What do you think?
Rate this book
Wars of the Roses #5
The First Part of King Henry the Sixth
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! 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; His arms spread wider than a dragon's wings; His sparkling 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: He ne'er lift up his hand but conquered.
Hardcover
First published January 1, 1592
236 people are currently reading
6493 people want to read
About the author
William Shakespeare
27.8k books47.1k followersWilliam Shakespeare was an English playwright, poet, and actor. He is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist. He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon" (or simply "the Bard"). His extant works, including collaborations, consist of some 39 plays, 154 sonnets, three long narrative poems, and a few other verses, some of uncertain authorship. His plays have been translated into every major living language and are performed more often than those of any other playwright. Shakespeare remains arguably the most influential writer in the English language, and his works continue to be studied and reinterpreted.
Shakespeare was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire. At the age of 18, he married Anne Hathaway, with whom he had three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith. Sometime between 1585 and 1592, he began a successful career in London as an actor, writer, and part-owner ("sharer") of a playing company called the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later known as the King's Men after the ascension of King James VI and I of Scotland to the English throne. At age 49 (around 1613), he appears to have retired to Stratford, where he died three years later. Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive; this has stimulated considerable speculation about such matters as his physical appearance, his sexuality, his religious beliefs, and even certain fringe theories as to whether the works attributed to him were written by others.
Shakespeare produced most of his known works between 1589 and 1613. His early plays were primarily comedies and histories and are regarded as some of the best works produced in these genres. He then wrote mainly tragedies until 1608, among them Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth, all considered to be among the finest works in the English language. In the last phase of his life, he wrote tragicomedies (also known as romances) and collaborated with other playwrights.
Many of Shakespeare's plays were published in editions of varying quality and accuracy during his lifetime. However, in 1623, John Heminge and Henry Condell, two fellow actors and friends of Shakespeare's, published a more definitive text known as the First Folio, a posthumous collected edition of Shakespeare's dramatic works that includes 36 of his plays. Its Preface was a prescient poem by Ben Jonson, a former rival of Shakespeare, that hailed Shakespeare with the now famous epithet: "not of an age, but for all time".
Shakespeare was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire. At the age of 18, he married Anne Hathaway, with whom he had three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith. Sometime between 1585 and 1592, he began a successful career in London as an actor, writer, and part-owner ("sharer") of a playing company called the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later known as the King's Men after the ascension of King James VI and I of Scotland to the English throne. At age 49 (around 1613), he appears to have retired to Stratford, where he died three years later. Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive; this has stimulated considerable speculation about such matters as his physical appearance, his sexuality, his religious beliefs, and even certain fringe theories as to whether the works attributed to him were written by others.
Shakespeare produced most of his known works between 1589 and 1613. His early plays were primarily comedies and histories and are regarded as some of the best works produced in these genres. He then wrote mainly tragedies until 1608, among them Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth, all considered to be among the finest works in the English language. In the last phase of his life, he wrote tragicomedies (also known as romances) and collaborated with other playwrights.
Many of Shakespeare's plays were published in editions of varying quality and accuracy during his lifetime. However, in 1623, John Heminge and Henry Condell, two fellow actors and friends of Shakespeare's, published a more definitive text known as the First Folio, a posthumous collected edition of Shakespeare's dramatic works that includes 36 of his plays. Its Preface was a prescient poem by Ben Jonson, a former rival of Shakespeare, that hailed Shakespeare with the now famous epithet: "not of an age, but for all time".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 870 reviews
April 10, 2019
Henry VI Part 1, whether it be a genuine Part 1 or a prequel (critics differ), is nevertheless one of the first three plays Shakespeare wrote. It is a marvelously well-constructed piece of stage craft, particularly given the necessarily episodic story it has to tell, involving the three-fold narrative of England's loss of France through Joan of Arc, the quarrels between Gloucester the Lord Protector and Beaufort the Bishop of Winchester, and the rise of the conflict between the Houses of York and Lancaster.
Shakespeare uses big effective scenes (the quarrel of Henry VI's "uncles" over the corpse of Henry V, the street battle between Gloucester and Beaufort's retainers, the Temple Garden dispute with its choosing of roses white and red) interspersed with continual updates to keep each strand of the plot vividly in the spectator's mind. There is surprisingly little genuine poetry here, but an abundance of vigorous blank verse and effective rhetoric. All in all, an excellent start to an unparalleled career.
June 29, 2021
Henry VI, Part 1 opens right at the funeral of Henry V (the friend of Falstaff, the victor of Agincourt and the conqueror and king of France, albeit for a short time). From the first scene onward, the squabbles between the English lords — all descendants of King Edward III, therefore all relatives to some degree or other, and all thirsty for power: Gloucester, Bedford, Exeter, Winchester and al. The rest of the play unfolds the antagonism between them all, primarily through the rivalry between the supporters of the Red Rose (the Lancaster branch of the family, stemming from John of Gaunt) and those of the White Rose (the Plantagenet / York branch, descendants of Edmund of Langley). The Mortimer monologue (II, 5, 61 sqq.) is quite useful to understand the genealogy and what the family bickering is all about. Otherwise, the plot might indeed feel a bit untidy and confusing. In any case, this is, for the most part, a play about trite inheritance jealousy and, in that, all English history set aside, it can speak to a modern audience as well.
Meanwhile, another conflict takes place in France between the occupying English army and the French resistance, led by a ridiculous Dauphin and a hysterical Joan of Arc — which Shakespeare, in a jingoistic fit, depicts as a hellish bitch, but still is a vivid and memorable figure. Talbot, the war leader on the English side, is a prominent figure too, for whom Shakespeare draws some of the most lively and poignant scenes in this play, for instance, the threnody over John Talbot’s body, in the middle of the battlefield (IV, 7).
I remember watching, a few years ago, a breathtaking theatre performance of the whole Henry VI cycle (some 17 hours straight!) by a French company directed by Thomas Jolly (La Piccola Familia, Les Gémeaux, 2014). They managed to render these plays in a way that was in turns vibrant, hilarious, delicate and touching. At least as riveting as a Game of Thrones TV season. Unforgettable.
> Previous play in the Henriad: Henry V
> Next play in The War of the Roses: King Henry VI, Part 2
Meanwhile, another conflict takes place in France between the occupying English army and the French resistance, led by a ridiculous Dauphin and a hysterical Joan of Arc — which Shakespeare, in a jingoistic fit, depicts as a hellish bitch, but still is a vivid and memorable figure. Talbot, the war leader on the English side, is a prominent figure too, for whom Shakespeare draws some of the most lively and poignant scenes in this play, for instance, the threnody over John Talbot’s body, in the middle of the battlefield (IV, 7).
I remember watching, a few years ago, a breathtaking theatre performance of the whole Henry VI cycle (some 17 hours straight!) by a French company directed by Thomas Jolly (La Piccola Familia, Les Gémeaux, 2014). They managed to render these plays in a way that was in turns vibrant, hilarious, delicate and touching. At least as riveting as a Game of Thrones TV season. Unforgettable.
> Previous play in the Henriad: Henry V
> Next play in The War of the Roses: King Henry VI, Part 2
February 6, 2016
In this play: death! speeches! Joan of Arc! more death! more speeches! wait, Joan of Arc!?
April 30, 2018
General Introduction
The Chronology of Shakespeare's Works
Introduction, by Jane Kingsley-Smith
The Play in Performance
Further Reading
--The First Part of King Henry the Sixth
An Account of the Text
Genealogical Tables
Commentary
The Chronology of Shakespeare's Works
Introduction, by Jane Kingsley-Smith
The Play in Performance
Further Reading
--The First Part of King Henry the Sixth
An Account of the Text
Genealogical Tables
Commentary
February 9, 2017
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 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. :)
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 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. :)
August 16, 2017
“Good Lord, what madness rules in brainsick men”
― William Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 1
Henry VI, Part I is considered by some to have been written AFTER Henry VI, Part II and Part III so I'm technically reading this one a bit early. However, for narrative flow I am reading it first. Along with the other two Henry VI plays, and along with Richard III it makes up Shakespeare's War of the Roses tetralogy.
I wasn't super impressed. I mean this isn't Richard III or Hamlet or Macbeth. But this is young Shakespeare gearing up and there are flashes of brilliance and moments of perfection. I love how Shakespeare is utilizing Hall's The Union Of The Two Noble Families Of Lancaster And York, 1550 and Holinshed Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland to frame the fractures that happen between the nobles. While I think Joan of Arc is not given her due by Shakespeare and I really feel there was room here for more of an expansion of Joan, the scenes she was in, she stole. Finally, I LOVED the scenes between Lord Talbot and his son as they prepare to Battle Joan of Arc and Charles, Dauphin of France.
------
Some of my favorite lines:
"For I must not yield to any rites of love,
For my profession's sacred from above.
When I have chased all thy few form hence,
Then will I think upon a recompense."
- Joan, Act I, 3
"For friendly counsel cuts off many foes."
- Henry, Act III, 1
"...partner of your weal or woe."
- Bedford, Act III, 5
"Care is no cure, but rather corrosive,
For things that are not to be remedied."
- Joan, Act III, 7
"Poor boy, he smiles, methinks, as who should say
'Had death been French, then death had died today.'
Come, come and lay him in his father's arms
My spirit can no longer hear these harms,
Soldiers, adieu. I have what I would have,
Now my old arms are young John Talbot's grave."
- Talbot, Act IV, 7
― William Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 1
Henry VI, Part I is considered by some to have been written AFTER Henry VI, Part II and Part III so I'm technically reading this one a bit early. However, for narrative flow I am reading it first. Along with the other two Henry VI plays, and along with Richard III it makes up Shakespeare's War of the Roses tetralogy.
I wasn't super impressed. I mean this isn't Richard III or Hamlet or Macbeth. But this is young Shakespeare gearing up and there are flashes of brilliance and moments of perfection. I love how Shakespeare is utilizing Hall's The Union Of The Two Noble Families Of Lancaster And York, 1550 and Holinshed Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland to frame the fractures that happen between the nobles. While I think Joan of Arc is not given her due by Shakespeare and I really feel there was room here for more of an expansion of Joan, the scenes she was in, she stole. Finally, I LOVED the scenes between Lord Talbot and his son as they prepare to Battle Joan of Arc and Charles, Dauphin of France.
------
Some of my favorite lines:
"For I must not yield to any rites of love,
For my profession's sacred from above.
When I have chased all thy few form hence,
Then will I think upon a recompense."
