Shakespeare Fans discussion
Group Readings
>
Henry VI Part I (1591–1592)
I suppose the first thing to say is that Henry VI was 9 months old when his father Henry V died. He doesn't appear until Act III. I notice that some productions show him as an adult right from the begining of the play. He should be played by a boy actor. Being a boy he has a Proctector. As a child he is seen weak leading to squabbling among the adults as they try to take control.
Very true, Tim; the ‘83 BBC version has a grown Henry singing an elegy of sorts to the body of the dead Henry V. It’s a poignant performance but odd considering that, as you say, he’s supposed to be a child at this point in the narrative. In a strange way it works, though. It sets up the mournful tone at the start of the play, which with great economy is indicated with the clipped but great stage direction, “Dead March”.Incidentally, take advantage of the BritBox streaming app 3 month $10 special if you can. All three parts of Henry VI (as well as all the plays) will make great performance reference points throughout our discussions.
I have the BBC Shakespeare box set on DVD. Love Brenda Blethyn as Joan.
Tim wrote: "I have the BBC Shakespeare box set on DVD. Love Brenda Blethyn as Joan."I have the set as well. But it's nice to have a supplemental streaming option when out and about or travelling. I do like Blethyn as Joan although I have a personal preference for Eileen Atkins' turn in the Age of Kings series.
I just finished watching a great primer on Henry VI's character and reign which should set straight any confusion about character and historical place when encountering them in the plays:
https://youtu.be/mKFKuARn7kA?si=gvOx-...
It's a fairly strightforward and unbiased account of the time, nicely produced for anyone unfamiliar with the beginnings of the Wars of the Roses and, in particular, Henry's hand in them.
Act I scene 1 Funeral of Henry V then meeting. Almost everybody is related and therefore has a claim on the throne.
Sad tidings bring I to you out of France,
Of loss, of slaughter and discomfiture:
Guienne, Champagne, Rheims, Orleans, 65
Paris, Guysors, Poictiers, are all quite
Just bought a copy of Shakespeare's Kings by John Julius Norwich. Henry VI part 1 encompasses 1422 to 1453. In reality the towns were lost over a period between 1427 and 1450.
With the death of Henry V in 1422 all these towns were still in English hands. Thus Shakespeare compresses events to suit the drama.
Talbot is the hero, a sort of Tudor superman. I think Talbot becomes a sort of short hand for England's situation.
Tim wrote: "With the death of Henry V in 1422 all these towns were still in English hands. Thus Shakespeare compresses events to suit the drama.Talbot is the hero, a sort of Tudor superman. I think Talbot becomes a sort of short hand for England's situation."
Before we get to the Talbot situation, though, Shakespeare makes it evident that there is dissension among the nobles - and apparently has been before the death of Henry V. The squabbling between Winchester and Glouster is alternated with the (almost) overpraising of the dead kings valor. The hyperbole mixed with the invective between the two lords creates a picture of a highly unstable court in the throes of a war. I found this aspect of the circumstance to be more the cause of tension than the potential loss of English holdings in France (despite, as you say, the English held them until well past this period in history). What's odd is that Shakespeare invents a messenger, of all characters, to remind the lords of their place and duty in the situation:
Amongst the soldiers, this is mutterèd:
That here you maintain several factions
And, whilst a field should be dispatched and fought,
You are disputing of your generals.
One would have ling’ring wars with little cost;
Another would fly swift, but wanteth wings;
A third thinks, without expense at all,
By guileful fair words peace may be obtained.
Awake, awake, English nobility!
Let not sloth dim your honors new begot.
Cropped are the flower-de-luces in your arms;
Of England’s coat, one half is cut away.
- 1.1, 72-83
The messenger is more like an army intelligence officer who gathers information and analyses it. But as you say telling the nobles off seems way beyond his role. Is this Shakespeare showing his opinion or was it a widely held view. I did wonder whether Shakespeare did a cut and paste job from one of his sources.
Interesting viewpoints in the link below about Act 1
https://theplaystheblog.wordpress.com...
From Shakespeare's Kings by John Julius Norwich.Gloucester Protector was courteous and cultured. In real life also self serving and debauched. Arrogant and hostile to Winchester but loyal to Henry VI.
Exeter quite old and would die when Henry VI was 5.
Winchester the richest man in England , wool dealer. By 1426 a cardinal and considered for the papacy.
Tim wrote: "The messenger is more like an army intelligence officer who gathers information and analyses it. But as you say telling the nobles off seems way beyond his role. Is this Shakespeare showing his opi..."Thanks for the link. Duly bookmarked. Still savoring my way through Act 1. :D
Aside from footnotes and/or references I'm actually avoiding extensive play commentary until we've finished discussing it. I like to get the feel of play before any overtly intellectual processing steps in.
Yeah, the most obvious correleation with the messenger would be that of the Greek drama tradition of a chorus, and in fact, Shakespeare employs this in a quite a number of plays. The Mystery Plays, which were performed round the countryside, had not completely died out by the 1590s in England (though Elizabeth's I's Protestant council more than likely clamped down on their frequency (they often had deeply Catholic associations) also employed a chorus. In both traditions the chorus is anonymous, but comments, warns, berates and praises charcaters and situations, addressing the themes and circumstances of the situation but never intervenes. They have that third party privilege which, I believe, Shakespeare willingly made use of for dramatic purposes. You rarely see a messenger behaving this way in the late plays but some of the older dramatic traditions were clearly still firmly in the public mind at the start of his career.
