I have finally gotten
around to reading one of William Shakespeare’s Henry
VI plays, and of course one starts with the first of the trilogy. For the record, I’ve now read 29 of the 37 authentically
identified Shakespearian plays. A good
portion of the unread plays happen to be Histories. If you are unaware, critics categorize the
Bard’s play into Comedies, Tragedies, and Histories. I’ve read all the great history plays: Richard III, Richard II, the two Henry IV plays, and Henry V. What’s left are the
three Henry VI plays, King John, and Henry VIII, all lesser plays in stature and reputation. Scratch one of the Henry VI off. Admittedly it’s
hard to motivate to read the lesser plays given one has come to appreciate the
wonder of the great plays, but still one has to complete them all. Some people have bucket lists of traveling
across the world; my bucket list consists of reading all of Shakespeare.
Most people are more
familiar with the great tragedies, since they are probably forced to read those
in school. And it’s true, there is
something beyond superlative in Shakespeare’s tragedies. They were absolutely groundbreaking in form
and range. But Shakespeare’s great comedies
and histories are also head-and-shoulders above what was written in his day,
and perhaps outside of France’s Moliere, you cannot find another playwright
until several hundred years later with Ibsen and Strindberg that has as many great
dramas as Shakespeare. Shakespeare’s great
comedies and histories also stand with greats of their respective genre.
The
reason I decided to read Henry VI was
mentioned back in the first post I wrote on Mark Twain’s Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc and that is because the same historical
events are part of both works. Indeed, the
historical figures are in both, and since the historical events were fresh in
my mind it would make sense. Plus I was
curious how Shakespeare would portray Joan, and I’ll get to that eventually.
Now
it’s quite possible that Henry VI, Part 1
was Shakespeare’s first complete drama, and as the Wikipedia entry states, he
may have had some help by either Christopher Marlowe and/or Thomas Nashe, both
dramatists in Shakespeare’s day. It’s
quite possible. The Shakespeare-Online site – a very good resource and way better than
some of the other Shakespeare sites on the web—suspects that someone other than
the Bard crafted Joan of Arc’s speeches.
There may be something to that. Most of the language in the play certainly
rings of Shakespeare’s voice, except for Joan.
I can’t put my finger on it, but Joan does not sound like a
Shakespearean character. Again, more on
Joan later.
Given
it was Shakespeare’s first play, one sees some of the inexperience, but one
sees some real great flourishes as well.
That scene in Act II, Scene IV where the nobles of York and Lancaster
pluck white and red roses off a bush, setting in motion the seeds of the War ofthe Roses, is brilliant. The poetic flourishes can rise with the
greatest of Shakespeare’s. For instance,
the play begins with the dead body of the heroic King Henry V, and the Dukes of
Bedford and Gloucester eulogize in sweeping language to capture the greatness
of the fallen man. From the plays very
opening lines in Act I, Scene 1:
BEDFORD Hung be the heavens with black, yield day
to night!
Comets, importing change
of times and states,
Brandish your crystal
tresses in the sky,
And with them scourge the
bad revolting stars
That have consented unto
Henry's death! 5
King Henry the Fifth, too
famous to live long!
England ne'er lost a king
of so much worth.
GLOUCESTER England ne'er had a king until his
time.
Virtue he had, deserving
to command:
His brandish'd sword did
blind men with his beams: 10
His arms spread wider
than a dragon's wings;
His sparking eyes,
replete with wrathful fire,
More dazzled and drove
back his enemies
Than mid-day sun fierce bent
against their faces.
What should I say? his
deeds exceed all speech: 15
He ne'er lift up his hand
but conquered.
I’m
using the online text at Shakespeare-Online for this and all subsequent quotes.
And
so we have of the great King Henry V, model of leadership, soldiery, and virtue
to be contrasted with the King VI and the governing aristocracy. Now Henry VI has somewhat of an excuse, he’s rather young.