- Joan, Act I, 3
"For friendly counsel cuts off many foes."
- Henry, Act III, 1
"...partner of your weal or woe."
- Bedford, Act III, 5
"Care is no cure, but rather corrosive,
For things that are not to be remedied."
- Joan, Act III, 7
"Poor boy, he smiles, methinks, as who should say
'Had death been French, then death had died today.'
Come, come and lay him in his father's arms
My spirit can no longer hear these harms,
Soldiers, adieu. I have what I would have,
Now my old arms are young John Talbot's grave."
- Talbot, Act IV, 7
April 6, 2022
Henry VI starts his reign with strife and confronts the improbable heroine Joan The Pucelle (Joan of Arc) in this first of the Henry VI trilogy. It also sets the stage for the War of the Roses which will occupy the trilogy as well as Richard III which brings it to an incredibly bloody conclusion.
The play is full of foreboding:
WARWICK: And here I prophesy: this brawl today ... Shall send, between the red rose and the white,
A thousand souls to death and deadly night.
Henry VI, Part 1, Act 2, scene iv
Just a little later, the King has a similar reflection:
Believe me, lords, my tender years can tell/Civil dissension is a viperous worm/That gnaws the bowels of the commonwealth.
Henry VI, Part 1, Act 3, scene i
More ominously, Exeter makes this prediction:
And now I fear that fatal prophecy ... That Henry born at Monmouth should win all,
And Henry born at Windsor should lose all.
Henry VI, Part 1, Act 3, scene i
This prophecy will take a few decades to be realized, but it fatalistically telegraphs how the series will end.
The allegedly religious Windsor makes a startling statement about putting his own ambition in front of the good of his country:
I'll either make thee stoop and bend thy knee,/Or sack this country with a mutiny.
Henry VI, Part 1, Act 5, scene i
Thereafter, many folks die, fathers killing sons and so forth at Bordeaux and elsewhere. Sadly Joan is thrown under the bus by the ungrateful Charles VII and the English proceed with accusing her of sorcery. I actually felt her first defense speech was rather powerful:
PUCELLE. First let me tell you whom you have condemn'd:
Not me begotten of a shepherd swain,
But issued from the progeny of kings;
Virtuous and holy, chosen from above
By inspiration of celestial grace,
To work exceeding miracles on earth.
I never had to do with wicked spirits.
But you, that are polluted with your lusts,
Stain'd with the guiltless blood of innocents,
Corrupt and tainted with a thousand vices,
Because you want the grace that others have,
You judge it straight a thing impossible
To compass wonders but by help of devils.
No, misconceived! Joan of Arc hath been
A virgin from her tender infancy,
Chaste and immaculate in very thought;
Whose maiden blood, thus rigorously effus'd,
Will cry for vengeance at the gates of heaven.
Henry VI, Part 1, Act 4, scene iv
Her accusation is just about her captors being "polluted with [their] lusts" and "stain'd with the guiltless blood of innocents...because you want the grace that others have, you judge it straight a thing impossible to compass wonders but by the help of devils." I loved this condemnation of medieval mysticism, despite, of course, her own claims of virginity and divine inspiration, it seemed to me that there was some raw truth here. However, what killed it for me was that she immediately recants and claims to have been impregnated by half the English army. I know that these plays are propagandistically anti-French (to assuage Elizabeth's ego), but debasing Joan by having her denounce herself as a whore was a bit disappointing. One must remember, I suppose, that this is one of the Bard's very early plays and perhaps he is a bit more cavalier with the facts and fawning to power in order to stay in favor. We will see him gain in strength over time.
Not my favorite play of the series, but a good setup for the interesting Henry VI, Part 2.
Very well produced by the BBC as the season opener in 2016 of The Hollow Crown S02.
Fino's Reviews of Shakespeare and Shakespearean Criticism
Comedies
The Comedy of Errors (1592-1593
The Taming of the Shrew (1593-1594)
The Two Gentlemen of Verona (1594-1595)
Love's Labour's Lost (1594-1595)
A Midsummer Night's Dream (1595-1596)
The Merchant of Venice (1596-1597)
Much Ado About Nothing (1598-1599)
As You Like It (1599-1600)
Twelfth Night (1599-1600)
The Merry Wives of Windsor (1600-1601)
All's Well That Ends Well (1602-1603)
Measure for Measure (1604-1605)
Cymbeline (1609-1610)
A Winter's Tale (1610-1611)
The Tempest (1611-1612)
Two Noble Kinsmen (1612-1613)
Histories
Henry VI Part I (1589-1590)
Henry VI Part II (1590-1591)
Henry VI Part III (1590-1591)
Richard III (1593-1594)
Richard II (1595-1596)
King John (1596-1597)
Edward III (1596-1597)
Henry IV Part I (1597-1598)
Henry IV Part II (1597-1598)
Henry V (1598-1599)
Henry VIII (1612-1612)
Tragedies
Titus Andronicus (1592-1593)
Romeo and Juliet (1594-1595)
Julius Caesar (1599-1600)
Hamlet (1600-1601)
Troilus and Cressida (1601-1602)
Othello (1604-1605)
King Lear (1605-1606)
Macbeth (1605-1606)
Anthony and Cleopatra (1606-1607)
Coriolanus (1607-1608)
Timon of Athens (1607-1608)
Pericles (1608-1609)
Shakespearean Criticism
The Wheel of Fire by Wilson Knight
A Natural Perspective by Northrop Frye
Shakespeare After All by Marjorie Garber
Shakespeare's Roman Plays and Their Background by M W MacCallum
Shakespearean Criticism 1919-1935 compiled by Anne Ridler
Shakespearean Tragedy by A.C. Bradley
Shakespeare's Sexual Comedy by Hugh M. Richmond
Shakespeare: The Comedies by R.P. Draper
Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics by Stephen Greenblatt
1599: A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare by James Shapiro
Collections of Shakespeare
Venus and Adonis, the Rape of Lucrece and Other Poems
Shakespeare's Sonnets and a Lover's Complaint
The Complete Oxford Shakespeare
The play is full of foreboding:
WARWICK: And here I prophesy: this brawl today ... Shall send, between the red rose and the white,
A thousand souls to death and deadly night.
Henry VI, Part 1, Act 2, scene iv
Just a little later, the King has a similar reflection:
Believe me, lords, my tender years can tell/Civil dissension is a viperous worm/That gnaws the bowels of the commonwealth.
Henry VI, Part 1, Act 3, scene i
More ominously, Exeter makes this prediction:
And now I fear that fatal prophecy ... That Henry born at Monmouth should win all,
And Henry born at Windsor should lose all.
Henry VI, Part 1, Act 3, scene i
This prophecy will take a few decades to be realized, but it fatalistically telegraphs how the series will end.
The allegedly religious Windsor makes a startling statement about putting his own ambition in front of the good of his country:
I'll either make thee stoop and bend thy knee,/Or sack this country with a mutiny.
Henry VI, Part 1, Act 5, scene i
Thereafter, many folks die, fathers killing sons and so forth at Bordeaux and elsewhere. Sadly Joan is thrown under the bus by the ungrateful Charles VII and the English proceed with accusing her of sorcery. I actually felt her first defense speech was rather powerful:
PUCELLE. First let me tell you whom you have condemn'd:
Not me begotten of a shepherd swain,
But issued from the progeny of kings;
Virtuous and holy, chosen from above
By inspiration of celestial grace,
To work exceeding miracles on earth.
I never had to do with wicked spirits.
But you, that are polluted with your lusts,
Stain'd with the guiltless blood of innocents,
Corrupt and tainted with a thousand vices,
Because you want the grace that others have,
You judge it straight a thing impossible
To compass wonders but by help of devils.
No, misconceived! Joan of Arc hath been
A virgin from her tender infancy,
Chaste and immaculate in very thought;
Whose maiden blood, thus rigorously effus'd,
Will cry for vengeance at the gates of heaven.
Henry VI, Part 1, Act 4, scene iv
Her accusation is just about her captors being "polluted with [their] lusts" and "stain'd with the guiltless blood of innocents...because you want the grace that others have, you judge it straight a thing impossible to compass wonders but by the help of devils." I loved this condemnation of medieval mysticism, despite, of course, her own claims of virginity and divine inspiration, it seemed to me that there was some raw truth here. However, what killed it for me was that she immediately recants and claims to have been impregnated by half the English army. I know that these plays are propagandistically anti-French (to assuage Elizabeth's ego), but debasing Joan by having her denounce herself as a whore was a bit disappointing. One must remember, I suppose, that this is one of the Bard's very early plays and perhaps he is a bit more cavalier with the facts and fawning to power in order to stay in favor. We will see him gain in strength over time.
Not my favorite play of the series, but a good setup for the interesting Henry VI, Part 2.
Very well produced by the BBC as the season opener in 2016 of The Hollow Crown S02.
Fino's Reviews of Shakespeare and Shakespearean Criticism
Comedies
The Comedy of Errors (1592-1593
The Taming of the Shrew (1593-1594)
The Two Gentlemen of Verona (1594-1595)
Love's Labour's Lost (1594-1595)
A Midsummer Night's Dream (1595-1596)
The Merchant of Venice (1596-1597)
Much Ado About Nothing (1598-1599)
As You Like It (1599-1600)
Twelfth Night (1599-1600)
The Merry Wives of Windsor (1600-1601)
All's Well That Ends Well (1602-1603)
Measure for Measure (1604-1605)
Cymbeline (1609-1610)
A Winter's Tale (1610-1611)
The Tempest (1611-1612)
Two Noble Kinsmen (1612-1613)
Histories
Henry VI Part I (1589-1590)
Henry VI Part II (1590-1591)
Henry VI Part III (1590-1591)
Richard III (1593-1594)
Richard II (1595-1596)
King John (1596-1597)
Edward III (1596-1597)
Henry IV Part I (1597-1598)
Henry IV Part II (1597-1598)
Henry V (1598-1599)
Henry VIII (1612-1612)
Tragedies
Titus Andronicus (1592-1593)
Romeo and Juliet (1594-1595)
Julius Caesar (1599-1600)
Hamlet (1600-1601)
Troilus and Cressida (1601-1602)
Othello (1604-1605)
King Lear (1605-1606)
Macbeth (1605-1606)
Anthony and Cleopatra (1606-1607)
Coriolanus (1607-1608)
Timon of Athens (1607-1608)
Pericles (1608-1609)
Shakespearean Criticism
The Wheel of Fire by Wilson Knight
A Natural Perspective by Northrop Frye
Shakespeare After All by Marjorie Garber
Shakespeare's Roman Plays and Their Background by M W MacCallum
Shakespearean Criticism 1919-1935 compiled by Anne Ridler
Shakespearean Tragedy by A.C. Bradley
Shakespeare's Sexual Comedy by Hugh M. Richmond
Shakespeare: The Comedies by R.P. Draper
Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics by Stephen Greenblatt
1599: A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare by James Shapiro
Collections of Shakespeare
Venus and Adonis, the Rape of Lucrece and Other Poems
Shakespeare's Sonnets and a Lover's Complaint
The Complete Oxford Shakespeare
May 10, 2021
What was this, really, a bunch of British Royals jumping at each other's throats, snitching and lying and plotting and in their spare time suppressing the French? Only partially written by the young Bard I reckon, something about white and red roses? So many characters with little to zero character development. They just want to kill each other and get to the throne, a game of thrones with no dragons whatsoever. Oh, bummer!
