{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015363128491620111, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008379888268156424, 'mean_word_length': 5.696261682242991, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Memorial Reconstruction Theory and Chronicles: The Henry VI Plays

ABSTRACT Since 1928, The First Part of the Contention and Richard Duke of York (printed separately in the 1590s) have been regarded as memorial reconstructions of two texts in the Folio edition of Shakespeare’s Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies (printed in 1623), where they are instead identified as Henry the Sixth, Part Two and Henry the Sixth, Part Three. Although recent scholarship has questioned the validity of the memorial reconstruction hypothesis, demonstrating aesthetic differences between the “bad quartos” and the Folio as a sign of distinctive authorial engagements, most reference works and critical editions of the Henry VI plays accept a variety of textual evidence in support of the memorial reconstruction hypothesis. The hypothesis assumes that mangled historical details should be attributed not to a playwright who consulted chronicle sources but to non-authorial agents who trusted their memory when reconstructing the Folio version. This article aims to challenge textual evidence for the memorial reconstruction hypothesis adduced by Peter Alexander and recent textual scholars by discrediting the supporting textual evidence, to argue that demonstrable verbal links between the suspect texts and chronicle sources in several passages unique to Contention or Duke of York substantiate the authorial consultation of chronicle sources.