Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “Henry VI, Part 1” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

Read Book* *Different edition

Henry VI, Part 1

(Wars of the Roses #5)

William Shakespeare,

Stephen Orgel (Editor)

A.R. Braunmuller (Editor)

3.58 · Rating details · 5,076 ratings · 438 reviews

Henry VI, Part 1 is an uncompromising celebration of early English nationalism that contrasts the English with the French, portrayed here as effeminate and scheming.

A boy king, Henry VI, is on the English throne, and the indomitable Talbot leads the English cause in France. Joan La Pucelle (Joan of Arc), who becomes captain of the French, claims to be chosen by the Virgin ...more

Get A Copy

Paperback, 123 pages

Published December 1st 2000 by Penguin Classics (first published 1623)

More Details... Edit Details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about Henry VI, Part 1, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

A Midsummer Night's Dream by William Shakespeare

Best of William Shakespeare

96 books — 1,225 voters

The Importance of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde

Best Plays Ever

747 books — 1,148 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30

Average rating 3.58 ·

Rating details

· 5,076 ratings · 438 reviews

More filters

Sort order

Start your review of Henry VI, Part 1

May 16, 2009 Bill Kerwin rated it really liked it

Shelves: 16th-17th-c-brit, tudor-drama

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 ...more

flag 103 likes · Like · see review

Feb 06, 2016 Barry Pierce rated it liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: 16th-century, read-in-2016, plays

In this play: death! speeches! Joan of Arc! more death! more speeches! wait, Joan of Arc!?

flag 60 likes · Like · see review

Nov 15, 2019 Leonard Gaya rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

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 ...more

flag 47 likes · Like · see review

Jan 23, 2017 Edward rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: own, 4-star, uk-ireland, plays, shakespeare

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

flag 33 likes · Like · see review

Jan 21, 2017 Darwin8u rated it liked it

Shelves: 2017, shakespeare, drama

Good Lord, what madness rules in brainsick men
William Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 1

description

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 ...more

flag 25 likes · Like · see review

Sep 01, 2016 Bradley rated it really liked it

Shelves: traditional-fiction, history, 2016-shelf

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 ...more

flag 25 likes · Like · see review

May 09, 2016 Bettie rated it liked it · review of another edition

Recommends it for: BBC2 Watchers

Recommended to Bettie by: Laura

Shelves: play-dramatisation, war, medieval5c-16c, willsphernalia, france, plantagenet-1154-1485, published-1594, wars-of-the-roses, re-visit-2016, spring-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, ...more

flag 17 likes · Like · see review

Sep 01, 2016 Trish rated it liked it · review of another edition

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 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. ...more

flag 15 likes · Like · see review

Aug 07, 2011 Trevor rated it liked it

Shelves: literature

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 (dont you love when people somehow get the definite 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.
...more

flag 14 likes · Like · see review

Dec 17, 2018 leynes rated it really liked it · review of another edition

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 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:

this brawl today,
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.

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.

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! ...more

flag 12 likes · Like · see review

Feb 24, 2016 Jaksen rated it really liked it · review of another edition

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 Shakespeares has not?) But this one has come in for some meticulous scrutiny. First off there is the question of who wrote what when. Well, isnt this the case with ALL his plays? And arent there multiple theories concerning the various supposed writers who really wrote the plays? Not as ...more

flag 9 likes · Like · see review

Jul 02, 2012 David Sarkies rated it it was amazing

Recommends it for: History Buffs and Shakespeare Lovers

Recommended to David by: Nobody in particular.

