Henry VI, Part 2

The three plays that make up the Henry VI cycle are believed to be some of Shakespeare's very first plays. They certainly read as apprentice works, and are often neglected in favour of the more comical and dramatically assured plays Henry IV and Henry V. However, the Henry VI plays dramatise the inauspicious history of Henry V's son, Henry VI, who is only nine months old when his father dies. The play deals with the factions at court who quarrel for political control, led by the Duke of Gloucester and the Cardinal of Winchester. As political intrigue divides the English court, its army continues to fight in France in a desperate attempt to hold on to the gains made by Henry V, whose tradition is upheld by the ferocious figure of Lord Talbot, pitched against La Pucelle, better known as Joan of Arc. An uneasy peace is finally established following the execution of Joan and marriage of Henry VI to the French princess Margaret of Anjou. However, Margaret is revealed to be having an affair with the Earl of Suffolk, and it becomes clear that Henry's troubles are far from over. Criticised for their somewhat crude characterisation (especially in its portrayal of women), all three of the Henry VI plays remain fascinating as early examples of Shakespeare's dramatisation of English history. --Jerry Brotton

The three plays that make up the Henry VI cycle are believed to be some of Shakespeare's very first plays. They certainly read as apprentice works, and are often neglected in favour of the more comical and dramatically assured plays Henry IV and Henry V. However, the Henry VI plays dramatise the inauspicious history of Henry V's son, Henry VI, who is only nine months old when his father dies. The play deals with the factions at court who quarrel for political control, led by the Duke of Gloucester and the Cardinal of Winchester. As political intrigue divides the English court, its army continues to fight in France in a desperate attempt to hold on to the gains made by Henry V, whose tradition is upheld by the ferocious figure of Lord Talbot, pitched against La Pucelle, better known as Joan of Arc. An uneasy peace is finally established following the execution of Joan and marriage of Henry VI to the French princess Margaret of Anjou. However, Margaret is revealed to be having an affair with the Earl of Suffolk, and it becomes clear that Henry's troubles are far from over. Criticised for their somewhat crude characterisation (especially in its portrayal of women), all three of the Henry VI plays remain fascinating as early examples of Shakespeare's dramatisation of English history. --Jerry Brotton

Shakespeare's histories are best read back to back in sequence, which gives a broader context and more of a historical sense. It can be a bit confusing to just take in one at random, more or less like dropping in on the middle of a story.

That is particularly true here, in the second part (of three) about the reign of Henry VI. There is a lot going on in this play, and some of the acts seem to be there mainly to move us along in the historical narrative as efficiently as possible. There are some interesting characters who Shakespeare takes some extra time to develop a bit more, but most of them are just various plotters in various factions who get killed off by each other in short order.

The most interesting part of this play is Act IV, which is all about Jack Cade's rebellion. Shakespeare portrays him as nothing more than a rabble-rousing, populist demagogue, and brutally satirizes such movements as pandering to the lowest common denominator. Cade promises his followers, who are mostly petty criminals, a sort of communist utopia, with an unending supply of free booze. Then, as his first official act, he executes a clerk for being literate enough to be able to sign his own name, rather than simply making a mark like a plain, honest man---and likewise promises to "kill all the lawyers." And things go downhill from there.

This isn't one of Shakespeare's best histories, but it has its merits and is definitely not bad either. ( )

Yes, there are way too many Dukes in this play, and they are not sufficiently differentiated. Reading this, you get the feeling it's like one of those old "Masterpiece Theatre" miniseries, and you really wish that Alistair Cooke were around to give you some tidy and well-spoken background info. Not to mention the fact that the central character Henry VI probably should never have been king in the first place. Given Queen Elizabeth's political sensitivity in the 1590s, Shakespeare had to be careful not to impugn the entire concept of inherited monarchy.

That said, "Henry VI Part II" contains a number of very interesting things, and I was tempted to give it four stars. For one thing, the Queen - Margaret of Anjou - is a great character, one of the best Shakespearean villainesses. It's a well-written part, with enough depth that on a certain level you have to sympathize with her plight, particularly her infidelity. I mean, it's not _her_ fault that she was married off to such a schlub as King Henry VI.

Then there's the whole Jack Cade rebellion, which is portrayed with a lot of gusto, even if Cade is presented in a one-sided manner as an ignorant demogogue. In some ways, the episode is eerily reminiscent of some 20th century dictators. Oh, the fickle mob!

And this is play that contains on the most famous of all Shakespearean tags, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Contrary to what is sometimes assumed, the Bard himself was NOT sympathetic to that idea: clearly, lawyers and clerks were among the most important of his fan base in the early 1590s when he wrote this play at the start of his career.

Of course, Shakespeare's chronicle plays bear the same relationship to the "real history" of 15th century England as Oliver Stone's films do the history of our own time, but that doesn't mean that they can't be appreciated on their own merits. ( )

FFYAA