September 3, 2016
My-oh-my.
Reading these plays in parallel to a non-fiction book about the Wars of the Roses was definitely a brilliant idea. Not only does it help to entertain, it also helps to cement knowledge - although Shakespeare took quite some liberties at times.
This play, which is part 1 of 3 about King Henry VI, is a bit of a mess. Maybe it's because, allegedly, it was not written by Shakespeare alone?
The play deals with the beginning of Henry VI's reign (in fact, we start at the funeral of his father when Henry VI was but a baby). We then skip a significant bit to the time during which almost all French territories Henry V so dearly fought to conquer are lost. We also get A LOT of intrigues at court that will lead to the actual Wars of the Roses (in fact, the play introduces the red and white roses here as a symbol of allegiance; historically inaccurate but a nice touch).
Right at the beginning of the play there is LOTS of foreshadowing by Henry VI's uncle and brothers about him not being able to be as formidable as his father. Then we hear of King Charles VII's (France's king) campaign to win back the territories.
The focus then shifts and we get to see Jeanne d'Arc! Well, Shakespeare's version of her anyway.
(She might not have gotten a good or even only accurate portrayal from Shakespeare, but I think this image of her is beautiful!)
When we're back in England, we see the intrigues at court getting more and more severe. Funny to see/read was the sort of interlude in which Edmund Mortimer re-tells the story of how he and his family helped Bolingbroke seize power from King Richard II (what goes around comes around, eh?) and that his heir, Richard (the one who is being told this story), is the actual heir to the throne once he, Edmund, dies.
Interestingly enough (this is indeed historically accurate), Richard does not try to seize the throne for himself after Edmund dies but simply wants his titles and lands restored, which he is granted - through which he becomes the Duke of York (and now everyone can see the names that will become so famous soon).
The next bit in France is a bit murky, we get lots of Jeann d'Arc again, lots of fighting (or losing, to be honest, since the English are stupid enough NOT to band together against the common enemy but to engage in foul play to rid themselves of their respective adversary).
In the end, we get to see Jeanne burn at the stake and a quite confusing version of how the peace treaty with France was achieved and how Margaret of Anjou became queen (confusing because history books again tell a different story).
All in all not that bad a play (beautifully written although not as beautiful as others) but the politics and Henry VI's weakness annoy me. Also, this has the most and most blatant historical inaccuracies which also kept me from enjoying it more. I guess it never stood much of a chance because I really don't like this period since I despise Henry VI.
Reading these plays in parallel to a non-fiction book about the Wars of the Roses was definitely a brilliant idea. Not only does it help to entertain, it also helps to cement knowledge - although Shakespeare took quite some liberties at times.
This play, which is part 1 of 3 about King Henry VI, is a bit of a mess. Maybe it's because, allegedly, it was not written by Shakespeare alone?
The play deals with the beginning of Henry VI's reign (in fact, we start at the funeral of his father when Henry VI was but a baby). We then skip a significant bit to the time during which almost all French territories Henry V so dearly fought to conquer are lost. We also get A LOT of intrigues at court that will lead to the actual Wars of the Roses (in fact, the play introduces the red and white roses here as a symbol of allegiance; historically inaccurate but a nice touch).
Right at the beginning of the play there is LOTS of foreshadowing by Henry VI's uncle and brothers about him not being able to be as formidable as his father. Then we hear of King Charles VII's (France's king) campaign to win back the territories.
The focus then shifts and we get to see Jeanne d'Arc! Well, Shakespeare's version of her anyway.
(She might not have gotten a good or even only accurate portrayal from Shakespeare, but I think this image of her is beautiful!)
When we're back in England, we see the intrigues at court getting more and more severe. Funny to see/read was the sort of interlude in which Edmund Mortimer re-tells the story of how he and his family helped Bolingbroke seize power from King Richard II (what goes around comes around, eh?) and that his heir, Richard (the one who is being told this story), is the actual heir to the throne once he, Edmund, dies.
Interestingly enough (this is indeed historically accurate), Richard does not try to seize the throne for himself after Edmund dies but simply wants his titles and lands restored, which he is granted - through which he becomes the Duke of York (and now everyone can see the names that will become so famous soon).
The next bit in France is a bit murky, we get lots of Jeann d'Arc again, lots of fighting (or losing, to be honest, since the English are stupid enough NOT to band together against the common enemy but to engage in foul play to rid themselves of their respective adversary).
In the end, we get to see Jeanne burn at the stake and a quite confusing version of how the peace treaty with France was achieved and how Margaret of Anjou became queen (confusing because history books again tell a different story).
All in all not that bad a play (beautifully written although not as beautiful as others) but the politics and Henry VI's weakness annoy me. Also, this has the most and most blatant historical inaccuracies which also kept me from enjoying it more. I guess it never stood much of a chance because I really don't like this period since I despise Henry VI.
May 9, 2016
BBC2 The Hollow Crown
Description: The Wars of the Roses: 1. Henry VI Part 1: Against the backdrop of wars in France, the English nobility quarrel. News of the English defeat at Orleans reaches the duke of Gloucester and other nobles. After the funeral of Henry V, his son, the infant Henry VI, is proclaimed king.
Seventeen years later, Henry sits on the throne whilst the rivalries at court continue - Plantagenet has learned of his own strong claim to the crown. After Rouen falls to the French, Plantagenet, Exeter and Talbot pledge to recapture the city from the Dauphin but the French, led by Joan of Arc, defeat the English. The valiant English commander Talbot and his son John are killed.
Warwick and Somerset arrive too late for the battle but join forces with the survivors and retake Rouen. Somerset captures and woos Margaret of Anjou as a potential bride for Henry VI. Plantagenet takes Joan of Arc prisoner and orders for her to be burnt at the stake.
Despite Gloucester's protests, Margaret is introduced to the court as Henry's queen. Margaret complains that Eleanor, Gloucester's wife, behaves like an empress. Eleanor is banished and warns Gloucester that he is in great danger.
Gloucester is accused of high treason and is murdered at the Tower of London on the orders of Somerset, whilst he and Margaret make love in the palace.
Henry banishes Somerset and Suffolk after Gloucester is found dead. Plantagenet is incensed when Margaret is able to bully Henry into reversing the sentence. Plantagenet makes his claim for the throne and sets the Houses of York and Lancaster in open opposition.
Gloucester Hugh Bonneville
Plantagenet Adrian Dunbar
Mortimer Michael Gambon
Talbot Philip Glenister
Eleanor Sally Hawkins
Exeter Anton Lesser
Somerset Ben Miles
Margaret Sophie Okonedo
Henry VI Tom Sturridge
Warwick Stanley Townsend
Suffolk Jason Watkins
Bishop of Winchester Samuel West
Sir William Lucy Tom Beard
John Talbot Max Bennett
Dauphin Charles Tom Byam Shaw
Murderer Sean Cernow
Joan's Mother Pandora Colin
Joan of Arc Laura Frances-Morgan
Brakenbury John MacKay
Vernon Stuart McQuarrie
Basset Matthew Needham
Young Cecily Lucy Robinson
Young Cecily David Troughton
June 30, 2024
The first part of the Henry VI trilogy is the foundation for the later plays, the subsequent parts, and also “Richard III”. A historical play filled with political maneuvering, alliance, and betrayals, which makes it an interesting read for anyone interested in power dynamics and historical drama. Looking forward to the second part.
August 7, 2011
You see, Manny is probably right – this play really would have been a better play if Jean of Arc had been portrayed as the central character and had been seen as the tragic heroine. That might have been asking a bit much of an English dramatist at the time, but it would have made a much more interesting play, not least as she is easily the most interesting character in the play, even in this play where she is made to sound a whore.
The Talbot (don’t you love when people somehow get the definite article dropped in front of their name – and countries too, The Lebanon, but not The England or The Australia) is probably the tragic hero of this play – but a lot of the play is almost farcical and so ‘heroes’ aren’t really thick on the ground.
The story in thumbnail is that Henry V has just died (he died remarkably young) and left his son (a child) to be King, but guided by a protector and group of Lords. The group of Lords bicker and then actively undermine each other. The nice bit of all this play is watching Henry VI trying to explain to people that their actions are undermining the nation and the nations ability to hold France. I’ve no idea what qualities are necessary to make an effective ruler (and I’m glad that for me such questions will always remain purely academic) – but those qualities are clearly not exhausted in stating the obvious to those around you or in being a bit of a nice guy. In trying to be everyone’s friend he insults all sides and makes matters worse. In fact, it is worse than this – by seeking to treat the symbols of the two sides in the war of the roses (the white rose and the red rose) as if they are almost meaningless he does not realise that symbols are much more important than reality. He would have had more success in banging heads together – this would probably have been forgiven and forgotten – but his ‘making light’ of the symbols, you are never forgiven for that sort of thing. His, I’ll give one side a military honour and the other side the honour of my wearing their rose could only ensure both sides were insulted. The play ends with a military defeat, a clearly tenuous peace and lots of room for there to be a Henry VI parts 2 and 3.
There is an awful lot of running around and shouting in this play. It becomes quite tedious to be honest. And the long scene where The Talbot and The Son of Talbot talk to each other by finishing each other’s rhyming couplets – something like: “I really, really want you to go” / “Oh no, I’ll stay and fight your foe” / “But I’m telling you to run away” / “No, Dad, I’ve said I’ve got to stay” Didn’t really work for me. It turned what might well have been the ‘high drama’ scene of the play – I mean, a father and son fighting side by side to the death and dying in each others arms – into something of a joke.