Shelves: historical

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 ...more

flag 9 likes · Like · see review

May 07, 2016 Laura rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Recommends it for: Bettie

Shelves: historical-fiction, hf-medieval-europe, drama, film-only, british-literature, fiction-16th-century, read-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 ...more

flag 9 likes · Like · see review

May 01, 2015 João Fernandes rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: shakespeare, drama

I had the pleasure of reading this book whilst punting across Cambridge University, hearing about how this college was founded by Henry VI and that one by Margaret of Anjou, and so forth.
It really was a great setting to read Shakespeare!
This play immediately follows the magnanimous events of Henry V's conquest of France and the Battle of Agincourt. His son, Henry VI, struggles not only to keep France but is also completely oblivious to the dissent fomenting between his nobles, and York's slow I had the pleasure of reading this book whilst punting across Cambridge University, hearing about how this college was founded by Henry VI and that one by Margaret of Anjou, and so forth.
It really was a great setting to read Shakespeare!
This play immediately follows the magnanimous events of Henry V's conquest of France and the Battle of Agincourt. His son, Henry VI, struggles not only to keep France but is also completely oblivious to the dissent fomenting between his nobles, and York's slow ascent into power, ironically at his own command.
I loved the parallelism between Henry V and this play.
In the first play, we have a capable warrior King, loved by his people and able to rally troops with a simple speech. His son, on the other hand, is young and completely lacking in power or strength of command.
In Henry V, we get Henry V at the head of his army, conquering "his" France. In this play, however, the bellicose figure is Lord Talbot, undoubtedly one of my favourite Shakespeare characters so far. His scene with the countess of Auvergne and his final battle alongside his son are nothing short of amazing, the last one being incredibly moving.
In Henry V, we get Henry V wooing Catherine of Valois as best he can; in this play, we get Suffolk doing all the wooing for Henry VI, more interested in books than in women.
Henry VI is not a real character in this play. All
his father's qualities that allowed him to rule and conquer are distributed by his counsellors, and as they die so does Henry's grasp on the kingdom.
Also to note, I hated Joan of Arc's characterisation. Yes, Shakespeare was British. Yes, these are plays glorifying the Lancastrian conquest of France. But the all-the-same obnoxious French high lords with superiority complexes, who are easily led by a woman simply because she 'uses her spells' on them and is a liar and a witch gets old really fast. It's a pity, this would easily be a 5 star play if both the French and the English were depicted more realistically: showing that there was bravery and willpower on both sides doesn't take away from a victory, it enhance the victor's trials and suffering and their ultimate glory. ...more

flag 9 likes · Like · see review

Jun 20, 2016 Melora rated it liked it

Shelves: shakespeare

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, ...more

flag 9 likes · Like · see review

Feb 19, 2009 Manny rated it it was ok

Shelves: why-not-call-it-poetry, life-is-shakespeare

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...

flag 9 likes · Like · see review

Jan 23, 2015 Cindy Rollins rated it really liked it

Shelves: 2015, audiobooks, shakespeare-2015, shakespeare-2017-2018-audio, 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 ...more

flag 8 likes · Like · see review

Sep 01, 2017 Suzannah rated it it was ok

Shelves: history, classics, poetry

O.o

This is potentially Shakespeare's first play. AND IT'S ACTUALLY BAD.

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Jan 16, 2020 Katie Dimtses rated it it was ok · review of another edition

Shelves: shakespeare-2020-project

Skirmish, skirmish, skirmish; Joan of Arc(!!!); Wars ft. Roses; skirmish, skirmish, skirmish; Margaret of Anjou; creepy Suffolk.

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Oct 14, 2017 Kate rated it really liked it

Shelves: read-in-2017, classics, plays, for-undergrad

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 ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Apr 23, 2009 Laurel Hicks rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: books-read-in-2009, arkangel-shakespeare-complete, audible, 2017-1, books-read-in-2017, books-read-in-2018, 2018-1, books-read-in-2019, 2019-8, 2020-1

There's a lot of humor amid the grim events in this play, especially in Shakespeare's treatment of Joan of Arc.

