Your Foreign Correspondent Reporting….

I’m Back!

This is Shakespeare girl, returned from my Shakespeare Fact Finding Mission overseas!

OK, so it wasn’t exactly a Shakespeare business trip and more just a super fun Europe tourist vacation. Aside from our myriad tours of palaces and cathedrals (highly recommended – we like palaces and cathedrals), Emma and I made it a priority to seek Shakespeare where he might be found – to wit, we:

-           saw three Shakespeare productions (yay!)

-          went to Stratford-Upon-Avon

-          Saw the Shakespeare birthplace house

-          Saw Shakespeare’s grave at Holy Trinity Church

-          Saw Shakespeare First Folios at the British Library and at Trinity College, Cambridge (adding to my previous First Folio sighting at the Folger!)

I gained a new understanding of English geography and regional differences, and thrilled at all the Shakespeare connections everywhere  – Kent and the White Cliffs of Dover? King Lear! Northumbria? The House of Percy from the Henry IVs! We were happy to just miss the re-appearance of forces similar to those of our old friend Jack Cade by cleverly fleeing the British Isles for the Continent before the looting broke out; we then explored the vasty fields of France. And as a non-Francophone, I relied heavily on Emma’s superior French-speaking skills and gained a new appreciation for the dismay of Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, in Richard II when he is banished:

The language I have learn'd these forty years,
My native English, now I must forego:
And now my tongue's use is to me no more
Than an unstringed viol or a harp,
Or like a cunning instrument cased up…

(1.3.456-460)

I also want to report my excitement upon visiting Warwick Castle, home of our old friend the Earl of Warwick! The castle was very fun, but Emma and I kind of suspected that we were part of a relatively small percentage of tourists that come there solely because of Shakespeare’s Henry VI plays. (We rejected with scorn an advertised tour purporting that Shakespeare WAS the Earl of Warwick. Or vice versa.) Well, well, Shakespeare has something for everyone, and my case proves that a love of Shakespeare can lead to standing on the battlements of a medieval castle in the heart of England. Hurrah!

On a Tower at Warwick Castle

Coming soon – reviews of Shakespeare performances in England!

Richard III - Home

Richard. And yet I know not how to get the crown,
For many lives stand between me and home:
And I,—like one lost in a thorny wood,
That rends the thorns and is rent with the thorns,
Seeking a way and straying from the way;
Not knowing how to find the open air,
But toiling desperately to find it out,—
Torment myself to catch the English crown:
And from that torment I will free myself,
Or hew my way out with a bloody axe.
Why, I can smile, and murder whiles I smile...
(Henry VI part 3, 3.2.1661-1671)

Although this speech is from Henry VI part 3 rather than Richard III, I wanted to highlight it as it reveals so much of Richard's character. In this portion, Richard starts off with a proposition that we, as the audience, find appalling - he wants to usurp the throne away from his own brothers. Yet, being Richard the silver-tongued orator, he soon refers to his desires in such a way that we cannot help but sympathize with him: he's lost, he yearns for the crown as his "home" - a powerful, emotional word. The passage where he speaks of being lost in a thorny wood creates such a strong image of claustrophobia and desperation, showing us that he is barely in control - a far cry from the confident manner that Richard puts on before his brothers and the court. Of course, finally, being Richard, he turns his thoughts in a way that horrifies and fascinates us - I will...hew my way out with a bloody axe. He's drawn us in by sharing the desperation of his heart - now he pushes us away. It's an extraordinary speech!

To read the whole soliloquy, click here and scroll down to line 1615. Emma posted a video of John Barrymore delivering  portions of this speech, and for a performance in contrast to that, check out this video of Ron Cook as Richard in the BBC Shakespeare Henry VI part 3. The lines I quote here start at 3.05, but watch the whole speech!

Richard III - Disability

Queen Margaret. And where's that valiant crook-back prodigy,
Dicky your boy, that with his grumbling voice
Was wont to cheer his dad in mutinies?
(Henry VI part 3, 1.4.514-516)

An integral part of Richard III's identity is his physical deformity. A hunchback, he is not only mocked about his physical appearance by people who barely know him (like Queen Margaret quoted above, who focuses on Richard's disability when talking to his father the Duke of York), but he himself is acutely, painfully self-aware of his appearance and physical challenges:

[Love] did corrupt frail nature with some bribe,
To shrink mine arm up like a wither'd shrub;
To make an envious mountain on my back,
Where sits deformity to mock my body;
To shape my legs of an unequal size;
To disproportion me in every part,
Like to a chaos, or an unlick'd bear-whelp
That carries no impression like the dam.
(Henry VI part 3, 3.2.1644-1651)

Looking at Richard's disability and how it shapes his character, as well as the audience's perception of him, could be an almost never-ending study. However, just one aspect of the deformity that I want to look at is the perception articulated by Queen Margaret in the quotation above - that the disability marks him as a "prodigy," meaning that his exterior appearance serves a sort of sign or portent for the state of his character. Richard's crooked outside, as it is read by his enemies, indicates a crooked soul!

