^{Note 1 in page 291} J. O. Halliwell-Phillips: Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare, 1890, 9th ed., vol. i, p. 97. G. Sarrazin: William Shakespeare's Lehrjahre, 1897.

^{Note 1 in page 296} Mr. Richard Grant White has a suggestion akin to this in his “Essay on the authorship of King Henry the Sixth.”

^{Note 1 in page 304} See Shakespeare's Holinshed, by W. G. Boswell-Stone, 1896, which gives in detail the treatment of the sources in the play as we now have it.

^{Note 1 in page 305} In the Wars of Alexander, edited by w. W. Skeat, E. E. T. S., Extra Series, xlvii, pp. 264–265, Alexander is taken prisoner by Candace and quails before her. As in the story of Delilah the episode shows the woman's wit rather than the hero's resource.

^{Note 1 in page 311} Barrett Wendell: William Shakspere, 1894, p. 78.

^{Note 1 in page 314} Illustrations of the metrical and rhetorical peculiarities of the play are abundantly given in the pages of Professor Sarrazin: William Shakespeare's Lehrjahre, 1897; Goswin König: Der Vers in Shakspere's Dramen, 1888; Leopold Wurth: Das Wortspiel bei Shakspere, 1895; M. Basse: Stijlaffectatie bij Shakespeare, 1895; G. Kramer: Die Anwendung der Stichomythie neben Gleichklang bei Shakespeare.

^{Note 2 in page 314} This speech of Warwick and Talbot's comparison of his position with “a little head of England's timorous deer,” on page 308, are the two passages cited at the meeting of the Modern Language Association by Prof. Hulme from Madden's Diary of Master William Silence. See Modern Language Notes, Feb. 1900. Both passages occur in the parts clearly added and worked into the older play, according to the foregoing analysis.

^{Note 1 in page 316} Were Shakespeare not the most objective and least personal of all writers, we could imagine we might almost trace the Reformer in this portrayal, strengthened as it is by the religious individualism left standing in Talbot's religious exclamations cited above (p. 304). But as much or more could be brought on the other side, and it is always safest in principle to consider the dramatic effectiveness of scenes, and not fancy any possible personal or symbolical interpretation.

^{Note 1 in page 318} F. G. Fleay: A Chronicle History of the Life and Work of William Shakespeare, 1886.

^{Note 1 in page 319} R. G. White: Essay on the authorship of the three parts of King Henry the Sixth; Vol. vii of “Works of William Shakespeare,” 1859.

^{Note 2 in page 319} A. C. Swinburne: A Study of Shakespeare, 3d edition, 1895.

^{Note 3 in page 319} G. Sarrazin: William Shakespeare's Lehrjahre, 1897.

^{Note 4 in page 319} Charles Knight: Pictorial Edition of Shakespeare, Supplement to Histories, Vol. ii.

^{Note 5 in page 319} Edward Dowden: Shakspere Primer, 1877, p. 62. In the Introduction to Shakespeare, 1895, Mr. Dowden expresses the same opinion: “The authorship of the first part of Henry VI. is not ascertained; it probably received additions from Shakespeare's hand; ... it is essentially pre-Shakespearian.”

Mr. Sidney Lee, in his Life of William Shakespeare, 1898, p. 59, helps us but little further: “In ‘The First Part of Henry VI.‘ the scene in the Temple Gardens, where white and red roses are plucked as emblems by the rival political parties (Act II., sc. iv.), the dying speech of Mortimer, and perhaps the wooing of Margaret by Suffolk, alone bear the impress of his style.” This is in substantial agreement with what Mr. Dowden had already said in his Primer. It is unfortunate that neither Mr. Dowden's nor Mr. Lee's plan permitted the critic to enter upon a detailed discussion of the play.