Tim wrote: "Winchester the richest man in England , wool dealer. By 1426 a cardinal and considered for the papacy."Really? I must admit that of all the barbed insults that the nobles exchange the one aimed at Winchester (from Glouster after the cardinal talked about his wife) stuck with me:
GLOUCESTER
Name not religion, for thou lov’st the flesh,
And ne’er throughout the year to church thou go’st,
Except it be to pray against thy foes.
1.1 41-43
To think that this type of character was considered for the papacy is sardonically funny, within the context of Christian morality, of course. We're still dealing with charges of low behavior amidst high clergy today. This kind of thing in dramatic lit didn't start with Shakespeare, though. Doesn't Chaucer makes similar allusions in his Canterbury Tales?
I just did The Wife of Bath's Tale for A level English Literature. Translating from the original to modern English. It was more than 40 years ago and I don't think I could do it now. I believe Chaucer took aim at the clergy in some of the tales but I don't know it in detail.Talbot occurs 76 times in Henry VI part 1.
Talbot biography
https://www.shakespeareandhistory.com...
Talbot Shrewsbury Book presented to Margaret of Anjou by John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury
https://britishlibrary.typepad.co.uk/...
https://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscri...
Thanks for illuminating comments so far. Two thoughts stimulated by these: yes, messengers later in Shakespeare are nothing like this one. Think of those in Antony and Cleopatra who bring bad news. One gets whipped for it and one fears for his life. On the issue of criticising the clergy, Chaucer is perhaps more surprising, since the whole country was still Catholic then. Shakespeare's histories are written about past Catholic clergy, England now being Protestant, so fair game.
Thanks for the links, Tim. I believe that Chaucer presents a more nuanced portrait of the folks on their way to Canterbury than is widely thought, Gabriel. And given the subject matter (the pilgrimage to Canterbury) he certainly had ample opportunity to present a plethora of perspectives, whether or not an implicit criticism came with the portraiture.
Shakespeare doesn't directly criticize "the church" In Henry VI but he does pose (to my mind) a rather facile and consistent contrast between the divine glory of the English forces and the "sorcery" of the French. Here's Exeter on the death of Henry V:
What? Shall we curse the planets of mishap
That plotted thus our glory’s overthrow?
Or shall we think the subtle-witted French
Conjurers and sorcerers, that, afraid of him,
By magic verses have contrived his end?
1.1 23-27
Talbot and Bedford at the beginning of Act II on plans to retake Orleans:
TALBOT
Lord Regent, and redoubted Burgundy,
By whose approach the regions of Artois,
Walloon, and Picardy are friends to us,
This happy night the Frenchmen are secure,
Having all day caroused and banqueted.
Embrace we then this opportunity,
As fitting best to quittance their deceit
Contrived by art and baleful sorcery.
BEDFORD
Coward of France, how much he wrongs his fame,
Despairing of his own arm’s fortitude,
To join with witches and the help of hell!
II.I 9-19
and later, Talbot:
TALBOT
Well, let them practice and converse with spirits.
God is our fortress, in whose conquering name
Let us resolve to scale their flinty bulwarks.
II.I 27-29
The French clearly do not have God, or at least, the right god on their side. I find it striking that the word "Catholic" is never mentioned in the entire play (and, of course, no "Protestant", nor "heretic"). Shakespeare may have deliberately avoided religious controversy (unlike some playwrights of his day, like Marlowe) but he cleverly replaces (subverts?) the very heated religious antagonism of the day with the godly and ungodly. In terms of English history I suppose Shakespeare wanted to leave it to the Elizabethan audience to decide which way true godliness descended among their countrymen. :D When the French are featured amongst themselves, particularly with regard to Joan, their language is peppered with allusions to God. But the English aren't having it. So, the issue of what might be considered true religion, though skirted in terms of specific contemporary references is nonetheless brought up in a historical framework. It's probably the furthest Shakespeare could safely venture.
The English comments on French witchcraft and sorcery seem to me to have a bit of a boomerang effect on those who pronounce them - they can't face the fact that the French sometimes beat the English so they have to explain it as 'unfair' recourse to witchcraft. The French of course are also satirised. Immediately after saying; 'Him I forgive my death that killeth me/ when he sees me go back one foot or fly' the Dauphin retreats and blames his fellows: 'What men have I? /dogs, cowards, dastards! I would ne'er have fled / but that they left me midst my enemies.' (I:ii). I think in this early period Shakespeare was happy to just regurgitate anti-French assumptions which he will later transcend, notably in All's Well. On a separate point the mention of Burgundy as a friend to the English, in your quotation, Marlin, reminded me that Burgundy, though owing allegiance to the King of France, was at that time an almost independent Dukedom, including the Netherlands, and which, interestingly, nurtured Jan Van Eyck and the other great early northern Renaissance painters. But Shakespeare hardly ever mentions painting.
Talbot is described in scene 1 as valiant , stout and dreadful lord. By contrast Joan Puzel has a series of symbols heaped upon her. Joan Puzel described as:
"The spirit of deep prophecy she hath
Exceeding the nine sibyls of old Rome"
"thou art an Amazon
And fightest with the sword of Deborah"
Deborah, a prophet, the wife of Lappidoth judged disputes. Is the sword, symbol of justice.
Joan describes herself
"Christ's mother helps me" eg Virgin Mary
Charles, King of France.
"Was Mahomet inspired with a dove?
