Henry VI, Part 1

The first of three plays about the reign of Henry VI of England shows conflict between the English and the French, and within the English ranks. Joan of Arc is on the side of the French cause, and the English can’t believe a woman is capable of fighting, so they have to resort to misogyny to feel superior. Richard Plantagenet (the Duke of York) and Somerset, meanwhile, have squared off against each other, each picking white and red roses to symbolize their respective factions.

This is a surprisingly slim and action-packed play for a history play. Lots of rapid scenes, changes in location, running around and shouting, and occasional death scenes. It is nice to see Joan fighting, but not to see the English casting aspersions on her sex show more life. The portrayals of the French in general are designed to make the English look superior, which likely reflects the target audience. For this 21st-century audience, reading this makes me want to find more authoritative, less propagandist sources, particularly for the story of Joan of Arc. Nevertheless, I will read the other two plays in the trilogy. show less

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

Considering that I took a whole class on Joan of Arc in film and literature, you would think I would remember that she was routing the English out of France during the reign of Henry VI… Apparently not! After the death of Henry V, who made strategic alliances and major military victories to take occupation of France, we see the unstable rule of his son, Henry VI, begin to crumble England’s foundation. Shakespeare (and his apparent co-authors) take advantage of the realistic instability in England during this time period, focusing in this first of the trilogy of Henry VI plays on the loss of French territories. A lot of the pre-Tudor plays focus specifically on dissension, whether it be war itself, feuding nobles, or courtly show more machinations, and this play has a bit of everything. As Henry VI comes of age the nobles who hold regency and true control of the court begin an almost inevitable bickering, a typical result of the system which pits noble families against one another to gain more power and riches. This specific eda of English history isn’t one which I’m particularly invested in, so some of the finer points of this play and linguistic sparring are a bit obtuse without further historical research, but we see the emergence of the York bid for the crown as well as Henry’s ill-advised alliance with France via Margaret of Anjou take hold of the narrative. Offsetting the rumblings at court, the nobles are also engaged in an ongoing battle in France, which they are beginning to lose due to the introduction of Joan of Arc into the narrative to rally the Frenchmen. Joan’s character features heavily throughout the story, and I feel almost like Shakespeare could have written a whole history play about her as a stand-alone, but considering the anti-French rhetoric of Shakespeare’s time it was enough to see her wage battle, spar linguistically, and then meet her fate for heresy at the stake. The play ends shortly after Joan’s death, as Henry makes his alliance with France through marriage, but we are left very much without a real ending and little in the way of satisfaction. The final speeches made by Lords Suffolk and Gloucester make it clear that Henry’s (and England’s) woes have not yet been solved, and further action must play out in subsequent drama. Without the dual story of Joan of Arc, I don’t think that this play is particularly well done in terms of heightening the realistic court drama of the time period, and without the further two story arcs can’t have been much of a success for audiences. show less

http://nhw.livejournal.com/1081694.html

The first play is really much more about Talbot, the English commander in France, and Joan La Pucelle, who inspires the French to treacherously resist their English rulers, than about King Henry, who doesn't even appear until the third act. The story is of increasingly united and successful French prevailing against the divided English, who come to identify their factions with red or white roses. King Henry is rather innocently being manipulated by the factions (including into a rather bizarre arranged marriage in the last act, organised by Suffolk who is deeply in love with the future queen himself).

Talbot gets the best two scenes, at the end of the fourth act, in rhyming couplets with his son as show more they go to their doom in combat. It's not surprising that the most explicit contemporary record of Henry VI Part 1 being performed is Nashe's note about a play about Talbot. The moral lesson of the play is that thanks to the power-hungry squabbles of the English leadership, Talbot's courage and leadership are lost disastrously (there is also a very peculiar scene with the Countess of Auvergne who attempts to capture him, but apparently ends up being seduced herself). The play runs out of steam and direction after his death.

The other fascinating character is Joan La Pucelle. The English (and some of the French) accuse her of being a whore and a witch, but there is nothing in the script of the first four acts to support this; I must say I was expecting her to be a misguided idealist à la Bernard Shaw's Saint Joan. So it actually came as rather a shock in the last act when she did, in fact, turn out to be consorting with demons and pleaded to be spared execution on the grounds of pregnancy, though she couldn't remember who the father was (the implication is surely that she is just making it up). Of course, there is a large element of simple anti-French propaganda operating here; but I was surprised that her transformation into panic-stricken witch in the last act seemed so sudden.

Anyway, it is generally a good read; the battles would require careful and diligent staging, to keep the different factions distinct and give clear outcomes to the various sieges and other engagements, and that's one thing that just doesn't come across on audio. show less

The first part of a tetralogy consisting of Henry VI parts 2 and 3 and Richard III. Critics agree it was one of the earliest of Shakespeare's plays and was performed in 1592, but they do not agree that it was the first play written of the tetralogy. Some critics claim that part 2 was written first closely followed by part 3 and then part1 and so I have read them in that order. There are no very famous lines from the play and it is the only one of the plays that I have read that does not have that "stand alone" feeling: it feels more obviously part of a series. It is a historical drama which does not aim to subvert the known facts, but does play havoc with the time line for dramatic effect.

