======================================================================
= Henry_VI,_Part_1 =
======================================================================
Introduction
======================================================================
'Henry VI, Part 1', often referred to as '1 Henry VI', is a history
play by William Shakespeare--possibly in collaboration with Thomas
Nashe and others--believed to have been written in 1591. It is set
during the lifetime of King Henry VI of England.
'Henry VI, Part 1' deals with the loss of England's French territories
and the political machinations leading up to the Wars of the Roses, as
the English political system is torn apart by personal squabbles and
petty jealousy. 'Henry VI, Part 2' deals with the King's inability to
quell the bickering of his nobles and the inevitability of armed
conflict and 'Henry VI, Part 3' deals with the horrors of that
conflict.
Although the 'Henry VI' trilogy may not have been written in
chronological order, the three plays are often grouped together with
'Richard III' to form a tetralogy covering the entire Wars of the
Roses saga, from the death of Henry V in 1422 to the rise to power of
Henry VII in 1485. It was the success of this sequence of plays that
firmly established Shakespeare's reputation as a playwright.
Some regard 'Henry VI, Part 1' as the weakest of Shakespeare's plays.
Along with 'Titus Andronicus', it is generally considered one of the
strongest candidates for evidence that Shakespeare collaborated with
other dramatists early in his career.
Characters
======================================================================
'The English'
* King Henry VI - King of England
* Duke of Bedford - Henry VI's uncle and regent of France
* Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester - Henry VI's uncle and Lord Protector
of England
* Duke of Exeter - Henry VI's great-uncle
* Henry Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester - Exeter's younger brother and
Henry VI's great-uncle
* Duke of Somerset (a conflation of John Beaufort, 1st Duke of
Somerset and his younger brother Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset
- Henry VI's first cousins once removed and the latter the Earl of
Warwick's son-in-law)
* Richard Plantagenet - later 3rd Duke of York, Henry VI's second
cousin once removed
* Earl of Warwick (Richard de Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick--often
mistakenly identified as Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, from
'Henry VI, Part 2' and 'Henry VI, Part 3')
* Earl of Salisbury
* William de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk - the Earl of Warwick's first
cousin once removed
* Lord Talbot - Constable of France and the Earl of Warwick's
son-in-law
* John Talbot - Lord Talbot's son
* Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March (a conflation of Sir Edmund Mortimer,
his brother Sir John, and his nephew, Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of
March - Henry VI's second cousins once removed and third cousin,
respectively)
* Sir John Fastolf - a cowardly soldier
* Sir William Glansdale
* Sir Thomas Gargrave
* Sir William Lucy
* Vernon - of the White Rose (York) faction
* Basset - of the Red Rose (Lancaster) faction
* Richard Woodville - Lieutenant of the Tower
* Mayor of London
'The French'
* Charles - Dauphin of France
* Reignier, Duke of Anjou - titular King of Jerusalem
* Margaret - Reignier's daughter, later betrothed to King Henry
* Duke of Alençon
* Bastard of Orléans
* Duke of Burgundy
* General of the French forces at Bordeaux
* Countess of Auvergne
* Master Gunner of Orléans
* Master Gunner's son
* Joan la Pucelle (Joan of Arc)
* Shepherd - Joan's father
* Governor of Paris (non-speaking role)
* French Sergeant
* Sentinels
* Watchman of Rouen
* Porter
'Other'
* Papal Legate
* Fiends
* Messengers, a captain, lawyer, a gaoler, soldiers, heralds, scouts,
on both the English and French sides
Synopsis
======================================================================
The play begins with the funeral of Henry V, who has died unexpectedly
in his prime. As his brothers, the Dukes of Bedford and Gloucester,
and his uncle, the Duke of Exeter, lament his passing and express
doubt as to whether his son (the as yet uncrowned heir apparent Henry
VI) is capable of running the country in such tumultuous times, word
arrives of military setbacks in France. A rebellion, led by the
Dauphin Charles, is gaining momentum, and several major towns have
already been lost. Additionally, Lord Talbot, Constable of France, has
been captured. Realising a critical time is at hand, Bedford
immediately prepares himself to head to France and take command of the
army, Gloucester remains in charge in England, and Exeter sets out to
prepare young Henry for his forthcoming coronation.
Meanwhile, in Orléans, the English army is laying siege to Charles'
forces. Inside the city, the Bastard of Orléans approaches Charles and
tells him of a young woman who claims to have seen visions and knows
how to defeat the English. Charles summons the woman, Joan la Pucelle
(i.e. Joan of Arc). To test her resolve, he challenges her to single
combat. Upon her victory, he immediately places her in command of the
army. Outside the city, the newly arrived Bedford negotiates the
release of Talbot, but immediately, Joan launches an attack. The
French forces win, forcing the English back, but Talbot and Bedford
engineer a sneak attack on the city, and gain a foothold within the
walls, causing the French leaders to flee.
Back in England, a petty quarrel between Richard Plantagenet and the
Duke of Somerset has expanded to involve the whole court. Richard and
Somerset ask their fellow nobles to pledge allegiance to one of them,
and as such the lords select either red or white roses to indicate the
side they are on. Richard then goes to see his uncle, Edmund Mortimer,
imprisoned in the Tower of London. Mortimer tells Richard the history
of their family's conflict with the king's family--how they helped
Henry Bolingbroke seize power from Richard II, but were then shoved
into the background; and how Henry V had Richard's father (Richard of
Conisburgh) executed and his family stripped of all its lands and
monies. Mortimer also tells Richard that he himself is the rightful
heir to the throne, and that when he dies, Richard will be the true
heir, not Henry. Amazed at these revelations, Richard determines to
attain his birthright, and vows to have his family's dukedom restored.
After Mortimer dies, Richard presents his petition to the recently
crowned Henry, who agrees to reinstate the Plantagenet's title, making
Richard 3rd Duke of York. Henry then leaves for France, accompanied by
Gloucester, Exeter, Winchester, Richard and Somerset.
In France, within a matter of hours, the French retake and then lose
the city of Rouen. After the battle, Bedford dies, and Talbot assumes
direct command of the army. The Dauphin is horrified at the loss of
Rouen, but Joan tells him not to worry. She then persuades the
powerful Duke of Burgundy, who had been fighting for the English, to
switch sides, and join the French. Meanwhile, Henry arrives in Paris
and upon learning of Burgundy's betrayal, he sends Talbot to speak
with him. Henry then pleads for Richard and Somerset to put aside
their conflict, and, unaware of the implications of his actions, he
chooses a red rose, symbolically aligning himself with Somerset and
alienating Richard. Prior to returning to England, in an effort to
secure peace between Somerset and Richard, Henry places Richard in
command of the infantry and Somerset in command of the cavalry.
Meanwhile, Talbot approaches Bordeaux, but the French army swings
around and traps him. Talbot sends word for reinforcements, but the
conflict between Richard and Somerset leads them to second guess one
another, and neither of them send any, both blaming the other for the
mix-up. The English army is subsequently destroyed, and both Talbot
and his son are killed.
After the battle, Joan's visions desert her, and she is captured by
Richard and burned at the stake. At the same time, urged on by Pope
Eugenius IV and the Holy Roman Emperor, Sigismund, Henry sues for
peace. The French listen to the English terms, under which Charles is
to be a viceroy to Henry and reluctantly agree, but only with the
intention of breaking their oath at a later date and expelling the
English from France. Meanwhile, the Earl of Suffolk has captured a
young French princess, Margaret of Anjou, whom he intends to marry to
Henry in order that he can dominate the king through her. Travelling
back to England, he attempts to persuade Henry to marry Margaret.
Gloucester advises Henry against the marriage, as Margaret's family is
not rich and the marriage would not be advantageous to his position as
king. But Henry is taken in by Suffolk's description of Margaret's
beauty, and he agrees to the proposal. Suffolk then heads back to
France to bring Margaret to England as Gloucester worryingly ponders
what the future may hold.
Sources
======================================================================
Shakespeare's primary source for '1 Henry VI' was Edward Hall's 'The
Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Families of Lancaster and York'
(1548). Also, as with most of Shakespeare's chronicle histories,
Raphael Holinshed's 'Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland'
(1577; 2nd edition 1587) was also consulted. Holinshed based much of
his Wars of the Roses information in the 'Chronicles' on Hall's
information in 'Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Families', even to
the point of reproducing large portions of it verbatim. However, there
are enough differences between Hall and Holinshed to establish that
Shakespeare must have consulted both of them.
For example, Shakespeare must have used Hall for the scene where
Gloucester is attempting to gain access to the Tower, and Woodville
tells him that the order not to admit anyone came from Winchester.
Dismayed, Gloucester refers to Winchester as "that haughty
prelate,/Whom Henry, our late sovereign, ne're could brook"
(1.3.23-24). Only in Hall is there any indication that Henry V had a
problem with Winchester. In Holinshed, there is nothing to suggest any
disagreement or conflict between them. Another example of
Shakespeare's use of Hall is found when Sir Thomas Gargrave is injured
by the artillery strike at Orléans (1.5). In the play, he dies
immediately, and the rest of the scene focuses on the death of the
more senior soldier Salisbury. Likewise, in Hall, Gargrave dies
immediately after the attack. In Holinshed, however, Gargrave takes
two days to die (as he did in reality). The semi-comic scene where the
French leaders are forced to flee Orléans half-dressed (dramatised in
2.1) also seems based on an incident reported only in Hall. When
discussing the English retaking of Le Mans in 1428, Hall writes, "The
French, suddenly taken, were so amazed in so much that some of them,
being not out of their beds, got up in their shirts." Another incident
involving Gloucester and Winchester is also unique to Hall. During
their debate in Act 3, Scene 1, Gloucester accuses Winchester of
attempting to have him assassinated on London Bridge. Hall mentions
this assassination attempt, explaining that it was supposed to have
taken place at the Southwark end of the bridge in an effort to prevent
Gloucester from joining Henry V in Eltham Palace. In Holinshed
however, there is no reference to any such incident. Another incident
possibly taken from Hall is found in Act 3, Scene 2, where Joan and
the French soldiers disguise themselves as peasants and sneak into
Rouen. This is not an historical event, and it is not recorded in
either Hall or Holinshed. However, a very similar such incident 'is'
recorded in Hall, where he reports of the capture of Cornhill Castle
in Cornhill-on-Tweed by the English in 1441.
On the other hand, some aspects of the play are unique to Holinshed.
For example, in the opening scene, as word arrives in England of the
rebellion in France, Exeter says to his fellow peers, "Remember,
Lords, your oaths to Henry sworn:/Either to quell the Dauphin
utterly,/Or bring him in obedience to your yoke" (1.1.162-164). Only
in Holinshed is it reported that on his deathbed, Henry V elicited
vows from Bedford, Gloucester and Exeter that they would never
willingly surrender France, and would never allow the Dauphin to
become king. Another piece of information unique to Holinshed is seen
when Charles compares Joan to the Old Testament prophetess Deborah
(1.2.105). According to Judges 4 and 5, Deborah masterminded Barak's
surprise victory against the Canaanite army led by Sisera, which had
suppressed the Israelites for over twenty years. No such comparison is
found in Hall. Another piece of information unique to Holinshed occurs
when the Master Gunner mentions that the English have taken control of
some of the suburbs of Orléans (1.4.2). Holinshed reports that the
English captured several of the suburbs on the other side of the
Loire, something not found in Hall.
