Scan barcode
ermamac's review
I only saw part II at the roundhouse theatre, but it was absolutely amazing. I want to play Margret of Anjou before I die.
twilliamson's review against another edition
3.0
In what has been determined to be one of his earliest plays (although his authorship is certainly questioned by many scholars), Shakespeare here presents the first part of a trilogy of plays dealing with King Henry VI, one of the weaker kings of England who presided, in the mid-15th century, over one of the greatest periods of tumult in English history. While his play by no means represents an overtly flattering picture of any of the English nobility (except, perhaps, Lord Talbot), the play seems to have been intended as a sort of nationalist effort at elevating history through artistry.
The play itself, though, is all over the place, with an abundance of scheming characters whose conflicts are not ever resolved within the play itself. The overarching theme of the play is one warning of division leading to loss; internal strife between many of the characters on both sides of conflict in the war between England and France leads almost directly to the downfall of any of the figures squabbling. The conflicts between English nobles are seen to directly influence the loss of life of English forces, and internal divisions with the French similarly cause an inability to overcome English efforts to hold the country under the English crown.
Sprawling as it is, there are, of course, moments of excellence scattered throughout the play. I particularly enjoyed the exchanges between Talbot and his son, as tragic as their fates ultimately are. Individual scenes all work fairly well, with characters arguing and creating drama and tension with one another pretty consistently. As a whole, though, the play relies very heavily on the implications of action as it occurs in the background, and doesn't do much to guide "readers" of the play so many centuries later. As a result, the modern reader might be quite lost without at least a cursory knowledge of the events detailed in the play, including the conflict resulting in the War of the Roses, the questions of lineage and the legitimacy of English rule in France, or the course of the war as led by Dauphin and Joan la Pucelle.
It's also a bit dizzying to try to track who all is in conflict with whom. There are so many individuals cavorting about for power or control of the throne; whether it be Richard Plantagenet, Duke of Gloucester, Bishop (then Cardinal) of Winchester, Earl of Suffolk, or Earl of Somerset, there are so many characters with conflicting motivations, it can be difficult to track who wants what or why. The play feels fractured along so many lines, such that the eventual resolution of the play leaves too many parts dangling--it ends on an almost literal cliffhanger.
Even so, there's definitely enough here to sponsor rich imagination about these conflicts, and there are some standout characters here (especially Lord Talbot, Joan la Pucelle, and Richard Plantagenet, all of whom are pretty interesting). While it's resolutely not Shakespeare's best, it's still worthy of a read.
The play itself, though, is all over the place, with an abundance of scheming characters whose conflicts are not ever resolved within the play itself. The overarching theme of the play is one warning of division leading to loss; internal strife between many of the characters on both sides of conflict in the war between England and France leads almost directly to the downfall of any of the figures squabbling. The conflicts between English nobles are seen to directly influence the loss of life of English forces, and internal divisions with the French similarly cause an inability to overcome English efforts to hold the country under the English crown.
Sprawling as it is, there are, of course, moments of excellence scattered throughout the play. I particularly enjoyed the exchanges between Talbot and his son, as tragic as their fates ultimately are. Individual scenes all work fairly well, with characters arguing and creating drama and tension with one another pretty consistently. As a whole, though, the play relies very heavily on the implications of action as it occurs in the background, and doesn't do much to guide "readers" of the play so many centuries later. As a result, the modern reader might be quite lost without at least a cursory knowledge of the events detailed in the play, including the conflict resulting in the War of the Roses, the questions of lineage and the legitimacy of English rule in France, or the course of the war as led by Dauphin and Joan la Pucelle.
It's also a bit dizzying to try to track who all is in conflict with whom. There are so many individuals cavorting about for power or control of the throne; whether it be Richard Plantagenet, Duke of Gloucester, Bishop (then Cardinal) of Winchester, Earl of Suffolk, or Earl of Somerset, there are so many characters with conflicting motivations, it can be difficult to track who wants what or why. The play feels fractured along so many lines, such that the eventual resolution of the play leaves too many parts dangling--it ends on an almost literal cliffhanger.