Thou with an eagle art inspired then. 340
Helen, the mother of great Constantine,
Nor yet Saint Philip's daughters, were like thee.
Bright star of Venus, fall'n down on the earth,
How may I reverently worship thee enough?"
Mahomet, we are told, had a dove, which he used to feed with wheat out of his ear; when hungry, the dove lighted on his shoulder, and thrust its bill in to find its breakfast;—Mahomet persuading the rude and simple Arabians that it was the Holy Ghost that gave him advice.
Helen, the mother of great Constantine St Helena said to have discovered the True Cross.
Saint Philip's daughters were said to be prophetesses.
Venus Charles has fallen for her but Joan will not "yield to any rights of love"
Tim wrote: "Talbot is described in scene 1 as valiant , stout and dreadful lord. By contrast Joan Puzel has a series of symbols heaped upon her..."Interesting analysis of Joan, Tim, but like her Talbot's description seems to depend on who is doing the describing. In fact it's something that Shakespeare plays with in the first part of Henry VI. Where his soldiers see him as a stalwart and brave warrior, his prospective suitor, the Countess of Auvergne, reflects what she apparently sees to his face:
Is this the scourge of France?
Is this the Talbot, so much feared abroad
That with his name the mothers still their babes?
I see report is fabulous and false.
I thought I should have seen some Hercules,
A second Hector, for his grim aspect
And large proportion of his strong-knit limbs.
Alas, this is a child, a silly dwarf!
It cannot be this weak and writhled shrimp
Should strike such terror to his enemies.
II. III, 15-24
Now, of course this and her feigned assassination attempt is part rouse/part enticement for Talbot who immediately laughs at her and retaliates with the summoning of his armed support. Nonetheless, the physical impression that the countess gives cannot be discounted and is apparently at odds with Talbot's personal martial bravery, resilience (the Third Messenger reports of Talbot receiving a nearly fatal blow to the back at the start of the play) and reputation.
But the countess encounter is again another example of the characterization of the cunning and deceitful French vs. the fearless and stalwart English. But Talbot's character is far from a stock hero and, actually reminds me a bit, especially in the scene where he's discussing the countesses' proposal among his generals, of scriptwriter, Francis Ford Coppola's General George Patton's attitude when discussing maneuvers among his fellow generals in France; where they advise caution to Patton he responds with "Lo das, lo das, tu jour lo das"! (Audacity, audacity, always audacity!) And, in fact, I believe it's how in the play the French describe the English forces after they retake Orleans.
Gabriel wrote: " I think in this early period Shakespeare was happy to just regurgitate anti-French assumptions which he will later transcend, notably in All's Well."Quite. Well, he and company were dramatizing an argument; and an argument is often perceived as far more entertaining than truth. :D
As for any allusions to painting I'd also concur that Shakespeare seldom makes any. He speaks of holding a mirror up to nature but that's hardly an art. Other than acting I'm hard pressed to think of any craftsman allusions in his work. You'd think his plays would be replete with references to glove making/wearing as his father was a very prosperous glover at one point but it isn't the case.
On the subject of craftspeople, I recall a few places where they pop up. There is the cobbler at the beginning of Julius Caesar, and in Henry VIII Norfolk speaks of taxation of 'the clothiers all, not able to maintain/ the many to them 'longing have put off/ the spinsters, carders, fullers, weavers who... are all in uproar'. But these rarities confirm the dearth. I think the only painter in the whole of Shakespeare is the one at the start of Timon of Athens, where the only quality of painting discussed is whether it produces a likeness. One wonders whether Shakespeare had ever seen the Holbeins or whether they would have been out of his reach. Any religious paintings in churches would likely have been painted over during the Reformation. The idea that painting could be a highly skilled communicative art like poetry or music may have been a rare blind spot in Shakespeare's palette!
Act I, Scene 4-6 Siege of OrleansSo Orleans is lost. Salisbury is dead hit by a cannon ball. In real life he was hit by a cannon ball lost an eye and died ten days later.
Act II scene 1
Orleans is retaken. In real life this never happened.
Act II scene 2
Talbot lament of Salisbury. In real life Salisbury was taken back to his family home at Bisham Berkshire.
Brief biograhy of Earl of Salisbury
https://www.shakespeareandhistory.com...
Tim wrote: "Act I, Scene 4-6 Siege of OrleansSo Orleans is lost. Salisbury is dead hit by a cannon ball. In real life he was hit by a cannon ball lost an eye and died ten days later.
Act II scene 1
Orleans i..."
Ok, Tim, I've got to ask you; does historical accuracy really help you enjoy the plays any better? Or are you just itching for us to move the discussion forward at a brisker pace? :D Forgive my dallying but it's how I enjoy reading Shakespeare best (occasionally jumping a bit ahead or going back to make an overlooked observation and the like). Loving all your references, though!
Gabriel wrote: "On the subject of craftspeople, I recall a few places where they pop up. There is the cobbler at the beginning of Julius Caesar, and in Henry VIII Norfolk speaks of taxation of 'the clothiers all, ..."Yes, how could I have forgotten about that one?!!
How about The Porter in The Scottish Play imagining himself to be the gatekeeper of hell and a bit of what that occupation might entail! lol
The best use of figurative language or, at least, the use of extended metaphor (of which there isn't much, to my mind) so far has been given to Joan, particularly this passage:
Assigned am I to be the English scourge.
This night the siege assuredly I’ll raise.
Expect Saint Martin’s summer, halcyons’ days,
Since I have enterèd into these wars.
