148 C. F. Tucker Brooke, 



difference very strikingly in contrast with the admirable acuteness 

 with which she defends her negative position in regard to Shake- 

 speare's authorship. 



It is doubtless true that the question of Shakespeare's concern in 

 the Henry VI plays possesses considerably higher importance than 

 any other which arises in this connexion. It seems clear, however, 

 that this question can be adequately discussed only after definite 

 knowledge has been attained regarding the origin and general charac- 

 ter of the plays upon which Shakespeare based his work. In the 

 following treatment, therefore, I purpose first to consider in detail 

 the authorship and dramatic structure of the plays which Shake- 

 speare received as his sources — ^namely, the Contention and the True 

 Tragedy ; and then, on the basis of what may thus be ascertained, 

 to attempt an investigation of the extent and nature of the altera- 

 tions introduced b}^ Shakespeare. It is hoped that some light may 

 thus be thrown upon the character of Shakespeare's style and method 

 during his earhest dramatic period. 



That Marlowe was responsible for much or all of the best poetry 

 in the Contention and the True Tragedy has been at least vaguely 

 accepted by all writers on the subject for many 3^ears. CoUier, in- 

 deed,^ appears to be the only nineteenth-century critic who felt 

 doubt concerning Marlowe's authorship, though the problem of the 

 origin of these plays has long been complicated by the general 

 acceptance of a piece of external evidence, which I shall discuss 

 later, ^ as proving that Greene and Peele also had shares in the work. 



It will be well to take up the examination of the Contention and 

 True Tragedy from the point of view of the authorship of Marlowe, 

 the only Elizabethan writer who, in my opinion, has any demon- 

 strable interest in these plays. 



I. Marlowe's Authorship of the Coxtention and True Tragedy. 



1. External evidence. 



It is a familiar fact that the two plays known since 1623 as the 



second and third parts of Henry VI have each been preserved in 



three different forms. It will be well to distinguish clearly the three 



phases in the evolution of the text. 



^ See J.P.Collier, History of English Dramatic Poetry, etc., 2nd ed., 1879, 

 vol. ii, p. 519-521. 

 » See below, p. 188 ff. 