Even so, there's definitely enough here to sponsor rich imagination about these conflicts, and there are some standout characters here (especially Lord Talbot, Joan la Pucelle, and Richard Plantagenet, all of whom are pretty interesting). While it's resolutely not Shakespeare's best, it's still worthy of a read.
jammasterjamie's review against another edition
4.0
Chaos reigns! France is lost and the British Crown is in turmoil! Heroes and villains and double-crosses abound! The story is fantastic and engaging, some of the monologues less so, but all in all this was a really fun read still the best dramatization of The War of the Roses that I've come across.
ellieanor's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
ashlylynne's review
3.0
This is a review of all three parts of King Henry VI. That being said, let me start with a brief statement about Mr. Shakespeare and myself. I am a huge Shakespeare fan and am currently working my way through all his works. I have read a decent chunk of his plays already, but recently bought a complete collection. I have started at the beginning and will hopefully be through its entirety before the end of this year, including rereading the one’s I have already read. I love what I’ve read of Shakespeare’s works and even took a class devoted to him when I was at University. Needless to say, I have little trouble deciphering his brilliant language, as well as appreciating his crude humor.* But, beyond his type of base humor, there is so much more to his plays. And that is why I am going to write reviews of all his plays I read this year, even though his plays are far better enjoyed watched than read.
So, to begin with, here's a short synopsis of this play. This three-part story focuses on King Henry and his downfall as king. Well, that about sums it up. So onto my short review.
It is speculated that this is Shakespeare’s first play, and that would explain why I found it a bit hard to get through. The language isn’t everything that his later well-practiced hand writes, but it’s not awful. I still found the story engaging, but not brilliant. I found it hard to stay completely immersed in the story line, and this play definitely took me longer to get through than I typically average. I did find some of his humor that I usually love, but it wasn’t as prominent as in his later works. I found myself trudging along through this story just to be able to say that I had finished it, because that’s the type of reader I am: stubborn.
However, I cannot completely condemn this play and say that it wasn’t worth my while. My favorite thing about this particular play was Queen Margaret. She is an exceedingly strong character and one that I did fully appreciate. That’s one thing I really love about Shakespeare; he is never afraid to write strong female characters and weak male characters, which happens to be what he did with King Henry in this particular story. Despite this, I think what made it so hard to read this play was the fact that it was so long. Being in three parts, this one play was 97 pages (in my copy) versus one of his typical plays at 30ish pages and, even with its few redeeming qualities, it was just too long and too stretched thin to be fully enjoyed.
Overall, this play wasn’t horrible, but it’s a tough read to get through. I probably would have given it 2/5 stars if I didn't love the man so much. I wouldn’t recommend this play to any Shakespeare reader who isn’t a die-hard fan. It might even taint their view of the brilliant man. But, if you, like me, are a fan till the end, this play is an important piece in Shakespeare’s history, being his (potentially) first play, and is worth at least one read.
Thanks for reading and make sure you stop by and check out my Facebook and Tumblr. pages. Keep up on my latest reviews and follow for other bookish posts! –https://www.facebook.com/dreamingthroughliterature and http://dreamingthroughliterature.tumblr.com/
*So, if you are ever in need of some help with anything Shakespearean, feel free to ask! I will gladly help.
So, to begin with, here's a short synopsis of this play. This three-part story focuses on King Henry and his downfall as king. Well, that about sums it up. So onto my short review.
It is speculated that this is Shakespeare’s first play, and that would explain why I found it a bit hard to get through. The language isn’t everything that his later well-practiced hand writes, but it’s not awful. I still found the story engaging, but not brilliant. I found it hard to stay completely immersed in the story line, and this play definitely took me longer to get through than I typically average. I did find some of his humor that I usually love, but it wasn’t as prominent as in his later works. I found myself trudging along through this story just to be able to say that I had finished it, because that’s the type of reader I am: stubborn.
However, I cannot completely condemn this play and say that it wasn’t worth my while. My favorite thing about this particular play was Queen Margaret. She is an exceedingly strong character and one that I did fully appreciate. That’s one thing I really love about Shakespeare; he is never afraid to write strong female characters and weak male characters, which happens to be what he did with King Henry in this particular story. Despite this, I think what made it so hard to read this play was the fact that it was so long. Being in three parts, this one play was 97 pages (in my copy) versus one of his typical plays at 30ish pages and, even with its few redeeming qualities, it was just too long and too stretched thin to be fully enjoyed.
Overall, this play wasn’t horrible, but it’s a tough read to get through. I probably would have given it 2/5 stars if I didn't love the man so much. I wouldn’t recommend this play to any Shakespeare reader who isn’t a die-hard fan. It might even taint their view of the brilliant man. But, if you, like me, are a fan till the end, this play is an important piece in Shakespeare’s history, being his (potentially) first play, and is worth at least one read.