Glory is like a circle in the water,
Which never ceaseth to enlarge itself
Till by broad spreading it disperse to naught.
With Henry’s death, the English circle ends;
Dispersèd are the glories it included.
Now am I like that proud insulting ship
Which Caesar and his fortune bare at once.
I.II, 132-142
Marlin wrote: "Ok, Tim, I've got to ask you; does historical accuracy really help you enjoy the plays any better? Or are you just itching for us to move the discussion forward at a brisker pace?"In message 17 you jump to Act 2 scene 3. I haven't read that far yet.
I'm interested in history and trying to understand why Shakespeare is changing it. The Maid of Orleans seeing the town she is named after, being taken back by the English seems a major change.
Siege of Orléans 1428
https://www.thoughtco.com/hundred-yea...
Images
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/sie...
Act 2 scene 2Talbot laments the death of Salisbury. So Orleans is retaken in the play so Salisbury can be remembered as a great hero.
"A tomb, wherein his corpse shall be interr'd:
Upon the which, that every one may read,
Shall be engraved the sack of Orleans,"
"The treacherous manner of his mournful death"
Death by cannon ball is just not sporting.
Reminds me that the British Army were reluctant to buy machine guns because it wasn't sporting. At the Battle of Mons during the First World War the Germans had a ratio of 8 machine guns to the British Army's 2. The British came off worse.
Tim wrote: "Marlin wrote: "I'm interested in history and trying to understand why Shakespeare is changing it."Oh, good luck with the why. :D Interesting; I don't see Shakespeare and his troupe trying to change history as much as reinterpret it for dramatic purposes. I do understand wanting to know why he made the choices in terms of playwrighting, however, though that may never be clearly answered, either.
Tim wrote: "Act 2 scene 2Talbot laments the death of Salisbury. So Orleans is retaken in the play so Salisbury can be remembered as a great hero. "
I'm not so sure that's why Orleans is retaken from a dramatic perspective; in other words, even at this early stage of his career I don't think Shakespeare was interested in jingoistic theater for its own sake. To me he seems to be more interested in creating contrasts between the English and French by showing the manner in which each camp conquers, loses ground and recapitulates. It's partly responsible for much of the comedy in the play. And watching the stumbling troops in some of the filmed productions, like the '83 BBC tv series, go back and forth over the same ground is sometimes akin to a Benny Hill revue!
But, yes, Salisbury is now a dead hero.
Act 2 scene 3The Countess of Auvergne prepares to meet Talbot. It's a death trap.
"The plot is laid: if all things fall out right,
I shall as famous be by this exploit
As Scythian Tomyris by Cyrus' death."
The Countess is confused by Talbot's appearance. To prove who he is, his soldiers are invited in. With the castle filled with soldiers the moment has passed so cakes and wine all round at the expense of the French. Talbot is celebrated as a "great warrior". The source for this scene comes from Hall. This rounds off the Siege of Orleans with England triumphant! But history ... never mind.
I've found it difficult to make sense of this play scene by scene so I just read to the end, summarising each scene for myself in a couple of lines to see it it's as disjointed as it has seemed to me, and the answer is yes. I know it has been suggested that this was written after the other two parts for some reason but it strikes me much more as being the first, in its meandering, episodic plot, only reaching a sense of sure direction towards the end. The author or authors seem uncertain what the main plotline and conflict is: is it the conflict that it starts with, between Gloucester, the lord Protector, and Winchester, the worldly churchman? Or the battle between England and France? Or the unexplained argument between York and Somerset which will later turn into the wars of the roses? The three arguments will turn out to be connected but not in a satisfying way. It's as if the author/s have not yet got the boldness to carve a coherent story out of the historical sources and are following them too closely. I found it striking that in terms of dramatic technique the play suddenly jumps into a new gear in scene 5:3 where Suffolk starts plotting, with many 'asides' or short soliloquies so that for the first time we see into a character's mind, hidden emotions and uncertainty, after four and a half acts of straight argument. I think this will be built on in Part two. If parts two and three had been written first, I feel that the architecture of part one would have led to them in a clearer way.
It’s funny; I’m taking the exact opposite approach, Gabriel, and am inching my way through the play - along with episodic viewings of the ‘83 BBC tv production. It’s the only way I can make sense of all the goings on. Bless him, Tim’s historical references are sometimes helpful in terms of perspective but it can make the events of the play seem that much more disjointed. Twice, I’ve gone over the scene which begins what I would say is the central argument of the trilogy, e.g., War of the Roses. Act II, scene 4, has Somerset calling Plantagenet a yoeman and that his Yorkist line is traitorous: high insult. Naturally, Plantagenet is offended and ultimately resolves to have the matter of his entitlement to the status and privileges of his family line settled in Parliament, but as he correctly prophecies, This quarrel will drink blood another day.
II. 2, 134
The scene is quite odd as it starts out with the lords sitting around in a park, apparently quiet, though obviously full of silent animosities. Then from some innocuous name calling springs a serious feud. It’s mirrored, of course, by the everlasting quarreling between Winchester and Glouster, which is equally as vacuous and destructive. That quarrel reaches newer heights of absurdity when followers of each barge into King Henry’s presence in Act III, scene 1, brawling and swearing.