Of course, Richard embraces wickedness and, fulfilling the beliefs of those who hold that the outside matches the inside, does mangle his soul and distort his concience. Could it be that Richard was really born with a worse character than anyone else? His mother does mention that he was always bad:

Tetchy and wayward was thy infancy;
Thy school-days frightful, desperate, wild, and furious,
Thy prime of manhood daring, bold, and venturous,
Thy age confirm'd, proud, subdued, bloody, treacherous...
(Richard III, 4.4.2967-2970)

However, I think it's supported by the text to read Richard's disability not as shaping him in some sort of mystical way, but rather as affecting him by setting him apart from others. Richard is constantly faced with comments and unkind words about his appearance, and based on this he allows his deformity to isolate him; he cuts himself off from certain activities and feels bitterness over the fact that he is left out.

A perfect example is his attitude towards love and women (Richard's relationship with women is a HUGE topic, which deserves a post all its own!). However, for the quick version, it's clear that he feels that his appearance is such that no woman would really want to be with him. Sad, right? This is one of the many times that we can empathize with Richard and hope that he could somehow learn to see himself in a more healthy way. BUT NO - Richard takes his unfortunate situation and makes it WORSE by taking his status as an outsider and expanding it into hatred for anyone who has anything and everything that he feels himself cut off from:

I, that am curtail'd of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinish'd, sent before my time
Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them;
Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my shadow in the sun
And descant on mine own deformity:
And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days.
(1.1.19-32, emphasis added)

Richard III is the Worst. John Barrymore is the Best.

If Shakespeare hasn't already convinced you that Richard is bad, bad, bad, perhaps the great actor John Barrymore can. This speech, filmed in 1929, is technically from Henry VI, part 3, but parts of it are sometimes included in Richard III performances (notably Laurence Olivier's). Check this out...


Ooooooh, scary! I'm glad I'm not related to *him*!

To appreciate how amazing-kamazing Barrymore was, compare the video above (of him being Richard) with the video below (of him being John Barrymore, on a well-behaved day). This is his introduction to the Richard soliloquy. Does he even seem like the same person?


There are a lot of Richard videos out there. But Barrymore sets the curve.

Henry VI - three plays?

A random thought on the Henry VI plays - why three? The plays are VERY LONG, and if you look at them, the dramatic arc of the story as a whole works pretty well, but the individual plays (especially part 1) seem more episodic. When I read part 1, I felt like the play should have ended soon after the death of Talbot - but instead we have a whole new act following!

It's also worth noting that a lot of people cut and adapt these plays for performance. I watched part of a taped production where the story of all three plays was split into two parts titled "The House of York" and "The House of Lancaster," and the BBC Shakespeare history series  An Age of Kings edited Henry VI part 1 into one hour-long episode (!). So my humble suggestion is to continue this tradition of slicing the plays up for performance - but to break them into four parts. This way, each part would be shorter without cutting large portions of the script, and each part would have a stronger, more distinct story focus.

I'd break it up thusly: Henry VI part 1  would end directly after Act 5.1, where Henry and Gloucester decide to have a peace with France (which would be moved after 5.2-4 and 5.6 up to line 94 - these are the scenes that depict the capture and condemnation of Joan). One could also include the second part of 5.6, where York and Winchester make peace with the French - the important thing is to get Margaret and Suffolk out of this play and into part 2, where (in my opinion) they fit much better.

Part 2 (which I would call, going off of the title in the 1st Folio, Henry VI - The Death of the Good Duke Humphrey) would begin with Act 5 scene 5 from Part 1, where Suffolk meets Margaret, and would end with the deaths of Suffolk and Winchester. (I would probably switch the order of their death scenes, putting Act 4.1 before 3.3, in order to end with Winchester's death). My reason for this sectioning of the play lies in the fact that Suffolk does almost nothing in Henry VI Part 1 until the very end, when he emerges as a major villain, which part he holds through 2/3rds of Part 2. This way, Suffolk is a major character in only one play, and his clash with Humphrey is the main focus of the story.

Part 3 (Which, based off of the Octavo title, I would call Henry VI - The Tragedy of Richard, Duke of York) would cover the Cade rebellion up to the death of York, ending after Act 2 scene 1 - Edward resolving to fight and win the crown his father should have worn. I would split this one here because York is such an important, intense character, and there is a certain finality to his death. Edward is such a different personality.

Part 4 (Titled, obviously, Edward IV) would go from 2.2 of Henry VI Part 3 and cover the rise and wars of Edward IV, up until the end of the play. And then, of course, we are into Richard III....

Question. How possible is it to enjoy any of the Henry VI plays alone without the others?

Henry VI - The Complete BBC Shakespeare

Earl of Warwick. Then let the earth be drunken with our blood:
I'll kill my horse, because I will not fly.
Why stand we like soft-hearted women here,
Wailing our losses, whiles the foe doth rage;
And look upon, as if the tragedy
Were play'd in jest by counterfeiting actors?

(Henry VI part 3, 2.3.1051-1056)

Over the last few weeks, I've watched through the Complete BBC Shakespeare versions of Henry VI part 1, 2, and 3 - and all I can say is that counterfeiting actors, though playing this tragedy but in jest, can make it seem very real.