As someone said to me once – if you want to drive someone you are arguing with nuts you should rhyme. You can’t be seriously thinking about the ‘argument’ if you have time to think up a rhyme. I think that was part of my problem with this endless string of rhyming couplets.
But the play actually ends with Lord Suffock convincing Henry to marry Margaret – someone Suffock himself has clearly fallen in love with. This can’t bode well – and let’s face it, if it did there wouldn’t be much point going on to Part Two.
The Talbot (don’t you love when people somehow get the definite article dropped in front of their name – and countries too, The Lebanon, but not The England or The Australia) is probably the tragic hero of this play – but a lot of the play is almost farcical and so ‘heroes’ aren’t really thick on the ground.
The story in thumbnail is that Henry V has just died (he died remarkably young) and left his son (a child) to be King, but guided by a protector and group of Lords. The group of Lords bicker and then actively undermine each other. The nice bit of all this play is watching Henry VI trying to explain to people that their actions are undermining the nation and the nations ability to hold France. I’ve no idea what qualities are necessary to make an effective ruler (and I’m glad that for me such questions will always remain purely academic) – but those qualities are clearly not exhausted in stating the obvious to those around you or in being a bit of a nice guy. In trying to be everyone’s friend he insults all sides and makes matters worse. In fact, it is worse than this – by seeking to treat the symbols of the two sides in the war of the roses (the white rose and the red rose) as if they are almost meaningless he does not realise that symbols are much more important than reality. He would have had more success in banging heads together – this would probably have been forgiven and forgotten – but his ‘making light’ of the symbols, you are never forgiven for that sort of thing. His, I’ll give one side a military honour and the other side the honour of my wearing their rose could only ensure both sides were insulted. The play ends with a military defeat, a clearly tenuous peace and lots of room for there to be a Henry VI parts 2 and 3.
There is an awful lot of running around and shouting in this play. It becomes quite tedious to be honest. And the long scene where The Talbot and The Son of Talbot talk to each other by finishing each other’s rhyming couplets – something like: “I really, really want you to go” / “Oh no, I’ll stay and fight your foe” / “But I’m telling you to run away” / “No, Dad, I’ve said I’ve got to stay” Didn’t really work for me. It turned what might well have been the ‘high drama’ scene of the play – I mean, a father and son fighting side by side to the death and dying in each others arms – into something of a joke.
As someone said to me once – if you want to drive someone you are arguing with nuts you should rhyme. You can’t be seriously thinking about the ‘argument’ if you have time to think up a rhyme. I think that was part of my problem with this endless string of rhyming couplets.
But the play actually ends with Lord Suffock convincing Henry to marry Margaret – someone Suffock himself has clearly fallen in love with. This can’t bode well – and let’s face it, if it did there wouldn’t be much point going on to Part Two.
June 7, 2025
oh, early shakespeare (derogatory). though of course authorship debates are a thing about this one, which is maybe why it was so brutal to get through? because i feel like this SHOULD have been interesting - talbot intrigues me as a sort of proto-hotspur, and JOAN OF ARC WAS THERE! SHOULDN'T ANY PLAY WITH JOAN OF ARC IN IT BE INTERESTING BY DEFAULT! but dear god this was a struggle. like victor said, i'm in the king henries' flop era 😔😔😔 far and away the best part of this was margaret, queen of my fucking heart, a hundred times funnier than falstaff could ever hope to be, all hail, does her back hurt from carrying this play in her singular scene, etc, etc
anyway this is the 69th book i've read this year. swag
--
2025 reread: the readthrough group has decreed that this play should be staged like a looney toons episode complete with everybody's feet doing circles when they run back and forth across the battlefield. huge fan of having an ambiguous joan of arc who may or may not be god's chosen one for four acts and then making her say "oh as you know i've been giving my blood to demons because i'm in league with the devil." really special play <3
anyway this is the 69th book i've read this year. swag
--
2025 reread: the readthrough group has decreed that this play should be staged like a looney toons episode complete with everybody's feet doing circles when they run back and forth across the battlefield. huge fan of having an ambiguous joan of arc who may or may not be god's chosen one for four acts and then making her say "oh as you know i've been giving my blood to demons because i'm in league with the devil." really special play <3
November 26, 2023
Generally believed to be Shakespeare's first play Henry VI shows the bard was human. There's none of the breathtaking poetry or thrilling psychological insight of his later work. He's thinking primarily of takings, how to fill seats, how to assure it's a success and allows him the opportunity to go on writing. As such it's an admirable exercise in composing a blockbuster, a crowd pleaser with its numerous battles and feuds sprinkled with some love interest. It's Shakespeare as Ridley Scott.
May 25, 2016
Αρκετή δράση,αλλά όχι κάτι το ιδιαίτερο.Για μια ανάγνωση!
May 8, 2019
This was surprisingly good. :O I am still shocked by how much I enjoyed reading this history play. I basically flew threw it within the span of two hours and found that by the second act I was completely emerged in the plot and all of the petty drama... I mean the English nobles really need to get their shit together. It was so amusing to see how they basically wracked havoc on themselves by being so greedy and mistrustful. Serves them right.
Whereas Henry VI, Part 2 deals with the King's inability to quell the bickering of his nobles and the inevitability of armed conflict, Part 1 deals with the loss of England's French territories and the political machinations leading up to the Wars of the Roses, as the English political system is torn apart by personal squabbles and jealousy.
My favorite scene in this play was definitely the scene in the garden in which Richard Platagenet made the other lords chose a side between the Red and the White Rose (the houses Lancaster and York respectively), and Warwick fatefully proclaiming at the end:
I found the subplot of Suffolk and (later Queen) Margaret to be the most interesting since Queen Margaret was one of my favourite characters in Richard III and I was curious to see what her origins where. Suffolk was such a fucking folk (I was expecting no less) and the entire wooing had me cackling throughout. The fact that King Henry actually listened to him to disregard all of his politically useful wedding plans to marry the hot and beautiful Margaret was such a #redwedding moment ... I wasn't surprised when everything turned to shit afterwards. Bitches had it coming!
Whereas Henry VI, Part 2 deals with the King's inability to quell the bickering of his nobles and the inevitability of armed conflict, Part 1 deals with the loss of England's French territories and the political machinations leading up to the Wars of the Roses, as the English political system is torn apart by personal squabbles and jealousy.
My favorite scene in this play was definitely the scene in the garden in which Richard Platagenet made the other lords chose a side between the Red and the White Rose (the houses Lancaster and York respectively), and Warwick fatefully proclaiming at the end:
this brawl today,We love a good prophecy, you guys. Also, did I mentioned that Joan of motherfucking Arc is a character in this? I mean, she is disguised as "Joanne de la Pucelle" but her awesomeness and savagery cannot be mistaken for another. I love it when Shakespeare incorporated strong female characters in his work and Joan was a complete hit, the way she stormed off to battle and told the King of France off .. fucking epic! But of course Bill had to destroy it at the end where she was tried and accused of sleeping with every man in sight. Meh.
Grown to this faction in the Temple garden,
Shall send between the red rose and the white,
A thousand souls to death and deadly night.
I found the subplot of Suffolk and (later Queen) Margaret to be the most interesting since Queen Margaret was one of my favourite characters in Richard III and I was curious to see what her origins where. Suffolk was such a fucking folk (I was expecting no less) and the entire wooing had me cackling throughout. The fact that King Henry actually listened to him to disregard all of his politically useful wedding plans to marry the hot and beautiful Margaret was such a #redwedding moment ... I wasn't surprised when everything turned to shit afterwards. Bitches had it coming!
September 1, 2017
O.o
This is potentially Shakespeare's first play. AND IT'S ACTUALLY BAD.
This is potentially Shakespeare's first play. AND IT'S ACTUALLY BAD.
May 27, 2016
From BBC Two:
Against the backdrop of wars in France, the English nobility quarrel. News of the English defeat at Orleans reaches the duke of Gloucester and other nobles. After the funeral of Henry V, his son, the infant Henry VI, is proclaimed king.
Seventeen years later, Henry sits on the throne whilst the rivalries at court continue - Plantagenet has learned of his own strong claim to the crown. After Rouen falls to the French, Plantagenet, Exeter and Talbot pledge to recapture the city from the Dauphin but the French, led by Joan of Arc, defeat the English. The valiant English commander Talbot and his son John are killed.
Warwick and Somerset arrive too late for the battle but join forces with the survivors and retake Rouen. Somerset captures and woos Margaret of Anjou as a potential bride for Henry VI. Plantagenet takes Joan of Arc prisoner and orders for her to be burnt at the stake.
Despite Gloucester's protests, Margaret is introduced to the court as Henry's queen. Margaret complains that Eleanor, Gloucester's wife, behaves like an empress. Eleanor is banished and warns Gloucester that he is in great danger.
Gloucester is accused of high treason and is murdered at the Tower of London on the orders of Somerset, whilst he and Margaret make love in the palace.
Henry banishes Somerset and Suffolk after Gloucester is found dead. Plantagenet is incensed when Margaret is able to bully Henry into reversing the sentence. Plantagenet makes his claim for the throne and sets the Houses of York and Lancaster in open opposition.
Credits
Role Contributor
Producer Rupert Ryle-Hodges
Author William Shakespeare
Director Dominic Cooke
Adaptor Dominic Cooke
Adaptor Ben Power
Gloucester Hugh Bonneville
Plantagenet Adrian Dunbar
Mortimer Michael Gambon
Talbot Philip Glenister
Eleanor Sally Hawkins
Exeter Anton Lesser
Somerset Ben Miles
Margaret Sophie Okonedo
Henry VI Tom Sturridge
Warwick Stanley Townsend
Suffolk Jason Watkins
Bishop of Winchester Samuel West
Sir William Lucy Tom Beard
John Talbot Max Bennett
Dauphin Charles Tom Byam Shaw
Murderer Sean Cernow
Joan's Mother Pandora Colin
Joan of Arc Laura Frances-Morgan
Brakenbury John MacKay
Vernon Stuart McQuarrie
Basset Matthew Needham
Young Cecily Lucy Robinson
Young Cecily David Troughton
Production Company Neal Street Productions
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07bgnf9
4* Antony and Cleopatra
4* A Midsummer Night's Dream
3* Twelfth Night
5* Lenny Henry in Shakespeare's Othello
5* Richard III
3* The Tempest
5* Hamlet
3* Romeo and Juliet
3* As You Like It
5* Macbeth
4* The Taming of the Shrew
4* Julius Caesar
3* The Winter's tale
5* King Lear
CR Henry VI
TR The Comedy of Errors
About Shakespeare (fiction&non-fiction):
3* Mistress Shakespeare by Karen Harper
3* Mrs. Shakespeare: The Complete Works by Robert Nye
3* Shakespeare's Local by Pete Brown
4* Shakespeare's Restless World by Neil MacGregor
2* Chasing Shakespeares by Sarah Smith
3* Another Shakespeare by Martyn Wade
4* 1606: William Shakespeare and the Year of Lear by James Shapiro
4* Molière et Shakespeare by Paul Stapfer
3* A Play for the Heart: The Death of Shakespeare by Nick Warburton
Against the backdrop of wars in France, the English nobility quarrel. News of the English defeat at Orleans reaches the duke of Gloucester and other nobles. After the funeral of Henry V, his son, the infant Henry VI, is proclaimed king.
