Henry VI, Part 2

Shakespeare’s histories have always felt less accessible to me than his other work. But I realized the other day that it’s probably because I’m not that familiar with the people involved. What is the musical “Hamilton” if not our version of Shakespeare's histories? It’s a theatrical show based on our own country’s history. Shakespeare's histories are not as easy for us to understand because we they are covering a time period that we don’t always learn about. But during Shakespeare's time everyone knew who those dukes and kings were, just as we know names like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.

Anyway, all of that to say that these three plays worked much better for me than some of the other histories of his I've show more tackled and I think it’s because I finally made that connection. It was also incredibly helpful to me to watch the Hollow Crown series before reading the plays. It covers all three of these plays although it's called Henry VI Part one and two, it's really a combination of parts 1, 2 and 3.They are so well done and watching those first helped me picture a face with a name while reading the place, which helped me keep all the characters straight.

These plays are part of the eight plays that make up the War of the Roses. Henry VI Part 1 includes the original scene where the characters pick a white or red rose to declare their allegiance. From there it’s a constant stream of battle and betrayal as they all fight for the thrown. Poor King Henry VI is thrust into his role as monarch when he’s only a baby. The death of his father meant a life time watching others attempt to steal his throne. Almost everyone in the plays comes to a bloody end by the final curtain.

A few thoughts:
Margaret was such a bad ass. She was conniving, but she was strong where her husband, King Henry VI, was weak. I have to admire her and she certainly has some of the best lines.
We meet the infamous Richard in these plays. I'd read and seen Richard III before, so reading these gave me a better understanding of his character's background. He’s a delicious villain and one that I loved getting to know.

“Why, I can smile and murder whiles I smile,
And cry 'content' to that which grieves my heart,
And wet my cheeks with artificial tears,
And frame my face for all occasions”

BOTTOM LINE: I ended up loving them. I was surprised by how hooked I got on the War of the Roses drama, but it’s like a soap opera. It’s amazing to see how power seems to corrupt all the touch it. Even those who are not driven with a desire for power are often the easiest to steal power from, because they aren’t as vicious as others. I would definitely read part 1, 2, and 3 back-to-back because they work better as one continuous story. I also highly recommend watching the Hollow Crown series first, but just dive into the plays and enjoy them!

“Suspicion always haunts the guilty mind.”

“For where thou art, there is the world itself,
With every several pleasure in the world,
And where thou art not, desolation.”

“Unbidden guests are often welcomest when they are gone.” show less

A Saintly King no Match for Headless Coqs

In the fifteenth century the age of chivalry had long since passed and Shakespeare with his first history play written in the late sixteenth century shows how personal the barbarity had become. Warrior Queens and ambitious wives add to a fatal mix for the Noble families of England.

Lady Eleanor:
Were I a man, a duke and next of blood,
I would remove these tedious stumbling-blocks
And smooth my way upon their headless necks.

Testosterone drives the events forward, which rapidly threaten the king himself with the Duke of York happy to stir up a popular revolt to gain the crown. It was quite simply all or nothing if you didn't get to wear the crown you lost your head. This had always been the case, but show more the wars of the roses between the houses of York and Lancaster threatened to plunge the country into chaos and Shakespeare shows how close it was for the the Lord of Misrule to triumph. If ever the Elizabethan state needed a history lesson as the queen aged with no heir to the throne then Shakespeare provided it. Reading and watching a performance of the play today shows just how well the play works. It makes for great drama and an interesting interpretation of the history of England.