I came to these particular videos of the plays with low expectations, because, as Emma has pointed out, The Complete BBC Shakespeare series is somewhat uneven - many of the productions that I've seen in the past have been...well...clunky.

I was wrong about these ones though! The three Henry VIs are the best Shakespeare productions I've seen from the BBC. What makes them good? It sure isn't the sets, lighting or camera work, which are very basic and workman-like. It's the acting, which is across the board COMPLETELY AMAZING!!

(Bernard Hill, one of the amazing actors, addresses the audience as the Duke of York)

Jane Howell directs these plays, along with Richard III (week after next's play!), as a tetralogy, with steady casting of the lead roles across all four productions. And what a cast she had - especially worthy of note are Trevor Peacock as Talbot, David Burke as Gloucester, Bernard Hill as York, and Mark Wing-Davey as Warwick. But just about everyone is tremendously good - easy to understand, expressive in voice and language, and committed to their characters in a way that sweeps the viewer into the story.

And this suspension of disbelief is quite remarkable given the constraints of the production. These videos are in no way cinematic: all the action takes place on one non-realistic theatrical set that - at first glance - looks as if it were a cross between a jungle-gym and a fire-escape built out of left-over lumber found in a forgotten storeroom somewhere.

(Joan la Pucelle with Alencon, the Dauphin, Reignier, and the Bastard of Orleans from Part 1. The simple set can be seen in the background)

An additional complication in watching this series also comes from some of the multiple casting issues. As I've mentioned previously, the Henry 6 plays have the largest casts in all of Shakespeare; Howell, going off of the kind of casting practices that were almost certainly used by Shakespeare's own theater company, has a core troupe that manages, through clever costume and makeup changes, to cover all the roles. This allows for some great actors to brighten up some otherwise small and less prominent parts - for example, the messengers at the beginning of Part 1 are played wonderfully by the actors who later take on the leading roles of Edward IV and Richard III in Part 3 - but it can also be rather confusing in a play where it's tricky enough already to keep up with all the characters. My advice? If you see someone you recognize coming in with a different hat on, assume that he is a different character.

How can you get your hands on these versions of the plays? Well, if you want to buy them, they are ridiculously expensive (the Henry VIs aren't included in some of the cheaper boxed sets of the more popular plays, and the complete dvd set of all 37 will cost you about a grand). BUT hie thee to the library, as pretty much every library on the planet has - or can access - a set of the complete BBC Shakespeare.

On the whole, I strongly recommend these productions. I wasn't able to watch them all at one go (the three productions require quite a time commitment - Parts 1, 2, and 3 are 185, 212, and 210 minutes respectively), but this gave me an indication of how much I was enjoying them -  between each film I looked forward to starting the next and engaging again with these fascinating characters. Even with the theatrical, non-realistic set and basic production values, I found them exciting, compelling, and intensely moving. Can we believe that wars and dramatic death take place on a small stage? As is asked in Henry V, can this cockpit hold the vasty fields of France? After watching these Henry VIs, my answer is a resounding yes.

La Pucelle - History and Movie Review

If you read Henry VI part 1 and you're anything like me, you might have been slightly annoyed at Shakespeare's treatment of Joan of Arc. She's inspiring and disarming (literally) when we first meet her, but by the end of the play, Shakespeare has turned her into a medieval Sabrina the Teenage Witch - complete with a lively interest in boys and a slightly undependable spell-making ability.

Now, we can see why Shakespeare would write it this way - the English are the good guys in his play, and it would hardly do for him to add a plot point in which a French saint was led by holy visions to massacre them. But is there much truth in Shakespeare's portrayal of her? Well, I did a little research, and as much as I like Shakespeare, the general conclusion seems to be no, probably not. As far as can be told, in reality she seems to have been a brave and clever peasant girl who sincerely believed in her visions and in French independence, not in witchcraft and dalliances with French royalty.

Of course, I suspect Shakespeare would not have been particularly upset about his departure from the historical record here (like many of his historical characters, she is there to fulfill a specific role in his story, not to educate us about the true personalities of famous people).

Joan of Arc by Jules Bastien Lepage (click to see a larger version of this amazing painting).

If you're looking for a dramatic portrayal of Joan that is in complete contrast with Shakespeare's propagandistic version, and you by some mischance have insufficient leisure to read Schiller's Die Jungfrau von Orleans in the original German, may I suggest the 1928 Danish film The Passion of Joan of Arc? It's even available on youtube.

This is an extraordinary silent film, directed by Carl Th. Dreyer. It covers the events leading up to Joan's death and focuses on the ecclesiastical trial - the script was made from actual excerpts - and religious complicity in her death (unlike Shakespeare's political emphasis). Although difficult to watch, it's one of the greatest films I've seen.

The actress Maria Falconetti as Joan. None of the cast in this production wore makeup.

The film almost didn't make it until the present day. Shortly after it was released, it was destroyed in a warehouse fire. Another cut prepared by the director from outtakes was destroyed in another fire! A few incomplete versions circulated for years. Finally, in 1981, a complete cut was found in a mental institution in Norway and was restored.