Date
======
The most important evidence for dating '1 Henry VI' is the 'Diary of
Philip Henslowe', which records a performance of a play by Lord
Strange's Men called 'Harey Vj' (i.e. 'Henry VI') on 3 March 1592 at
the Rose Theatre in Southwark. Henslowe refers to the play as "ne"
(which most critics take to mean "new", although it could be an
abbreviation for the Newington Butts theatre, which Henslow may have
owned) and mentions that it had fifteen performances and earned
£3.16s.8d, meaning it was extremely successful. 'Harey Vj' is usually
accepted as being '1 Henry VI' for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it is
unlikely to have been either '2 Henry VI' or '3 Henry VI', as they
were published in 1594 and 1595, respectively, with the titles under
which they would have originally been performed, so as to ensure
higher sales. As neither of them appear under the title 'Harey Vj',
the play seen by Henslowe is unlikely to be either of them.
Additionally, as Gary Taylor points out, Henslowe tended to identify
sequels, but not first parts, to which he referred by the general
title. As such, "'Harey Vj' could not be a 'Part Two' or 'Part Three'
but could easily be a 'Part One'." The only other option is that
'Harey Vj' is a now lost play.
That 'Harey Vj' is 'not' a lost play, however, seems to be confirmed
by a reference in Thomas Nashe's 'Piers Penniless his Supplication to
the Devil' (entered into the Stationers' Register on 8 August 1592),
which supports the theory that 'Harey Vj' is '1 Henry VI'. Nashe
praises a play that features Lord Talbot: "How would it have joyed
brave Talbot (the terror of the French), to think that after he had
lain two hundred years in his tomb, he should triumph again on the
stage, and have his bones new embalmed with the tears of ten thousand
spectators (at least), who in the tragedian that represents his person
imagine they behold him fresh bleeding." It is thought that Nashe is
here referring to 'Harey Vj', i.e. '1 Henry VI', as there is no other
candidate for a play featuring Talbot from this time period (although
again, there is the slight possibility that both Henslowe 'and' Nashe
are referring to a now lost play).
If Nashe's comment is accepted as evidence that the play seen by
Henslowe was '1 Henry VI', to have been on stage as a new play in
March 1592, it must have been written in 1591.
There is a separate question concerning the date of composition,
however. Due to the publication in March 1594 of a quarto version of
'2 Henry VI' (under the title 'The First part of the Contention
betwixt the two famous Houses of Yorke and Lancaster, with the death
of the good Duke Humphrey: And the banishment and death of the Duke of
Suffolke, and the Tragicall end of the proud Cardinal of Winchester,
with the notable Rebellion of Jack Cade: and the Duke of Yorke's first
claim unto the crowne') and an octavo version of '3 Henry VI' in 1595
(under the title 'The True Tragedie of Richard Duke of Yorke, and the
death of good King Henrie the Sixt, with the Whole Contention betweene
the two Houses, Lancaster and Yorke'), neither of which refer to '1
Henry VI', some critics have argued that '2 Henry VI' and '3 Henry VI'
were written prior to '1 Henry VI'. This theory was first suggested by
E.K. Chambers in 1923 and revised by John Dover Wilson in 1952. The
theory is that 'The Contention' and 'True Tragedy' were originally
conceived as a two-part play, and due to their success, a prequel was
created. Obviously, the title of 'The Contention', where it is
referred to as 'The First Part' is a large part of this theory, but
various critics have offered further pieces of evidence to suggest '1
Henry VI' was not the first play written in the trilogy. R.B.
McKerrow, for example, argues that "if '2 Henry VI' was originally
written to continue the first part, it seems utterly incomprehensible
that it should contain no allusion to the prowess of Talbot." McKerrow
also comments on the lack of reference to the symbolic use of roses in
'2 Henry VI', whereas in '1 Henry VI' and '3 Henry VI', they are
mentioned numerous times. McKerrow concludes that this suggests '1
Henry VI' was written closer to '3 Henry VI', and as we know '3 Henry
VI' was definitely a sequel, it means that '1 Henry VI' must have been
written last, i.e., Shakespeare only conceived of the use of the roses
while writing '3 Henry VI' and then incorporated the idea into his
prequel. Eliot Slater comes to the same conclusion in his statistical
examination of the vocabulary of all three 'Henry VI' plays, where he
argues that '1 Henry VI' was written either immediately before or
immediately after '3 Henry VI', hence it must have been written last.
Likewise, Gary Taylor, in his analysis of the authorship of '1 Henry
VI', argues that the many discrepancies between '1 Henry VI' and '2
Henry VI' (such as the lack of reference to Talbot) coupled with
similarities in the vocabulary, phraseology, and tropes of '1 Henry
VI' and '3 Henry VI', suggest '1 Henry VI' was probably written last.
One argument against this theory is that '1 Henry VI' is the weakest
of the trilogy, and therefore, logic would suggest it was written
first. This argument suggests that Shakespeare could only have created
such a weak play if it was his first attempt to turn his chronicle
sources into drama. In essence, he was unsure of his way, and as such,
'1 Henry VI' was a trial-run of sorts, making way for the more
accomplished '2 Henry VI' and '3 Henry VI'. Emrys Jones is one notable
critic who supports this view. The standard rebuke to this theory, and
the one used by Dover Wilson in 1952, is that '1 Henry VI' is
significantly weaker than the other two plays not because it was
written first but because it was co-authored and may have been
Shakespeare's first attempt to collaborate with other writers. As
such, all of the play's problems can be attributed to its co-authors
rather than Shakespeare himself, who may have had a relatively limited
hand in its composition. In this sense, the fact that '1 Henry VI' is
the weakest of the trilogy has nothing to do with 'when' it may have
been written, but instead concerns only 'how' it was written.
As this implies, there is no critical consensus on this issue. Samuel
Johnson, writing in his 1765 edition of 'The Plays of William
Shakespeare', pre-empted the debate and argued that the plays were
written in sequence: "It is apparent that ['2 Henry VI'] begins where
the former ends, and continues the series of transactions, of which it
presupposes the first part already written. This is a sufficient proof
that the second and third parts were not written without dependence on
the first." Numerous more recent scholars continue to uphold Johnson's
argument. E. M. W. Tillyard, for example, writing in 1944, believes
the plays were written in order, as does Andrew S. Cairncross in his
editions of all three plays for the 2nd series of the 'Arden
Shakespeare' (1957, 1962 and 1964). E.A.J. Honigmann also agrees, in
his "early start" theory of 1982 (which argues that Shakespeare's
first play was 'Titus Andronicus', which Honigmann posits was written
in 1586). Likewise, Michael Hattaway, in both his 1990 'New Cambridge
Shakespeare' edition of '1 Henry VI' and his 1991 edition of '2 Henry
VI', argues that the evidence suggests '1 Henry VI' was written first.
In his 2001 introduction to 'Henry VI: Critical Essays', Thomas A.
Pendleton makes a similar argument, as does Roger Warren in his 2003
edition of '2 Henry VI' for the 'Oxford Shakespeare'.
On the other hand, Edward Burns, in his 2000 'Arden Shakespeare' 3rd
series edition of '1 Henry VI', and Ronald Knowles, in his 1999 'Arden
Shakespeare' 3rd series edition of '2 Henry VI', make the case that '2
Henry VI' probably preceded '1 Henry VI'. Similarly, Randall Martin,
in his 2001 'Oxford Shakespeare' edition of '3 Henry VI', argues that
'1 Henry VI' was almost certainly written last. In his 2003 'Oxford'
edition of '1 Henry VI', Michael Taylor agrees with Martin.
Additionally, it is worth noting that in the 'Oxford Shakespeare:
Complete Works' of 1986 and the 2nd edition of 2005, and in the
'Norton Shakespeare' of 1997 and again in 2008, both '2 Henry VI' and
'3 Henry VI' precede '1 Henry VI'.
Ultimately, the question of the order of composition remains
unanswered, and the only thing that critics 'can' agree on is that all
three plays (in whatever order) were written by early 1592 at the
latest.
Text
======
The text of the play was not published until the 1623 'First Folio',
under the title 'The first part of Henry the Sixt'.
When it came to be called 'Part 1' is unclear, although most critics
tend to assume it was the invention of the 'First Folio' editors, John
Heminges and Henry Condell, as there are no references to the play
under the title 'Part 1', or any derivative thereof, prior to 1623.
Critical history
==================
Some critics argue that the 'Henry VI' trilogy were the first plays
based on recent English history, and, as such, they deserve an
elevated position in the canon and a more central role in
Shakespearean criticism. According to F. P. Wilson, for example,
"There is no certain evidence that any dramatist before the defeat of
the Spanish Armada in 1588 dared to put upon the public stage a play
based upon English history [...] so far as we know, Shakespeare was
the first." However, not all critics agree with Wilson here. For
example, Michael Taylor argues that there were at least thirty-nine
history plays prior to 1592, including the two-part Christopher
Marlowe play 'Tamburlaine' (1587), Thomas Lodge's 'The Wounds of Civil
War' (1588), the anonymous 'The Troublesome Reign of King John'
(1588), 'Edmund Ironside' (1590 - also anonymous), Robert Green's
'Selimus' (1591) and another anonymous play, 'The True Tragedy of
Richard III' (1591). Paola Pugliatti however argues that the case may
be somewhere between Wilson and Taylor's argument: "Shakespeare may
not have been the first to bring English history before the audience
of a public playhouse, but he was certainly the first to treat it in
the manner of a mature historian rather than in the manner of a
worshipper of historical, political and religious myth."
Another issue often discussed amongst critics is the quality of the
play. Along with '3 Henry VI', '1 Henry VI' has traditionally been
seen as one of Shakespeare's weakest works, with critics often citing
the amount of violence as indicative of Shakespeare's artistic
immaturity and inability to handle his chronicle sources, especially
when compared to the more nuanced and far less violent second
historical tetralogy ('Richard II', '1 Henry IV', '2 Henry IV' and
'Henry V'). For example, critics such as E. M. W. Tillyard, Irving
Ribner and A. P. Rossiter have all claimed that the play violates
neoclassical precepts of drama, which dictate that violence and battle
should never be shown mimetically on stage, but should always be
reported diegetically in dialogue. This view was based on traditional
notions of the distinction between high and low art, a distinction
based partly upon Philip Sidney's 'An Apology for Poetry' (1579).
Based on the work of Horace, Sidney criticised Thomas Norton and
Thomas Sackville's 'Gorboduc' (1561) for showing too many battles and
being too violent when it would have been more artistic to verbally
represent such scenes. The belief was that any play that 'showed'
violence was crude, appealing only to the ignorant masses, and was
therefore low art. On the other hand, any play that elevated itself
above such direct representation of violence and instead relied on the
writer's ability to verbalise and his skill for diegesis, was
considered artistically superior and, therefore, high art. Writing in
1605, Ben Jonson commented in 'The Masque of Blackness' that showing
battles on stage was only "for the vulgar, who are better delighted
with that which pleaseth the eye, than contenteth the ear." Based upon
these theories, '1 Henry VI', with its numerous on-stage skirmishes
and multiple scenes of violence and murder, was considered a coarse
play with little to recommend it to the intelligentsia.
