Shakespeare Fans discussion
Group Readings
>
Henry VI, Part 2, Act 1, Oct 1-9, 2019
date
newest »
newest »
This is awkward, Candy. I have fiinished all three parts of the play a couple of weeks ago, but I had to return the plays to the library. I will look online to see if there is an online version I can look over.
Mod
I see Henry VI part two as an overture to many of Shakespeare's later great plays. The plotting against 'the good Duke Humphrey' (Gloucester) is chillingly horrible, like the wicked sisters' treatment of King Lear, and the intrigue between Suffolk and Margaret becomes movingly passionate when he's banished, almost like Romeo and Juliet, despite his complicity in the plot against Humphrey. It may be that the complexity of the court politics is too dense to grasp at a reading - it takes a bit of unravelling.
Ha, Ha, Candy! I really enjoyed Part III. Gabriel, I so agree. The love affair becomes quite moving, for all that they are not sympathetic characters. I don't know if Shakespeaere did that by accident or on purpose. The prophecies by the spirit bring Macbeth to mind,and they all come true: - with grotesque comedy in the case of 'water' ('Walter' was pronounced like 'water' in those days, so the pun may be lost on modern audiences, though come to think of it Shakepseare does remind the audience of it).
On Act I, I think the way that Glocucester's disapproval of the surrdender of the territories of Maine and Anjou in return for Margaret as a bride, and how this leads to the conspiracy against him by Suffolk and Buckingham is portayed with Shakespeare's usual amazing economy of style. There are echoes of the closing speech by King Edward IV in Gloucester's speeh on the surrender of the French territories. An interesting indication that the same author wrote them both: -
'What! did my brother Henry spend his youth,
His valour, coin and people, in the wars?
Did he so often lodge in open field,
In winter's cold and summer's parching heat,
To conquer France, his true inheritance?
And did my brother Bedford toil his wits,
To keep by policy what Henry got?
Have you yourselves, Somerset, Buckingham,
Brave York, Salisbury, and victorious Warwick,
Received deep scars in France and Normandy?
Or hath mine uncle Beaufort and myself,
With all the learned council of the realm,
Studied so long, sat in the council-house
Early and late, debating to and fro
How France and Frenchmen might be kept in awe,
And had his highness in his infancy
Crowned in Paris in despite of foes?
And shall these labours and these honours die?'
Margaret of Anjou, though at first impressed with the English King, soon discovers his weakness and seeks comfort with the infatuated Suffolk.
Meanwhile, York seems to be an ambiguous character; he too is driven by ambition, yet in Part I when he felt for his dying relative he was sympathetic.
Perhaps he has become vengeful as well as ambitious, which Shakespeare seems to depict as the cause of the downfall of them all in the Wars of the Roses.
York is the one who arrests the Countess of Gloucester.
Gloucester's wife's part in his fall is intruging. As I commented on the Part I discussion, unlike elsewhere, in these plays, unlike in his later ones, Shakespeare doesn't portray strong women in good light: Joan, Margaret, the Countess of Gloucester are all depicted in a highly unlattering light.
The prophecies the spirit the occultists conjure up is forced to make all come true:
'BOLINGBROKE
'What fates await the Duke of Suffolk?'
Spirit
By water shall he die, and take his end.
BOLINGBROKE
'What shall befall the Duke of Somerset?'
Spirit
Let him shun castles;
Safer shall he be upon the sandy plains
Than where castles mounted stand.
Thanks, Lucinda - lots of interesting points. Shakespeare's women characters in these early plays do seem pretty unsympathetic - see also The Taking of the Shrew. But they are strong characters. Do you think he only gradually came to appreciate women in a more rounded way? On a separate point, my edition of these Henry plays has excerpts from the historian Holinshed that he based them on, and it is astonishing how he brings the characters to life in a way far beyond what you would get from Holinshed. I imagine the first audiences must have been amazed at 'meeting' these characters so vividly, warts and all (Holinshed is pretty reverent towards the nobles even when implicitly criticising them). I get the feeling that Shakespeare was pretty radical at this stage about politics, so long as it was fairly well in the past (though not about gender). This would have been before the court started taking a close interest in him. I think you can feel the presure on him much more in Henry V, several plays later.
Gabriel, what you say is very interesting. By a great irony, the very old Arden edition circa 1962, that I had out from the local library of these plays, where it had been without being taken out for twenty years, was suddenly requested by someone else and I had to return it before I had done more than read through the plays, though it too had sections with Holinshed excerpts, too. It is a shame I couldnt read them.
I think there was very little in the way of 'character development' before Shakespeare, though I haven't been able to investigate that. He is perhaps experimenting with a new thing, as even in his great plays like Hamlet, sometimes, characters act inconsistently. He was obviously incredibly observant, and he must have seen that e people act inconsistently in real life, and made his characters less consistent than became the later tradition. And when you think about it, characters in drama act 'in character' to an unnatural extent.
I think you are right about his ocming to appreciate strong women only later.
You are right, and his critical attitude towards the nobles must have been a bit of a risky approach.
Maybe it was because of that that he had to distance himself from Jack Cade?
I don't know much about Jack Cade's rebellion, or his character, but on subversion, in his portrayal of him, Shakespeare makes him a bufoon and to have no good motive. In fact, he is set up by Suffolk. But was that a fair portrayal or did Shakespeare feel that he had better not risk making him in any way symapthetic - and maybe, the same with Joan in the earlier play?
Are the discussions on Henry VI, Part 2 taking a break currently?
Hello, Joseph. They were scheduled to end in October, I think, but do post your thoughts as I thought it was a fascinating play. I think there was rather a muddle as some readers were posting their thoughts on an old thread for the plays, not this one.
Mod
yes please post your thoughts. I mae a mistake by not being more organized and posting clearly stated topic headers.
We can use this thread to follow your thoughts and share our own. I am very interested in any responses you or Lucinda have here.
I am just finishing up my last Act in Part 1. I am slowly posting my thoughts in other thread.