The majority of the play is centred around the the scheming of the powerful Dukes of England as they break into various factions to secure the crown from a king who has proven to be weak in the art of politics and leadership. However interspersed are scenes and one whole act of the blackest of black comedy involving non noble characters, which are also relevant to the plot. In act one it is Eleanor; wife of the Lord Protector to the king and the most powerful man in the kingdom who hires a sinister group of charlatans to prophesy the fate of the king and his advisers. The scene ends with their arrest and puts in train the events that will lead to the Protectors downfall. In act 2 there is the miracle cure claimed by Simpcox which is foiled in the public domaine by the Lord Protector, then there is the trial by combat of Horner the armourer and Peter his assistant. Peter has accused Horner of uttering treasonable words and the king has ordered a trial by combat. These trials usually took place between men of noble birth and Peter and Horner are provided with long poles and sandbags as weapons (as befits their station). However Peter kills Horner and this turning upside down of the way things should be is a portent of Jack Cades rebellion in act 4. This starts with the execution of Suffolk at the hands of pirates; dark in the extreme before moving onto a tremendous piece of theatre as Jack Cade acts out a real Lord of Misrule, hanging and ordering the death of innocent people on a whim, stirring up a mob and making a mockery of law and justice. Act 5 starts with the ignominious killing of Cade before the play ends in an orgy of death and destruction as York makes his play for the crown aided by Warwick and Salisbury.

The Arden Shakespeare edition contains most of what you would want for a reading of the play. As is usual with this series it pays some attention to the productions of the play on stage since the 1590's. How different productions can emphasise the particular themes that run through the play. For example the carnivalesque aspects which could be toned down and played for a more gentle comedy instead of a more Rabelaisian saga of violence. The relationship between King Henry and his queen Margaret could either be played as a respectful queen towards her saintly husband, or as a strong willed woman contemptuous of a weak and indecisive monarch who is losing his grip on his crown. Ronald Knowles introduction covers many of the themes and he is particularly strong on providentialism: the belief that God controls events on earth and works in mysterious ways and the great chain of being; everybody has and knows their place in society and should stick to it. These ideas are challenged by the machiavellianism of the nobles and the violent challenges from those lower down the order. He is also very good on the burlesque distortion of society occasioned by Jack Cade's rebellion. He also covers issues relating to text and authorship including the quarto publication of The Contention (this is included in a facsimile reproduction as an appendix). There is a section on sources and of course as you would expect there are copious notes which explain where Shakespeare found his history and where he adapted it to fit into a drama that played well on stage.

This is an early play by Shakespeare, perhaps the first where he was the main author, but his skill and artistry is evident. The animal imagery in evidence throughout may appear a little overplayed in places and repetitive, but it does link the actions within the play and hammers home one of the main ideas that the actions of both the nobles in their lust for power and the lower orders in their lust to destroy is hardly better than the primitive natural world. There are interesting parallels between the actions of the nobles and the ordinary people and the death scenes are well handled. The violence both on and off stage is extreme with a central motif of decapitation and defilement. "Yes, Poll!" says the pirate lieutenant; "Pole!" corrects Suffolk (he is William de la Pole) whose head does not end up on a pole as do other characters in this play, his head ends up in the lap of his lover Queen Margaret (unfortunately not attached to his body). Characterisation is pushed up to another level by Shakespeare; the strident assertive females, the essentially good and holy King, The world weary Duke of Gloucester who can hardly believe what is happening to him and who has a tremendous scene with his wife the lady Eleanor who is just finishing a two day ordeal of public penance; the cunning Duke of York and the bravado of the kingmaker Warwick.

The BBC 1983 television production directed by Jane Howell is a must see for anybody that likes this play. It sticks closely to the text that has come down to us and proves how well the play works in the theatre. Peter Bensen as King Henry is portrayed as a weak king in the traditional sense of being out of touch and fearful of what is going on around him. He needs the support of his Protector the good and sensitive Duke of Gloucester. His new Queen: Margaret played by Julia Foster is a feisty woman intent on asserting her authority in love perhaps with Suffolk, but is able to let him go when her position is threatened. The Jack Cade scenes are excellent as is the fighting at the conclusion, many of the themes highlighted by the Arden edition can be followed in this production.