On the other hand, however, writers like Thomas Heywood and Thomas
Nashe praised battle scenes in general as often being intrinsic to the
play and not simply vulgar distractions for the illiterate. In 'Piers
Penniless' (1592), Nashe praised the didactic element of drama that
depicted battle and martial action, arguing that such plays were a
good way of teaching both history and military tactics to the masses;
in such plays "our forefather's valiant acts (that have lain long
buried in rusty brass and worm-eaten books) are revived." Nashe also
argued that plays that depict glorious national causes from the past
rekindle a patriotic fervour that has been lost in "the puerility of
an insipid present," and that such plays "provide a rare exercise of
virtue in reproof to these degenerate effeminate days of ours."
Similarly, in 'An Apology for Actors' (1612), Heywood writes, "So
bewitching a thing is lively and well-spirited action, that it hath
power to new mould the hearts of the spectators, and fashion them to
the shape of any noble and notable attempt." More recently, Michael
Goldman has argued that battle scenes are vital to the overall
movement and purpose of the play; "the sweep of athletic bodies across
the stage is used not only to provide an exciting spectacle but to
focus and clarify, to render dramatic, the entire unwieldy chronicle."
Questions of originality and quality, however, are not the only
critical disagreement '1 Henry VI' has provoked. Numerous other issues
divide critics, not the least of which concerns the authorship of the
play.
Attribution studies
=====================
A number of Shakespeare's early plays have been examined for signs of
co-authorship ('The Taming of the Shrew', 'The Contention' [i.e., '2
Henry VI'], and 'True Tragedy' [i.e., '3 Henry VI'], for example),
but, along with 'Titus Andronicus', '1 Henry VI' stands as the most
likely to have been a collaboration between Shakespeare and at least
one other dramatist whose identity remains unknown. Thomas Nashe,
Robert Greene, George Peele, Christopher Marlowe and Thomas Kyd are
common proposals.
The belief that Shakespeare may have written very little of '1 Henry
VI' first came from Edmond Malone in his 1790 edition of Shakespeare's
plays, which included 'A Dissertation on the Three Parts of King Henry
VI', in which he argued that the large number of classical allusions
in the play was more characteristic of Nashe, Peele, or Greene than of
early Shakespeare. Malone also argued that the language itself
indicated someone other than Shakespeare. This view was dominant until
1929, when Peter Alexander challenged it. Since then, scholars have
remained divided on the issue. In 1944, E. M. W. Tillyard argued that
Shakespeare most likely wrote the entire play; in 1952, John Dover
Wilson claimed Shakespeare wrote little of it.
In perhaps the most exhaustive analysis of the debate, the 1995
article, "Shakespeare and Others: The Authorship of 'Henry the Sixth,
Part One'", Gary Taylor suggests that approximately 18.7% of the play
(3,846 out of 20,515 words) was written by Shakespeare. Taylor argues
that Nashe almost certainly wrote all of Act 1, but he attributes to
Shakespeare 2.4, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4., 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7 through line 32.
Taylor also suggests that the Temple Garden scene (2.4), in which the
rival factions identify themselves through the selection of red and
white roses, may have been a later addition. Scenes 4.5 to 4.7 include
a series of rhyming couplets between Talbot and his son
(4.5.15-4.7.50), which, while unusual to modern ears, apparently had
"an electric effect upon early audiences." Traditionally, these lines
have often been pinpointed as one of the most obviously
non-Shakespearean sections of the play. Roger Warren, for instance,
argues that these scenes are written in a language "so banal they
'must' be non-Shakespearean."
Other than Taylor, however, several other critics also disagree with
Warren's assessment of the quality of the language, arguing that the
passages are more complex and accomplished than has hitherto been
allowed for. Michael Taylor, for example, argues that "the rhyming
dialogue between the Talbots - often stichomythic - shapes a kind of
noble flyting match, a competition as to who can out-'oblige' the
other." Similarly, Alexander Leggatt argues that the passages are a
perfect blend of form and content: "The relentless click-click of the
rhymes reinforces the point that for John Talbot, all arguments are
arguments for death; as every other line ending is countered by a
rhyme, so every argument Talbot gives John to flee becomes an argument
for staying." Taylor and Leggatt are here arguing that the passages
are more accomplished than most critics tend to give them credit for,
thus offering a counter-argument to the theory that they are so poorly
written, they could not possibly be by Shakespeare. In this sense, his
failure to use couplets elsewhere in a tragic passage can thus be
attributed to an aesthetic choice on his part, rather than offered as
evidence of co-authorship.
Other scenes in the play have also been identified as offering
possible evidence of co-authorship. For example, the opening lines of
Act 1, Scene 2 have been argued to show clear evidence of Nashe's
hand. The scene begins with Charles proclaiming, "Mars his true moving
- even as in the heavens/So in the earth - to this day is not known"
(I.ii.1-2). Some critics believe that this statement is paraphrased in
Nashe's later pamphlet 'Have with You to Saffron-Walden' (1596), which
contains the line, "You are as ignorant as the astronomers are in the
true movings of Mars, which to this day, they never could attain to."
The problem with this theory however, as Michael Hattaway has pointed
out, is that there is no reason as to why Nashe could not simply be
paraphrasing a play he had no involvement in--a common practice in
Elizabethan literature. Shakespeare and Marlowe, for example, often
paraphrased each other's plays.
Nasheeb Sheehan offers more evidence, again suggestive of Nashe, when
Alençon compares the English to "Samsons and Goliases" (I.ii.33). The
word 'Golias', Sheehan argues, is unusual insofar as all bibles in
Shakespeare's day spelt the name 'Goliath'; it was only in much older
editions of the Bible that it was spelt 'Golias'. Sheehan concludes
that the use of the arcane spelling is more indicative of Nashe, who
was prone to using older spellings of certain words, than Shakespeare,
who was less likely to do so.
However, evidence of Shakespeare's authorship has also been found
within the play. For example, Samuel Johnson argued that the play was
more competently written than 'King John', 'Richard II', '1 Henry IV',
'2 Henry IV' and 'Henry V', and, therefore, not attributing it to
Shakespeare based on quality made little sense. A similar point is
made by Lawrence V. Ryan, who suggests that the play fits so well into
Shakespeare's overall style, with an intricate integration of form and
content, that it was most likely written by him alone.
Another aspect of the debate is the actual likelihood of Shakespeare
collaborating at all. Some critics, such as Hattaway and Cairncross,
argue that it is unlikely that a young, up-and-coming dramatist trying
to make a name for himself would have collaborated with other authors
so early in his career. On the other hand, Michael Taylor suggests "it
is not difficult to construct an imaginary scenario that has a
harassed author calling on friends and colleagues to help him
construct an unexpectedly commissioned piece in a hurry."
Another argument that challenges the co-authorship idea is that the
basic theory of co-authorship was originally hypothesized in the 18th
and 19th centuries due to a distaste for the treatment of Joan.
Critics were uncomfortable attributing such a harsh depiction to
Shakespeare, so they embraced the co-authorship theory to "clear his
name", suggesting that he could not have been responsible for the
merciless characterization. Harvard University English literature
professor Herschel Baker noted in his introduction to 'Henry VI' for
'The Riverside Shakespeare' (1974; p. 587) how appalled William
Warburton was by the depiction of Joan, and that Edmond Malone sought
in "Dissertation on the Three Parts of Henry VI" (1787) to prove
Shakespeare had no hand its authorship.
As with the question of the order in which the trilogy was written,
twentieth century editors and scholars remain staunchly divided on the
question of authorship. Edward Burns, for example, in his 2000 edition
of the play for the 'Arden Shakespeare' 3rd series, suggests that it
is highly unlikely that Shakespeare wrote alone, and, throughout his
introduction and commentary, he refers to the writer not as
Shakespeare but as 'the dramatists'. He also suggests that the play
should be more properly called 'Harry VI, by Shakespeare, Nashe and
others'. Burns' predecessor however, Andrew S. Cairncross, editor of
the play for the 'Arden Shakespeare' 2nd series in 1962, ascribes the
entire play to Shakespeare, as does Lawrence V. Ryan in his 1967
'Signet Classic Shakespeare' edition, and Michael Hattaway in his 'New
Cambridge Shakespeare' edition of 1990. In his 1952 edition of the
play, Dover Wilson, on the other hand, argued that the play was almost
entirely written by others, and that Shakespeare actually had little
to do with its composition. Speaking during a 1952 radio presentation
of 'The Contention' and 'True Tragedy,' which he produced, Dover
Wilson argued that he had not included '1 Henry VI' because it is a
"patchwork in which Shakespeare collaborated with inferior
dramatists."
On the other hand, Michael Taylor believes that Shakespeare almost
certainly wrote the entire play, as does J. J. M. Tobin, who, in his
essay in 'Henry VI: Critical Essays' (2001), argues the similarities
to Nashe do not reveal the hand of Nashe at work in the composition of
the play, but instead reveal Shakespeare imitating Nashe. More
recently, in 2005, Paul J. Vincent has re-examined the question in
light of recent research into the Elizabethan theatre, concluding that
'1 Henry VI' is Shakespeare's partial revision of a play by Nashe (Act
1) and an unknown playwright (Acts 2-5) and that it was the original,
non-Shakespearean, play that was first performed on 3 March 1592.
Shakespeare's work in the play, which was most likely composed in
1594, can be found in Act 2 (scene 4) and Act 4 (scenes 2-5 and the
first 32 lines of scene 7). In 2007, Vincent's authorship findings,
especially with regard to Nashe's authorship of Act 1, were supported
overall by Brian Vickers, who agrees with the theory of co-authorship
and differs only slightly over the extent of Shakespeare's
contribution to the play.
In 2016, Oxford University Press announced that it would credit
Christopher Marlowe as co-author alongside Shakespeare for all three
'Henry VI' plays in its 'New Oxford Shakespeare' series. In the 'New
Oxford Shakespeare,' '1 Henry VI' was specifically credited as being
written by "Christopher Marlowe, Thomas Nashe, and Anonymous, adapted
by William Shakespeare". In opposition, Brian Vickers and Darren
Freebury-Jones have argued in favor of Thomas Kyd as Nashe's
co-author.
Language
==========
The very functioning of language itself is literally a theme in the
play, with particular emphasis placed on its ability to represent by
means of signs (semiosis), the power of language to sway, the
aggressive potential of language, the failure of language to
adequately describe reality and the manipulation of language so as to
hide the truth.