Shakespeare doesn’t quite follow the time scale; Henry VI was less than
a year old when his father died, and the events of the drama would have occurred
when Henry VI would have been about nine years old. He was a child king, under the Protectorate
of the Duke of Gloucester. But in the
play he sounds more like a teenager than a nine year old. I have never seen this acted out, so I don’t
know how directors cast it.
It
is a long play, with an exorbitant number of characters, thirty-five in all,
not including attendants and messengers, and of course the armies of soldiers. Perhaps that is what speaks to Shakespeare’s
inexperience the most. After a while I
could not recall the distinction between the Earls of Warwick, Somerset,
Suffolk, Salisbury, and so on. They
became a sort of blur, and perhaps are under characterized, even though it’s a
long play.
What
makes it a long play are the divisions.
First off there is the division between the French and the English
fighting over the French territories. But
what speaks to the play’s central theme are the divisions and hostilities
within the English side. There is the
division inside the English King’s court fighting over the influence on the
child king. Then there is a secular verses ecclesiastical division. There is a subtle division between lords in
England with the English fighting in France on how to fight the war. And of course there is the great division
between the Houses of York and Lancaster that will blossom into the War of the
Roses. That may be following the history
of the events, but it does make it difficult to follow. But as it turns out, this was a popular play
in its day, so perhaps the divisions were second nature to the contemporary
audience, enough so that they could easily follow it.
This
division on the English side is dramatized early on in what seems a rather
unimportant little scene. Gloucester,
the Lord Protector of the realm as overseer of the child king, comes to London
Tower, which I believe was the royal palace, and is prevented from
entering. Here’s the beginning of Act I Scene
3:
London. Before the Tower.
[Enter GLOUCESTER, with
his Serving-men in blue coats]
GLOUCESTER I am come to survey the Tower this
day:
Since Henry's death, I
fear, there is conveyance.
Where be these warders,
that they wait not here?
Open the gates; 'tis
Gloucester that calls.
First Warder [Within] Who's there that knocks so imperiously? 5
First Serving-Man It is the noble Duke of Gloucester.
Second Warder [Within] Whoe'er he be, you may not
be let in.
First Serving-Man Villains, answer you so the lord
protector?
First Warder [Within] The Lord protect him! so we answer
him:
We do no otherwise than
we are will'd. 10
GLOUCESTER Who willed you? or whose will stands
but mine?
There's none protector of
the realm but I.
Break up the gates, I'll
be your warrantize.
Shall I be flouted thus
by dunghill grooms?
[ Gloucester's men rush
at the Tower Gates, and WOODVILE the Lieutenant speaks within ]
WOODVILE What noise is this? what traitors have we
here? 15
GLOUCESTER Lieutenant, is it you whose voice I
hear?
Open the gates; here's
Gloucester that would enter.
WOODVILE Have patience, noble duke; I may not open;
The Cardinal of
Winchester forbids:
From him I have express
commandment 20
That thou nor none of
thine shall be let in.
GLOUCESTER Faint-hearted Woodvile, prizest him
'fore me?
Arrogant Winchester, that
haughty prelate,
Whom Henry, our late
sovereign, ne'er could brook?
Thou art no friend to God
or to the king: 25
Open the gates, or I'll
shut thee out shortly.
Serving-Men Open the gates unto the lord protector,
Or we'll burst them open,
if that you come not quickly.
And
so after the scene eulogizing Henry V (scene 1), and a scene where the French resistance
unifies in strategy around Joan (scene 2), we get a scene where the highest
lord in England other than the child king is blocked by the Cardinal of
Winchester from entering the seat of government. But notice the stage directions right after
Gloucester’s words above: “[Enter to the Protector at the Tower Gates BISHOP OF
WINCHESTER and his men in tawny coats].”
So the Bishop’s men have tawny coats which contrast with the blue coats
(see the stage directions at the beginning quoted above). Blue coats verses tawny coats, white rose
verses red rose, English banners verses French banners, the divisions are
visually laid out for the audience.