Thanks for reading and make sure you stop by and check out my Facebook and Tumblr. pages. Keep up on my latest reviews and follow for other bookish posts! –https://www.facebook.com/dreamingthroughliterature and http://dreamingthroughliterature.tumblr.com/
*So, if you are ever in need of some help with anything Shakespearean, feel free to ask! I will gladly help.
shroudofthesea's review
4.0
if i could give these 3 1/2 stars, i would. messy, contradictory, sometimes boring, sometimes bad--but i like an underdog, and these truly are the underdogs of the tetralogies. i'd mostly recommend these to people who already know they love [b:Henry V|37526|Henry V|William Shakespeare|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1331563646l/37526._SY75_.jpg|1493394] and [b:Richard III|42058|Richard III|William Shakespeare|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1328043960l/42058._SY75_.jpg|2913597] and are dying to know how one gets from point A to point B, chronologically-speaking. other than that, i'd say you should give them a try for margaret of anjou alone, who manages to simultaneously be an unsympathetic harridan and a sympathetic queen, wife, and mother who loses all. her story is the most compelling part of the first tetralogy to me, and i don't think it's a stretch to say that she's the blueprint for later beloved characters like lady macbeth.
tsundoku281's review against another edition
3.0
i'm sorry shakespeare but really really boring.... considering he's so renowned for his multi-faceted, piercing examinations of humanity, literally all the characters in this play, even Henry VI or Joan, were sooooo one-dimensional. all we get are squabbles and factionalism, but not presented with any depth or nuance..... sigh. i noticed so many interesting elements like hypocrisy of the Church/religion, dying breed of chivalry and yet it just wasn't executed well. i really hated this play, sorry.
graywacke's review
4.0
Separate reviews for Parts One, Two and Three below.
(Part I posted Feb 14, Part II posted Apr 5, Part III posted May 10, 2021)
6. Henry VI Part One
Originally Performed: 1592 ??
format: 231-pages within this Signet Classic Paperback
acquired: October
read: Jan 6 – Feb 8
time reading: 9 hr 54 min, 2.6 min/page
rating: 4
locations: 1400’s London and northern France
about the author: April 23, 1564 – April 23, 1616
Signet contributors
Lawrence V Ryan – editor for Part One – 1967, 1989
[a:Sylvan Barnet|30166|Sylvan Barnet|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_50x66-82093808bca726cb3249a493fbd3bd0f.png] – Series Editor – 1963, 1989, 2005
Sources
[a:Raphael Holinshed|969255|Raphael Holinshed|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_50x66-82093808bca726cb3249a493fbd3bd0f.png] – from [b:Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland|3502293|Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland|Raphael Holinshed|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/book/50x75-a91bf249278a81aabab721ef782c4a74.png|3543908] (1587)
[a:Edward Hall|47081|Edward Hall|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] – from The Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Families of Lancaster and York (usually called Hall's Chronicle) (1548)
Commentaries
[a:Hermann Ulrici|1224688|Hermann Ulrici|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] – from Shakespeare’s Dramatic Art (1839; editions, 1847, 1868, 1874), translated from German by [a:L. Dora Schmitz|563577|L. Dora Schmitz|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] (1876)
[a:E.M.W. Tillyard|20283898|Tillyard, E.M.W.|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] – from Shakespeare’s History Plays (1944)
J. P. Brockbank – from The Frame of Disorder—Henry VI (1961)
[a:Phyllis Rackin|22041|Phyllis Rackin|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/f_50x66-6a03a5c12233c941481992b82eea8d23.png] – Anti-Historians: Women’s Roles in Shakespeare’s Histories (1985)
[a:Ralph Fiennes|548273|Ralph Fiennes|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_50x66-82093808bca726cb3249a493fbd3bd0f.png] – Playing Henry VI (1993)
Lawrence V Ryan – Henry VI on Stage and Screen (1967, 1989)
[a:Sylvan Barnet|30166|Sylvan Barnet|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_50x66-82093808bca726cb3249a493fbd3bd0f.png] – The Stage History Since 1989 (2005)
This is an early Shakespeare history play and there is some uncertainty as to the date and authorship. The title is a little misleading in that regards. It certainly wasn't written as "Part One". The titles of Shakespeare's plays typically come from, or at least are derived from, the titles given in the First Folio edition, from 1623. But these were shortened titles. Advertisements would have elaborate titles that were essentially descriptions of the plot. So, maybe this play originally had Lord Talbot in the name originally, or something about Queen Margaret's fictional affair. Maybe this play was written after Part Two, as a kind of prequel to Part Two. There isn't enough documentation to say, and the First Folio is the oldest known version of the play.
But it fits nicely in the sequence of Shakespeare's history plays, opening with the funeral for Henry V (hero of the 1599 play, Shakespear's last proper history play...except Henry VIII, which he co-wrote), and largely leading to Henry VI Part Two (~1591). In the English history, Henry V marks a kind of high point in the 100-years war. England's attempt to conquer France was at its furthest extent upon his death, in 1422. The position was untenable. Henry VI was a baby when his father died. By the time he took over from his regent, Joan of Arc had come and gone, and England had lost most of its conquered territory in France. And England itself became unstable in defeat, and, in a simplified way, this opened up power plays leading to the War of Roses and Henry VI's tragic end.