The persuasive power of language is first alluded to by Charles, who
tells Joan after she has assured him she can end the siege of Orléans,
"Thou hast astonished me with thy high terms" (1.2.93). This sense is
repeated when the Countess of Auvergne is wondering about Talbot and
says to her servant, "Great is the rumour of this dreadful knight,/And
his achievements of no less account./Fain would mine eyes be witness
with mine ears,/To give their censure of these rare reports"
(2.3.7-10). Like Charles, Auvergne has been astonished with the 'high
terms' bestowed on Talbot, and now she wishes to see if the report and
the reality conflate. Later in the play, the persuasive power of
language becomes important for Joan, as she uses it as a subterfuge to
sneak into Rouen, telling her men, "Be wary how you place your
words;/Talk like the vulgar sort of market men/That come to gather
money for their corn" (3.2.3.5). Later, she uses language to persuade
Burgundy to join with the Dauphin against the English. As Burgundy
realises he is succumbing to her rhetoric, he muses to himself,
"Either she hath bewitched me with her words,/Or nature makes me
suddenly relent" (3.3.58-59). Here, language is shown to be so
powerful as to act on Burgundy the same way Nature itself would act,
to the point where he is unsure if he has been persuaded by a natural
occurrence or by Joan's words. Language is thus presented as capable
of transforming ideology. As Joan finishes her speech, Burgundy again
attests to the power of her language, "I am vanquish'd. These haughty
words of hers/Have battered me like roaring canon-shot,/And made me
almost yield upon my knees" (3.3.78-80). Later, something similar
happens with Henry, who agrees to marry Margaret merely because of
Suffolk's description of her. In a line that echoes Burgundy's, Henry
queries what it is that has prompted him to agree to Suffolk's
suggestion: "Whether it be through force of your report,/My noble lord
of Suffolk, or for that/My tender youth was never yet attaint/With any
passion of inflaming love, I cannot tell" (5.6.79-83). Here, again,
the power of language is shown to be so strong as to be confused with
a natural phenomenon.
Language can also be employed aggressively. For example, after the
death of Salisbury, when Talbot first hears about Joan, he
contemptuously refers to her and Charles as "Puzel or pussel, dolphin
or dogfish" (1.5.85). In French, 'puzel' means slut, and 'pussel' is a
variation of 'pucelle' (meaning virgin), but with an added negative
connotation. These two words, 'puzel' and 'pussel', are both puns on
Joan's name (Pucelle), thus showing Talbot's utter contempt for her.
Similarly, the use of the word 'dolphin' to describe the Dauphin
carries negative and mocking connotations, as does the use of the word
'dogfish', a member of the shark family considered dishonourable
scavengers, preying on anything and anyone. Again, Talbot is showing
his contempt for Charles' position by exposing it to mockery with some
simple word play. Other examples of words employed aggressively are
seen when the English reclaim Orléans, and a soldier chases the
half-dressed French leaders from the city, declaring "The cry of
'Talbot' serves me for a sword,/For I have loaden me with many
spoils,/Using no other weapon but his name" (2.1.81-83). A similar
notion is found when the Countess of Auvergne meets Talbot, and muses,
"Is this the Talbot so much feared abroad/That with his name the
mothers still their babes" (2.3.15-16). Here words (specifically
Talbot's name) literally become weapons, and are used directly to
strike fear into the enemy.
However although words are occasionally shown to be powerful and
deeply persuasive, they also often fail in their signifying role,
exposed as incapable of adequately representing reality. This idea is
introduced by Gloucester at Henry V's funeral, where he laments that
words cannot encompass the life of such a great king: "What should I
say? His deeds exceed all speech" (1.1.15). Later, when Gloucester and
Winchester confront one another outside the Tower of London,
Gloucester champions the power of real action over the power of
threatening words: "I will not answer thee with words but blows"
(1.3.69). Similarly, after the French capture Rouen and refuse to meet
the English army in the battlefield, Bedford asserts, "O let no words,
but deeds, revenge this treason" (3.2.48). Another example of the
failure of language is found when Suffolk finds himself lost for words
whilst attempting to woo Margaret: "Fain would I woo her, yet I dare
not speak./I'll call for pen and ink and write my mind./Fie, de la
Pole, disable not thyself!/Hast not a tongue?" (5.4.21-24). Later,
Joan's words, so successful during the play in convincing others to
support her, explicitly fail to save her life, as she is told by
Warwick, "Strumpet, thy words condemn thy brat and thee./Use no
entreaty, for it is in vain" (5.5.84-85).
Language as a system is also shown to be open to manipulation. Words
can be employed for deceptive purposes, as the representative function
of language gives way to deceit. For example, shortly after Charles
has accepted Joan as his new commander, Alençon calls into question
her sincerity, thus suggesting a possible discrepancy between her
words and her actions; "These women are shrewd tempters with their
tongues" (1.2.123). Another example occurs when Henry forces
Winchester and Gloucester to put aside their animosity and shake
hands. Their public words here stand in diametric opposition to their
private intentions;
'WINCHESTER'
Well, Duke of Gloucester, I will yield to thee
Love for thy love, and hand for hand I give.
'He takes Gloucester's hand'
'GLOUCESTER'
('aside') Ay, but I fear me with a hollow heart.
('to others') See here, my friends and loving countrymen,
This token serveth for a flag of truce
Betwixt ourselves and all our followers.
So help me God as I dissemble not.
'WINCHESTER'
So help me God. ('aside') As I intend it not.
:::::::(3.1.136-143)
Act 2, Scene 4 is perhaps the most important scene in the play in
terms of language, as it is in this scene where Richard introduces the
notion of what he calls "dumb significants," something that carries
resonance throughout the trilogy. During his debate with Somerset,
Richard points out to the lords who are unwilling to openly support
either of them, "Since you are tongue tied and loath to speak,/In dumb
significants proclaim your thoughts."(ll.25-26) The dumb significants
he refers to are roses--a red rose to join Somerset, a white rose to
join Richard. As such, the roses essentially function as symbols,
replacing the very need for language. Once all the lords select their
roses, these symbolize the houses they represent. Henry chooses a red
rose--totally unaware of the implications of his actions, as he does
not understand the power the "dumb significants" have.
He places his trust in a more literal type of language, and thus
selects a rose in what he thinks is a meaningless gesture--but that
does in fact have profound implications. Henry's mistake results
directly from his failure to grasp the importance of silent actions
and symbolic decisions; "a gesture--especially such an ill-considered
one--is worth and makes worthless, a thousand pretty words."
Death of chivalry
===================
A fundamental theme in the play is the death of chivalry, "the decline
of England's empire over France and the accompanying decay of the
ideas of feudalism that had sustained the order of the realm." This is
specifically manifested in the character of Talbot, the symbol of a
dying breed of men honourably and selflessly devoted to the good of
England, whose methods and style of leadership represent the last
dying remnants of a now outmoded, feudal gallantry. As such, Michael
Taylor refers to him as "the representative of a chivalry that was
fast decaying," whilst Michael Hattaway sees him as "a figure for the
nostalgia that suffuses the play, a dream of simple chivalric 'virtus'
like that enacted every year at Elizabeth's Accession Day tilts, a
dream of true empire. He is designed to appeal to a popular audience,
and his death scene where he calls for troops who do not appear is yet
another demonstration of the destructiveness of aristocratic
factionalism."
One of the clearest examples of Talbot's adherence to the codes of
chivalry is seen in his response to Fastolf's desertion from the
battlefield. As far as Talbot is concerned, Fastolf's actions reveal
him as a dishonourable coward who places self-preservation above
self-sacrifice, and thus he represents everything wrong with the
modern knight. This is in direct contrast to the chivalry that Talbot
represents, a chivalry he remembers fondly from days gone by:
'TALBOT'
I vowed, base knight, when I did meet thee next,
To tear the garter from thy craven's leg,
Which I have done because unworthily
Thou wast install'd in that high degree. -
Pardon me, princely Henry, and the rest.
This dastard, at the Battle of Patay,
When but in all I was six thousand strong,
And that the French were almost ten to one,
Before we met, or that a stroke was given,
Like to a trusty squire did run away;
In which assault we lost twelve hundred men.
Myself and divers gentlemen beside
Were there surprised and taken prisoners.
Then judge, great lords, if I have done amiss,
Or whether that such cowards ought to wear
This ornament of knighthood: yea or no?
'GLOUCESTER'
To say the truth, this fact was infamous
And ill beseeming any common man,
Much more a knight, a captain, and a leader.
'TALBOT'
When first this order was ordained, my lords,
Knights of the garter were of noble birth,
Valiant and virtuous, full of haughty courage,
Such as were grown to credit by the wars;
Not fearing death nor shrinking for distress,
But always resolute in most extremes.
He then that is not furnished in this sort
Doth but usurp the sacred name of knight,
Profaning this most honourable order,
And should - if I were worthy to be judge -
Be quite degraded, like a hedge-born swain
That doth presume to boast of gentle blood.
:::::::(4.1.14-44)
Talbot's description of Fastolf's actions stands in direct contrast to
the image of an ideal knight, and as such, the ideal and the reality
serve to highlight one another, and thus reveal the discrepancy
between them.
Similarly, just as Talbot uses knights to represent an ideal past, by
remembering how they used to be chivalric, so too does Gloucester in
relation to Henry V, who he also sees as representing a glorious and
honourable past:
England ne're had a king until his time.
Virtue he had, deserving to command;
His brandished sword did bind men with his beams,
His arms spread wider than a dragon's wings,
His sparkling eyes, replete with wrathful fire,
More dazzled and drove back his enemies
Than midday sun fierce bent against their faces.
:::::::(1.1.8-14)
Henry V has this function throughout much of the play; "he is
presented not as a man but as a rhetorical construct fashioned out of
hyperbole, as a heroic image or heraldic icon." He is seen as a
representative of a celebrated past that can never be recaptured:
"There is in the play a dominant, nostalgic, celebratory reminiscence
of Henry V who lives on in the immortality of preternatural legend."
The play, however, does not simply depict the fall of one order; it
also depicts the rise of another; "How the nation might have remained
true to itself is signified by the words and deeds of Talbot. What she
is in danger of becoming is signified by the shortcomings of the
French, failings that crop up increasingly amongst Englishman [...]
also manifest are an English decline towards French effeminacy and the
beginnings of reliance upon fraud and cunning rather than manly
courage and straightforward manly virtue." If the old mode of
honourable conduct is specifically represented by Talbot and Henry V,
the new mode of duplicity and Machiavellianism is represented by Joan,
who employs a type of warfare with which Talbot is simply unable to
cope. This is seen most clearly when she sneaks into Rouen and
subsequently refuses to face Talbot in a battle. Talbot finds this
kind of behaviour incomprehensible and utterly dishonourable. As such,
he finds himself fighting an enemy who uses tactics he is incapable of
understanding; with the French using what he sees as unconventional
methods, he proves unable to adapt. This represents one of the ironies
in the play's depiction of chivalry; it is the very resoluteness of
Talbot's honour and integrity, his insistence in preserving an old
code abandoned by all others, which ultimately defeats him; his
inability to adjust means he becomes unable to function in the newly
established 'dishonourable' context. As such, the play is not entirely
nostalgic about chivalry; "so often the tenets of chivalry are mocked
by word and action. The play is full of moments of punctured
aristocratic hauteur."