I’m
not going to present details of the various divisions; I think you now have the
key to the play. The divisions are made
possible because the weakness of the king.
That’s not to say that Henry VI doesn’t say the right things. He does, for instance here when once again Gloucester
and Winchester are at each other’s throats:
KING HENRY VI Uncles of Gloucester and of Winchester,
The special watchmen of
our English weal,
I would prevail, if
prayers might prevail, 70
To join your hearts in
love and amity.
O, what a scandal is it
to our crown,
That two such noble peers
as ye should jar!
Believe me, lords, my
tender years can tell
Civil dissension is a
viperous worm 75
That gnaws the bowels of
the commonwealth.
(III.1:65-73)
Yes
exactly, it “gnaws the bowels of the commonwealth.” And do they stop in that very scene? No. Gloucester,
in Machiavellian mode, offers his hand of peace to Winchester, who at first
refuses, but then in counter Machivellian mode, accepts it with an aside snark,
“[Aside] So help me God, as I intend it not!” (III.1: 141). And the King in all his innocence is gleeful.
KING HENRY VI O, loving uncle, kind Duke of Gloucester,
How joyful am I made by
this contract!
Away, my masters! trouble
us no more;
But join in friendship,
as your lords have done.
(III.1: 142-145)
Join
in what friendship? There is only
friendship within the various factions, but the seeds of the realm’s chaos are
sown.
And
the fruits of these divisions are being born on the battlefields of France,
where the English, despite heroic effort, are being defeated. The French through Joan take Orléans and
Reims, and Charles VIII, the Dauphin, is crowned King of France. The heroism of the English fighting in France
is dramatized through the fighting and death of John Talbot, the Earl of
Shrewsbury, and his son, young John.
Before the battle at Bourdeaux, with the English facing annihilation, old
John tries to send young John away from the battle to avoid certain death. Young John refuses and wishes to die if he
must fighting with his father. The
exchange is delineated in rhyming couplets.
Here’s a sample:
TALBOT Shall all thy mother's hopes lie in one
tomb?
JOHN TALBOT Ay, rather than I'll shame my mother's
womb. 35
TALBOT Upon my blessing, I command thee go.
JOHN TALBOT To fight I will, but not to fly the
foe.
TALBOT Part of thy father may be saved in thee.
JOHN TALBOT No part of him but will be shame in me.
TALBOT Thou never hadst renown, nor canst not
lose it. 40
JOHN TALBOT Yes, your renowned name: shall flight
abuse it?
TALBOT Thy father's charge shall clear thee
from that stain.
JOHN TALBOT You cannot witness for me, being slain.
If death be so apparent,
then both fly.
TALBOT And leave my followers here to fight and
die? 45
My age was never tainted
with such shame.
JOHN TALBOT And shall my youth be guilty of such
blame?
No more can I be sever'd
from your side,
Than can yourself
yourself in twain divide:
Stay, go, do what you
will, the like do I; 50
For live I will not, if
my father die.
TALBOT Then here I take my leave of thee, fair
son,
Born to eclipse thy life
this afternoon.
Come, side by side
together live and die.
And soul with soul from
France to heaven fly. 55
(IV.5: 34-55)
Why
the couplets? I think it’s there to
imply disagreement in love rather than division and discord. And then at the battle, old Talbot comes into
the scene mortally wounded and asks for his son.
[Enter Soldiers, with the body of JOHN
TALBOT]
TALBOT Thou antic death, which laugh'st us here
to scorn,
Anon, from thy insulting
tyranny,
Coupled in bonds of
perpetuity, 20
Two Talbots, winged
through the lither sky,
In thy despite shall
'scape mortality.
O, thou, whose wounds
become hard-favour'd death,
Speak to thy father ere
thou yield thy breath!
Brave death by speaking,
whether he will or no; 25
Imagine him a Frenchman
and thy foe.
Poor boy! he smiles,
methinks, as who should say,
Had death been French,
then death had died to-day.
