty. Boswell-Stone, W. G., Shakespeare’s Holinshed: The Chronicle and The Historical Plays Compared, (2) Oxford had connections with the London: Longwell’s, 1896 authors of both the main sources used for Bullough, Geoffrey, Narrative and Dramatic Sources of the History plays. Edward Hall attended Shakespeare, vol. III (‘The Early Histories’) vol. Grays Inn, as did Oxford at a later date. IV (‘The Later Histories’), London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1960 & 1962 (3) Oxford had closer connections with Chambers, E. K., William Shakespeare A Study of Facts Raphael Holinshed. The first edition of The and Problems, 2 vols, Oxford: Clarendon, 1930 Chronicles had been dedicated to Oxford’s Clark, Eva Turner, Hidden Allusions in Shakespeare’s father-in-law, William Cecil, Lord Burghley Plays. New York: Kennikat, rptd 1974 in 1577. Holinshed seems to have been a Farina, William, De Vere as Shakespeare: An member of the Cecil household, as he had Oxfordian Reading of the Canon, Jefferson, NC: sat as a juror on the enquiry that found McFarland, 2006 Oxford not guilty of manslaughter in 1567. Greenblatt, Stephen, Will in the World: How Holinshed had also issued a pamphlet in Shakespeare became Shakespeare, London: 1573 attacking a man called Brown as the Jonathan Cape, 2004 perpetrator of a murder in Shooters Hill, Highley, Christopher, Shakespeare, Spenser and the thereby deflecting blame from Oxford. Crisis in Ireland, Cambridge: CUP, 1997 The incident is very reminiscent of Prince Honigmann, E. A. J., Shakespeare, the “lost years”, Manchester: MUP, 2005 Hal’s antics in Famous Victories and in 1 King, Lucille, “2 and 3 Henry VI – Which Henry IV. It is possible that Oxford was Holinshed?”, PMLA, 1935: 745–52 composing his plays and consulting the Nelson, Alan, Monstrous Adversary, Liverpool: LUP, same sources at the same time and in the 2003 same place (Cecil House) as Holinshed was Ogburn, Charlton, The Mysterious Mr Shakespeare, preparing his Chronicles. Thus Oxford had Virginia: EPM, 1984 the opportunity to consult the same sources Ribner, Irving, The English History Play in the Age of as Holinshed before the results appeared in Shakespeare, Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1957 the 1587 edition. Tillyard, E. M. W., Shakespeare’s History Plays, London: Chatto & Windus, 1944 Conclusion Vickers, Sir Brian, Shakespeare, co-author, Oxford: OUP, 2002 We do not know the date of composition of any Wells, Stanley & Taylor Gary, William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion, Oxford: OUP, 1987 of Shakespeare’s history plays. All we can propose — (eds), William Shakespeare: The Complete Works, for sure is the range of dates within which they Oxford: OUP, 1988 were composed. Wilson, J. Dover, The Fortunes of Falstaff, Cambridge, CUP, 1943 Notes 1. Holinshed’s Chronicles is now the subject of careful scrutiny. See page 287, note 2. 2. For A Mirrour for Magistrates, Stuart Gillespie (Shakespeare’s Books, 2004) gives a brief review of Lily Campbell’s 1960 edition.

I, II, III Henry VI and Richard III ‘The First Tetralogy’ Preface to 1, 2, 3 Henry VI & Richard III