Part of what is most notable about the film is the use of the low angle face shot. Dreyer used it extensively for inquisitorial scenes that capture the businesslike horror of medieval "canon law." 

Special mention goes to the score, written by Richard Einhorn and performed by Anonymous 4 (I fell in love with this recording, which was released as a CD, before I ever saw the movie).

Now, I feel I could go on and on about how amazing this film is, but I've already taken on a lot in writing about it at all - how do you "review" a movie like Casablanca or The Seventh Seal? These are the guys that make the rules! And to me, this film is in a similar category, except very old, sad, European and silent (read: slow, for those of you that only like the action-packed!).

I'll just say that to me, this movie is a reminder of a historical fact: even when it seemed that all of the European supposed "Christians" were unified, there were those - persecuted, silenced and burned - whose beliefs were different. And ours too is a world where people are still persecuted and even killed because of religious differences or 'thought crimes.' Those who decry the multiple denominations and political factions in free societies and long for religious or political unity at any price, take note of the alternative.

Henry VI Help - Part 1, History

As I'm looking back on my Henry VI reading experience, I thought it might be helpful for anyone else who was about to embark on the same adventure if I were to go through the plays and give some general history background and some information about the important characters. As you may remember, I had some issues keeping all the characters straight - I'm working on a post on Henry VI character identification and organization that will hopefully be up later this week, but first I wanted to look at the whole issue of reading Shakespeare's histories.

With history plays like the Henry VIs, we're reading stories that Shakespeare based on real events that took place surrounding the nobles and monarchs of England. However, he took significant liberties with just about everything that really happened in order to make his story more dramatically compelling and exciting. Now, the Henry VIs just so happen to take place during The Wars of the Roses - an action filled, yet notoriously confusing, time in England's history.

My strongly held opinion is that one DOES NOT NEED to know much about the Wars of the Roses to enjoy the Henry VI plays! If you want to really dive into the history of 15th century England, you can certainly have a great time and learn a lot - some quick links about the Wars of the Roses are here and here. However, be warned - Shakespeare changes A LOT of the events, chronology, and motivations of the Wars of the Roses, so if you spend a lot of time memorizing things like dates of real battles, which important noble was involved with each event, etc., you may find yourself frustrated and confused.

A history book that I very enthusiastically recommend, however, is Peter Saccio's Shakespeare's English Kings: History, Chronicle, and Drama.

This handy little volume lays out the essential historical events and characters during the times of the kings dealt with in all of Shakespeare's history plays in a clear, thorough, interesting style. Saccio shows what the prevailing historical opinions were during the time the plays were written, as well as looking at how Shakespeare adapted or condensed the historical record for dramatic effect. Demystifying and accessible, this book is a valuable resource - I will definitely be turning to it when we read the remaining history plays later this year.

However, I think that anyone could basically get the gist of the H6 plays by understanding just a tiny little bit of the background, which I will now unfold to you in Shakespeare girl's patented "English History in One Paragraph!" Here we go!

England's kingship passes to the oldest son in the royal house in a hereditary manner - and the crown CAN be passed down through the female line. However, our title character's grandfather, Henry Bolingbroke, usurped the throne from the rightful king, Richard II. Henry Bolingbroke then became known as Henry IV. After his death, his son, Henry V, took the throne and proceeded to conquer France, which at the start of our play is ruled along with England by Henry's son, Henry VI. All these Henrys are identified by family as from the house of LANCASTER. Henry VI turns out to be a weak leader, which opens the door for one of his nobles, Richard Plantagenent, Duke of York, to assert a claim to the throne based on his the fact that his ancestors were, by birth order, in line for the throne before Henry VI's usurping ancestors. As the conflict escalates, the House of LANCASTER  (the King's party) takes on the emblem of a RED ROSE. The House of YORK (Richard's party) is represented by a WHITE ROSE.

As for the action of the plays, the English fight in France; they fight among themselves in England; and finally we have a few knock-down drag-it-out battles over who gets to be king. And I think that's enough information to get anyone started!

Happy as a King?

King Henry: ...methinks it were a happy life,
To be no better than a homely swain;
To sit upon a hill, as I do now...
Ah, what a life were this! how sweet! how lovely!
Gives not the hawthorn-bush a sweeter shade
To shepherds looking on their silly sheep,
Than doth a rich embroider'd canopy
To kings that fear their subjects' treachery?
History of Henry VI, Part III, Act II, Scene 5
1123-1125, 1144-1147

I was anointed king at nine months old;
My father and my grandfather were kings...
Act III, Scene 1, 1443-1444

Poor King Henry. He never wanted to be king! He'd rather be a shepherd! But, because of where and to whom he happened to be born, he's the king.

Baby King Henry VI at 9 months of age, being placed in the care of Richard de Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick. Detail from the Accession of Henry the VI, 1422

Richard on the other hand, would simply love to be England's sovereign, and can't...

Richard: ...between my soul's desire and me—
The lustful Edward's title buried—
Is Clarence, Henry, and his son young Edward,
And all the unlook'd for issue of their bodies,
To take their rooms, ere I can place myself...
...I wish the crown, being so far off;
And so I chide the means that keeps me from it.