Seventeen years later, Henry sits on the throne whilst the rivalries at court continue - Plantagenet has learned of his own strong claim to the crown. After Rouen falls to the French, Plantagenet, Exeter and Talbot pledge to recapture the city from the Dauphin but the French, led by Joan of Arc, defeat the English. The valiant English commander Talbot and his son John are killed.
Warwick and Somerset arrive too late for the battle but join forces with the survivors and retake Rouen. Somerset captures and woos Margaret of Anjou as a potential bride for Henry VI. Plantagenet takes Joan of Arc prisoner and orders for her to be burnt at the stake.
Despite Gloucester's protests, Margaret is introduced to the court as Henry's queen. Margaret complains that Eleanor, Gloucester's wife, behaves like an empress. Eleanor is banished and warns Gloucester that he is in great danger.
Gloucester is accused of high treason and is murdered at the Tower of London on the orders of Somerset, whilst he and Margaret make love in the palace.
Henry banishes Somerset and Suffolk after Gloucester is found dead. Plantagenet is incensed when Margaret is able to bully Henry into reversing the sentence. Plantagenet makes his claim for the throne and sets the Houses of York and Lancaster in open opposition.
Credits
Role Contributor
Producer Rupert Ryle-Hodges
Author William Shakespeare
Director Dominic Cooke
Adaptor Dominic Cooke
Adaptor Ben Power
Gloucester Hugh Bonneville
Plantagenet Adrian Dunbar
Mortimer Michael Gambon
Talbot Philip Glenister
Eleanor Sally Hawkins
Exeter Anton Lesser
Somerset Ben Miles
Margaret Sophie Okonedo
Henry VI Tom Sturridge
Warwick Stanley Townsend
Suffolk Jason Watkins
Bishop of Winchester Samuel West
Sir William Lucy Tom Beard
John Talbot Max Bennett
Dauphin Charles Tom Byam Shaw
Murderer Sean Cernow
Joan's Mother Pandora Colin
Joan of Arc Laura Frances-Morgan
Brakenbury John MacKay
Vernon Stuart McQuarrie
Basset Matthew Needham
Young Cecily Lucy Robinson
Young Cecily David Troughton
Production Company Neal Street Productions
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07bgnf9
4* Antony and Cleopatra
4* A Midsummer Night's Dream
3* Twelfth Night
5* Lenny Henry in Shakespeare's Othello
5* Richard III
3* The Tempest
5* Hamlet
3* Romeo and Juliet
3* As You Like It
5* Macbeth
4* The Taming of the Shrew
4* Julius Caesar
3* The Winter's tale
5* King Lear
CR Henry VI
TR The Comedy of Errors
About Shakespeare (fiction&non-fiction):
3* Mistress Shakespeare by Karen Harper
3* Mrs. Shakespeare: The Complete Works by Robert Nye
3* Shakespeare's Local by Pete Brown
4* Shakespeare's Restless World by Neil MacGregor
2* Chasing Shakespeares by Sarah Smith
3* Another Shakespeare by Martyn Wade
4* 1606: William Shakespeare and the Year of Lear by James Shapiro
4* Molière et Shakespeare by Paul Stapfer
3* A Play for the Heart: The Death of Shakespeare by Nick Warburton
January 12, 2018
This is the play where we find Henry V dead and his young and weak son Henry VI on the throne constantly intrigued by his advisers of both red and white roses. Things go badly in France and we met Joan of Arc from a thoroughly English perspective. Finally, we watch Suffolk manipulate Henry into marrying Margaret, setting us up for Henry VI, Part II.
It is probably important to note that Shakespeare did not write his histories in order not even this trilogy was written in order. He wrote Part 2 first it appears and I suppose he felt he needed to add background material. I am glad he did write Part I because it is one of the more interesting historical plays.
Update 2018 Arkangel Audio. Amanda Root as Joan of Arc, David Tennant as Henry VI without a trace of a brogue. Excellent production although I highly recommend using a script to follow along because this play has a lot of characters and it can get confusing. I am always sad when young Talbot takes the stage but what a lovely/pathetic aside it is.
It is probably important to note that Shakespeare did not write his histories in order not even this trilogy was written in order. He wrote Part 2 first it appears and I suppose he felt he needed to add background material. I am glad he did write Part I because it is one of the more interesting historical plays.
Update 2018 Arkangel Audio. Amanda Root as Joan of Arc, David Tennant as Henry VI without a trace of a brogue. Excellent production although I highly recommend using a script to follow along because this play has a lot of characters and it can get confusing. I am always sad when young Talbot takes the stage but what a lovely/pathetic aside it is.
February 28, 2016
Wonderful play. So happy I read it – and re-read it, and watched it, then read it online – at least four-five times. :D
This is a play which has been heavily examined, reviewed, critiqued, and studied. (What play of Shakespeare’s has not?) But this one has come in for some meticulous scrutiny. First off there is the question of who wrote what when. Well, isn’t this the case with ALL his plays? And aren’t there multiple theories concerning the various supposed writers who really wrote the plays? Not as much as this one. (And I personally think saying Shakespeare wasn’t intelligent/educated enough to write this stuff is like saying the Easter Islanders were too stupid to erect their colossal, remarkable statues. Poppycock!) Anyhow, going all the way back to Alexander Pope, the experts have had their doubts. Because of style of writing, language choices, the meter or rhythm in certain sections of dialogue, many have said that Shakespeare, at least in this one, had assistance. That is to say, this play was written as a collaboration, with Will writing some scenes and others writing other scenes. What’s wrong with a collaboration anyhow? Isn’t that how things are often written today, esp. movie scripts and television series? Quite often credit is given to a writing team and I’ve seen many an academy award show where an entire group flocks up on stage, at any rate…
I think Will wrote most of it and if he had help, so what.
Another criticism I came across, (I research these suckers as much as read – or watch – them), concerns the battle scenes, of which there are many. Critics have said these scenes reduce the play to a more common or vulgar level, and that battle scenes belong off stage, or should be imagined. How does one do this? Through device of dialogue, of course. The actors should talk about or convey what’s going on. Okay, bollocks, I say to that. Can you imagine Lord Suffolk crying out, ‘Oh look, yonder, poor Talbot! Is that blood I espy upon his doublet! Ouch! Ow! He’s fallen, oh my lords, gentle lords, what tragedy this day doth befall on our gallant lads!’
Nah, fie on that too, and by the way they wouldn’t say lads. I made that up.
Anyhow, whoever wrote the play, and whoever decided to keep the several fight and battle scenes, to you say I hurrah! (And I especially like when a group of townspeople throw stones at each other and ignore all attempts – and by their betters! – to stop them. Bravo for the common man!)
As for the story, it doth goeth…
England has lost its king, Henry V, so the first scene is one of sadness, tragedy, death, and the like. Everyone mopes around worrying about things and it’s great foreshadowing for what is to come. In this play if someone is happy one moment, wait a few tics and he’ll be moping about or quarreling or maybe even be dead or dying in the next. France and England are at war. (Someone on a Youtube video said, well weren’t they always at war back then?) And there are scenes set in France, what with Joan of Arc running around getting the equally morose French all excited about winning again! There are also scenes where the English, led by the redoubtable Talbot are at the gates of this French city or that, winning, and sometimes losing.
Meanwhile, back home in England everyone’s getting accustomed to a new king, who’s actually an infant at this time in history. (Shakespeare (or his team) aged Henry so he could give great and rousing speeches.) There’s dissension between two notable leaders, both of whom want to be close to young Henry, the real source of power. These two are Winchester, head religious leader who eventually becomes Bishop; and Gloucester, the King’s Protector. These two really, really do hate each other and when they’re on stage you can expect fireworks – verbal and physical. If anyone tries to calm them down, they just ignore said person. (They really, really do.) Their followers are identified by the color of their coats: blue for Gloucester, tawny for Winchester. If I were watching this in the pit at the Globe I’d be all, ‘Bring on the tawny coats’, while my husband Hugh the mule-tender gives me a whack and cries, ‘Nie, the blue coats, foolish strumpet! The blue!’
There’s other plots a’brewing, too, in that you’ve got this bounder, Richard Plantgatenet, who’s told by his dying uncle – who’s shut up in the tower of London, kept prisoner for eons – that ‘Hey, ist thou, Richard, who should truly wear the crown!’ Apparently both Henry VI and Richard descend from different lines of the same last great king, Edward III. Slight problem, though. It seems that Richard’s father was executed for treason so this puts a damper on his family line. But don’t worry about that, because Henry VI is a nice guy, (whether he’s really a baby, teenager or whatever.) He generously restores Richard to his rightful titles and estates. Pity he does that, because now that Richard is rich and influential again and can gather a lot of toadies (followers) around him, he starts to think about this. There are several ‘asides’ in the play where Richard winks and talks directly to the audience – ‘Hey, maybe I am the true ruler? Methinks me needs to think on this.’
(I make up the pseudo-Shakespearean lines; please don’t blame Will.)
Anyhow, all this will ultimately lead to the War of the Roses, which is presaged in a scene in which supporters of Richard, the House of York, grab white roses as their insignia. (Or sigil as G R R Martin would call it.) And those who support the House of Lancaster, or King Henry VI, grab red roses. To anyone living in Shakespeare’s time, this would have been an ‘Uh Oh’ moment, foretelling the calamity yet to come.
(Shakespeare wrote this play in the relatively calmer time after the War of the Roses. It was past, yet recent history.)