I've also puzzled over this scene, Marlin (II.iv). The 'Temple garden' in London would be the garden of the law courts, so they've been arguing about a point of law. Quiet now but 'Within the Temple Hall we were too loud'. They evidently can't settle the unnamed dispute within the law so resort to 'Whose side are you on?' and then descend into insult. In particular Somerset says that Plantagenet's father, Cambridge, was executed for treason, and that this means that his status as a noble is forfeit. This may have been the point of law they couldn't settle. The execution happens in Henry V, II:ii - which Shakespeare hasn't written yet! - but which course chronologically precedes Henry VI. Plantagenet then vows to prove his father was innocent and therefore he is still a noble. Warwick and others vow to support Plantagenet. The fact that this may have been confusing even to contemporary audiences is suggested by the next scene, where Plantagenet visits his uncle Mortimer in prison in the Tower of London and asks him to explain the background. In the Temple garden Plantagenet has asserted his father's innocence but here he is frankly unsure. Mortimer then gives a long historical speech which in effect covers the events of Richard II and Henry IV - which again Shakespeare hasn't written yet. Basically, he says that his brother Cambridge was executed for supporting his, Mortimer's, bid for the throne which was to put right the usurpation of Richard II by Henry IV.It seems very unlikely that at this point Shakespeare had already decided to write these other plays which chronologically precede Henry VI. It was probably the success of Henry VI which suggested doing more historical plays. The key point here though is Plantagenet's bid to get back his noble status, which he does in the next scene, where Warwick recommends it and the king makes him Duke of York. This in turn incenses Somerset and his followers, and sets up the momentum for the wars of the roses.
Ah, what an elegant reply! Thanks for putting Shakespeare’s chronology (as opposed to historical chronology) in perspective. Well, Act II, iv, however puzzling is pivotal in terms of the trilogy; it’s where the chief argument is born. Can it be that Shakespeare has reduced it to a dispute over titles? Or is my 21 century gaze minimizing the importance of rank in an age where it was regarded with deadly seriousness? I’m thinking now of accounts of Elizabeth I upbraiding her own council’s indecisiveness, disputation and faction, reminding them of this very period of civil strife to which such behavior would inevitably lead. (Course, unlike Henry VI, her father, Henry VIII, had conveniently taken Rome out of the domestic equation with The Reformation so she didn't have that factor to deal with.) So we have a boy king in Henry VI, who apparently was not old enough to take lessons from his illustrious father and/or was temperamentally unsuited to quell discord among his nobles outside of diplomacy, which as is obvious by Act III is not terribly effective. But the importance of peerage, I suppose, cannot be undervalued when considering the arguments between the nobles.
Interesting question about the significance of titles, Marlin. Certainly they must have been taken much more seriously then than now. The ticklish question is whether that was partly because there was a material basis to them, ie ownership of land. I imagine that if you got named Duke of York you automatically got to own and rule Yorkshire or at least whatever parts of it weren't owned individually by barons, citizens etc. As far as I recall, this is never made explicit in Shakespeare but it may have been assumed by everyone. There is a scene in Henry IV part 1, scene III:i, where Hotspur and Glendower, rebels against the king, argue around a map about which bits of England they will own when their rebellion is successful, but they don't refer to titles. In our current play, Talbot is commemorated in IV:vii with a long string of titles 'created for his rare success in arms'. This still doesn't explicitly tell us how much extra power or wealth this gave him but it sounds like a lot. As well as owning land, I think it meant you could call on the local people to provide a certain number of recruits for war, through the cascade of obligations through barons, knights and yeomen. These warring nobles never seem at a loss to conjure up X thousand soldiers to fight their cause, and in Henry IV part 2 it seems that it is an obligation of Falstaff as a knight to rustle up 150 footsoldiers from the peasantry of a certain locality. Anyone got a more specific historical answer to the material value of titles?
Gabriel wrote: "These warring nobles never seem at a loss to conjure up X thousand soldiers to fight their cause, and in Henry IV part 2 it seems that it is an obligation of Falstaff as a knight to rustle up 150 foot soldiers from the peasantry of a certain locality.""Prick him!"
Orson Welles has a lot of fun in that scene between Falstaff, Shallow and their rather dissolute recruits in the film, Chimes at Midnight, an extrapolation of the two parts of Henry IV.
Yes, it does seem, with Shakespeare anyway, that "thousands" of men could be summoned to armed conflict on a particular noble's whim. It seems a prerogative of Dukes, not to do the enlisting, but to order them. The Dukedom, being the highest rank of the peerage, upon reflection, would seem an almost ridiculously high honor for a yeoman, which Somerset (if we believe him) calls Plantagenet. Of course, Plantagenet bristles at such "leveling" and regards it as more of an insult than accurate address, which it probably would be, traitorous father, notwithstanding.
'Prick him' does sound like part of the fun language with Falstaff. Less so in the other place it occurs, Julius Caesar IV:i. After the assassination, Antony, Lepidus and Octavius draw up a list of people to be arbitrarily executed on the excuse that they were involved in the plot. Antony: 'These many then shall die; their names are pricked... Look, with a spot I damn him'.Going back to the titles, my impression is that they bore a practical but fluid relationship to power, sometimes more on the ceremonial side, sometimes more on the ownership and power side. They also, incidentally, serve to confuse us in trying to work out who's who in the history, as someone gets bumped off and the title is given to someone else. In the current play Gloucester is the protector, the Good Duke Humphrey. Later the title is given to York's third son Richard, who will later be Richard III. and it pops up unconnectedly in other plays like King Lear. Perhaps the titles added to the audience's sense that the plays were indirectly about the whole of England.