...I'll make my heaven to dream upon the crown,
And, whiles I live, to account this world but hell,
Until my mis-shaped trunk that bears this head
Be round impaled with a glorious crown.
And yet I know not how to get the crown...
But toiling desperately to find it out,—
Torment myself to catch the English crown:
And from that torment I will free myself,
Or hew my way out with a bloody axe.
-Henry VI Part 3, Act III, Scene 2, 1617-1621, 1629-1630, 1657-1661, 1668-1670

Because of the position to which Richard was born - the third son, and fourth in the York claim for the throne, he has no way to decently ask for the kingship. His only options are a lot of awfully convenient accidents to his relatives, or nothing (we see Richard getting started on the first idea at the end of the play).

Much of the conflict of the story has to do with what the characters claim through their ancestry.... there are a number of fairly convincing candidates to be the rightful king running about. But a lot of the conflict also has to do with the characters' failure to claim, or even accept, what they have inherited. Henry and Richard just *won't* step up to their hereditary responsibilities. Richard does not want to be the Duke of Gloucester ("Let me be Duke of Clarence, George of Gloucester" II, 6). He does not want to be a good uncle ("I love the tree from whence thou sprang'st, Witness the loving kiss I give the fruit. [Aside] To say the truth, so Judas kiss'd his master, And cried 'all hail!' when as he meant all harm." V, 7). Richard does not want to be anything but the King of England.

Now, it makes a certain kind of sense to us that if Richard wants to be king so badly, and Henry really doesn't like it, why can't they just re-arrange things? Or, maybe this whole king thing isn't the best idea (the American way of thinking).

Down with King George!

But even as Americans, who are well rid of the monarchy, Richard and Henry's basic problem has still not gone away. Who has not felt at least a twinge of dissatisfaction, perhaps even resentment, at who, where, and when they were born? It's one of the most important factors in our lives, and we have absolutely no control over it. Who has not even felt some enviousness, like Henry and Richard, when we look at the privileges of others? Perhaps we envy those in other societies, who lead simple, "shepherds'" lives. Perhaps we envy those in prestigious, complicated jobs, and their power and wealth.

I think I might prefer to live there.^

But in the midst of our empathy with Henry and Richard, we have to remember that the grass is often greener on the other side. Would weak, dependent Henry really be up for the tough life of a shepherd? And not to spoil the story, but eventually Richard does get his wish, and it's not all so fun at the top. What's more, it's true that Shakespeare sympathetically shows the struggling pain of these characters, but even as he does so, he shows the bad effects - disaster, really - that this refusal of responsibility brings about. Shakespeare warns us all that if we neglect what we are born to do, tragedy follows.

A little diplomacy, please

Warwick. Tell him from me that he hath done me wrong,
And therefore I'll uncrown him ere't be long.
(3.3.1934-1935)

Oh dear. Things had only just settled into a somewhat uneasy standoff between the York camp and the scattered forces of Henry VI when Edward IV - York's son, who has managed to grab the crown for himself - had to go ruin everything for the lack of a little simple diplomacy. Echoing Henry VI's renunciation in part 1 of his own long-distance betrothed, a French noblewoman, in favor of his own choice, Edward sends Warwick to France as an ambassador with a marriage proposal for a French princess - but then changes his mind about the marriage. He leaves his father's old ally, Warwick, in an embarrassing position when he decides he'd actually prefer to marry an Englishwoman! And oh wait, he's actually gone ahead and gotten married - sorry, Warwick, that you had to go all the way to France as an ambassador to present the proposal only to have it retracted. Never mind that you are acutely aware that the whole thing made you look like an idiot.

OK kids, of the lessons we've learned from the Henry VI plays, I think we could all agree on these: that the English nobles are proud; they easily take offense; they don't mind changing sides; and oh yes, each of the major nobles can raise his own personal army. Moral of the story? DON'T MAKE AN EARL LOOK STUPID - he will never forgive you and he'll probably appoint a day to meet you in pitched battle somewhere.

Edward's lack of diplomacy reminded me of another example of how NOT to talk to people, this time from Henry VI part 2. The Earl of Suffolk, in peril of his life, having been captured by pirates, says the wrong thing over and over again:

Earl of Suffolk. Obscure and lowly swain, King Henry's blood,
The honourable blood of Lancaster,
Must not be shed by such a jaded groom.
...
Drones suck not eagles' blood but rob beehives:
It is impossible that I should die
By such a lowly vassal as thyself.
(4.1.203-05, 2265-67)

Lesson number 2: if others (especially a bloodthirsty band of pirates) are holding all the weapons, it is probably not the greatest idea to talk to them this way.

Both Warwick and Suffolk's pride would not let them suffer their wrongs in silence; in both cases, their determination to fight cost them a dear account. Diplomacy, that could have helped to avoid it all, is nowhere to be seen. But they will not be dissuaded from their pride and their fighting, even when there is little point to it; as the Mayor of London says in part 1,

"Good God, these nobles should such stomachs bear!
I myself fight not once in forty year." (1.3.451-2).