So there are battles and arguments. Gloves thrown down and possible duels. Joan of Arc doing her thing and having others describe her as a strumpet and various plays on the word ‘Pucelle,’ which was a name she used which meant ‘the maiden.’ There’s also various puns and word play where Will uses everyday words in ways which turn their meaning sexual. (Oh, like we do today? Witness the SNL skit in which three actors discuss the various ways to ‘caulk’ a window. A riot today and in the past.)
A scene (or scenes) which I rather liked involves the death of the English military leader, Lord Talbot. He dies, then lives, then seemingly dies again. As I was reading I kept thinking, okay, there he goes – nope! He doth rouse himself in order to give sweet speech to his (also) dying son! What a man!
Anyhow, the play is a marvel. It’s crazy with action, great dialogue, then more action and the crowds must have loved this in its heyday. I know I did and I’m 400 years past its heyday.
This is a play which has been heavily examined, reviewed, critiqued, and studied. (What play of Shakespeare’s has not?) But this one has come in for some meticulous scrutiny. First off there is the question of who wrote what when. Well, isn’t this the case with ALL his plays? And aren’t there multiple theories concerning the various supposed writers who really wrote the plays? Not as much as this one. (And I personally think saying Shakespeare wasn’t intelligent/educated enough to write this stuff is like saying the Easter Islanders were too stupid to erect their colossal, remarkable statues. Poppycock!) Anyhow, going all the way back to Alexander Pope, the experts have had their doubts. Because of style of writing, language choices, the meter or rhythm in certain sections of dialogue, many have said that Shakespeare, at least in this one, had assistance. That is to say, this play was written as a collaboration, with Will writing some scenes and others writing other scenes. What’s wrong with a collaboration anyhow? Isn’t that how things are often written today, esp. movie scripts and television series? Quite often credit is given to a writing team and I’ve seen many an academy award show where an entire group flocks up on stage, at any rate…
I think Will wrote most of it and if he had help, so what.
Another criticism I came across, (I research these suckers as much as read – or watch – them), concerns the battle scenes, of which there are many. Critics have said these scenes reduce the play to a more common or vulgar level, and that battle scenes belong off stage, or should be imagined. How does one do this? Through device of dialogue, of course. The actors should talk about or convey what’s going on. Okay, bollocks, I say to that. Can you imagine Lord Suffolk crying out, ‘Oh look, yonder, poor Talbot! Is that blood I espy upon his doublet! Ouch! Ow! He’s fallen, oh my lords, gentle lords, what tragedy this day doth befall on our gallant lads!’
Nah, fie on that too, and by the way they wouldn’t say lads. I made that up.
Anyhow, whoever wrote the play, and whoever decided to keep the several fight and battle scenes, to you say I hurrah! (And I especially like when a group of townspeople throw stones at each other and ignore all attempts – and by their betters! – to stop them. Bravo for the common man!)
As for the story, it doth goeth…
England has lost its king, Henry V, so the first scene is one of sadness, tragedy, death, and the like. Everyone mopes around worrying about things and it’s great foreshadowing for what is to come. In this play if someone is happy one moment, wait a few tics and he’ll be moping about or quarreling or maybe even be dead or dying in the next. France and England are at war. (Someone on a Youtube video said, well weren’t they always at war back then?) And there are scenes set in France, what with Joan of Arc running around getting the equally morose French all excited about winning again! There are also scenes where the English, led by the redoubtable Talbot are at the gates of this French city or that, winning, and sometimes losing.
Meanwhile, back home in England everyone’s getting accustomed to a new king, who’s actually an infant at this time in history. (Shakespeare (or his team) aged Henry so he could give great and rousing speeches.) There’s dissension between two notable leaders, both of whom want to be close to young Henry, the real source of power. These two are Winchester, head religious leader who eventually becomes Bishop; and Gloucester, the King’s Protector. These two really, really do hate each other and when they’re on stage you can expect fireworks – verbal and physical. If anyone tries to calm them down, they just ignore said person. (They really, really do.) Their followers are identified by the color of their coats: blue for Gloucester, tawny for Winchester. If I were watching this in the pit at the Globe I’d be all, ‘Bring on the tawny coats’, while my husband Hugh the mule-tender gives me a whack and cries, ‘Nie, the blue coats, foolish strumpet! The blue!’
There’s other plots a’brewing, too, in that you’ve got this bounder, Richard Plantgatenet, who’s told by his dying uncle – who’s shut up in the tower of London, kept prisoner for eons – that ‘Hey, ist thou, Richard, who should truly wear the crown!’ Apparently both Henry VI and Richard descend from different lines of the same last great king, Edward III. Slight problem, though. It seems that Richard’s father was executed for treason so this puts a damper on his family line. But don’t worry about that, because Henry VI is a nice guy, (whether he’s really a baby, teenager or whatever.) He generously restores Richard to his rightful titles and estates. Pity he does that, because now that Richard is rich and influential again and can gather a lot of toadies (followers) around him, he starts to think about this. There are several ‘asides’ in the play where Richard winks and talks directly to the audience – ‘Hey, maybe I am the true ruler? Methinks me needs to think on this.’
(I make up the pseudo-Shakespearean lines; please don’t blame Will.)
Anyhow, all this will ultimately lead to the War of the Roses, which is presaged in a scene in which supporters of Richard, the House of York, grab white roses as their insignia. (Or sigil as G R R Martin would call it.) And those who support the House of Lancaster, or King Henry VI, grab red roses. To anyone living in Shakespeare’s time, this would have been an ‘Uh Oh’ moment, foretelling the calamity yet to come.
(Shakespeare wrote this play in the relatively calmer time after the War of the Roses. It was past, yet recent history.)
So there are battles and arguments. Gloves thrown down and possible duels. Joan of Arc doing her thing and having others describe her as a strumpet and various plays on the word ‘Pucelle,’ which was a name she used which meant ‘the maiden.’ There’s also various puns and word play where Will uses everyday words in ways which turn their meaning sexual. (Oh, like we do today? Witness the SNL skit in which three actors discuss the various ways to ‘caulk’ a window. A riot today and in the past.)
A scene (or scenes) which I rather liked involves the death of the English military leader, Lord Talbot. He dies, then lives, then seemingly dies again. As I was reading I kept thinking, okay, there he goes – nope! He doth rouse himself in order to give sweet speech to his (also) dying son! What a man!
Anyhow, the play is a marvel. It’s crazy with action, great dialogue, then more action and the crowds must have loved this in its heyday. I know I did and I’m 400 years past its heyday.
June 28, 2015
England's defeat
6 June 2012
First I shall be clear as to why I put this book on the historical shelf rather than the history shelf. The main reason is because a book that goes on the history self is non-fiction where as an historical book is a story, based on fact or otherwise, that was written at a time after the actual events that are portrayed. For instance, Herodotus is history because it is a non-fiction account of the Persian Wars (as well as being an anthropological text), while a book called Spartan is historical because it was written recently and is a fictional account of a Spartan who participated in the Persian Wars.
Anyway, this play really surprised me. At best I was expecting something of average quality, particularly since Shakespeare's historical plays are not all that popular. However I have decided that I will try to read as many of them as possible simply because I am very interested in seeing how an historical period is seen by somebody closer to the events than otherwise. Further, Shakespeare's histories are very surprising in the events that they cover. For instance King John has nothing to do with the Magna Carta, despite that event being the event that everybody associates with King John. This particular play deals with the rise and fall of Joan of Arc, the beginning of the end of England's occupation of France, and the beginning of the War of the Roses.
I should also mention that this is the first in a trilogy and I will be looking at the trilogy as a whole once I have finished all three of the plays, and since this is in my read now bag, hopefully it won't be too long. Also, the version that I read, that is the Signet Shakespeare, has some interesting commentaries in it, though I do not necessarily agree with everything that they say. One of the things that comes across is that this play is the tragedy of John Talbot, however I did not get the impression that Talbot was a tragic hero, not in the sense of the tragic heroes in Shakespeare's later plays. I also considered that it could be considered a tragedy of Joan of Arc, but once again she does not actually play a major role in the play, and does not come across as a tragic hero.
I will admit that Joan did suffer, but she does not do so in the same way as Hamlet. First of all she is a major supporting character who has an important role to play, but the play does not necessarily revolve around her. It does revolve around King Henry, but not to the same extent as other plays. Joan, rather, is the standard barer that France rallies to in their darkest hour, and despite only fighting two major battles, her influence turns the tide of the war in France's favour. All you need to do to see the dire predicament that France was in at the time is look at a map of France during her life: you will discover that the entire northern region (including Paris) was under English rule. However this is also a misnomer simply because English rule arose from the Norman conquest. It is just that the English people were able to absorb the Normans into their nation so that it ceased being Normandy and became England.
I will not say much more about Joan because she is not hugely important in the play, and a number of the productions have actually dropped her. In a way they are more interested in Margaret, who becomes Henry's wife, and from reading the commentaries it appears that she is not a very nice person. However in this play we are only introduced to her, though the introduction did send chills up my spine, most likely because of what I suspect would become of her character in later plays.
Actually, I would like to say a bit more on Joan because what we see here is an opinion of Joan written much closer to her lifetime. These days Joan is seen as a hero, especially by the French, and to us being more than six hundred years away from her look at her with fascination and wonder. She was a warrior princess, and a beautiful one at that, who took a role that only males would take and executed it successfully. To us a warrior maiden is very attractive, especially to those of us who are geeks. However, to the people of Shakespeare's time the view of Joan of Arc was much different. From this play we are looking at events that occurred only one hundred and fifty years previously, and to our minds it would be like looking back on, say, Abraham Lincoln. France and England were still bitter enemies, and Joan of Arc is not a romanticised warrior woman, but a witch that deserved to be burnt at the stake.
We should be aware that Joan was captured by the Burgundians and handed over to the English were she was tried (in a show trial), found guilty of witchcraft and then executed. However as time passed, attitudes to her changed. Despite being dead, she was allowed another trial, and found to be innocent of the crimes that she was originally found guilty. Later she was deified, that is turned into a saint, though that did not happen until the beginning of the twentieth century. Now she is one of France's patron saints and the patron saint of martyrs. Bernard Shaw looks at this much deeper, and since I am rereading St Joan at this time, this is something I will return to shortly.