Gabriel wrote: "'Prick him' does sound like part of the fun language with Falstaff..."There's a little of it in this play, too!
VERNON
Then for the truth and plainness of the case,
I pluck this pale and maiden blossom here,
Giving my verdict on the white rose side.
SOMERSET
Prick not your finger as you pluck it off,
Lest, bleeding, you do paint the white rose red,
And fall on my side so against your will.
II.iv, 46-51
It's a great example of figurative language not often employed to such an amusing effect (so far) in the play but is characteristic of the Shakespeare turn that we see far more of in the later plays.
Exeter, in what is effectively the end of the first part of Henry VI, Part 1, refers to a prophecy made in the then late King Henry V's day, but can anyone remember who made it? Why was it well known, as Shakespeare has Exeter suggest? I don't remember the prophecy from either part of the two Henry IV or Henry V plays:So will this base and envious discord breed.
And now I fear that fatal prophecy
Which in the time of Henry named the Fifth
Was in the mouth of every sucking babe:
That Henry born at Monmouth should win all,
And Henry born at Windsor should lose all,
Which is so plain that Exeter doth wish
His days may finish ere that hapless time.
He exits.
III, v. 203-210
Having finished watching a couple versions of the play (I'm now on to a closer reading of the text) the first question which immediately comes to mind is why Shakespeare and his fellows did not write a part for the most powerful man in this historical drama, the figure whose decisions are obviously unassailable in this era, namely, the pope. Does the Vatican or the pope make an appearance in any of Shakespeare's plays? It's a notable absence, which at first blush seems to reflect more of the religious-political climate of Elizabethan England than mid-15th century Europe.
Pope Pius V excommunicated Queen Elizabeth I of England in 1570.
The 'absence' of the Pope from this and all Shakespeare's plays is undoubtedly a reflection of the fact that England in Shakespeare's time had only recently settled into a fragile Protestantism after the dangerous toing and froing of Henry VIII (Catholic then Protestant), Edward VI (violently Protestant), Mary Tudor (violently Catholic) and Elizabeth (violently Protestant then trying to quieten it down). You couldn't write directly about religion without risking losing your head. It's not just the Pope that's absent but religious controversy in general. But in the plays (like this one) about the pre-Protestant history, the Church figures are all assumed to be Catholic and therefore fair game - hence Winchester here and the Bishops at the start of Henry V are shown as devious. The nearest Shakespeare gets to depicting the Pope is in King John, where Pandulph is the Pope's emissary in France - and again a nasty piece of work. But Marlowe has a scene in Faustus where someone boxes the Pope's ears. He also wrote The Massacre at Paris, about the St Bartholomew's Day massacre of Huguenots (Protestants). Whether this has anything to do with his early death is uncertain...
Gabriel wrote: "It's not just the Pope that's absent but religious controversy in general. But in the plays (like this one) about the pre-Protestant history, the Church figures are all assumed to be Catholic and therefore fair game..."So, where's the pope?!! :D
I quite realize that Elizabethan England was fairly intolerant of what the Protestant regime considered Catholic idolatry; my question is why didn't Shakespeare go the other way with it (like Marlowe, as you point out, Gabriel)?
It's a glaring omission to leave out a character who is given deference by highest figure of authority in the play (Henry, and Winchester, as I recall). You might retort that God is referred to quite often in the play yet we don't see him; but, of course, that's a literary conceit as well as a historical proposition (fact, for believers). But popes were men and certainly subject to the same motivations, prejudices and graces that other men possess, as Shakespeare well knew. Watching all the English and French slaughterous goings-on you get the impression that the pope is the figure holding the strings for all of them.
Actually, the theme of puppetry or character manipulation, let's say, runs throughout this edition of Henry VI. Certainly Henry, due to his young age and character, is dangled by Gloucester, Winchester and late in the play, Sussex. But how many others are puppets of a kind as well? Or puppeteers? Or would be puppeteers? La Pucelle and the French nobility? La Pucelle and her "spirits"? Margaret is certainly the foreshadow of one or the other. Perhaps it's really the chief overriding theme of the play and the two installments to follow.
Tim wrote: "Pope Pius V excommunicated Queen Elizabeth I of England in 1570."Do you think Shakespeare would have wrote a different kind of play under Mary I (Elizabeth's immediate predecessor)? Would Shakespeare have had a career under Mary? Be interesting to see what well known authors were writing hit plays during her five year reign. Be interesting to see if there was much playgoing at all under Mary!
Marlin wrote: "Tim wrote: "Pope Pius V excommunicated Queen Elizabeth I of England in 1570."Do you think Shakespeare would have wrote a different kind of play under Mary I (Elizabeth's immediate predecessor)? W..."
The first commerical playhouse wasn't built until 1567. No commerical playhouses existed during the reign of Mary.
Tim wrote: "The first commercial (sp) playhouse wasn't built until 1567. No commercial playhouses existed during the reign of Mary."Ah, so you're implying that Shakespeare wouldn't have written plays at all during Mary I? Could his impetus to write have been mostly for profit? I can certainly see him and a small troupe performing variations of mystery plays on a pageant wagon, even if it were only for mere pennies.
Marlin wrote: "Tim wrote: "The first commercial (sp) playhouse wasn't built until 1567. No commercial playhouses existed during the reign of Mary."Ah, so you're implying that Shakespeare wouldn't have written p..."