Tears

Richard. I cannot weep; for all my body's moisture
Scarce serves to quench my furnace-burning heart:
Nor can my tongue unload my heart's great burthen;
For selfsame wind that I should speak withal
Is kindling coals that fires all my breast,
And burns me up with flames that tears would quench.
To weep is to make less the depth of grief:
Tears then for babes; blows and revenge for me
Richard, I bear thy name; I'll venge thy death,
Or die renowned by attempting it.
(Henry VI part 3, 2.1.706-715)

In this speech by Richard, later Richard III, or as he is described in the 1595 published version of this play, "Crookeback Richard," he, as the son of Richard Plantagenent, Duke of York, mourns his father's death and plots revenge. However, he cannot weep for his father and goes so far as to disdain tears: Tears then for babes. Richard's inability to display sorrowful emotion hints at his inhumane and ambitious personality that will display itself in violence against his own family.

In contrast, Richard's father - the Duke of York, whose single-minded ambition for a throne has driven the violence in the three plays - values revenge, but is not impervious to tears of sorrow. Upon hearing of his young son Rutland's death, he weeps before Queen Margaret and Clifford, who has killed the boy:

Richard Plantagenent (Duke of York). O tiger's heart wrapt in a woman's hide!
How couldst thou drain the life-blood of the child,
To bid the father wipe his eyes withal,
And yet be seen to bear a woman's face?
Women are soft, mild, pitiful and flexible;
Thou stern, obdurate, flinty, rough, remorseless.
Bids't thou me rage? why, now thou hast thy wish:
Wouldst have me weep? why, now thou hast thy will:
For raging wind blows up incessant showers,
And when the rage allays, the rain begins.
These tears are my sweet Rutland's obsequies:
And every drop cries vengeance for his death,
'Gainst thee, fell Clifford, and thee, false
Frenchwoman.

Earl of Northumberland. Beshrew me, but his passion moves me so
That hardly can I cheque my eyes from tears.
(1.4.577-592)

And I think that this capacity for sorrow and emotion in York is one of the reasons that I actually care about his fate. Though throughout the three plays York has shown himself to be a completely amoral opportunistic schemer obsessed with his royal ambitions, he also is very brave, loyal to the members of his faction, and - as we see here - loving to his sons, who worship him. These qualities allow us to overlook his viciousness and hope that his prayer for his soul is answered: "Open Thy gate of mercy, gracious God!" (1.4.620)

Depart the Field

Henry VI. For Margaret my queen, and Clifford too,
Have chid me from the battle; swearing both
They prosper best of all when I am thence.
(Henry VI part 3, 2.5.1117-1120)

Lord Clifford. I would your highness would depart the field:
The queen hath best success when you are absent.
Queen Margaret. Ay, good my lord, and leave us to our fortune.
(2.2.916)

In Henry VI Part 3, the day of reckoning has well and truly come. We've seen Henry let France slip from his hands; we've seen the loosening of his grip on the realm of England; now we're involved in a full-blown revolt and civil war. Meanwhile, Henry flaps around helplessly. His self-doubt and weakness is so palpable to those around him that he's like a large, sad bird of ill-omen - his wife and his general have an important request for him: please, um, just stay away from the battle, because basically you make things go badly, okay? Thanks!

It's interesting that Shakespeare, though painting Henry as ineffectual and distracted, doesn't specifically highlight something that's a historical fact: that Henry suffered from periods of insanity. However, the choice to portray this leader as sane but disengaged opens the story up for us, as the audience, to find parallel situations in our own experience. Not everyone has had to deal with a mad King, but I'd be willing to guess that nearly everyone has suffered under a weak and morale-crushing leader. What do we do in these situations? Revolt like York? Grab the reins like Margaret and tell the King to get off the field?

How do you solve a problem like King Henry VI?

Jack Cade and the Butcher

Dick the Butcher. The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

(Henry VI Part 2, 4.2.2379)

I couldn't get away without referencing this, which is without doubt the most famous line in all the Henry VI plays. There's something very funny about the punchy brevity of the declaration, and we can all to some degree sympathize with the idea - there is a certain gleeful appeal to the idea of taking down this group of educated people whose mysterious and labyrinthine knowledge somehow holds such sway over all of our lives.

^a lawyer^

Kill them all, says the Butcher

Dick the Butcher, as a representative of the discontent of the common people with the power structure in England, channels his frustration and hostility through a revolt led by the rabble-rousing revolutionary populist Jack Cade. Cade, a leader who is in every way the antithesis of the weak ruler Henry VI, is an extraordinary character - Shakespeare paints him as a charismatic and compelling orator who is able to sweep crowds into a frenzy.

In a play cycle dominated by the concerns of the nobility, Jack Cade and his men, as commoners with homely speech and down-to-earth references, come across at first as somewhat comic characters. The editors of the Norton Shakespeare speculate that Cade might have been played by the actor Will Kempe, the "clown" who usually played the funny characters in Shakespeare's earlier plays - this theory is bolstered by the sort of silliness surrounding him that is seen in this exchange:


Dick the Butcher. I have a suit unto your lordship....

Only that the laws of England may come out of your mouth.

....

Smith the Weaver. [Aside] Nay, John, it will be stinking law for his
breath stinks with eating toasted cheese.