he First Folio presents King Henry the Sixt the Epilogue to Henry V may be a later addition, in three parts, (i.e. as three plays) in their since it is not included in Q1 (1600). Thus it is historical sequence after The Life of King possible that Henry V (as reported in Q1) was THenry V and before The Life and Death of King originally composed before the Henry VI plays, Richard III. and that the Chorus speeches were only added to Henry V after the Henry VI plays were composed. The First Tetralogy Sequence of Composition It is usual to refer to the Henry VI–Richard III plays as the ‘First Tetralogy’ on the hypothesis that There is neither contemporary evidence these four plays were composed before Richard nor scholarly consensus for the sequence of II–1, 2 Henry IV–Henry V the ‘Second Tetralogy’: composition of the Henry VI plays. Since the time the Epilogue to Henry V suggests that Henry VI’s of Malone, there has been much discussion on the loss of France was already familiar material on the sequence: Cairncross (Arden 2 editor of the Henry Elizabethan stage: VI trilogy) and Hammond (Arden2 editor of Richard III) argued for a plain sequence, believing Thus far, with rough and all-unable pen, Our bending author hath pursued the story, that the four plays were planned and composed In little room confining mighty men, as a coherent tetralogy to work through a grand Mangling by starts the full course of their glory. scheme of history, in line with Edward Hall, The Small time, but in that small most greatly lived Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Famelies of This star of England: Fortune made his sword; Lancastre and Yorke (1548–50). Hall depicted the By which the world’s best garden be achieved, weaknesses of the reigns of Henry VI and Richard And of it left his son imperial lord. III up to their resolution with the accession of Henry the Sixth, in infant bands crown’d King Henry Tudor as Henry VII. Of France and England, did this king succeed; Whose state so many had the managing, Chambers, WS, believes that Parts 2 & 3 were That they lost France and made his England conceived as a two-part play, written before Part bleed: 1. He also considered Parts 2 & 3 to be the earliest Which oft our stage hath shown; and, for their individual plays in the canon. Others follow Wells sake, & Taylor, Burns and Knowles, who have argued In your fair minds let this acceptance take. that Parts 2 & 3 were closely followed by Richard Henry V. 5.2.1–14 III with 1 Henry VI composed a while later (as a ‘prequel’). Further complications arise for those Since there are no other plays which are know who believe that at least one of the plays (1 Henry to deal with these events, it is assumed that VI) was written collaboratively with the help of Shakespeare is referring to his own Henry VI another author. The main studies are mentioned plays, which must therefore have been composed under Attribution in the section on 1 Henry VI before the Henry IV & Henry V plays. On the which follows. other hand,

Dates for registration and publication of plays in The First Tetralogy

1 H 6 2 H 6 3 H 6 R III

1590–94 SR / Q1 1594 SR / Q1 1597 1595–99 O1 1595 Q2 1598 Q3 1602 1600–04 Q2 1600 SR / Q2 1600 Q4 1605 1605–09

1610–14 Q5 1605

1615–19 Q3 1619 Q3 1619 Q6 1622 1620–24 SR / F1 1623 F1 1623 F1 1623 F1 1623

Richard II, Henry IV Parts 1, 2 and Henry V ‘The Second Tetralogy’

The First Folio presents Richard II, Henry IV Parts 1, 2 and Henry V in their historical sequence, after King John and before King Henry VI, Part 1. There is no evidence for their sequence of composition and no direct evidence as to whether they were conceived as a tetralogy, a trilogy, or piecemeal. All the plays appeared in quarto in sequence between 1597–1600. The general consensus amongst editors is that they were conceived as Shakespeare’s ‘Second Tetralogy’ and composed in sequence between 1595 and 1600, A grid is helpful to show the relevant publication dates clearly:

R2 1H4 2H4 H5 1595–99 Q1 1597 Q1 1598 Q2, Q3 1598 Q2 1599 1600–04 Q3 1604 Q 1600 Q1 1600 Q2 1602 1605–09 Q4 1608 Q4 1608 1610–14 Q5 1613 1615–19 Q5 1615 Q3 1619 1620–24 F1 1623 Q6 1622 F1 1623 F1 1623 F1 1623

It is thought that the tetralogy had been inspired mainly by Hall’s The Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Famelies of Lancastre and Yorke (1548–50), which begins with the challenge between Bolingbroke and Mowbray, just as does Richard II. Most of the detail seems to derive from Holinshed, with some reference to The Mirror for Magistrates.