Shakespeare's Henry VI part 2 shows a world that is gripped by greed where violence always lurks just below the surface and rises up with the least provocation. It is a world where pageantry and order can no longer paper over the cracks, it is a world sinking into barbarism where the strongest survive and religion is only for the foolish. A martial society where the ability to bear arms is of the upmost importance. It is all here in Shakespeare's play and the words on the page can come alive on the stage. Brilliant 5 stars. show less

If we thought there was ridiculous political bickering in the previous Henry VI play, think again; part two takes the drama to a whole other level. Between Suffolk’s machinations with Queen Margaret, Gloucester’s execution and his wife’s witchcraft, the eventual true beginnings of the Yorkist rebellion, and the peoples’ revolution, there’s no end in sight for infighting and betrayal. Starkly contrasted against Henry VI’s seeming passivity and obsession with holiness, the bloodshed that will likely come to fruition as the Yorks take up arms against the crown seems almost inevitable. If we focus on that foreground being laid, the play has much to commend it, but I found myself a bit overwhelmed while reading it – and not show more being at all surprised at the Hollow Crown’s blending of the three Henry VI plays into a more seamless sequence. Yes, it was historically accurate that much was going on besides the machinations around the crown during Henry VI’s reign, but if we’re meant to focus on the coming War of the Roses I could have honestly done without the petty drama of the commoners. Then again, for historical audiences, this accuracy placed them on equal(ish) grounds to the royal bickering and kept in line with the growing concerns and influence of the English commoners during Shakespeare’s time. The other element that stood out (when I could stay focused away from the constant scene jumping) is the rise of two female power players: Queen Margaret and the Duchess of Gloucester. We’ve already seen Jean d’Arc’s rise and fall in the previous play, as well as Margaret having some flirtations with the Duke of Suffolk during her marriage negotiations, and Shakespeare continues this trend. The Duchess’ scenes are decidedly witchy in nature, and even through their brevity show an interesting tone that more modern writers of this historical era (notedly Phillipa Gregory) pick up on and embellish for other women of the era. Margaret, as well, steps further into the spotlight, as she continues to plot with Suffolk, even while asserting her husband’s right to rule independently of a regent or court advisors. Her strong voice is chastised at points (much like Jean d’Arc’s earlier), but we see a seeming stumble towards madness as she speaks at length to her lover’s severed head even as she continues to establish a stronger place in Henry’s court. Grim, but powerful imagery for both, which I expect to see come full circle in the final play of this trilogy. show less

http://nhw.livejournal.com/1084760.html

Where Part 1 is really the story of Talbot, Part 2 is much more about Richard, Duke of York as he rises to power. I actually felt it wasn't as successful as a play as Part 1, though the narrative is at least closed a bit more clearly; there are too many characters who are introduced just in order to be killed off for historical accuracy (Lord Say being the most heinous, but there are a lot of others too).

I've settled into a pattern of reading each Act and then listening to it before going on to the next, so as to appreciate what was presumably the original structure. Two of the five acts here stand out as particularly self-contained. Act 1 has the mini-plot of the Duchess of Gloucester rivalling show more the Queen for influence (in a scene which scrapes through the Bechdel test by the smallest margin imaginable, the two squabble over a dropped fan). The Duchess is then expelled from political life when she is found to be consorting with necromancers. I thought it was rather bold of Shakespeare to insert this into what is after all supposed to be a history play, but found to my surprise that it is perfectly true.

In the second and third acts, Henry VI's key advisers remove each other from the scene by various sinister means, and York is sent off to Ireland to quell the natives. He is therefore absent from the fourth act, which is entirely about the rise and fall of Jack Cade's rebellion. It's a rather fascinating sequence of ten scenes (none of the other acts has more than four); I wasn't sure whether to read it as biting social commentary of slapstick satire, and no doubt both were in the author's mind as he wrote. (The only well-known line from this play - "Let's kill all the lawyers!" - is certainly in the slapstick category.) Cade is certainly a fraud, but a convincing one whose social theory is not far from much later discourse including the Diggers and Karl Marx, and he meets his doom with a certain gutsy pride.