Talbot's mode of chivalry is replaced by politicians concerned only
with themselves and their own advancement: Winchester, Somerset,
Suffolk, even Richard. As Jane Howell, director of the 'BBC
Shakespeare' adaptation argues, "what I was concerned about in the
first play [...] was that for a long time, the code of the people had
been chivalry. But with the death of Talbot, one starts to see a
demise of chivalry." Narcissistic political infighting has supplanted
self-sacrificing patriotism and chivalry: "the play charts the
disastrous breakdown of civility among the English nobility." Nobles
concerned with personal power above all else have replaced knights
concerned only with the empire. As such, by the end of the play, both
Talbot and his son lay dead, as does the notion of English chivalry.
In this sense then, the play "depicts the deaths of the titanic
survivors of an 'ancien régime'."
Patriotism
============
Hand-in-hand with the examination of chivalry with which the play
engages is an examination of patriotism. Indeed, some critics argue
that patriotism provided the impetus for the play in the first place.
England defeated the Spanish Armada in 1588, leading to a short-lived
period of international confidence and patriotic pride--but by 1590,
the national mood was one of despondency, and as such, '1 Henry VI'
may have been commissioned to help dispel this mood: "The patriotic
emotions to which this play shamelessly appeals resonate at an
especially fragile time politically speaking. Frightening memories of
the 1588 Spanish Armada, or of the Babington Plot of 1586, which led
to the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots; concerns over a noticeably
declining and still unmarried Queen Elizabeth; worries over Catholic
recusancy; fear of military involvement in Europe, and, just as
disquietingly, in Ireland, combine to make a patriotic response a
matter of some urgency. [The play] is a bracing attempt to stiffen the
sinews of the English in a time of danger and deceit."
Evidence of this is seen throughout. For example, the English seem
vastly outnumbered in every battle, yet they never give up, and often
they prove victorious. Indeed, even when they do lose, the suggestion
is often made that it was because of treachery, as only by duplicitous
means could their hardiness be overcome. For example, during the
Battle of Patay (where Talbot is captured), the messenger reports,
The tenth of August last, this dreadful lord [i.e. Talbot],
Retiring from the siege of Orléans,
Having full scarce six thousand in his troop,
By three-and-twenty thousand of the French
Was round encompass'd and set upon:
No leisure had he to enrank his men.
He wanted pikes to set before his archers;
Instead whereof sharp stakes plucked out of hedges
They pitch'd in the ground confusedly
To keep the horsemen off from breaking in.
More than three hours the fight continu'd,
Where valiant Talbot, above human thought,
Enacted wonders with his sword and lance.
Hundreds he sent to hell, and none durst stand him;
Here, there, and everywhere, enraged he slew.
The French exclaimed the devil was in arms:
All the whole army stood agazed on him.
His soldiers, spying his undaunted spirit,
'À Talbot! À Talbot!' cried out amain,
And rushed into the bowels of the battle.
Here had the conquest fully been sealed up
If Sir John Fastolf had not played the coward.
He, being in the vanguard placed behind,
With purpose to relieve and follow them,
Cowardly fled, not having struck one stroke.
Hence flew the general wrack and massacre;
Enclos'd were they with their enemies.
A base Walloon, to win the Dauphin's grace,
Thrust Talbot with a spear into the back -
Whom all France, with their chief assembled strength,
Durst not presume to look once in the face.
:::::::(1.1.108-140)
Here Fastolf's betrayal is the direct cause of the English defeat, not
the fact that they were outnumbered ten-to-one, that they were hit by
a surprise attack or that they were surrounded. This notion is
returned to several times, with the implication each time that only
treachery can account for an English defeat. For example, upon hearing
of the first loss of towns in France, Exeter immediately asks, "How
were they lost? What treachery was used?" (1.1.68). Upon losing Rouen,
Talbot exclaims, "France, thou shalt rue this treason with thy
tears/If Talbot but survive thy treachery" (3.2.35-36). Later, when
thinking back on the French campaign, Richard asks Henry, "Have we not
lost most part of all the towns/By treason, falsehood and by
treachery" (5.5.108-109).
However, if the English are of the mind that they can only be defeated
by treachery and betrayal, the play also presents the French as
somewhat in awe of them, bearing a begrudging respect for them, and
fearing their strength in battle. As such, whilst the English
attribute every defeat to treachery, the French opinion of the English
seems to imply that perhaps this is indeed the only way to beat them.
For example, during the siege of Orléans:
'ALENÇON'
Froissart, a countryman of ours, records
England all Olivers and Rolands bred
During the time Edward the Third did reign.
More truly now may this be verified,
For none but Samsons and Goliases
It sendeth forth to skirmish. One to ten?
Lean raw-boned rascals - who would e'er suppose
They had such courage and audacity.
'CHARLES'
Let's leave this town, for they are hare-brained slaves,
And hunger will enforce them to be more eager.
Of old I know them; rather with their teeth
The walls they'll tear down than forsake the siege.
'REIGNIER'
I think by some odd gimmers or device
Their arms are set, like clocks, still to strike on,
Else n'er could they hold out as they do.
:::::::(1.2.29-44)
As such, the play presents, to a certain extent, the English image of
themselves as somewhat in line with the French image of them, with
both stressing resoluteness and steadfastness.
Another component of the patriotic sentiment is the religious note the
play often strikes. On the whole, everything Catholic is represented
as bad, everything Protestant is represented as good: "The play's
popularity [in 1592] has to be seen against the backdrop of an
extraordinary efflorescence of interest in political history in the
last two decades of the sixteenth century fed by self-conscious
patriotic Protestantism's fascination with its own biography in
history. It is not for nothing that 'Part One' is persistently
anti-Catholic in a number of ways despite the fact that in the
fifteenth century the entire population of England was nominally
Catholic (though not, of course, in 1592). The French are presented as
decadently Catholic, the English (with the exception of the Bishop of
Winchester) as attractively Protestant." Talbot himself is an element
of this, insofar as his "rhetoric is correspondingly Protestant. His
biblical references are all from the Old Testament (a source less
fully used by Catholics) and speak of stoicism and individual faith."
Henry V is also cited as an example of Protestant purity: "He was a
king blest of the King of Kings./Unto the French the dreadful
judgement day/So dreadful will not be as was his sight./The battles of
the Lords of Hosts he fought" (1.1.28-31). "King of kings" is a phrase
used in 1 Timothy, 6:15. "Lords of Hosts" is used throughout the Old
Testament, and to say Henry fought for the Lord of Hosts is to compare
him to the warrior king, David, who also fought for the Lords of Hosts
in 1 Samuel, 25:28.
However, despite the obvious celebratory patriotic tone and sense of
Protestant/English religio-political identity, as with the lamentation
for the death of chivalry, the play is somewhat ambiguous in its
overall depiction of patriotism. Ultimately, the play depicts how the
English 'lost' France, a seemingly strange subject matter if
Shakespeare was attempting to instil a sense of national pride in the
people. This is rendered even more so when one considers that
Shakespeare could have written about how England won France in the
first place: "The popularity of "Armada rhetoric" during the time of
'1 Henry VIs composition would have seemed to ask for a play about
Henry V, not one which begins with his death and proceeds to dramatise
English loses." In this sense then, the depiction of patriotism,
although undoubtedly strong, is not without ambiguity; the very story
told by the play renders any patriotic sentiment found within to be
something of a hollow victory.
Saintly vs. demonic
=====================
Demons, spirits, witches, saints and God are all mentioned on numerous
occasions within the play, often relating directly to Joan, who is
presented as "a fascinating mixture of saint, witch, naïve girl,
clever woman, audacious warrior and sensual tart." The English
continually refer to her as a witch and a whore, the French as a saint
and a saviour, and the play itself seems to waver between these two
poles: "Joan first appears in a state of beatitude, patient, serene,
the "Divinest creature" of Charles' adoration, the object of the
Virgin Mary's miraculous intercession, chosen by her to rescue France,
and so made beautiful, courageous and wise [...] on the other hand,
and virtually at the same time, she's clearly an early combination of
the demonic, the Machiavellian, and the Marlovian."
Joan is introduced into the play by the Bastard, who, even before
anyone has seen or met her, says, "A holy maid hither with me I bring"
(1.2.51). Later, after Joan has helped the French lift the siege of
Orléans, Charles declares, "No longer on Saint Denis will we cry, but
Joan la Pucelle shall be France's saint" (1.7.28-30). Similarly, when
Joan reveals her plan to turn Burgundy against the English, Alençon
declares, "We'll set thy statue in some holy place/And have thee
reverenced like a blessed saint" (3.3.14-15).
On the other hand, however, the English see her as a demon. Prior to
her combat with Talbot, he exclaims, "Devil or devil's dam, I'll
conjure thee./Blood will I draw on thee - thou art a witch -/And
straightway give thy soul to him thou serv'st" (1.6.5-7). Then, after
the fight, he says, "My thoughts are whirl'd like a potter's wheel./I
know not where I am nor what I do./A witch, by fear, not force, like
Hannibal,/Drives back our troops and conquers as she lists"
(1.6.19-22). Upon arriving in France, Bedford condemns Charles for
aligning himself with Joan: "How much he wrongs his fame,/Despairing
of his own arms' fortitude,/To join with witches and the help of hell"
(2.1.16-18). Talbot responds to this with, "Well, let them practice
and converse with spirits./God is our fortress" (2.1.25-26). Later,
Talbot refers to her as "Pucelle, that witch, that damn'd sorceress"
(3.2.37) and "Foul fiend of France, and hag of all despite" (3.2.51),
declaring "I speak not to that railing Hecate" (3.2.64). Prior to
executing her, York also calls her a "Fell banning hag" (5.2.42).
Joan herself addresses this issue as she is about to be executed:
First let me tell you whom you have condemned:
Not me begotten of a shepherd swain,
But issued from the progeny of kings;
Virtuous and holy, chosen from above
By inspiration of celestial grace
To work exceeding miracles on earth.
I never had to do with wicked spirits;
But you, that are polluted with your lusts,
Stained with the guiltless blood of innocents,
Corrupt and tainted with a thousand vices -
Because you want the grace that others have,
You judge it straight a thing impossible
To compass wonders but by help of devils.
No, misconceiv'd, Joan of Arc hath been
A virgin from her tender infancy,
Chaste and immaculate in very thought,
Whose maiden blood, thus rigorously effused,
Will cry for vengeance at the gates of heaven.
::::::: (5.5.36-53)
Having failed in her efforts to convince the English she is a holy
virgin, and that killing her will invoke the wrath of heaven, she
alters her story and claims she is pregnant, hoping they will spare
her for the sake of the child. She then lists off various French
nobles who could be her child's father in an effort to find one who
the English respect. In this sense then, Joan leaves the play as
neither saintly nor demonic, but as a frightened woman pleading
fruitlessly for her life.
An important question in any examination of Joan is the question of
whether or not she is a unified, stable character who vacillates from
saintly to demonic, or a poorly constructed character, now one thing,
now the other. According to Edward Burns, "Joan cannot be read as a
substantive realist character, a unified subject with a coherent
singly identity."
Michael Hattaway offers an alternate, sympathetic view of Joan that
argues that the character's movement from saintly to demonic is
justified within the text: "Joan is the play's tragic figure,
comparable with Faulconbridge in 'King John'. She turns to witchcraft
only in despair; it cannot be taken as an unequivocal manifestation of
diabolic power."