The play starts with the funeral of Henry V. show more England is in mourning and the nobility are already arguing amongst themselves. The new king Henry VI has not reached the age of majority and does not yet appear in the play. Messengers arrive to interrupt the pageantry and the news is bad. Henry V's conquests in France are already falling apart and Talbot the warrior knight and scourge of the French has been captured. The Duke of Bedford the regent of France says he will take 10,000 troops across the channel. The scene shifts to France who has found a new military leader - the peasant girl Joan of Arc. Back in England the disorder amongst the nobility grows worse The young kings protector the Duke of Gloucester finds himself locked out of the Tower of London by the Bishop of Winchester and the first of many fighting scenes is the English fighting amongst themselves. Back in France Talbot has escaped, but his attempts to regain the conquered territories are meeting with fierce resistance from the French led by the young Dauphin Charles and Joan Purcelle (Joan of Arc). In England the new king is crowned, but in the famous Temple garden scene the nobility choose their sides in the coming power struggle by selecting a red or white rose. Henry VI and his entourage travel to Paris where he will be crowned again as king of France, meanwhile Talbot is still involved in a see-saw struggle of arms with Joan and the French, but he attends the coronation and there are glimmers of unity, but Richard Plantagenet the Duke of York has been instructed by old Mortimer that he has a legitimate claim to the throne. Talbot is soon back in arms and the fighting continues, he and his son are slaughtered outside Bordeaux, but the Duke of York who failed to provide the necessary support for him has captured Joan of Arc outside Rouen. He instructs that she be burnt at the stake as a witch. A truce is brokered and as part of the agreement the Duke of Suffolk has arranged for Margaret of Anjou to be the young king Henry's bride. The play ends with Margaret arriving in London, but already being wooed by Suffolk himself.

There is a lot of fighting: a continuous display of arms seems to take up the first three quarters of the play, all is bravado and derring-do and ends with the tragedy on the battlefield of the death of Talbot and his son. Then suddenly there is a truce and the play switches to a more romantic mode as Suffolk intrigues to get Margaret of Anjou wedded to the young king. On a first reading the play seems unbalanced and this readers attention was taken up by trying to work out who was fighting who and where, but it became clearer on a second read through. The play does have a logic to it and events follow each other as the play makes its dramatic points. The most obvious theme is the disunity caused by a king who has not reached the age of majority and of a disputed right of accession. Another is the end of chivalry, the French are being led by a female peasant for goodness sake and Talbot who is of the old school is mortally offended and says:

"My thoughts are whirled like a Potters Wheele,
I know not where I am, nor what I doe:
A Witch by feare, not force, like Hannibal,
Driues back our troupes, and conquers as she lists............

Seignior hang: base Muleters of France,
Like Pesant foot-Boyes doe they keepe the Walls,
And dare not take vp Armes, like Gentlemen

Joan is burnt as a witch and is treated with disdain by the Duke of York. Sir John Falstaff who runs away from battle is publicly stripped of his royal garter by Talbot who then lectures his fellow nobles on the significance of being awarded the order.

Shakespeare is setting the scene in this play for his depiction of the wars of the roses and the descent of England into chaos. The English are fighting amongst themselves and the French change sides when it suits them, this changing of allegiance will soon cross the channel and become a feature of part 2 of the tetralogy. The characters that will populate the later plays start to emerge. The fiercely proud Duke of York, the peace-loving King Henry VI whose courtiers snigger at his naiveté behind the scenes. The old protector the Duke of Gloucester who sees his control slipping away and the entrance of Margaret of Anjou who Suffolk thinks he can manipulate, but will find that it is he who is being played. The BBC produced plays of this series has kept the same actors in their roles as the events move on, that is of course until they meet their end, this process is started by Talbot and son in this play and will accelerate until the bloodbath in part 3. Shakespeare does repeat scenes in this: one of his earliest plays and although the language is recognisably Shakespearian it never rises to the heights of his subsequent efforts. His play does however fit together quite well and with its rousing battle scenes would have provided entertainment for its Elizabethan audience.

It has been produced a number of times on the modern stage and most successfully when it is followed by the other plays in the series. The poignant scene of the deaths of Talbot and his son John may have been Shakespeare's first tilt at tragedy:

Come, come, and lay him in his Fathers armes,
My spirit can no longer beare these harmes.
Souldiers adieu: I haue what I would haue,
Now my old armes are yong Iohn Talbots graue.

I suppose it has to be said that this early play is one for Shakespeare completists, but if you are going to read the more substantial King Henry VI parts 2 and 3 then it would be amiss to leave out this one 3.5 stars. show less

Oh goodness. I think it's time for me to be a bit annoyed, not that the play as bad in any way, because as a piece of fiction it fits its times, plays up to the prejudices of its people, makes good story out of a horribly contradictory piece of history, and blatantly evokes imagery that didn't come into service until.. oh, wait... the imagery of the red and white roses started here? Oh. Yeah. I guess this WAS a propaganda piece! :)

After all, Joan of Arc is a lying piece of trash who'd slutted her way across France and summoned dark demons under the earth to fight her battles, and that's in NO WAY influenced by popular sentiment. Absolutely Not.

And Henry VI himself truly was an effeminate pansy without a passionate or a cunning bone in show more his body, reliant upon the minds and contradictory wills of his lords Suffolk and York to make any decisions at all except the ones that gave away all his lands and titles in an attempt to bribe loyalty.

The king was a lot more subtle, book learned, and pious than was respected in the times, true, founding a college for christ's sake, but he was young and he let all these men dominate him because they were all alphas. It's tragic, but unfortunately common.

These are my complaints, but also, these are the kinds of things that make a drama, too. The focus naturally falls upon the other players.

Talbot and his son, however, was a great sequence from start to finish. Great drama. Horrible, too.

I had fun, even if I was cringing with all the inaccuracies and the stereotypes, lol. :) show less

The more I read these history plays, the more I enjoy them. As I read them and research some of the actual history behind them, they make more sense and have a continuity.

This play, in particular, had a can't-set-it-down quality to it. I had to see what was going on with Talbot, who would win the battle? What were the dastardly deeds that would work against him? Will the boy king be able to survive his "mentors?" Even though I know the answers from history, I don't know how William Shakespeare interpreted the history, so the tension of the read is still there.