Henry VI Part One marks the beginning of Shakespeare's version of the War of Roses. It is a kind of imaginative exposé of a sorts of how England defeated itself. You kind of need to know all this to appreciate the play. Because there are a lot of characters, a lot of somewhat random and unexplained infighting, and the points that Shakespeare is making are not always clear otherwise. There is a lot of set-up for Parts Two and Three. Lord Talbot's death marks the end of honorable English leadership in the fighting, and his dramatic death scene, dying along with his son in battle, was at the time probably the main attraction of the play. But we also meet Henry VI, generally considered a failed king, and his weaknesses are only characterized with some subtly. And we meet the future Queen Margaret, hated by Shakespeare, and given a fictional affair. But that's not enough plot. England's points of weakness and infighting are shown in several ways with several players, and a clean origin of the War of Roses is presented... sort of. Here it started with argument between two English princes, of Lancaster and York. But we never actually learn what the argument was about. And then there is Joan of Arc.
Shakespeare has long been criticized as missing a poetic opportunity with Joan of Arc. The romantic hero is not at all romantic here. The play hates her, even as it respects what she accomplished. Whereas Talbot fights honorably on the field, Joan sneaks in soldiers and supplies, and manipulates key leaders to change sides. The virgin saint is nearly presented a harlot. It's clear she's a warrior, as she beats everyone she fights, including Talbot one on one. But she is used to show that the French are weak and effeminate. It doesn't come out well with any later audiences not deeply in-tuned with the play's blind hatred of the French.
Sorry for putting so much foundation in here. The thing is once I processed all this stuff above, what began as a confusing, disappointing mess turned into a enjoyable fun play. The bard in this early play shows the fast and weightless dialogue that makes this plays so entertaining. And his work on the structure, on building the tensions needed to keep the plot moving, is apparent. His early art is on display. It is especially masterful and playful in the interactions between Lord Suffolk (a white rose Lancaster) and the captured princess-of-nothing-but-a-claim Margaret. The married Lord Suffolk works to seduce the Margaret and then works to get her married to Henry VI...in order to continue his affair. Margaret's father is titled the King of Naples, but has no control of Naples. It's a marriage with no English advantage. Margaret will become a villain in Shakespeare's cycle.
Apologies for another long winded review. The short version is that this is an early Shakespeare play that demands some prep from the reader, but that does offer some of what made him special.
11. Henry VI Part Two
Originally Performed: 1590
format: 180 pages within this Signet Classic Paperback
read: Feb 28 – Mar 28
time reading: 7 hr 26 min, 2.5 min/page
rating: 4
locations: 1400’s England
Editing
[a:Arthur Freeman|48336|Arthur Freeman|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] – editor – 1967, 1989
[a:Sylvan Barnet|30166|Sylvan Barnet|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_50x66-82093808bca726cb3249a493fbd3bd0f.png] – Series Editor – 1963, 1989, 2005
Sources
[a:Edward Hall|47081|Edward Hall|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] – from The Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Families of Lancaster and York (1548)
[a:John Foxe|164796|John Foxe|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1294704923p2/164796.jpg] – from Acts and Monuments of Martyrs (1563, 1583)
A Shakespearean version manuscript of Anthony Munday’s play – Sir Thomas Moore, undated
Commentaries
[a:Samuel Johnson|22191|Samuel Johnson|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1209488222p2/22191.jpg] – from The Plays of William Shakespeare (1765)
J. P. Brockbank – from The Frame of Disorder—Henry VI (1961)
These history plays. So much goes on, and it seems to happen so quickly, I spend all my effort trying to follow the plot, figure out who is who, and what they did, and what that means, and what is going on here. This one is possibly Shakespeare's first play*. So, it deserves a moment of reflection, maybe just wondering what the initial audiences thought when this showed up. Was it as distinct, fast, light, and yet deep and meaningful as it seems to us? Was this a different kind of thing altogether, or just a gradational change? (I suspect the answer is that this really was a different kind of thing.)
As plot this play looks at the development of the War of Roses. King Henry VI still depends on his childhood regent, the Lord Protector, his uncle, Duke Gloucester. What he doesn't realize is Gloucester is the only loyal, principled person around him, a kind of last hero. The king is surrounded by ruthless maneuvering, and receives intentionally bad advice from all his closest advisers. His wife is in a long affair with Lord Suffolk, who has his own plans for working over the King. The Duke of York has an elaborate plan to actually become the king himself, and sees himself at rightful heir. York drives almost every plot point, undermining Gloucester, creating a popular rebellion, and finally battling the king's army in the First Battle of St. Albans, the traditional beginning of the War of Roses (1455).