(4.7.2625, 2632).

This positioning of the revolutionaries as buffoons reminds me of some of the stories by the hilarious 20th century comic novelist P.G. Wodehouse, whose tales of incompetent English aristocratsoften include equally inept closet Communists who secretly long for the overthrow of the government - the day when the blood of their employers will run in rivers down London's Park Lane.

Bertie Wooster, P.G. Wodehouse's daffy aristocrat, and manservant Jeeves (as played by Hugh Laurie and Stephen Fry in the B.B.C. Jeeves and Wooster series). Bertie vaguely fears a coming Revolution.

Like Wodehouse, however, Shakespeare's sometime light treatment of the revolutionaries is based on very real social anxieties about class conflict and the consequences of bloody uprisings. Thus, when we see Cade  as more than a ridiculous pretender to power, but as a serious contender for the leadership of England, the joke doesn't seem quite so appealing any more. We thought that uppity lawyers interpreting statutes were bad? How about no law at all?

Jack Cade. I have thought upon it, it shall be so. Away, burn
all the records of the realm: my mouth shall be
the parliament of England.

(4.7.2633-2635)

We're outraged over the haughty attitudes of the corrupt nobles towards the concerns of the commoners, ripping up their written petitions (1.2.427-431)  - but under Cade, we find out that there could be no written petions because no one would be permitted to learn to read and write! This is shown by Cade's "trial" of an educated man, the Clerk of Chatham:

Smith the Weaver. The clerk of Chatham: he can write and read ...

Jack Cade. O monstrous!

... 

Jack Cade.  ... Dost thou use to write thy name? or
hast thou a mark to thyself, like an honest
plain-dealing man?

Clerk of Chatham. Sir, I thank God, I have been so well brought up
that I can write my name.

All. He hath confessed: away with him! he's a villain
and a traitor.

Jack Cade. Away with him, I say! hang him with his pen and
ink-horn about his neck.

(4.2.2389-2410)

Again, Cade's antagonism against the educated comes out:

Cade. ...and more than that, he can speak French; and
therefore he is a traitor.

(4.2.2470)

What is astounding to me - and what I believe changes the modern audience's reaction to Jack Cade, making the play more painful and difficult to read - is how exactly the demands and rhetoric of Shakespeare's Jack Cade match the real life goals, policies, and actions of two of the biggest butchers of the 20th century, responsible for literally countless millions of deaths, Stalin and Mao.

(The baddest Bad Guys)

It's uncanny how it's all the same.

Class warfare, pitting the demonized rich against the poor? Check.

Promises of price-fixing, manipulating food production and supply? Check.

Reprisals against and persecution of the educated? Check.

Effective populist demagoguery masking the leader's intentions to seize absolute and brutal power? Check.

I guess people - and politics - just don't change, and that Shakespeare very clearly understood the power and danger of an unscrupulous leader with the power of a mob behind him. In the 20th century, the world got to see what would happen if Jack Cade got his way. Kill the lawyers? Not quite so funny any more.

Henry VI - Learn to Govern Better!

Henry VI. Was never subject long'd to be a king
As I do long and wish to be a subject.

****
Come, wife, let's in, and learn to govern better;
For yet may England curse my wretched reign.
(Henry VI part 2, Act 4.9.2834-5, 2883-4)

These rather pathetic quotes from Shakespeare's poor King Henry VI would be hilarious if the consequences in this play resulting from the king's incompentence - serious loss of English blood and treasure - were not so devastating. It's ridiculous really - Henry is surrounded by crowds of kinsmen, all of whom want a piece of his power. Some give their loyalty to him, others (York, anyone?) crave the power of the kingship for themselves. And York longs to be king so badly! What an irony that the one man who has the prize doesn't really want it; unlike his politically-minded great-uncle the Bishop of Winchester, Henry VI actually seems genuinely interested in the church and his Christian faith, preferring to spend his time puttering around at home rather than prosecuting wars like his father Henry V. Unfortunately for him, he lives in a world where the expectation for kings is closer to the sentiment expressed by Richard Plantagenent the Younger:

Sword, hold thy temper; heart, be wrathful still:
Priests pray for enemies, but princes kill.
(5.2.3290-1).

Dangerous Days

York. ...I am not your king
Till I be crowned, and that my sword be stained
With heart-blood of the house of Lancaster -
And that's not suddenly to be performed,
But with advice and silent secrecy.
Do you, as I do, in these dangerous days...
(Henry VI, part 2, 2.3.64-68)

Gloucester. Ah, gracious lord, these days are dangerous.
Virtue is choked with foul ambition,
And charity chased hence by rancour's hand.
(3.1.142-144)

I was struck, reading Henry VI part 2 (this week's play!), how both York and Gloucester - English noblemen who are most emphatically NOT FRIENDS - describe their era in the same words: Dangerous days.

The word "Dangerous" could have a few different meanings at this point in history, according to the Oxford English Dictionary - it had its modern meaning of "Fraught with danger or risk," which seems to be the primary meaning in today's passages, but the word could also mean, among other things, "haughty, arrogant; severe," as well as possibly suggesting a sense of being stand-offish and aloof. I think that all these meanings resonate with the situation in Henry VI - a group of proud, suspicious nobles, unable to trust each other for the very good reason that they are all wishing they could cut each other's throats. Dangerous days indeed.