Come, come and lay him in
his father's arms:
My spirit can no longer
bear these harms. 30
Soldiers, adieu! I have
what I would have,
Now my old arms are young
John Talbot's grave.
[Dies]
(IV.7: 18-32)
What
a visually dramatic moment that is, father and son dead in each other’s arms.
As
to Joan of Arc, or Joan La Pucelle as she is mostly referred to in the play,
one has to be disappointed. “La Pucelle”
translates into “the maid.” Shakespeare
took the common English view as Joan as some sort of sorceress, but I guess
what other view could he have taken? This
is supposedly haw she is portrayed in Holinshed's Chronicles, Shakespeare’s source for English history. But she is more than a sorceress. At first she is an Amazon. She isn’t just a strategist and inspirational
leader, she wields a sword and fights real duels. Here is the exchange between Joan and the
Dauphin when they first meet and she convinces him of her supernatural
abilities.
JOAN LA PUCELLE Dauphin, I am by birth a shepherd's
daughter,
My wit untrain'd in any
kind of art.
Heaven and our Lady
gracious hath it pleased 75
To shine on my
contemptible estate:
Lo, whilst I waited on my
tender lambs,
And to sun's parching
heat display'd my cheeks,
God's mother deigned to
appear to me
And in a vision full of
majesty 80
Will'd me to leave my
base vocation
And free my country from
calamity:
Her aid she promised and
assured success:
In complete glory she
reveal'd herself;
And, whereas I was black
and swart before, 85
With those clear rays
which she infused on me
That beauty am I bless'd
with which you see.
Ask me what question thou
canst possible,
And I will answer
unpremeditated:
My courage try by combat,
if thou darest, 90
And thou shalt find that
I exceed my sex.
Resolve on this, thou
shalt be fortunate,
If thou receive me for
thy warlike mate.
CHARLES Thou hast astonish'd me with thy high
terms:
Only this proof I'll of
thy valour make, 95
In single combat thou
shalt buckle with me,
And if thou vanquishest,
thy words are true;
Otherwise I renounce all
confidence.
JOAN LA PUCELLE I am prepared: here is my keen-edged
sword,
Deck'd with five
flower-de-luces on each side; 100
The which at Touraine, in
Saint Katharine's
churchyard,
Out of a great deal of
old iron I chose forth.
CHARLES Then come, o' God's name; I fear no woman.
JOAN LA PUCELLE And while I live, I'll ne'er fly
from a man. 105
[Here they fight, and
JOAN LA PUCELLE overcomes]
CHARLES Stay, stay thy hands! thou art an Amazon
And fightest with the
sword of Deborah.
JOAN LA PUCELLE Christ's mother helps me, else I
were too weak.
(I.2: 73-108)
This
isn’t the only place she overcomes men in a physical bout. It’s interesting that the Blessed Mother is
invoked as the source of her strength. This
might have raised eyebrows in Protestant, Elizabethan London, and probably
would have been a signal to the audience to disdain her. Notice too there is a suggestion of future sexual
liaison between the two (“warlike mate”) which gets expanded a little further
in the scene. But the French do put
faith in her as sent from Providence.
Indeed the religious faith of the French contrast with secular/religious
division of the English side, and may have been a reflection of Shakespeare’s contemporaries. For I’m convinced that Shakespeare was a
closet “papist” as one neighbor of his in his home town of Stratford-upon-Avon
famously said after Shakespeare had died.
Frankly
I find the delineation of Joan’s character altogether baffling. One moment she is an Amazon, another a saint,
another a witch, another a strumpet, another a liar as she tries to escape
execution. Though she contrives
victories for most of the play, her powers suddenly cease, and she is
captured. As I said above, her character
does not feel it came from Shakespeare’s hand.
With
Joan’s capture and the hostilities between the English and French come to an
end, the play concludes. The
French/English division is resolved, but none of the other divisions get
resolved. They are left hanging, but of
course this is the first part of a trilogy.
The next two parts of Henry VI
will resolve those loose ends.