Act 4 here is Jack Cade's rebellion, a peasant revolt that took place in 1450. In Shakespeare's work, York is the mover behind Jack Cade, and the bard uses Cade to spin his own sense of the riled up peasants, their incoherent anger and willingness to kill whoever Cade randomly decides needs killing. Severed severed heads of notable officials are paraded through the London streets, and made to kiss.
The point in all this seems to be that social order depends on a strong king. When the king is weak, others try to take advantage, and there is no longer a center to hold things together. There is a dissolution of order, chaos filling in.
*The "Part Two" of the title is from the First Folio, the posthumous collection of Shakespeare's plays. The earliest known title of this play was: The First Part of the Contention Between the Two Famous Houses of York and Lancaster
18. Henry VI Part Three
Originally Performed: 1591 ??
format: 189 pages within this Signet Classic Paperback
read: Apr 7 – May 9
time reading: 10:30, 3.3 mpp
rating: 4
locations: 1400’s England
Editing
[a:Milton Crane|75543|Milton Crane|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] – editor – 1968
[a:Sylvan Barnet|30166|Sylvan Barnet|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_50x66-82093808bca726cb3249a493fbd3bd0f.png] – Series Editor – 1963, 1989, 2005
Sources
[a:Edward Hall|47081|Edward Hall|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] – from The Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Families of Lancaster and York(1548)
Commentaries
[a:Samuel Johnson|22191|Samuel Johnson|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1209488222p2/22191.jpg] – from [b:The Plays of William Shakespeare|29194885|The Plays of William Shakespeare in Twenty-One Volumes, with the Corrections and Illus. of Various Commentators, to Which Are Added Notes by Samuel Johnson and George Steevens, REV. and Augm. by Isaac Reed, with a Glossarial Index Volume 19|William Shakespeare|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/book/50x75-a91bf249278a81aabab721ef782c4a74.png|49431266] (1765)
[a:E.M.W. Tillyard|20283898|Tillyard, E.M.W.|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] – from [b:Shakespeare's History Plays|898375|Shakespeare's History Plays|Eustace Mandeville Wetenhall Tillyard|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/book/50x75-a91bf249278a81aabab721ef782c4a74.png|303168] (1944)
Shakespeare's Richard II, Henry IV 1 & 2, Henry V, Henry VI 1, 2 & 3 and Richard III make an 8-drama history of England through the late 1300's and 1400's, covering the 100 Years War and its aftermath, the War of Roses. This, Henry VI Part 3, covers the end of the reign of this lost king, including the Battles of Wakefield, Towton, Barnet and Tewksbury. Part 2 established Henry VI as a non-entity king, the kingdom run by the power struggles of those around him, and left us with the sense that it was mainly controlled by the Duke of York. Here, Margaret, Henry's queen, takes charge, and defeats the Duke of York. Captured, she taunts him with a paper crown and the murder of his 12-yr-old youngest son, and then beheads him - and York is gone in Act 1 (The Battle of Wakefield). York's sons rally, with their strategic genius the Earl of Warwick, and gain a huge victory at Towton. The eldest York, Edward, crowns himself king Edward IV. In a sequence of odd moves Edward spurns Warwick through his choice of marriage, and Margaret lures him to her side. The stage should be set for a kind of showdown, but Shakespeare incorporates more historical detail, and muddies any simple explanation. But eventually they fight - Edward defeats Warwick at Barnet, and Margaret at Tewksbury, and becomes securely king.
Among this fuss between Edward and a strikingly sharp Margaret, is the third York son, deformed Richard. He hints at his calculating ability and at his lack of feeling, but mainly comes across a ruthlessly reasonable and sharp. Then comes his soliloquy in act 3, and out of nowhere he tells us "Well, I can smile, and murder whiles a smile." The Machiavellian prince expressed his goal to make is way to king through the bodies ahead, his brothers and their offspring, and he reveals the ruthlessness of the new age. And, he becomes the character who quietly provokes all the critical events, presenting himself as sincere without a blink. And, at the end, with Edward secure, he sneaks off and murders Henry VI, finalizing Edward's succession. What he doesn't expect is a Henry, previously aloof and pathetic, who sees right through him, and already knows what comes next in Richard III.
There is a lot of plot here. And, as much as Shakespeare simplifies and doctors the true history, he doesn't fully separate this play of the morass of plot. It means a whole lot happens, and, it also means the truly dramatic scenes are mostly brief, and separated, popping up here and there within all that plot. But also he does some wonderful things, especially with Richard, but really all his characters come to life, from the self-principled if overly ambitious Duke of York to the lost and suddenly clairvoyant Henry VI. It's a busy play, messy, but also kind of terrific overall.