I'm not really saying anything. My knowledge of Shakespeare's life is a bit vague. The BBC did a of 3 part series of his life - Shakespeare Rise of a Genius which was good. I have Shakespeare A Compact Documentary Life by Schoenbaum but its a bit too detailed to follow. I really need a readable book on his life.
Tim wrote: "I'm not really saying anything. My knowledge of Shakespeare's life is a bit vague..."Let's face it, everyone's knowledge of Shakespeare's life is at best, conjectural. Facts have little to do with the imaginative flights which might have persuaded Shakespeare to conjure a scene involving one of the most powerful men in Europe who apparently had the last word in settling the affairs of state and religion on the continent at the time of Henry VI's reign. His physical absence in the play, to my mind, is noticeably conspicuous; especially as Gabriel suggests, without the reality of the Protestant reformation's influence every religious figure was fair game. The play's a bit myopic in that sense, focusing almost exclusively on the Anglo-Saxon perspective, but the play is titled, Henry VI, so the political intrigue of the English court is obviously the focus.
However, I will say that the most touchingly effective scene, which is a kind of centerpiece of the whole play, involves none of the court players, but the exchanges between Talbot and his son when Talbot desires young John to flee battle before Bordeaux and save his life. I believe it's the first occurrence in the play of blank verse used to for an extended length:
JOHN TALBOT
The world will say “He is not Talbot’s blood,
That basely fled when noble Talbot stood.”
TALBOT
Fly, to revenge my death if I be slain.
JOHN TALBOT
He that flies so will ne’er return again.
TALBOT
If we both stay, we both are sure to die.
JOHN TALBOT
Then let me stay and, father, do you fly.
Your loss is great; so your regard should be.
My worth unknown, no loss is known in me.
Upon my death, the French can little boast;
In yours they will; in you all hopes are lost.
Flight cannot stain the honor you have won,
But mine it will, that no exploit have done.
You fled for vantage, everyone will swear;
But if I bow, they’ll say it was for fear.
There is no hope that ever I will stay
If the first hour I shrink and run away. He kneels.
Here on my knee I beg mortality,
Rather than life preserved with infamy.
TALBOT
Shall all thy mother’s hopes lie in one tomb?
JOHN TALBOT
Ay, rather than I’ll shame my mother’s womb.
TALBOT
Upon my blessing I command thee go.
JOHN TALBOT
To fight I will, but not to fly the foe.
TALBOT
Part of thy father may be saved in thee.
JOHN TALBOT
No part of him but will be shame in me.
TALBOT
Thou never hadst renown, nor canst not lose it.
JOHN TALBOT
Yes, your renownèd name; shall flight abuse it?
TALBOT
Thy father’s charge shall clear thee from that stain.
JOHN TALBOT
You cannot witness for me, being slain.
If death be so apparent, then both fly.
TALBOT
And leave my followers here to fight and die?
My age was never tainted with such shame.
JOHN TALBOT
And shall my youth be guilty of such blame?
He rises.
No more can I be severed from your side
Than can yourself yourself in twain divide.
Stay, go, do what you will; the like do I,
For live I will not, if my father die.
TALBOT
Then here I take my leave of thee, fair son,
Born to eclipse thy life this afternoon.
Come, side by side, together live and die,
And soul with soul from France to heaven fly.
They exit.
IV.v, 16-55
This is the closest we get to a "love scene" in Henry VI. Shakespeare would repeat this effect in many of his plays later on; chiefly with suitors or characters "in suit" or seeking a remedy for a particularly uncomfortable situation. The rhetorical effect is used to make the matter plain or elucidate each party's stance. He doesn't employ this back and forth/call and answer to a great extent in the scenes between rivals, Winchester and Gloucester, but he makes sure to do it in the scenes between the young lords as they wrangle over their respective loyalties to colored flowers. Perhaps the intimacy that blank verse suggests would be inappropriate for established figures like Winchester or Gloucester but entirely appropriate for lusty young men looking for a quarrel. Other heads may have been involved in the writing of Henry VI but this device used in this manner seems typically Shakespearean.
Marlin wrote: 'The play's a bit myopic in that sense, focusing almost exclusively on the Anglo-Saxon perspective, but the play is titled, Henry VI, so the political intrigue of the English court is obviously the focus.' It's useful to look at the order of writing of Shakespeare's plays, which has been established fairly closely and is listed in some editions or you can find on line. All the English history plays except the very late Henry VIII were written in the first half of his writing career, ending with Henry V. and none is set in his own time. After that he is completely international. The English history play was a new invention by him and Marlowe, deliberately focused on national identity (English not British or Anglo saxon) at a time only a few years after that identity had been threatened by Spain and a blanket return to Catholicism. It feels to me as if, once he had celebrated English independence, including showing the futility of England repeatedly trying to conquer France, he left that subject and just looked for interesting themes anywhere - that is, anywhere except contemporary England under the Tudors.