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Mar 06, 2013 Ben rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: english-lit, historical-fiction, plays

I recently learned about what the scholars have called Shakespeare's two tetralogies. The first quartet includes Henry VI Part 1, 2 and 3 and Richard III and the second includes Richard II, Henry IV Part 1 and 2 and Henry V. When I discovered these organizations, my eyes bulged and I may have vacuumed all oxygen from the room. I love order. As an example of my quirk, I found a collection of Hardy Boys books tucked away in the storage crevices of my parent's basement and, after seeing numeric ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

May 26, 2015 Sarah rated it it was ok

Shelves: plays, i-was-disappointed, english-lit, the-bard-aka-billy-shakespeare

WARWICK: Between two hawks, which flies the higher pitch;
Between two blades, which bears the better temper;
Between two horses, which doth bear him best;
Between two girls, which hath the merriest eye;
I have perhaps some shallow spirit of judgement;
But in these nice sharp quillets of the law,
Good faith, I am no wiser than a daw.
- Act II Scene IV

Since I have a collection of Shakespeare's works in chronological order, I was sure to come across Henry VI in good time. Now, I know what people say time WARWICK: Between two hawks, which flies the higher pitch;
Between two blades, which bears the better temper;
Between two horses, which doth bear him best;
Between two girls, which hath the merriest eye;
I have perhaps some shallow spirit of judgement;
But in these nice sharp quillets of the law,
Good faith, I am no wiser than a daw.
- Act II Scene IV

Since I have a collection of Shakespeare's works in chronological order, I was sure to come across Henry VI in good time. Now, I know what people say time and time again about the history plays: they're either really good or really boring. Maybe this is not the truth for the entire series of histories, but as a first installment, this play is boring.

When I was reading the list of characters, I saw that Joan of Arc was playing a part in the plot and I got excited because I mean, who doesn't like that story? I was interested about what ol' Bill would do with her character, and I was really hoping for some awesome monologues from her. But here's the thing: I was expecting a level of artistry that I don't think Shakespeare had developed yet. Even if he was still somewhat an amateur at this point in his career, I don't understand how he could have missed the mark so much. What he needed to do was push Joan of Arc into the forefront of the plot- he needed to make her a great tragic heroine. This play could have been exponentially better if he had done so, I believe. I like what I got from the Joan in this play, but it could have been so much better.

Now, to talk about what I actually got out of Henry VI. If there is any upside to this work, it's the fact that I don't know a whole lot about the War of the Roses, so this play actually provided me with some helpful info on the topic. I have to admit that the whole scene in the Temple Garden where they're arguing about the colors of roses (white and red) is pretty genius and I really wish the rest of the play was written as well as that scene. Unfortunately, it was not, so I hate to say that I did not see much to redeem this play. Here's hoping that Part II is superior.

As a final note, I am reading a lot of Shakespeare at the moment because I live very close to the American Shakespeare center so I'm trying to make a choice about which play I'm going to see this summer- Henry VI was one of the options, so now I know which play I'm likely to not pick. But hey, I would see this for Joan of Arc. ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Dec 29, 2013 Jim rated it it was amazing

Shelves: plays, reread, shakespeare

I had read this many years ago, remembering nothing after the passage of time. Upon rereading, I find it is an interesting comment on our own times. Unlike most of William Shakespeare's history plays, the eponymous king, Henry VI, is a mere stripling who has not yet come into his own. Most of the action takes place in France, where England is losing many of its territories won in the Hundred Years War as a result of divisions in the ranks: between the White Rose of the Duke of York and the Red ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Oct 17, 2017 Morgan rated it it was ok · review of another edition

I'm really not a fan of Shakespeare's history plays. The main reason is because I don't know about most of the Kings and Queens of England. I feel like to actually enjoy these you have to accept the fact that these are most likely highly fabricated or you have to know the actual history. These histories to me read a little like propaganda as well. Keep in mind Shakespeare wasn't writing for you or me. He was mainly writing for the Monarchy of England's approval. They were the ones actually ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Mar 19, 2013 kat rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: re-read, new-read

20 February 2017 Review: I re-read in preparation for my Hollow Crown Series 2 watch, and despite the very clear episode title that Episode 1 was Henry VI, Part 1 it was in fact a seriously truncated Henry VI, Part 1 and half of Part 2. (Joan of Arc totally got jobbed in the episode, btw. Damn the patriarchy.)