(Part I posted Feb 14, Part II posted Apr 5, Part III posted May 10, 2021)
6. Henry VI Part One
Originally Performed: 1592 ??
format: 231-pages within this Signet Classic Paperback
acquired: October
read: Jan 6 – Feb 8
time reading: 9 hr 54 min, 2.6 min/page
rating: 4
locations: 1400’s London and northern France
about the author: April 23, 1564 – April 23, 1616
Signet contributors
Lawrence V Ryan – editor for Part One – 1967, 1989
[a:Sylvan Barnet|30166|Sylvan Barnet|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_50x66-82093808bca726cb3249a493fbd3bd0f.png] – Series Editor – 1963, 1989, 2005
Sources
[a:Raphael Holinshed|969255|Raphael Holinshed|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_50x66-82093808bca726cb3249a493fbd3bd0f.png] – from [b:Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland|3502293|Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland|Raphael Holinshed|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/book/50x75-a91bf249278a81aabab721ef782c4a74.png|3543908] (1587)
[a:Edward Hall|47081|Edward Hall|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] – from The Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Families of Lancaster and York (usually called Hall's Chronicle) (1548)
Commentaries
[a:Hermann Ulrici|1224688|Hermann Ulrici|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] – from Shakespeare’s Dramatic Art (1839; editions, 1847, 1868, 1874), translated from German by [a:L. Dora Schmitz|563577|L. Dora Schmitz|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] (1876)
[a:E.M.W. Tillyard|20283898|Tillyard, E.M.W.|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] – from Shakespeare’s History Plays (1944)
J. P. Brockbank – from The Frame of Disorder—Henry VI (1961)
[a:Phyllis Rackin|22041|Phyllis Rackin|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/f_50x66-6a03a5c12233c941481992b82eea8d23.png] – Anti-Historians: Women’s Roles in Shakespeare’s Histories (1985)
[a:Ralph Fiennes|548273|Ralph Fiennes|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_50x66-82093808bca726cb3249a493fbd3bd0f.png] – Playing Henry VI (1993)
Lawrence V Ryan – Henry VI on Stage and Screen (1967, 1989)
[a:Sylvan Barnet|30166|Sylvan Barnet|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_50x66-82093808bca726cb3249a493fbd3bd0f.png] – The Stage History Since 1989 (2005)
This is an early Shakespeare history play and there is some uncertainty as to the date and authorship. The title is a little misleading in that regards. It certainly wasn't written as "Part One". The titles of Shakespeare's plays typically come from, or at least are derived from, the titles given in the First Folio edition, from 1623. But these were shortened titles. Advertisements would have elaborate titles that were essentially descriptions of the plot. So, maybe this play originally had Lord Talbot in the name originally, or something about Queen Margaret's fictional affair. Maybe this play was written after Part Two, as a kind of prequel to Part Two. There isn't enough documentation to say, and the First Folio is the oldest known version of the play.
But it fits nicely in the sequence of Shakespeare's history plays, opening with the funeral for Henry V (hero of the 1599 play, Shakespear's last proper history play...except Henry VIII, which he co-wrote), and largely leading to Henry VI Part Two (~1591). In the English history, Henry V marks a kind of high point in the 100-years war. England's attempt to conquer France was at its furthest extent upon his death, in 1422. The position was untenable. Henry VI was a baby when his father died. By the time he took over from his regent, Joan of Arc had come and gone, and England had lost most of its conquered territory in France. And England itself became unstable in defeat, and, in a simplified way, this opened up power plays leading to the War of Roses and Henry VI's tragic end.
Henry VI Part One marks the beginning of Shakespeare's version of the War of Roses. It is a kind of imaginative exposé of a sorts of how England defeated itself. You kind of need to know all this to appreciate the play. Because there are a lot of characters, a lot of somewhat random and unexplained infighting, and the points that Shakespeare is making are not always clear otherwise. There is a lot of set-up for Parts Two and Three. Lord Talbot's death marks the end of honorable English leadership in the fighting, and his dramatic death scene, dying along with his son in battle, was at the time probably the main attraction of the play. But we also meet Henry VI, generally considered a failed king, and his weaknesses are only characterized with some subtly. And we meet the future Queen Margaret, hated by Shakespeare, and given a fictional affair. But that's not enough plot. England's points of weakness and infighting are shown in several ways with several players, and a clean origin of the War of Roses is presented... sort of. Here it started with argument between two English princes, of Lancaster and York. But we never actually learn what the argument was about. And then there is Joan of Arc.