Gabriel wrote: "The English history play was a new invention by him and Marlowe, deliberately focused on national identity (English not British or Anglo saxon) at a time only a few years after that identity had been threatened by Spain and a blanket return to Catholicism."Ha; well, Shakespeare's perspective isn't international in this play and a return to Catholic England was never going to happen even if Elizabeth had not succeeded the unpopular Mary I to the throne. The wind of Protestant change had already occurred under Henry VIII and Mary was not politically astute enough to weather and triumph over it. Spain threatened again under Elizabeth's reign (the so-called Armada invasion) but failed and probably would have not established any kind of real foothold on the isle. This, as you rightly assess, may have bolstered specifically English patriotism and persuaded writers like Shakespeare and Marlowe to invent an English history play; but that sort of endeavor is almost by necessity myopic. It's not a criticism as much as a constructive fact; the range of characters and themes are within the the English-French association and its specific history. What we don't get is the reverb outside of it except reports from the pope. And it's on purpose, of course, because such insularity is bound to collapse on itself - as the world around Henry VI eventually does. I'm not referring to English history as much as to the way Shakespeare retells the history. If he had put the Wars of the Roses in some kind of dramatic international relief the story would hardly have been as sensational or sold as many tickets. In other words, the drama seems to lie in the exploitation of faction and not really in the scope of action. Half the time we don't know where we are in the "vasty fields of France" but we certainly know who's quarreling.
It is interesting to note that where Shakespeare employs blank and/or rhymed verse that almost nowhere is the verse interrupted with enjambment - or another person cutting in on another, even in the roughest exchanges between Gloucester and Winchester. This device would change significantly in later plays but the end-stop does increase the sense of one-upmanship among characters in the play, as if the most impressive rhetorician is the man who holds the field, not the most heroic soldier. I didn't get this sense reading the play but all performances that I watched makes this aspect of the actors/characters relationships to each other palpably clear. You would think a history like this one would be focused on the tactics of war but it's far more demonstrative about the primacy of language and which characters are able to wield it most effectively.We know, for instance, that Henry has begun to come into his own when after he overrides Gloucester's objections to Margaret's betrothal the old protector is left standing mute; or that La Pucelle is in serious trouble when the spirits that previously spoke to her concerning battle plans are suddenly silent.
Marlin writes 'This is the closest we get to a "love scene" in Henry VI.' about the bond between Talbot and his son (1 Henry VI, IV:v) . It is indeed a very affecting scene. But there is another, perhaps more conventional, love scene at the end of the play when Sussex falls in love at first sight with Margaret of Anjou (V:iii). And this will turn into extreme passion in the middle of Part Two, when Suffolk, having intended merely to enjoy and use Margaret is faced with parting from her. But are we now discussing all three parts together? Perhaps we should now move on specifically to Part Two?
Gabriel wrote: "But are we now discussing all three parts together? Perhaps we should now move on specifically to Part Two?"Oh yes, I think it's time to move on - and right on time as the idea was to devote a calendar month to each of the parts.
Re: the love scenes
I can understand your view of the Suffolk-Margaret scene near the end of Part 1; but don't both parties need to be enamored of each other in order to call it such? To me it seems closer to a wooing scene, much like Richard III's manipulation of Anne, for instance, where lust and ambition are the real driving motives of the male protagonist. Margaret, in fact, only puts down her guard after learning that Suffolk intends her to marry King Henry. Then her "intimacy' becomes feigned and rather formal. The version in the 1983 BBC tv film initially has Julia Foster, as Margaret, writhing in discomfort as Paul Chapman's Suffolk tries to forcibly seduce her; yet the written stage direction for their entrance simply states: Alarum. Enter Suffolk with Margaret in his hand.
But Suffolk does initially intend to be her suitor and again we have an example of blank verse in its most blatant use. In fact, Shakespeare drops what is effectively a sonnet in the middle of their exchange:
O fairest beauty, do not fear nor fly,
For I will touch thee but with reverent hands.
I kiss these fingers for eternal peace
And lay them gently on thy tender side.
Who art thou? Say, that I may honor thee.
MARGARET
Margaret my name, and daughter to a king,
The King of Naples, whosoe’er thou art.
SUFFOLK
An earl I am, and Suffolk am I called.
Be not offended, nature’s miracle;
Thou art allotted to be ta’en by me.
So doth the swan her downy cygnets save,
Keeping them prisoner underneath her wings.
Yet if this servile usage once offend,
Go and be free again as Suffolk’s friend.
V.iii, 46-59
The 14 line extract obeys strict iambic pentameter and finishes with characteristic (final two) rhymed endings. Of course, the meter changes slightly as their exchange continues and we get our first blank verse interruption with Margaret's "What!" after Suffolk proposes that she become wife to Henry.:
SUFFOLK
If thou wilt condescend to be my—
MARGARET What?
SUFFOLK His love.
It can be taken a number of ways. Suffolk is avoiding suggesting that he'd be a panderer (what we might call pimp today - and what Pandarus clearly is in Shakespeare's later play, Troilus and Cressida) for Henry but certainly is playing matchmaker of an disingenuous sort. He admits a bit later that through Margaret he intends to rule Henry and "the realm". But through Shakespeare's clever use of language in this passage intimations of Suffolk's treachery are already being laid.
This play, a collaboration, purportedly written/performed after parts II and III, 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. It is not, as you'll soon discover after a few verses, a great poetic drama but it does, as Lawrence Ryan of Stanford University writes, "exhibits a thoughtful design through which important themes are vigorously, if somewhat crudely, realized in the completed action." As such I've generally found it far more entertaining to watch than read. But a close observation of Shakespeare's language reveals the beginnings of a developing craft. It will be interesting to see how he handles verse vs. prose in terms of character and theme; figurative and literal turns considering the circumstance and where and/or if his hand can clearly be discerned throughout the play.
If we take a week to cover roughly an act and a half we should be able to cruise through December and finish by the New Year. Any and all observations, however bizarre, far-fetched or even questionable are welcome and encouraged! As long as the text supports your theories don't hesitate to voice them. Looking forward to an interesting study. Cheers!