Further, this play chronicles the collapse of the English occupation of France. The period that the play covers is a lot longer in history, but has been truncated by Shakespeare to only include the important parts. It appears that when Henry was crowned in the play he was not as young as he was in real life. In reality Henry was only 9 months old when he became king, thus putting a child king on the throne. However, it did not work in the same way as it worked in Game of Thrones. Henry had nowhere near as much power as Jothrey had, and further the kingdom was protected against the immature rule of an infant through the use of regents. However, as is seen in Richard III, just because the child is a king does not stop the regent from usurping the throne and killing the child.
6 June 2012
First I shall be clear as to why I put this book on the historical shelf rather than the history shelf. The main reason is because a book that goes on the history self is non-fiction where as an historical book is a story, based on fact or otherwise, that was written at a time after the actual events that are portrayed. For instance, Herodotus is history because it is a non-fiction account of the Persian Wars (as well as being an anthropological text), while a book called Spartan is historical because it was written recently and is a fictional account of a Spartan who participated in the Persian Wars.
Anyway, this play really surprised me. At best I was expecting something of average quality, particularly since Shakespeare's historical plays are not all that popular. However I have decided that I will try to read as many of them as possible simply because I am very interested in seeing how an historical period is seen by somebody closer to the events than otherwise. Further, Shakespeare's histories are very surprising in the events that they cover. For instance King John has nothing to do with the Magna Carta, despite that event being the event that everybody associates with King John. This particular play deals with the rise and fall of Joan of Arc, the beginning of the end of England's occupation of France, and the beginning of the War of the Roses.
I should also mention that this is the first in a trilogy and I will be looking at the trilogy as a whole once I have finished all three of the plays, and since this is in my read now bag, hopefully it won't be too long. Also, the version that I read, that is the Signet Shakespeare, has some interesting commentaries in it, though I do not necessarily agree with everything that they say. One of the things that comes across is that this play is the tragedy of John Talbot, however I did not get the impression that Talbot was a tragic hero, not in the sense of the tragic heroes in Shakespeare's later plays. I also considered that it could be considered a tragedy of Joan of Arc, but once again she does not actually play a major role in the play, and does not come across as a tragic hero.
I will admit that Joan did suffer, but she does not do so in the same way as Hamlet. First of all she is a major supporting character who has an important role to play, but the play does not necessarily revolve around her. It does revolve around King Henry, but not to the same extent as other plays. Joan, rather, is the standard barer that France rallies to in their darkest hour, and despite only fighting two major battles, her influence turns the tide of the war in France's favour. All you need to do to see the dire predicament that France was in at the time is look at a map of France during her life: you will discover that the entire northern region (including Paris) was under English rule. However this is also a misnomer simply because English rule arose from the Norman conquest. It is just that the English people were able to absorb the Normans into their nation so that it ceased being Normandy and became England.
I will not say much more about Joan because she is not hugely important in the play, and a number of the productions have actually dropped her. In a way they are more interested in Margaret, who becomes Henry's wife, and from reading the commentaries it appears that she is not a very nice person. However in this play we are only introduced to her, though the introduction did send chills up my spine, most likely because of what I suspect would become of her character in later plays.
Actually, I would like to say a bit more on Joan because what we see here is an opinion of Joan written much closer to her lifetime. These days Joan is seen as a hero, especially by the French, and to us being more than six hundred years away from her look at her with fascination and wonder. She was a warrior princess, and a beautiful one at that, who took a role that only males would take and executed it successfully. To us a warrior maiden is very attractive, especially to those of us who are geeks. However, to the people of Shakespeare's time the view of Joan of Arc was much different. From this play we are looking at events that occurred only one hundred and fifty years previously, and to our minds it would be like looking back on, say, Abraham Lincoln. France and England were still bitter enemies, and Joan of Arc is not a romanticised warrior woman, but a witch that deserved to be burnt at the stake.
We should be aware that Joan was captured by the Burgundians and handed over to the English were she was tried (in a show trial), found guilty of witchcraft and then executed. However as time passed, attitudes to her changed. Despite being dead, she was allowed another trial, and found to be innocent of the crimes that she was originally found guilty. Later she was deified, that is turned into a saint, though that did not happen until the beginning of the twentieth century. Now she is one of France's patron saints and the patron saint of martyrs. Bernard Shaw looks at this much deeper, and since I am rereading St Joan at this time, this is something I will return to shortly.
Further, this play chronicles the collapse of the English occupation of France. The period that the play covers is a lot longer in history, but has been truncated by Shakespeare to only include the important parts. It appears that when Henry was crowned in the play he was not as young as he was in real life. In reality Henry was only 9 months old when he became king, thus putting a child king on the throne. However, it did not work in the same way as it worked in Game of Thrones. Henry had nowhere near as much power as Jothrey had, and further the kingdom was protected against the immature rule of an infant through the use of regents. However, as is seen in Richard III, just because the child is a king does not stop the regent from usurping the throne and killing the child.
February 7, 2017
Pretty good. Perhaps on a second reading, or if I get the chance to watch a performance I might appreciate this more. If action were enough to satisfy me this would earn four stars, but I need a character I care about, and Henry VI pt 1 failed to provide any really notable characters. Talbot could have been the guy, but he never gets fleshed out. Joan has potential, but, again, remains flat. Suffolk shows “slimy villain” promise – maybe he'll develop in Pt. II?
The Archangel recording of this, which I listened to while following along in the text, is marvelous. The battle sounds, death gasps, etc. all make the action very clear.
_________________
Okay, second time through, and I Did enjoy it more! My first reading was June 20, 2016, seven months back, and it was good, but this second time I had less trouble keeping characters straight and, having now read the trilogy, I got a kick out of the "first" appearances of Richard Plantagenet, Margaret, and Henry. Henry impressed me more favorably this time -- he is young and a bit too trusting, but his convictions are good. Joan's over-the-top villainy amused me more this time, and Talbott and his son were touching. I'm looking forward to Part II.
The Archangel recording of this, which I listened to while following along in the text, is marvelous. The battle sounds, death gasps, etc. all make the action very clear.
_________________
Okay, second time through, and I Did enjoy it more! My first reading was June 20, 2016, seven months back, and it was good, but this second time I had less trouble keeping characters straight and, having now read the trilogy, I got a kick out of the "first" appearances of Richard Plantagenet, Margaret, and Henry. Henry impressed me more favorably this time -- he is young and a bit too trusting, but his convictions are good. Joan's over-the-top villainy amused me more this time, and Talbott and his son were touching. I'm looking forward to Part II.
March 28, 2009
As everyone knows, Othello isn't racist. The Merchant of Venice isn't antisemitic. And, I understand, The Taming of the Shrew should be read ironically, and not as straightforward instructions on how to get a bitch to show some respect.
So I imagine that it's quite feasible to consider Henry VI, Part i as a sensitive, nuanced, proto-feminist portrayal of Jeanne d'Arc. If someone can just give me a hint about how to get started, I'm sure I can fill in the rest of it...
So I imagine that it's quite feasible to consider Henry VI, Part i as a sensitive, nuanced, proto-feminist portrayal of Jeanne d'Arc. If someone can just give me a hint about how to get started, I'm sure I can fill in the rest of it...
Read
March 14, 2024damn shakespeare really hates the french
May 9, 2024
Henry VI: Part 1
Read: 9 May 2024
William Shakespeare's Henry VI is a series of three history plays, set during the lifetime of King Henry VI of England. Part 1 deals with the loss of England's French territories and the political machinations leading up to the Wars of the Roses, as the English political system is torn apart by personal squabbles and petty jealousy; Part 2 depicts the King's inability to quell the bickering of his nobles, and the inevitability of armed conflict; and Part 3 deals with the horrors of that conflict.
Henry VI: Part 1 is not bad for a play revolving around politics and war. The play takes some liberties with what is known about that period. The plot is also a bit messy. The play opens with the funeral of King Henry V. His son and successor, Henry VI, is a child and England is ruled by a Lord Protector (with the interference of many squabbling nobles who start taking sides between York and Lancaster). There is a bit of time hopping here from infant to juvenile-spineless Henry VI. The English/French war is still ongoing, with the centre piece being Joan of Arc. I enjoyed Shakespeare's rendition of Joan of Arc - very spunky. There is also an attempt to find Henry VI a wife, which results in much disagreement. Henry VI eventually agrees to marry Margaret of Anjou, who is apparently also the Earl of Suffolk's mistress. * insert ominous music *
PLAY SUMMARY: https://www.shakespeare.org.uk/explor...
Read: 9 May 2024
William Shakespeare's Henry VI is a series of three history plays, set during the lifetime of King Henry VI of England. Part 1 deals with the loss of England's French territories and the political machinations leading up to the Wars of the Roses, as the English political system is torn apart by personal squabbles and petty jealousy; Part 2 depicts the King's inability to quell the bickering of his nobles, and the inevitability of armed conflict; and Part 3 deals with the horrors of that conflict.
Henry VI: Part 1 is not bad for a play revolving around politics and war. The play takes some liberties with what is known about that period. The plot is also a bit messy. The play opens with the funeral of King Henry V. His son and successor, Henry VI, is a child and England is ruled by a Lord Protector (with the interference of many squabbling nobles who start taking sides between York and Lancaster). There is a bit of time hopping here from infant to juvenile-spineless Henry VI. The English/French war is still ongoing, with the centre piece being Joan of Arc. I enjoyed Shakespeare's rendition of Joan of Arc - very spunky. There is also an attempt to find Henry VI a wife, which results in much disagreement. Henry VI eventually agrees to marry Margaret of Anjou, who is apparently also the Earl of Suffolk's mistress. * insert ominous music *
PLAY SUMMARY: https://www.shakespeare.org.uk/explor...
January 17, 2020
Skirmish, skirmish, skirmish; Joan of Arc(!!!); Wars ft. Roses; skirmish, skirmish, skirmish; Margaret of Anjou; creepy Suffolk.
September 20, 2020
Olayları Kral V. Henry’nin zamansız ölümünden hemen sonra ele alan "Kral VI. Henry, Bölüm I", genç yaşta tahta geçen VI. Henry’nin ilk yıllarında filizlenen İngiltere’nin en ünlü iki ailesi York ve Lancester arasındaki iç savaşa odaklanıyor. İngiltere’deki huzursuzluk sebebiyle V. Henry tarafından ele geçirilen Fransa’nın kaybedilmesini okuduğumuz oyunda öne çıkan hikaye ise meşhur Fransız kahraman Joan of Arc ve İngiliz şövalye Talbot arasındaki çekişme. Her ne kadar oyunun ismi "VI. Henry" de olsa oyunu Joan of Arc ve Talbot’un tragedyası olarak tanımlamak mümkün. İki farklı kahramanın nasıl kendi ülkeleri tarafından ihanete uğradıklarını okuduğumuz oyunda politikanın pis yüzünü ve kişisel çıkarlar uğruna ülkesine hizmet etmek isteyen insanların nasıl harcandığını görüyoruz. Oldukça akıcı ve ayakları yere basan bir oyun olan "Kral VI. Henry"nin ilk bölümü kesinlikle akılda kalıcı ve başarılı Shakespeare eserlerinden.