Shakespeare has long been criticized as missing a poetic opportunity with Joan of Arc. The romantic hero is not at all romantic here. The play hates her, even as it respects what she accomplished. Whereas Talbot fights honorably on the field, Joan sneaks in soldiers and supplies, and manipulates key leaders to change sides. The virgin saint is nearly presented a harlot. It's clear she's a warrior, as she beats everyone she fights, including Talbot one on one. But she is used to show that the French are weak and effeminate. It doesn't come out well with any later audiences not deeply in-tuned with the play's blind hatred of the French.
Sorry for putting so much foundation in here. The thing is once I processed all this stuff above, what began as a confusing, disappointing mess turned into a enjoyable fun play. The bard in this early play shows the fast and weightless dialogue that makes this plays so entertaining. And his work on the structure, on building the tensions needed to keep the plot moving, is apparent. His early art is on display. It is especially masterful and playful in the interactions between Lord Suffolk (a white rose Lancaster) and the captured princess-of-nothing-but-a-claim Margaret. The married Lord Suffolk works to seduce the Margaret and then works to get her married to Henry VI...in order to continue his affair. Margaret's father is titled the King of Naples, but has no control of Naples. It's a marriage with no English advantage. Margaret will become a villain in Shakespeare's cycle.
Apologies for another long winded review. The short version is that this is an early Shakespeare play that demands some prep from the reader, but that does offer some of what made him special.
11. Henry VI Part Two
Originally Performed: 1590
format: 180 pages within this Signet Classic Paperback
read: Feb 28 – Mar 28
time reading: 7 hr 26 min, 2.5 min/page
rating: 4
locations: 1400’s England
Editing
[a:Arthur Freeman|48336|Arthur Freeman|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] – editor – 1967, 1989
[a:Sylvan Barnet|30166|Sylvan Barnet|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_50x66-82093808bca726cb3249a493fbd3bd0f.png] – Series Editor – 1963, 1989, 2005
Sources
[a:Edward Hall|47081|Edward Hall|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] – from The Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Families of Lancaster and York (1548)
[a:John Foxe|164796|John Foxe|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1294704923p2/164796.jpg] – from Acts and Monuments of Martyrs (1563, 1583)
A Shakespearean version manuscript of Anthony Munday’s play – Sir Thomas Moore, undated
Commentaries
[a:Samuel Johnson|22191|Samuel Johnson|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1209488222p2/22191.jpg] – from The Plays of William Shakespeare (1765)
J. P. Brockbank – from The Frame of Disorder—Henry VI (1961)
These history plays. So much goes on, and it seems to happen so quickly, I spend all my effort trying to follow the plot, figure out who is who, and what they did, and what that means, and what is going on here. This one is possibly Shakespeare's first play*. So, it deserves a moment of reflection, maybe just wondering what the initial audiences thought when this showed up. Was it as distinct, fast, light, and yet deep and meaningful as it seems to us? Was this a different kind of thing altogether, or just a gradational change? (I suspect the answer is that this really was a different kind of thing.)
As plot this play looks at the development of the War of Roses. King Henry VI still depends on his childhood regent, the Lord Protector, his uncle, Duke Gloucester. What he doesn't realize is Gloucester is the only loyal, principled person around him, a kind of last hero. The king is surrounded by ruthless maneuvering, and receives intentionally bad advice from all his closest advisers. His wife is in a long affair with Lord Suffolk, who has his own plans for working over the King. The Duke of York has an elaborate plan to actually become the king himself, and sees himself at rightful heir. York drives almost every plot point, undermining Gloucester, creating a popular rebellion, and finally battling the king's army in the First Battle of St. Albans, the traditional beginning of the War of Roses (1455).
Act 4 here is Jack Cade's rebellion, a peasant revolt that took place in 1450. In Shakespeare's work, York is the mover behind Jack Cade, and the bard uses Cade to spin his own sense of the riled up peasants, their incoherent anger and willingness to kill whoever Cade randomly decides needs killing. Severed severed heads of notable officials are paraded through the London streets, and made to kiss.
The point in all this seems to be that social order depends on a strong king. When the king is weak, others try to take advantage, and there is no longer a center to hold things together. There is a dissolution of order, chaos filling in.
*The "Part Two" of the title is from the First Folio, the posthumous collection of Shakespeare's plays. The earliest known title of this play was: The First Part of the Contention Between the Two Famous Houses of York and Lancaster
18. Henry VI Part Three
Originally Performed: 1591 ??
