download this issue as a PDF

eare my standerd’ (William Shakespeare, The Tragedy of King Richard the Third [London: Valentine
Simmes for Andrew Wise, 1597], sig. L2v), making a verbal substitution for the now extrascenic reality.
22 Herbert Geisen, Die Dimension des Metaphysischen in Shakespeares Historien (Frankfurt am Main:
Studienreihe Humanitas Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, 1974), pp. 36–37: ‘[B]esonders sein
qualvoller Tod und seine Unfähigkeit, Gott um Gnade zu bitten, [unterstreichen] das unbeeinflußbare
Wirken des Gewissens, das hier allerdings nich die Reue, sondern die Verzweiflung des Schuldigen
weckt und im Dienste der divine retribution steht’ (original italics).
23 There is no critical consensus as to the order in which the Henry VI plays were actually written. The
position of the present author is that 2 and 3 Henry VI preceded 1 Henry VI and the focus on the enmity
between Humphrey and Beaufort in 1 Henry VI is there primarily to place the play’s events in the
context of the then already existing duology 2 and 3 Henry VI and to contribute to the unity of the three
stories.
24 Emrys Jones questions the traditional division between the third and fourth acts of 2 Henry VI,
asserting that Suffolk’s death in IV.1 is one of the immediate consequences of Duke Humphrey’s murder
(see Emrys Jones, Scenic Form in Shakespeare [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971], p. 75) and therefore
should finish the third act. Although this argument is not without merit, it is obvious that, between III.3
and IV.1 of the play, a considerable dramatic time passes, which might serve as a good occasion for an
interval. Moreover, the Duke of Somerset, whose head appears together with Suffolk’s in Duke
Humphrey’s dream of I.2, is killed as late as V.2 and his head shown in I.1 of 3 Henry VI, although his
death, too, could be regarded as a consequence of Humphrey’s political and physical liquidation.
37