Henry II

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 . . xx^s vj^d

...

Henry the first, & Hen: the 2^d, by Shakespeare & Davenport.

Theatrical Provenance

King's?

Probable Genre(s)

History (Harbage, Annals); Historical romance (Harbage, "Palimpsest" 318).

Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues

Harbage proposes the ballad, "The Deathe of Faire Rosamond", which appeared in Deloney's Strange Histories (1607), as a likely source for Davenport ("Palimpsest" 313). His suggestion depends on his argument that Mountfort's Henry the Second, King of England; With The Death of Rosamond (1693) is a palimpsest containing traces of the lost "Henry II" play. He finds linguistic parallels between the 1693 play and the ballad to support his case for Strange Histories as a source (313). He also suggests that Davenport was indebted to Drayton's England's Heroical Epistles as republished in 1619, containing the exchange between Henry II and Rosamond ("Palimpsest" 317), but stops short of calling this a "source".

Deloney, Strange Histories

Deloney's ballad narrates the tension between Queen Elinor and Henry's lover, the fair Rosamond, explaining that Henry built a labyrinthine fortified bower at Woodstock to protect Rosamond. When Henry's son waged war against him, Henry took leave of Rosamond to fight in France. She faints upon hearing of his imminent departure, then pleads to go with him:

But sith your Grace in forraine coastes,

among your foes vnkind,

Must go to hazard life and limme,

why should I stay behind?

Nay rather let me like a Page

your Shield and Target beare,

That on my breast that blow may light,

which should annoy you there.

O let me in your royall Tent,

prepare your Bed at night,

And with sweete Bathes refresh your Grace,

at your returne from fight,

So I your presence may enioy... (Deloney 1612 edn, sig.A4^v; EEBO-TCP open access)

Henry convinces Rosamond to stay home in the bower under the guardianship of a knight, Sir Thomas, then takes his leave. In his absence, Queen Elinor lures Sir Thomas out of the bower, wounds him, and using his clue of thread to navigate the labyrinth, locates Rosamond within its many rooms and doors. The queen, though temporarily struck by Rosamond's beauty, orders her out of her costly robes and instructs her to take poison. Rosamond kneels, asks for pardon and pleads for banishment or cloistered life rather than death. The queen does not relent though, and Rosamond drinks the offered poison. Her body is buried at Godstow near Oxford.

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). He further argues that the play "may not be totally lost", and claims that Henry the Second, King of England; With The Death of Rosamond. A Tragedy. Acted at the Theatre Royal, By Their Majesties Servants (1693), a play usually associated with the actor William Mountfort (but not necessarily of his authorship) is "a stage version of 'Shakespeare and Davenport's' Henry the Second" (311). (He does add the caveat, "I do not expect others to share fully in my belief", 318). He proceeds to note the "interesting coincidence" of Drayton's Heroical Epistles containing the stories of Rosamond and Henry II, King John and Matilda, and Queen Isabella and Mortimer --- the subjects (respectively) of Henry the Second (1693), Davenport's King John and Matilda, and Edward the Third (1691). Harbage provocatively asks:

Does it not seem likely that Davenport, acting upon the suggestion of the volume of 1619 [of Drayton's poems], embarked upon the creation of a series of neo-chronicles--centring upon the loves of the English kings rather than upon their martial exploits...? ("Palimpsest" 317)

Harbage follows this suggestion by observing a parallel between Davenport's King John and Matilda and Drayton's The Legend of Matilda (in order to establish Davenport's debt to Drayton more generally); in so doing, he notes "how in mentioning Henry II Davenport reveals what aspect of this king's career most engages his attention" --- referring to the line, "Henry the Wedlock-breaker" (318). He thus suggests the subject matter of the "Henry II" play by Davenport: "Davenport is thinking not of Henry the reformer, the opponent of Becket, the conqueror of Ireland, but of Henry the Wedlock-breaker the lover of the Fair Rosamond" (318).

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

Deloney, Thomas. "A mournefull Dittie on the death of faire Rosamond, King Henrie the seconds Concubine." Strange histories, or, Songs and sonnets, of kinges, princes, dukes, lords, ladyes, knights, and gentlemen and of certaine ladyes that were shepheards on Salisburie plaine : very pleasant either to be read or songe, and a most excellent warning for all estates. London, 1612. sigs.A3-B2v. EEBO-TCP open access

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

Site created and maintained by David McInnis, University of Melbourne; updated 12 Feb 2015.