format: 189 pages within this Signet Classic Paperback
read: Apr 7 – May 9
time reading: 10:30, 3.3 mpp
rating: 4
locations: 1400’s England
Editing
[a:Milton Crane|75543|Milton Crane|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] – editor – 1968
[a:Sylvan Barnet|30166|Sylvan Barnet|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_50x66-82093808bca726cb3249a493fbd3bd0f.png] – Series Editor – 1963, 1989, 2005
Sources
[a:Edward Hall|47081|Edward Hall|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] – from The Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Families of Lancaster and York(1548)
Commentaries
[a:Samuel Johnson|22191|Samuel Johnson|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1209488222p2/22191.jpg] – from [b:The Plays of William Shakespeare|29194885|The Plays of William Shakespeare in Twenty-One Volumes, with the Corrections and Illus. of Various Commentators, to Which Are Added Notes by Samuel Johnson and George Steevens, REV. and Augm. by Isaac Reed, with a Glossarial Index Volume 19|William Shakespeare|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/book/50x75-a91bf249278a81aabab721ef782c4a74.png|49431266] (1765)
[a:E.M.W. Tillyard|20283898|Tillyard, E.M.W.|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] – from [b:Shakespeare's History Plays|898375|Shakespeare's History Plays|Eustace Mandeville Wetenhall Tillyard|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/book/50x75-a91bf249278a81aabab721ef782c4a74.png|303168] (1944)
Shakespeare's Richard II, Henry IV 1 & 2, Henry V, Henry VI 1, 2 & 3 and Richard III make an 8-drama history of England through the late 1300's and 1400's, covering the 100 Years War and its aftermath, the War of Roses. This, Henry VI Part 3, covers the end of the reign of this lost king, including the Battles of Wakefield, Towton, Barnet and Tewksbury. Part 2 established Henry VI as a non-entity king, the kingdom run by the power struggles of those around him, and left us with the sense that it was mainly controlled by the Duke of York. Here, Margaret, Henry's queen, takes charge, and defeats the Duke of York. Captured, she taunts him with a paper crown and the murder of his 12-yr-old youngest son, and then beheads him - and York is gone in Act 1 (The Battle of Wakefield). York's sons rally, with their strategic genius the Earl of Warwick, and gain a huge victory at Towton. The eldest York, Edward, crowns himself king Edward IV. In a sequence of odd moves Edward spurns Warwick through his choice of marriage, and Margaret lures him to her side. The stage should be set for a kind of showdown, but Shakespeare incorporates more historical detail, and muddies any simple explanation. But eventually they fight - Edward defeats Warwick at Barnet, and Margaret at Tewksbury, and becomes securely king.
Among this fuss between Edward and a strikingly sharp Margaret, is the third York son, deformed Richard. He hints at his calculating ability and at his lack of feeling, but mainly comes across a ruthlessly reasonable and sharp. Then comes his soliloquy in act 3, and out of nowhere he tells us "Well, I can smile, and murder whiles a smile." The Machiavellian prince expressed his goal to make is way to king through the bodies ahead, his brothers and their offspring, and he reveals the ruthlessness of the new age. And, he becomes the character who quietly provokes all the critical events, presenting himself as sincere without a blink. And, at the end, with Edward secure, he sneaks off and murders Henry VI, finalizing Edward's succession. What he doesn't expect is a Henry, previously aloof and pathetic, who sees right through him, and already knows what comes next in Richard III.
There is a lot of plot here. And, as much as Shakespeare simplifies and doctors the true history, he doesn't fully separate this play of the morass of plot. It means a whole lot happens, and, it also means the truly dramatic scenes are mostly brief, and separated, popping up here and there within all that plot. But also he does some wonderful things, especially with Richard, but really all his characters come to life, from the self-principled if overly ambitious Duke of York to the lost and suddenly clairvoyant Henry VI. It's a busy play, messy, but also kind of terrific overall.
oldswampy's review against another edition
4.0
Great edition of the three Henry VI plays by Shakespeare. It's hard to choose among the several useful and affordable paperback editions of Shakespeare (this series, Signet, Folger, Pelican, et al.). This series, published by Modern Library and sponsored by the RSC, provides a great option if you want to include specific discussions (and a few photos) of recent stage performances. Features such as interviews with actors and directors are often lacking in other editions and I find them quite interesting. I also find these editions more readable than the smaller format paperbacks, based simply on the physical characteristics of the books. Loses one star because of the Anglo bias (though that is to be expected given that they are sponsored by the RSC) and because the footnotes are not my favorite -- but this might still be my favorite edition of this set of plays overall. I'd go 4.5 stars if that were an option.
fearandtrembling's review
4.0
1 Henry VI - 2 stars
2 Henry VI - 4 stars
3 Henry VI - 4 stars
Technically the rating for this Signet edition containing all three parts should be 3 stars but that doesn't seem fair; 4 stars it is. The first part was the weakest, in my opinion.
2 Henry VI - 4 stars
3 Henry VI - 4 stars
Technically the rating for this Signet edition containing all three parts should be 3 stars but that doesn't seem fair; 4 stars it is. The first part was the weakest, in my opinion.
More...