And in the last act, York returns from Ireland and wins the Battle of St Albans. Obviously one of the things that interests me is the portrayal of Ireland as a place of strife where a bright English lordling might yet make a name for himself. (York was certainly not the first to do so; the last was probably Arthur James Balfour. Or possibly Winston Churchill if we stretch the definition a bit. But definitely not Michael Ancram.) We are told pretty clearly that York owes his victory to the Irish mercenaries, but they get no voice (unlike the various members of Cade's London mob).

More crucially, we don't get a terribly good sense of why overthrowing King Henry is a Good Idea. It's a bit odd that York only decides to make a fuss about his superior genealogical claim in the second act of the second play of this sequence; and then it is only mentioned once afterwards. The disastrous losses of territory in France happen off-scene and are referred to only briefly. Henry (again David Tennant, in the Arkadin version) is clearly a poor leader, torn between his own deeply-felt ethics and bowing to the loudest voice in the court, but that is never explicitly given as a reason to oppose him. And although Shakespeare obviously wants York to be the hero, it's a bit nasty of him to sit back and let his rivals destroy each other in the first half of the play. So I guess I find myself more sympathetic to the notion that this was the first of the three Henry VI's to be adapted from Holinshed, as the narrative and characterisation are forced to accommodate the historical data. show less

The second part of the Henry VI saga begins with the French war ended by Henry's marriage to Margaret of Anjou. The action shifts to the maneuvering and infighting within the royal court, where many are angry that to much was given to France in the peace accords. Suffolk attempts to gain the upper hand through his influence over Queen Margaret. This means taking down the Lord Protector, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester.

Meanwhile, Richard the Duke of York makes his own claims to the throne known. He gets the support of the Earls of Salisbury and Warwick. Richard conspires with a man named Jack Cade to stage a revolt of the people, which briefly takes control of London. York arrives with his troops and they face off against the Lancasters and show more the King's men at St. Alban's. The play ends on a cliffhanger with the victorious York and his allies seeking to capture the king.

Like the first play, this is a sprawling story (although it condenses a lot of real time) with a lot of characters and suffers from trying to cover too much. But in some scenes where there's few characters on stage, Shakespeare is able to demonstrate his strengths in dialogues and monologues. show less

The action in Henry VI, Part II is mostly treachery amongst, and depopulation of, the dramatis personae. Those few not removed from the living are responsible for the newly missing. Quite a jolly old England Shakespeare’s England of old.

The play resembles a pro wrestling battle royal except instead of being tossed over the ropes the combatants are tossed into their graves, and not always with their heads. The heads, less willing to cede the limelight, at times continue as dramatis personae without the personae themselves.

Amazingly, there is much talk of honor from this group among whom honor is most loved as an ideal to be breached. The survivor with a royal stake whose potential for dishonor is not yet heartily embraced is Henry VI show more himself, the man who would not be king:
Was ever king that joy’d an earthly throne,
And could command no more content than I?
No sooner was I crept out of my cradle
But I was made a king at nine months old:
Was never subject long’d to be a king
As I do long and wish to be a subject.

One hardly can be optimistic he will hold the scepter much longer.

All in all, despite Shakespeare’s habit of messing with biographical and historical facts, Part II is an absorbing enterprise in political misbehavior and violence in the service of ambition. show less

This installment of the Henry VI trilogy turns up the body count as various factions jostle for power. Duke Humphrey of Gloucester, the King’s uncle and the protector of the realm, is seen as having too much power, so he is dispatched with extreme prejudice. The Queen’s very good friend the Duke of Suffolk is next. And then John Cade, who claims to be descended of the Mortimers, stages an uprising. And THEN the Duke of York, who was managing the King’s troops in Ireland, decides to stake his own claim to the throne. All seem to agree that Henry is more of a preacher than a prince… will he survive this treason?

It took me more than five months to finish this play (March to August 2021), which is at least partly attributable to the show more state of my brain during the global pandemic. But the play itself is a bit hard to get through: lots of talking heads and opportunities for the mind to wander. I think I have to watch The Hollow Crown again to get more people to hold in my head before proceeding to Henry VI, Part 3. show less