Another theory is that Joan is actually a comic figure, and the huge
alterations in her character are supposed to evoke laughter. Michael
Taylor, for example, argues, "A fiendish provenance replaces a divine
one in [Act 5, Scene 3], a scene that reduces Joan to a comic,
bathetic dependency on shifty representatives of the underworld." In
line with this thinking, it is worth pointing out that in the 1981
'BBC Television Shakespeare' adaptation, Joan, and the French in
general, are treated predominantly as comic figures. Joan (Brenda
Blethyn), Alençon (Michael Byrne), the Bastard (Brian Protheroe),
Reignier (David Daker) and Charles (Ian Saynor) are treated as
buffoons for the most part, and there is no indication of any
malevolence (significantly, when Joan's fiends abandon her, we never
see them, we simply see her talking to empty air). Examples of the
comic treatment of the characters are found during the battle of
Orléans, where Joan is ludicrously depicted as defending the city from
the entire English army single-handed, whilst Talbot stands by
incredulously watching his soldiers flee one after another. Another
example appears in Act 2, Scene 1, as the five of them blame one
another for the breach in the watch at Orléans that allowed the
English back into the city. Their role as comic figures is also shown
in Act 3, Scene 2. After Joan has entered Rouen and the others stand
outside waiting for her signal. Charles is shown sneaking through a
field holding a helmet with a large plume up in front of his face in
an effort to hide.
The notion of demonic agency and saintly power, however, is not
confined to Joan. For example, in the opening conversation of the
play, speculating as to how Talbot could have been taken prisoner,
Exeter exclaims "shall we think the subtle-witted French/Conjurers and
sorcerers, that, afraid of him,/By magic verse have contrived his end"
(1.1.25-27). Later, discussing the French capture of Orléans, Talbot
claims it was "contrived by art and baleful sorcery" (2.1.15). Indeed,
the French make similar claims about the English. During the Battle of
Patay for example, according to the messenger, "The French exclaimed
the devil was in arms" (1.1.125). Later, as the English attack
Orléans,
'BASTARD'
I think this Talbot be a fiend of hell.
'REIGNIER'
If not of hell, the heavens sure favour him.
:::::::(2.1.47-48)
Here, much as the English had done when they were being defeated by
Joan, the French attribute diabolic power to their vanquishers. Unlike
the English however, the French acknowledge that Talbot must be either
a demon or a saint. As far as the English are concerned, Joan is
demonic, it is not open to question.
Performance
======================================================================
After the original 1592 performances, the complete text of '1 Henry
VI' seems to have been rarely acted. The first definite performance
after Shakespeare's day was on 13 March 1738 at Covent Garden, in what
seems to have been a stand-alone performance, as there is no record of
a performance of either '2 Henry VI' or '3 Henry VI'. The next certain
performance in England did not occur until 1906, when F.R. Benson
presented the play at the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre in a production
of Shakespeare's two tetralogies, performed over eight nights. As far
as can be ascertained, this was not only the first performance of the
octology, but was also the first definite performance of both the
tetralogy and the trilogy. Benson himself played Henry and his wife,
Constance Benson, played Margaret.
In 1953, Douglas Seale directed a production of '1 Henry VI' at the
Birmingham Repertory Theatre, following successful productions of '2
Henry VI' in 1951 and '3 Henry VI' in 1952. All three plays starred
Paul Daneman as Henry and Rosalind Boxall as Margaret, with '1 Henry
VI' featuring Derek Godfrey as Talbot and Judi Dench as Joan.
A 1977 production at the Royal Shakespeare Theatre made much of its
unedited status. Terry Hands presented all three 'Henry VI' plays with
Alan Howard as Henry and Helen Mirren as Margaret. Though the
production had only moderate box office success, critics lauded it for
Alan Howard's unique portrayal of Henry. Howard adopted historical
details concerning the real Henry's madness into his performance,
presenting the character as constantly on the brink of a mental and
emotional breakdown. Possibly as a reaction to a recent adaptation of
the trilogy under the general title 'Wars of the Roses', which was
strongly political, Hands attempted to ensure his own production was
entirely apolitical. "'Wars of the Roses' was a study in power
politics: its central image was the conference table, and Warwick, the
scheming king-maker, was the central figure. But that's not
Shakespeare. Shakespeare goes far beyond politics. Politics is a very
shallow science." Aside from Howard and Mirren, the production starred
David Swift as Talbot and Charlotte Cornwell as Joan.
Under the direction of Michael Boyd the play was presented at the Swan
Theatre in Stratford in 2000, with David Oyelowo as Henry and Keith
Bartlett as Talbot. Both Margaret and Joan were played by Fiona Bell
(as Joan is burned, Bell symbolically rose from the ashes as
Margaret). The play was presented with the five other history plays to
form a complete eight-part history cycle under the general title 'This
England: The Histories' (the first time the Royal Shakespeare Company
(RSC) had ever attempted to stage the eight plays as one sequence).
'This England: The Histories' was revived in 2006, as part of the
'Complete Works' festival at the Courtyard Theatre, with the 'Henry
VI' plays again directed by Boyd, and starring Chuk Iwuji as Henry and
Keith Bartlett reprising his role as Talbot. Katy Stephens played both
Margaret and Joan. When the 'Complete Works' wrapped in March 2007,
the history plays remained on stage, under the shorter title 'The
Histories', as part of a two-year thirty-four actor ensemble
production. '1 Henry VI' was performed under the title 'Henry VI, Part
1: The War Against France'. At the end of the two-year programme, the
entire octology was performed over a four-day period under the title
'The Glorious Moment'; 'Richard II' was staged on a Thursday evening,
followed by the two 'Henry IV' plays on Friday afternoon and evening,
the three 'Henry VI' plays on Saturday (two afternoon performances and
one evening performance), and 'Richard III' on Sunday evening.
Boyd's production garnered much attention at the time because of his
interpolations and additions to the text. Most notably, Boyd
introduced a new character into the trilogy. Called The Keeper, the
character never speaks, but upon the death of each major character,
the Keeper (played by Edward Clayton in 2000, and by Anthony Bunsee in
2006/2007), wearing all red, would walk onto stage and approach the
body. The actor playing the body would then stand up and allow himself
to be led off-stage by the figure. The production was also
particularly noted for its realistic violence. According to Robert
Gore-Langton of the 'Daily Express', in his review of the original
2000 production, "blood from a severed arm sprayed over my lap. A
human liver slopped to the floor by my feet. An eyeball scudded past,
then a tongue."
In 2012, the trilogy was staged at Shakespeare's Globe as part of the
Globe to Globe Festival, with each play performed by a different
Balkans based company and offered as a commentary on the recent
history of violence in that region. '1 Henry VI' was staged by
National Theatre Belgrade, directed by Nikita Milivojević, and
starring Hadzi Nenad Maricic as Henry, Nebojša Kundačina as Talbot and
Jelena Djulvezan as Joan. In 2013, Nick Bagnall directed another
production of the trilogy at the Globe. All three plays were performed
each day, beginning at midday, under the overall title 'Henry VI:
Three Plays'. '1 Henry VI' was performed under the title 'Henry VI:
Harry the Sixth'. Each of the plays was edited down to two hours, and
the entire trilogy was performed with a cast of fourteen actors. On
several specific dates, the plays were performed at the actual
locations where some of the original events took place and streamed
live to the theatre; "battlefield productions" were staged at Towton
(Battle of Towton from '3 Henry VI'), Tewkesbury (Battle of Tewkesbury
from '3 Henry VI'), St Albans Cathedral (First Battle of St Albans
from '2 Henry VI' and Second Battle of St Albans from '3 Henry VI'),
and Monken Hadley Common (Battle of Barnet from '3 Henry VI'). The
production starred Graham Butler as Henry, Mary Doherty as Margaret,
Andrew Sheridan as Talbot and Beatriz Romilly as Joan.
Apart from the 1738 performance at Covent Garden (about which nothing
is known), there is no evidence of '1 Henry VI' having ever been
performed as a stand-alone play, unlike both '2 Henry VI' (which was
initially staged as a single play by Douglas Seale in 1951) and '3
Henry VI' (which was staged as a single play by Katie Mitchell in
1994).
Outside the UK, the first major American performance was in 1935 at
the Pasadena Playhouse in California, directed by Gilmore Brown, as
part of a production of all ten Shakespearean histories (the two
tetralogies, preceded by 'King John' and proceeded by 'Henry VIII').
In Europe, unedited stagings of the play took place at the Weimar
Court Theatre in 1857. Directed by Franz von Dingelstedt, it was
performed as the sixth part of the octology, with all eight plays
staged over a ten-day period. A major production was staged at the
Burgtheater in Vienna in 1873, with a celebrated performance from
Friedrich Mitterwurzer as Winchester. Jocza Savits directed a
production of the tetralogy at the Munich Court Theatre in 1889 and
again in 1906. In 1927, Saladin Schmitt presented the unedited
octology at the Municipal Theatre in Bochum. Denis Llorca staged the
tetralogy as one twelve-hour piece in Carcassonne in 1978 and in
Créteil in 1979.
Theatrical
============
Evidence for the first adaptation of '1 Henry VI' is not found until
1817, when Edmund Kean appeared in J.H. Merivale's 'Richard Duke of
York; or the Contention of York and Lancaster' at Drury Lane, which
used material from all three 'Henry VI' plays, but removed everything
not directly related to York; the play ended with his death, which
occurs in Act 1, Scene 4 of '3 Henry VI'. Material used from '1 Henry
VI' includes the Temple Garden scene, the Mortimer scene and the
introduction of Margaret.
Following Merivale's example, Robert Atkins adapted all three plays
into a single piece for a performance at The Old Vic in 1923 as part
of the celebrations for the tercentenary of the 'First Folio'. Guy
Martineau played Henry, Esther Whitehouse played Margaret, Ernest
Meads played Talbot and Jane Bacon played Joan.
The success of the 1951-53 Douglas Seale stand-alone productions of
each of the individual plays in Birmingham prompted him to present the
three plays together at the Old Vic in 1957 under the general title
'The Wars of the Roses'. Barry Jackson adapted the text, altering the
trilogy into a two-part play. '1 Henry VI' and '2 Henry VI' were
combined (with almost all of '1 Henry VI' eliminated) and '3 Henry VI'
was edited. Seale again directed, with Paul Daneman again appearing as
Henry, alongside Barbara Jefford as Margaret. The roles of both Talbot
and Joan were removed, and '1 Henry VI' was reduced to three scenes -
the funeral of Henry V, the Temple Garden scene and the introduction
of Margaret.