20.09.2020
Brighton-Londra, Birleşik Krallık
Alp Turgut
20.09.2020
Brighton-Londra, Birleşik Krallık
Alp Turgut
June 24, 2025
"Bir at! Bir at verin bana! Bir ata, krallığım feda!"
Shakespeare'in erken dönem eserlerinden olan bu dörtlemeyi sonunda tamamladım. Hikayeden kopmamak için hepsini peş peşe okudum, okumaya niyeti olan varsa öyle yapmasını öneririm zira çok sayıda karakter var ve arka arkaya okuyunca bile insan karıştırabiliyor, hele ki isimler tekrarlayınca.
Valla duygudan duyguya sürüklendim. İlk kitap olan VI. Henry I fena değildi, VI. Henry II epeyce iyiydi, VI. Henry III'ü sanırım "bitse de gitsek" duygusuyla yazmış Shakespeare, herkesin birbirini bıçakladığı fragmanlardan ibaret bir metin, tüm bunların sonunda vardığım III. Richard ise "iyi ki okumuşum hepsini" dedirtti zira Özdemir Nutku'nun önsözde söylediğine tamamen katılıyorum: "İnsana öyle geliyor ki, sanki Shakespeare, karakter yaratmada üstün yaratışın kilidini Richard'la açmıştır."
İngiltere'nin meşhur Güller Savaşı dönemini (1455-1485) anlatıyor bu dörtleme. York ve Lancaster ailelerinin bitmek bilmez bir taht kavgasına tutuştuğu, aileleri destekleyen lordların sürekli taraf değiştirmesiyle bir türlü bitmeyen ve sonunda da kimsenin kazanamadığı, Tudor hanedanının önünü açan o karanlık iç savaş yılları.
İlk üç kitap sanki III. Richard'a varmak için yazılmış gibi sahiden, zira ancak onu okurken "hah, işte şimdi Shakespeare okuyorum" duygusu geldi. Önceki üç kitapta yazarın alışık olduğumuz şiirli cümleleri ve insana dair incelikli gözlemleri maalesef pek yoktu. Fakat III. Richard'la beraber iktidar hırsını ve iktidar hedefinin yaratabileceği sonsuz suçlar zincirini öyle güzel anlatmış ki, ben tatmin oldum. Malum, Shakespeare'in çok zamansız yazdığı, bu nedenle hala çok okunduğu söylenir, öyle sahiden, insana içkin şeyleri çok keskin görüp aktarıyor; sahne değişiyor ama yazdıkları hala geçerliliğini koruyor. (O kadar ki - III. Richard'ın tahta çıktığı bölümde durmaksızın Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu'nu düşündüm, tabii keşke düşünmeseydim ama işte Türkiye siyaseti kitap okurken bile peşimizi bırakmıyor...)
Ezcümle, epey genç yaşında yazdığı için teknik açıdan sorunlu ve zayıf başlamış da olsa, finaliyle beni çok mutlu eden bir dörtleme oldu. Külliyatı tamamlama yolculuğum sürecek.
Shakespeare'in erken dönem eserlerinden olan bu dörtlemeyi sonunda tamamladım. Hikayeden kopmamak için hepsini peş peşe okudum, okumaya niyeti olan varsa öyle yapmasını öneririm zira çok sayıda karakter var ve arka arkaya okuyunca bile insan karıştırabiliyor, hele ki isimler tekrarlayınca.
Valla duygudan duyguya sürüklendim. İlk kitap olan VI. Henry I fena değildi, VI. Henry II epeyce iyiydi, VI. Henry III'ü sanırım "bitse de gitsek" duygusuyla yazmış Shakespeare, herkesin birbirini bıçakladığı fragmanlardan ibaret bir metin, tüm bunların sonunda vardığım III. Richard ise "iyi ki okumuşum hepsini" dedirtti zira Özdemir Nutku'nun önsözde söylediğine tamamen katılıyorum: "İnsana öyle geliyor ki, sanki Shakespeare, karakter yaratmada üstün yaratışın kilidini Richard'la açmıştır."
İngiltere'nin meşhur Güller Savaşı dönemini (1455-1485) anlatıyor bu dörtleme. York ve Lancaster ailelerinin bitmek bilmez bir taht kavgasına tutuştuğu, aileleri destekleyen lordların sürekli taraf değiştirmesiyle bir türlü bitmeyen ve sonunda da kimsenin kazanamadığı, Tudor hanedanının önünü açan o karanlık iç savaş yılları.
İlk üç kitap sanki III. Richard'a varmak için yazılmış gibi sahiden, zira ancak onu okurken "hah, işte şimdi Shakespeare okuyorum" duygusu geldi. Önceki üç kitapta yazarın alışık olduğumuz şiirli cümleleri ve insana dair incelikli gözlemleri maalesef pek yoktu. Fakat III. Richard'la beraber iktidar hırsını ve iktidar hedefinin yaratabileceği sonsuz suçlar zincirini öyle güzel anlatmış ki, ben tatmin oldum. Malum, Shakespeare'in çok zamansız yazdığı, bu nedenle hala çok okunduğu söylenir, öyle sahiden, insana içkin şeyleri çok keskin görüp aktarıyor; sahne değişiyor ama yazdıkları hala geçerliliğini koruyor. (O kadar ki - III. Richard'ın tahta çıktığı bölümde durmaksızın Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu'nu düşündüm, tabii keşke düşünmeseydim ama işte Türkiye siyaseti kitap okurken bile peşimizi bırakmıyor...)
Ezcümle, epey genç yaşında yazdığı için teknik açıdan sorunlu ve zayıf başlamış da olsa, finaliyle beni çok mutlu eden bir dörtleme oldu. Külliyatı tamamlama yolculuğum sürecek.
October 22, 2017
3.75/5stars
edit 10/22; bumping this up from a 2.5 to a 3.75 just cause our discussion in class made me understand and enjoy it MUCH more
I'm just really not a big fan of Shakespeare's history plays. Especially this one was just WAY too much war to read about and too many battles. I'm sure its pretty entertaining to watch on the stage, but reading it just wasn't that great. Joan is pretty cool. But like i didn't care about anything else.
my response for class:
“Burgundy: Is it even so? Nay, then I see our wars
Will turn unto a peaceful comic sport,
When ladies crave to be encountered with.
You may not, my lord, despise her gentle suit.” (2.2.44-47)
And
“Talbot: That I will show you presently
He winds his horn. Within, drums spike up; a peal of
Ordinance. Enter English Soldiers.
How say you, madam? Are you now persuaded
That Talbot is but shadow of himself?
…
Countess: Victorious Talbot, pardon my abuse.” (2.3.60-67)
I chose both of these quotes to analyze from King Henry VI because I find they both do something similar. Unlike many of Shakespeare's tragedies, which get a rare few lines of comic relief, his historical plays seem to tread the line between comedy and tragedy and even poke fun at the two genres a lot more. In these two scenes the characters act much less like they’re in a tragedy-esque historical play about wars and death, and more like they’re in the scene of a comedy. Burgundy, in his lines, basically says “oh, are we in a comedy now? Talbot, are you going to go and play with the countess like boys do in comedy plays?” And during the scene when the countess threatens to capture him and Talbot brings in his army (first off, that in itself is so extra) the countess basically goes “oh, my b, my b, you’re great, I take back everything I said” and the readers and audiences get a chuckle.
I suppose I found it really refreshing as I read this play to experience the dramatic (slightly annoying) scenes of political drama, war and death of a tragedy mixed with the banter and quirky one-liners of a comedy considering I’ve only read Shakespeare plays that were very strictly in one genre or the other since middle school. I’ve definitely been enjoying the weirdness and the quirkiness of Henry VI more than Henry IV which I found a bit dull and dry.
edit 10/22; bumping this up from a 2.5 to a 3.75 just cause our discussion in class made me understand and enjoy it MUCH more
I'm just really not a big fan of Shakespeare's history plays. Especially this one was just WAY too much war to read about and too many battles. I'm sure its pretty entertaining to watch on the stage, but reading it just wasn't that great. Joan is pretty cool. But like i didn't care about anything else.
my response for class:
“Burgundy: Is it even so? Nay, then I see our wars
Will turn unto a peaceful comic sport,
When ladies crave to be encountered with.
You may not, my lord, despise her gentle suit.” (2.2.44-47)
And
“Talbot: That I will show you presently
He winds his horn. Within, drums spike up; a peal of
Ordinance. Enter English Soldiers.
How say you, madam? Are you now persuaded
That Talbot is but shadow of himself?
…
Countess: Victorious Talbot, pardon my abuse.” (2.3.60-67)
I chose both of these quotes to analyze from King Henry VI because I find they both do something similar. Unlike many of Shakespeare's tragedies, which get a rare few lines of comic relief, his historical plays seem to tread the line between comedy and tragedy and even poke fun at the two genres a lot more. In these two scenes the characters act much less like they’re in a tragedy-esque historical play about wars and death, and more like they’re in the scene of a comedy. Burgundy, in his lines, basically says “oh, are we in a comedy now? Talbot, are you going to go and play with the countess like boys do in comedy plays?” And during the scene when the countess threatens to capture him and Talbot brings in his army (first off, that in itself is so extra) the countess basically goes “oh, my b, my b, you’re great, I take back everything I said” and the readers and audiences get a chuckle.
I suppose I found it really refreshing as I read this play to experience the dramatic (slightly annoying) scenes of political drama, war and death of a tragedy mixed with the banter and quirky one-liners of a comedy considering I’ve only read Shakespeare plays that were very strictly in one genre or the other since middle school. I’ve definitely been enjoying the weirdness and the quirkiness of Henry VI more than Henry IV which I found a bit dull and dry.
September 14, 2020
I know why people call Part 1 the weakest in the Henry VI plays but I’ve always liked it and this reread has actually cemented it as a favorite Shakespeare play. But what is done to Joan of Arc is absolutely abysmal. I understand why she was characterized and talked about in that way but it’s one of the poorer aspects of Part 1.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 870 reviews