Abstract
Two early plays in the Shakespeare canon, 2 Henry VI and 3 Henry VI, exist in widely different versions. For many years, the standard explanation for the discrepancy was that Contention and True Tragedie were untrustworthy texts contaminated by memorial reconstruction. In this essay, I will argue that each needs to be treated in its own terms as an internally consistent play; that anomalies in the text of Contention and True Tragedie are not convincing evidence of memorial reconstruction; and that significant differences in the alternative versions can best be explained as revision and expansion, rather than as abridgement.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Cahiers Élisabéthains: A Journal of English Renaissance Studies
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