20 March 2013 Review: That Shakespeare sure could write a good soap opera. Fashion! Adultery! Bitchiness! Joan of Arc sass! Poor Talbot got jobbed! This was really good, yo.

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Apr 20, 2017 Shannon rated it it was amazing

Shelves: classics, shakespeare, england, play, 2017-books

This isn't my favorite play by Shakespeare, but it was entertaining, and I still enjoyed it.

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Sep 15, 2019 Sookie rated it it was ok

Shelves: plays

He is a twat and the ending blows...
You know who I am talking about.

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Jan 17, 2020 Ashleigh rated it really liked it · review of another edition

I really enjoyed this first history play I've read, and one of the first Shakespeare wrote. Some funny Monty Python esque lines as well...give me leave to curse a little, says Joan of Arc. And another from one of the nobles to the enemy French: were my eyeballs to bullets turned, so I might shoot them in your faces! Yes! Looking forward to more.

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Jul 22, 2018 Traci at The Stacks rated it it was ok

The whole play is just a set up to the next plays that come. There are good moments and Joan is a great character but its mostly exposition and battles and preparations for whats to come. I wouldnt read this one without plans to continue through the tetralogy. ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

topics	posts	views	last activity
The Bard a Month ...: Henry VI: Recordings & Adaptations	3	11	Dec 31, 2017 07:21PM
The Bard a Month ...: Henry VI: Resources	7	10	Jun 29, 2017 03:57AM

Readers also enjoyed

See similar books…

Genres

Plays

390 users

Classics

300 users

Drama

169 users

Historical > Historical Fiction

83 users

Fiction

78 users

Poetry

52 users

See top shelves…

About William Shakespeare

William Shakespeare

35,002 followers

William Shakespeare (baptised 26 April 1564) was an English poet and playwright, 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 surviving works consist of 38 plays, 154 sonnets, two long narrative poems, and several other poems. His plays have been William Shakespeare (baptised 26 April 1564) was an English poet and playwright, 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 surviving works consist of 38 plays, 154 sonnets, two long narrative poems, and several other poems. His plays have been translated into every major living language, and are performed more often than those of any other playwright.

Shakespeare was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon. Scholars believe that he died on his fifty-second birthday, coinciding with St George’s Day.

At the age of 18 he married Anne Hathaway, who bore him three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith. Between 1585 and 1592 he began a successful career in London as an actor, writer, and part owner of the playing company the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later known as the King's Men. He appears to have retired to Stratford around 1613, where he died three years later. Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive, and there has been considerable speculation about such matters as his sexuality, religious beliefs, and whether the works attributed to him were written by others.

Shakespeare produced most of his known work between 1590 and 1613. His early plays were mainly comedies and histories, genres he raised to the peak of sophistication and artistry by the end of the sixteenth century. Next he wrote mainly tragedies until about 1608, including Hamlet, King Lear, and Macbeth, considered some of the finest examples in the English language. In his last phase, he wrote tragicomedies, also known as romances, and collaborated with other playwrights. Many of his plays were published in editions of varying quality and accuracy during his lifetime, and in 1623, two of his former theatrical colleagues published the First Folio, a collected edition of his dramatic works that included all but two of the plays now recognised as Shakespeare's.

Shakespeare was a respected poet and playwright in his own day, but his reputation did not rise to its present heights until the nineteenth century. The Romantics, in particular, acclaimed Shakespeare's genius, and the Victorians hero-worshipped Shakespeare with a reverence that George Bernard Shaw called "bardolatry". In the twentieth century, his work was repeatedly adopted and rediscovered by new movements in scholarship and performance. His plays remain highly popular today and are consistently performed and reinterpreted in diverse cultural and political contexts throughout the world.

According to historians, Shakespeare wrote 37 plays and 154 sonnets throughout the span of his life. Shakespeare's writing average was 1.5 plays a year since he first started writing in 1589. There have been plays and sonnets attributed to Shakespeare that were not authentically written by the great master of language and literature.
...more