York is plotting murder and revolt; Gloucester is surrounded with enemies; Henry VI seems without a clue and unable to act even if he had one. The question arises - are the days dangerous because of the nobles fighting over legitimate questions about the right of the usurping Lancastrian Kings - Henry IV, V, and VI - to the throne, OR does the weakness in leadership create these dangerous days by allowing an environment where the natural greed and violence of the powerful and ambitious can flourish?

Jarring Discord of Nobility

And here I prophesy: this brawl to-day,
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.
(Henry VI part 1, 2.4.1601-1604)

This speech, spoken by the Earl of Warwick about the quarrel between the supporters of the house of York (represented by the symbol of a white rose) and the house of Lancaster (represented by a red rose), underscores the central conflict in Henry VI, part 1. While at first it seems that the play will concentrate upon the war that England is waging in France, we soon see that there is much more going on behind the scenes. Although heroes such as Talbot are fighting for their lives in France, struggling and spilling blood for the glory of England against the foreign enemy, back home there is risk of blood being shed in quite another cause - the nobles are at each others' throats. Pride and jealousy among a group of powerful men, combined with a lack of leadership from a young and weak King, allows the seeds of conflict to grow that will lead to the Wars of the Roses - a conflict that will rip the country apart.

We see this theme of treachery and jealousy leading to downfall again and again throughout the play. The whole tone of the play is very unsettled; all throughout, even to the very end of the story, we have the threat of unresolved grudges that will lead to violence. (That's why we have to be sure and catch Henry VI part 2!) We see the proud Winchester plotting violence and civil war for England:

I'll either make thee stoop and bend thy knee,
Or sack this country with a mutiny.
(5.1.2418-19)

The atmosphere in England, as seen by this speech as well through such incidents as the death of Mortimer, a political prisoner who rotted away his life in a cell, is poisonous. Thus, although the English that die in the wars in France breathe their last far from their homes, away from friends, family and the place where they were born, their very distance from the political turmoil in England allows them the confidence that they feel in their duty, and their hope for the future:

Come, side by side together live and die.
And soul with soul from France to heaven fly.
(4.6.)

GLORY GLORY

Jeanne d'Arc

A far more glorious star thy soul will make
Than Julius Caesar or bright
(Henry VI, 1.1.60)

Glory is like a circle in the water,
Which never ceaseth to enlarge itself
Till by broad spreading it disperse to nought.
With Henry's death the English circle ends;
Dispersed are the glories it included.
Now am I like that proud insulting ship
Which Caesar and his fortune bare at once.
(1.2.333-338)

Although keeping track of the characters in this play might strike you as a noble exploit worthy of glory, these Medieval English monarchs and their kinsmen were made of sterner stuff. They were after some serious power and glory, with the chief aim being to KEEP FRANCE under English rule! Unfortunately for all those Dukes, Joan of Arc is working towards exactly the opposite goal, so we are headed for a showdown....

However, though on different sides of the battlefield, Joan and the English both highly value glory. The first quote above -  A far more glorious star thy soul will make/Than Julius Caesar or bright - is spoken about the late Henry V, and is striking for its comparison of Henry with Caesar, one of the most famous military conquerors the world has known (like Henry, he subdued France). We also have a gorgeous image of Henry's soul somehow transforming into a blazing beacon light in a high firmament, to be seen forever as a reflection his greatness.

The second quote, spoken again about Henry V, but from an enemy of England -  Joan of Arc - also references Caesar, but this time the French are favored - she's comparing Caesar to herself! However, rather than looking at fame as a fixed and burning star, Joan talks about the transitory nature of glory - like trying to write on water, the impression even great individuals make during their lives will not last.

Glory is like a circle in the water,
Which never ceaseth to enlarge itself
Till by broad spreading it disperse to nought.

Despite the ravages of time and tide, despite the current of life that runs on and out of sight, in the world of Henry VI, glory in this life and in this time is worth fighting for. Even if blood flows like water and glory fades as fast away, "This quarrel will drink blood another day."

History Help for Henry

Henry VI

 How's Henry VI part 1 coming? I'm glad I have 3 weeks to dedicate to the three plays about the reign of this King Henry, because so far the reading has been a little challenging! I usually have no problems grasping the plot and identifying the major characters when reading a script for the first time, but I'll have to fight this one in order to avoid my Waterloo (or shall I say Battle of Orleans?). There are FIFTY-FIVE characters to keep track of, NINE whom have character names beginning with "Duke."

I'm working on some tools to help keep track of everything a little more easily, but for anyone reading the play right now, I recommend getting a good annotated edition of the text to help identify each character more fully when they come on the scene. I've been haunting the Henry VI part 1 wikipedia page, which not only has a useful synopsis, but also has a links to biography pages (some of which have portraits) for most of the major characters, who were for the most part real people. It's a lot easier to remember the difference between, say, the Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Bedford if you can link a medieval face with the name.

Have fun, and whatever means you use to help you through the text, bless this happy stratagem!