The production usually credited with establishing the reputation of
the play in the modern theatre is John Barton and Peter Hall's
1963/1964 RSC production of the tetralogy, adapted into a three-part
series, under the general title 'The Wars of the Roses', at the Royal
Shakespeare Theatre. The first play (entitled simply 'Henry VI')
featured a much shortened version of '1 Henry VI' and half of '2 Henry
VI' (up to the death of Beaufort). The second play (entitled 'Edward
IV') featured the second half of '2 Henry VI' and a shortened version
of '3 Henry VI', which was followed by a shortened version of 'Richard
III' as the third play. In all, 1,450 lines written by Barton were
added to 6,000 lines of original Shakespearean material, with a total
of 12,350 lines removed. The production starred David Warner as Henry,
Peggy Ashcroft as Margaret, Derek Smith (later replaced by Clive
Swift) as Talbot and Janet Suzman as Joan. Barton and Hall were both
especially concerned that the plays reflect the contemporary political
environment, with the civil chaos and breakdown of society depicted in
the plays mirrored in the contemporary 'milieu', by events such as the
building of the Berlin Wall in 1961, the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962
and the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963. Hall allowed these
events to reflect themselves in the production, arguing that "we live
among war, race riots, revolutions, assassinations, and the imminent
threat of extinction. The theatre is, therefore, examining
fundamentals in staging the 'Henry VI' plays." They were also
influenced by politically focused literary theory of the time; both
had attended the 1956 London visit of Bertolt Brecht's Berliner
Ensemble, both were subscribers to Antonin Artaud's theory of "Theatre
of Cruelty", and Hall had read an English translation of Jan Kott's
influential 'Shakespeare Our Contemporary' in 1964 prior to its
publication in Britain. Both Barton and Hall were also supporters of
E. M. W. Tillyard's 1944 book 'Shakespeare's History Plays', which was
still a hugely influential text in Shakespearian scholarship,
especially in terms of its argument that Shakespeare in the tetralogy
was advancing the Tudor myth.
Another major adaptation was staged in 1987 by the English Shakespeare
Company, under the direction of Michael Bogdanov. This touring
production opened at the Old Vic, and subsequently toured for two
years, performing at, amongst other places, the Panasonic Globe
Theatre in Tokyo, Japan (as the inaugural play of the arena), the
Festival dei Due Mondi in Spoleto, Italy and at the Adelaide Festival
in Australia. Following the structure established by Barton and Hall,
Bogdanov combined a heavily edited '1 Henry VI' and the first half of
'2 Henry VI' into one play ('Henry VI'), and the second half of '2
Henry VI' and '3 Henry VI' into another ('Edward IV'), and followed
them with an edited 'Richard III'. Also like Barton and Hall, Bogdanov
concentrated on political issues, although he made them far more overt
than had his predecessors. For example, played by June Watson,
Margaret was closely modelled after the British Prime Minister at the
time, Margaret Thatcher, even to the point of having similar clothes
and hair. Likewise, Paul Brennan's Henry was closely modelled after
King Edward VIII, prior to his abdication. Bogdanov also employed
frequent anachronisms and contemporary visual registers (such as
modern dress), in an effort to show the relevance of the politics to
the contemporary period. The production was noted for its pessimism as
regards British politics, with some critics feeling the political
resonances were too heavy handed. However, the series was a huge box
office success. Alongside Watson and Brennan, the play starred Michael
Fenner as Talbot and Mary Rutherford as Joan.
Another adaptation of the tetralogy by the Royal Shakespeare Company
followed in 1988, performed at the Barbican. Adapted by Charles Wood
and directed by Adrian Noble, the Barton/Hall structure was again
followed, reducing the trilogy to two plays by dividing '2 Henry VI'
in the middle. The resulting trilogy was entitled 'The Plantagenets',
with the individual plays entitled 'Henry VI', 'The Rise of Edward IV'
and 'Richard III, His Death'. Starring Ralph Fiennes as Henry, Penny
Downie as Margaret, Mark Hadfield as Talbot and Julia Ford as Joan,
the production was extremely successful with both audiences and
critics.
Michael Bogdanov and the English Shakespeare Company presented a
different adaptation at the Swansea Grand Theatre in 1991, using the
same cast as on the touring production. All eight plays from the
history cycle were presented over a seven night period, with each play
receiving one performance only, and with only twenty-eight actors
portraying the nearly five hundred roles. Whilst the other five plays
in the cycle were unadapted, the 'Henry VI' plays were combined into
two, using the Barton/Hall structure, with the first named 'The House
of Lancaster' and the second, 'The House of York'.
In 2000, Edward Hall presented the trilogy as a two-part series at the
Watermill Theatre in Newbury. Hall followed the Jackson/Seale
structure, combining '1 Henry VI' and '2 Henry VI' into one play that
all but eliminated '1 Henry VI', and following this with an edited
version of '3 Henry VI'. This production was noted for how it handled
the violence of the play. The set was designed to look like an
abattoir, but rather than attempt to present the violence
realistically (as most productions do), Hall went in the other
direction, presenting the violence symbolically. Whenever a character
was decapitated or killed, a red cabbage was sliced up whilst the
actor mimed the death beside it.
In 2001, Tom Markus directed an adaptation of the tetralogy at the
Colorado Shakespeare Festival. Condensing all fours plays into one,
Markus named the play 'Queen Margaret', doing much the same with the
character of Margaret as Merivale had done with York. Margaret was
played by Gloria Biegler, Henry by Richard Haratine, York by Lars
Tatom and Gloucester by Charles Wilcox. The only scene from '1 Henry
VI' was the meeting between Margaret and Suffolk.
Another unusual 2001 adaptation of the tetralogy was entitled
'Shakespeare's Rugby Wars'. Written by Matt Toner and Chris Coculuzzi,
and directed by Coculuzzi, the play was acted by the Upstart Crow
Theatre Group and staged outdoors at the Robert Street Playing Field
as part of the Toronto Fringe Festival. Presented as if it were a live
rugby match between York and Lancaster, the 'play' featured commentary
from Falstaff (Stephen Flett), which was broadcast live for the
audience. The 'match' itself was refereed by 'Bill Shakespeare'
(played by Coculuzzi), and the actors (whose characters names all
appeared on their jerseys) had microphones attached and would recite
dialogue from all four plays at key moments.
In 2002, Leon Rubin presented the tetralogy as a trilogy at the
Stratford Shakespeare Festival in Ontario. Using the Barton/Hall
method of combining '1 Henry VI' with the first half of '2 Henry VI',
and the second half of '2 Henry VI' with '3 Henry VI', the plays were
renamed 'Henry VI: Revenge in France' and 'Henry VI: Revolt in
England'. Michael Thierry played Henry, Seana McKenna played Margaret,
Brad Ruby played Talbot and Michelle Giroux played Joan.
Also in 2002, Edward Hall and the Propeller company presented a
one-play all-male cast modern dress adaptation of the trilogy at the
Watermill Theatre. Under the title 'Rose Rage', Hall used a cast of
only thirteen actors to portray the nearly one hundred and fifty
speaking roles in the four-hour production, thus necessitating
doubling and tripling of parts. Although a new adaptation, this
production followed the Jackson/Seale method of eliminating almost all
of '1 Henry VI' (Joan was completely absent). The original cast
included Jonathan McGuinness as Henry, Robert Hands as Margaret and
Keith Bartlett as Talbot. After a successful run at the Watermill, the
play moved to the Chicago Shakespeare Theater. The American cast
included Carman Lacivita as Henry, Scott Parkinson as Margaret and
Fletcher McTaggart as Talbot.
Outside England, a major adaptation of the tetralogy took place in
1864 in Weimar under the direction of Franz von Dingelstedt, who,
seven years previously had staged the play unedited. Dingelstedt
turned the trilogy into a two-parter under the general name 'Die
weisse rose'. The first play was called 'Haus Lancaster', the second
'Haus York'. This adaptation was unique insofar as both plays were
created by combining material from all three 'Henry VI' plays.
Following this structure, Alfred von Walzogen also produced a two-part
play in 1875, under the general title 'Edward IV'. Another European
adaptation was in 1965 at the Teatro Piccolo in Milan. Directed by
Giorgio Strehler it went under the title 'Il gioco del potenti' ('The
Play of the Mighty'). Using Barton and Hall's structure, Strehler also
added several characters, including a Chorus, who used monologues from
'Richard II', both parts of 'Henry IV', 'Henry V', 'Macbeth' and
'Timon of Athens', and two gravediggers called Bevis and Holland
(after the names of two of Cade's rebels in the Folio text of '2 Henry
VI'), who commented (with dialogue written by Strehler himself) on
each of the major characters as they set about burying them. A major
German adaptation was Peter Palitzsch's two-part adaptation of the
trilogy as 'Rosenkriege' in 1967 at the Stuttgart State Theatre.
Condensing the three plays into two, 'Heinrich VI' and 'Eduard IV',
Palitzsch's adaptation concluded with the opening monologue from
'Richard III'.
Film
======
The only cinematic adaptation of the play came in the 1973 horror
comedy film 'Theatre of Blood', directed by Douglas Hickox. Vincent
Price stars in the film as Edward Lionheart, (self)regarded as the
finest Shakespearean actor of all time. When he fails to be awarded
the prestigious Critic's Circle Award for Best Actor, he sets out
exacting bloody revenge on the critics who gave him poor reviews, with
each act inspired by a death in a Shakespeare play. One such act of
revenge involves the critic Chloe Moon (Coral Browne). Lionheart
electrocutes Moon using a pair of hair curlers, whilst he recites
excerpts from Act 5, Scene 4 of '1 Henry VI', where Joan is sentenced
to burn at the stake.
Television
============
The first television adaptation was in 1960 when the BBC produced a
serial entitled 'An Age of Kings'. The show comprised fifteen sixty-
and seventy-five-minute episodes that adapted all eight of
Shakespeare's sequential history plays. Directed by Michael Hayes and
produced by Peter Dews, with a script by Eric Crozier, the production
featured Terry Scully as Henry, Mary Morris as Margaret and Eileen
Atkins as Joan. The ninth episode, under the title "The Red Rose and
the White", presented an abridged version of '1 Henry VI'. With the
episode only running one hour, much text was removed. The most
significant cuts were the removal of the character Talbot, and battle
scenes in France.
In 1965, BBC 1 broadcast all three plays from John Barton and Peter
Hall's 'The Wars of the Roses' trilogy ('Henry VI', 'The Rise of
Edward IV' and 'Richard III'). Directed for television by Robin
Midgley and Michael Hayes, the plays were presented as more than
filmed theatre, with the core idea being "to recreate theatre
production in televisual terms - not merely to observe it, but to get
to the heart of it." Filming was done on the RSC stage, but not during
actual performances, thus allowing cameras to get close to the actors,
and cameramen with hand-held cameras to shoot battle scenes. Camera
platforms were created around the theatre. 12 cameras were used,
allowing the final product to be edited more like a film than static
filmed theatre. Filming was done following the 1964 run of the plays
at Stratford-upon-Avon, and took place over an eight-week period, with
fifty-two BBC staff working alongside eighty-four RSC staff. In 1966,
the production was repeated on BBC 1 where it was re-edited into
eleven episodes of fifty minutes each. The first episode, "The
Inheritance" covered Acts 1, 2, 3 and Act 4, Scene 1, ending with
Henry choosing a red rose and inadvertently aligning himself with
Somerset. The second episode, "Margaret of Anjou", presented the rest
of '1 Henry VI', beginning with Talbot confronting the French general
at Harfleur (Bordeaux in the play), as well as the first half of Act
1, Scene 1 of '2 Henry VI'.
