(5) The most positive evidence of the date of the Shakespearean additions to 1 Henry VI is that discussed in the note on IV. vii. 63-71. Unless some earlier printed source than is now known can be found for Talbot's epitaph, it will be hard to establish a date prior to 1599 for the revised play.
The idea that Shakespeare could not about 1600 have done work as apparently immature as that which he contributed to 1 Henry VI, or have sanctioned the performance at that time of so poor a play, is not in consonance with facts. Shakespeare's company undoubtedly produced worse plays during this period when the public taste seemed to warrant them (e.g., A Yorkshire Tragedy in 1605), and the Shakespearean parts of 1 Henry VI are assuredly not as unworthy of the author of Henry V as is The Merry Wives of Windsor (ca. 1600) unworthy of the author of Twelfth Night and Much Ado About Nothing.
On November 8, 1623, the publishers of the Shakespeare Folio, Blount and Jaggard, entered our play for publication under the rather surprising title of 'The thirde parte of Henry ye Sixt.' The work now known as 1 Henry VI is certainly meant, for 2 and 3 Henry VI (in their early forms) had both been previously licensed,[1] and the Blount—Jaggard license specifically refers only to such of Shakespeare's plays 'as are not formerly entred to other men.' It is probable that in thus listing as the third part the drama which by historical sequence became in the Folio the first part, the publishers meant more
- ↑ When Millington assigned the early versions of 2 and 3 Henry VI to Pavier, April 19, 1602, he called them 'the first and second parte of Henry the VI.'
the audience Henry V, 'if you be not too much cloyed.' The epilogue to Henry V reminds them how they have in the past applauded Henry VI. Is it not the intention to suggest: 'Perhaps you may have those plays again' (with Harry the Sixth worked over so as to fill its place in the series)?
