Henry II: Difference between revisions

(Created page with "Davenport, Robert and Shakespeare, William (attrib.) (1624) ==Historical Records== ===Stationers' Register=== category:S.R. <blockquote>09 September 1653 (S.R...")
 
m (added category tags)
Line 40: Line 40:


==Critical Commentary==
==Critical Commentary==
 
<br>
<Summarise any critical commentary that may have been published by scholars. Please maintain an objective tone!>
In the context of Moseley's entries, '''Gary Taylor''' refers to "Henry I" and "Henry II" as if a single play: "The 1653 entry also attributes to Shakespeare ''The Merry Devil of Edmonton'' (as did Charles I), and to Shakespeare and Davenport the lost ''Henry the First and Henry the Second'', which Davenport wrote or adapted in the 1620s..." (20, n43).
 
<br>
 
<br>
 
'''Harbage''' ("Palimpsest") points out that "[s]ince the long reign of King Stephen intervened between those of the two Henrys, ''Henry the First and Henry the Second'' seems an extremely unlikely title for a play; and as Moseley in 1653 was saving fees by entering two plays as one, it is fairly obvious that he was doing so in the present instance". Harbage is less sceptical than Bentley about the authenticity of Warburton's list of play manuscripts, deducing from Warburton's reference only to "Henry ye 1st" that "the ''Henry the Second'' manuscript had evidently become separated from its fellow" (310).
<br>
<br>
<br>
==For What It's Worth==
==For What It's Worth==


Line 53: Line 56:
==Works Cited==
==Works Cited==


<List all texts cited throughout the entry, except those staple texts whose full bibliographical details have been provided in the masterlist of Works Cited found on the sidebar menu. Use the coding below to format the list>
<div style="padding-left: 2em; text-indent: -2em">Harbage, Alfred. "Elizabethan-Restoration Palimpsest". ''Modern Language Review'' 35 (1940): 287-319.</div>
 
<div style="padding-left: 2em; text-indent: -2em"> citation goes here </div>


<If you haven't done so already, also add here any key words that will help categorise this play. Use the following format, repeating as necessary: [[category:example]]>




Site created and maintained by [[David McInnis]], University of Melbourne; updated 15 January 2015.
Site created and maintained by [[David McInnis]], University of Melbourne; updated 30 January 2015.
[[category:all]][[category:David McInnis]]
[[category:all]][[category:David McInnis]][[category:Shakespeare]][[category:S.R.]][[category:English history]][[category:English kings]][[category:palimpsests]]

Revision as of 00:33, 30 January 2015

Davenport, Robert and Shakespeare, William (attrib.) (1624)


Historical Records

Stationers' Register

09 September 1653 (S.R.II, 1.429 CLIO)

Master Mosely Entred also . . . the severall playes following . . xxs vjd
...
Henry the first, & Hen: the 2d, by Shakespeare & Davenport.



Theatrical Provenance

King's?


Probable Genre(s)

History.


Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues

<Enter any information about possible or known sources. Summarise these sources where practical/possible, or provide an excerpt from another scholar's discussion of the subject if available.>


References to the Play

<List any known or conjectured references to the lost play here.>


Critical Commentary


In the context of Moseley's entries, Gary Taylor refers to "Henry I" and "Henry II" as if a single play: "The 1653 entry also attributes to Shakespeare The Merry Devil of Edmonton (as did Charles I), and to Shakespeare and Davenport the lost Henry the First and Henry the Second, which Davenport wrote or adapted in the 1620s..." (20, n43).

Harbage ("Palimpsest") points out that "[s]ince the long reign of King Stephen intervened between those of the two Henrys, Henry the First and Henry the Second seems an extremely unlikely title for a play; and as Moseley in 1653 was saving fees by entering two plays as one, it is fairly obvious that he was doing so in the present instance". Harbage is less sceptical than Bentley about the authenticity of Warburton's list of play manuscripts, deducing from Warburton's reference only to "Henry ye 1st" that "the Henry the Second manuscript had evidently become separated from its fellow" (310).


For What It's Worth

<Enter any miscellaneous points that may be relevant, but don't fit into the above categories. This is the best place for highly conjectural thoughts.>


Works Cited

Harbage, Alfred. "Elizabethan-Restoration Palimpsest". Modern Language Review 35 (1940): 287-319.


Site created and maintained by David McInnis, University of Melbourne; updated 30 January 2015.