Another television version of the play was produced by the BBC in 1981
for their 'BBC Television Shakespeare' series, although the episode
did not air until 1983. Directed by Jane Howell, the play was
presented as the first part of the tetralogy (all four adaptations
directed by Howell) with linked casting. Henry was played by Peter
Benson, Margaret by Julia Foster, Talbot by Trevor Peacock and Joan by
Brenda Blethyn. Howell's presentation of the complete first historical
tetralogy was one of the most lauded achievements of the BBC series,
and prompted Stanley Wells to argue that the productions were
"probably purer than any version given in the theatre since
Shakespeare's time." Michael Mannheim was similarly impressed, calling
the tetralogy "a fascinating, fast-paced and surprisingly tight-knit
study in political and national deterioration."
Inspired by the notion that the political intrigues behind the Wars of
the Roses often seemed like playground squabbles, Howell and
production designer Oliver Bayldon staged the four plays in a single
set resembling a children's adventure playground. However, little
attempt was made at realism. For example, Bayldon did not disguise the
parquet flooring ("it stops the set from literally representing [...]
it reminds us we are in a modern television studio"), and in all four
productions, the title of the play is displayed within the set itself
(on banners in '1 Henry VI' and '2 Henry VI', on a shroud in '3 Henry
VI', and written on a chalkboard by Richard himself in 'Richard III').
Many critics felt these set design choices lent the production an air
of Brechtian 'verfremdungseffekt'. Stanley Wells wrote that it was
intended to invite the viewer to "accept the play's artificiality of
language and action," Michael Hattaway describes it as
"anti-illusionist," Susan Willis argues that the set allows the
productions "to reach theatrically toward the modern world" and Ronald
Knowles writes "a major aspect of the set was the subliminal
suggestion of childlike anarchy, role-playing, rivalry, game and
vandalism, as if all culture were precariously balanced on the shaky
foundations of atavistic aggression and power-mad possession." Another
element of 'verfremdungseffekt' is seen when Gloucester and Winchester
encounter one another at the Tower, both are on horseback, but the
horses they ride are hobby-horses, which the actors (David Burke and
Frank Middlemass respectively) cause to pivot and prance as they
speak. The ridiculousness of this situation works to "effectively
undercut their characters' dignity and status." The "anti-illusionist"
set was also used as a means of political commentary; as the four
plays progressed, the set decayed and became more and more dilapidated
as social order became more fractious. In the same vein, the costumes
become more monotone as the four plays move on. 'The First Part of
Henry the Sixt' features brightly coloured costumes that clearly
distinguish the combatants from one another, but by 'The Tragedy of
Richard III', everyone fights in similarly coloured dark costumes,
with little to differentiate one army from another. Graham Holderness
saw Howell's non-naturalistic production as something of a reaction to
the BBC's adaptation of the 'Henriad' in seasons one and two, which
had been directed by David Giles in the traditional manner favoured by
series producer Cedric Messina; "where Messina saw the history plays
conventionally as orthodox Tudor historiography, and [David Giles]
employed dramatic techniques that allow that ideology a free and
unhampered passage to the spectator, Jane Howell takes a more complex
view of the first tetralogy as, simultaneously, a serious attempt at
historical interpretation, and as a drama with a peculiarly modern
relevance and contemporary application. The plays, to this director,
are not a dramatisation of the Elizabethan World Picture but a
sustained interrogation of residual and emergent ideologies in a
changing society [...] This awareness of the multiplicity of potential
meanings in the play required a decisive and scrupulous avoidance of
television or theatrical naturalism: methods of production should
operate to open the plays out, rather than close them into the
immediately recognisable familiarity of conventional Shakespearean
production."
For the most part, Howell's adaptation is taken word-for-word from the
'First Folio', with relatively minor differences. For example, the
adaptation opens differently to the play, with Henry VI singing a
lament for his father. Another difference is that Fastolf's escape
from Rouen is seen rather than only mentioned. Act 5, Scene 1 and Act
5, Scene 2 are reversed so that Act 4, Scene 7 and Act 5, Scene 2 now
form one continuous piece. Numerous lines were cut from almost every
scene. Notable omissions include; in Act 1, Scene 1, absent are
Bedford's references to children crying and England becoming a marsh
since Henry V died: "Posterity await for wretched years/When, at their
mothers' moistened eyes, babes shall suck,/Our isle be made a marish
of salt tears,/And none but women left to wail the dead." (ll.48-51).
In Act 1, Scene 2, Alençon's praise of the resoluteness of the English
army is absent: "Froissart, a countryman of ours, records/England all
Olivers and Rolands bred/During the time Edward the Third did
reign./More truly now may this be verified,/For none by Samsons and
Goliases/It sendeth forth to skirmish." (ll.29-34). In Act 1, Scene 3,
some of the dialogue between Gloucester and Winchester outside the
Tower is absent (ll.36-43), whilst in Act 1, Scene 5, so too is
Talbot's complaint about the French wanting to ransom him for a
prisoner of less worth: "But with a baser man-of-arms by far,/Once in
contempt they would have bartered me--/Which I, disdaining, scorned,
and crav'd death/Rather than I would be so vile-esteemed" (ll.8-11).
In Act 1, Scene 7, some of Charles' praise of Joan is absent: "A
statelier pyramis to her I'll rear/Than Rhodope's of Memphis ever
was./In memory of her, when she is dead,/Her ashes, in an urn more
precious/Than the rich-jewelled coffer of Darius,/Transported shall be
at high festivals/Before the kings and queens of France" (ll.21-27).
In Act 3, Scene 1, some of Warwick's attack on Winchester is absent:
"You see what mischief - and what murder too -/Hath been enacted
through your enmity" (ll.27-28). In Act 4, Scene 6, some of the
dialogue between Talbot and John has been removed (ll.6-25). The most
interesting omissions come in Act 4, Scene 7. In this scene, twelve of
Joan's sixteen lines have been cut; the entire seven line speech where
she says John Talbot refused to fight her because she is a woman
(ll.37-43); the first three lines of her five line mockery of Lucy's
listing of Talbot's titles, "Here's a silly, stately style indeed./The
Turk, that two-and-fifty kingdoms hath,/Writes not so tedious a style
as this" (ll.72-75); and the first two lines of her four line speech
where she mocks Lucy, "I think this upstart is old Talbot's ghost,/He
speaks with such a proud commanding spirit" (ll.86-88). These
omissions reduce Joan's role in this scene to a virtual spectator, and
coupled with this, Brenda Blethyn portrays the character as if deeply
troubled by something (presumably the loss of contact with her
'fiends').
Another notable stylistic technique used in the adaptation is the
multiple addresses direct-to-camera. Much more so than in any of the
sequels, the adaptation of '1 Henry VI' has multiple characters
addressing the camera continually throughout the play, oftentimes for
comic effect. The most noticeable is Act 2, Scene 3, where Talbot
meets the Countess of Auvergne. Almost all of her dialogue prior to
line 32 ("If thou be he, then thou art prisoner") is delivered direct
to camera, including her incredulous description of the difference
between the real Talbot, and the reports she has heard of him. At one
point, Auvergne exclaims "Alas, this is a child, a silly dwarf"
(l.21), at which point Talbot himself looks at the camera in
disbelief. The comedy of the scene is enhanced by having the 5-foot 10
actor Trevor Peacock playing Talbot, and the 6-foot 3 actress Joanna
McCallum playing Auvergne. Elsewhere, addresses to the camera are
found throughout the play. For example, as Bedford, Gloucester, Exeter
and Winchester leave in Act 1, Scene 1, each one reveals their
intentions direct-to-camera (ll.166-177).
Other examples are Joan's confession of where she got her sword
(1.2.100-101); the Mayor's last two lines at the Tower (1.3.89-90);
Talbot's "My thoughts are whirl'd like a potter's wheel./I know not
where I am nor what I do./A witch, by fear, not force, like
Hannibal,/Drives back our troops and conquers as she lists"
(1.6.19-22); some of Mortimer's monologue prior to the arrival of
Richard (2.5.22-32); Richard's "Plantagenet, I see, must hold his
tongue,/Lest it be said, 'Speak, sirrah, when you should:/Must your
bold verdict enter talk with lords?'/Else would I have a fling at
Winchester" (3.1.61-64); Exeter's soliloquy at the end of Act 3, Scene
1 (ll.190-203); Exeter's soliloquy at the end of Act 4, Scene 1
(ll.182-194); most of the dialogue between Suffolk and Margaret as
they ignore one another (5.4.16-64); and Suffolk's soliloquy, which
closes the play (5.6.102-109). Also to-camera is Joan's "Poor market
folks that come to sell their corn" (3.2.14), which is delivered as if
it were a translation of the preceding line for the benefit of the
non-French speaking audience.
In 1964, Austrian channel ORF 2 presented an adaptation of the trilogy
by Leopold Lindtberg under the title 'Heinrich VI'. The cast list from
this production has been lost. In 1969, German channel ZDF presented a
filmed version of the first part of Peter Palitzsch's 1967 two-part
adaptation of the trilogy in Stuttgart, 'Heinrich VI: Der Krieg der
Rosen 1'. The second part, 'Eduard IV: Der Krieg der Rosen 2', was
screened in 1971.
Radio
=======
In 1923, extracts from all three 'Henry VI' plays were broadcast on
BBC Radio, performed by the Cardiff Station Repertory Company as the
third episode of a series of programs showcasing Shakespeare's plays,
entitled 'Shakespeare Night'. In 1947, BBC Third Programme aired a
one-hundred-and-fifty-minute adaptation of the trilogy as part of
their 'Shakespeare's Historical Plays' series, a six-part adaptation
of the eight sequential history plays, with linked casting. Adapted by
Maurice Roy Ridley, 'King Henry VI' starred John Byron as Henry and
Gladys Young as Margaret. Almost the entirety of '1 Henry VI' was cut,
with everything related to the conflict in France being removed. In
1952, Third Programme aired an adaptation of the tetralogy by Peter
Watts and John Dover Wilson under the general name 'The Wars of the
Roses'. The tetralogy was adapted into a trilogy but in an unusual
way. '1 Henry VI' was simply removed, so the trilogy contained only '2
Henry VI', '3 Henry VI' and 'Richard III'. The adaptation starred
Valentine Dyall as Henry and Sonia Dresdel as Margaret. In 1971, BBC
Radio 3 presented a two-part adaptation of the trilogy by Raymond
Raikes. Part 1 contained an abridged '1 Henry VI' and an abridged
version of the first three acts of '2 Henry VI'. Part 2 presented Acts
4 and 5 of '2 Henry VI' and an abridged '3 Henry VI'. Nigel Lambert
played Henry, Barbara Jefford played Margaret, Francis de Wolff played
Talbot and Elizabeth Morgan played Joan. In 1977, BBC Radio 4
presented a 26-part serialisation of the eight sequential history
plays under the general title 'Vivat Rex' (long live the King).
Adapted by Martin Jenkins as part of the celebration of the Silver
Jubilee of Elizabeth II, '1 Henry VI' comprised episodes 15 ("Joan of
Arc") and 16 ("The White Rose and the Red"). James Laurenson played
Henry, Peggy Ashcroft played Margaret, Clive Swift played Talbot,
Hannah Gordon played Joan, and Richard Burton narrated.
In America, in 1936, a heavily edited adaptation of the trilogy was
broadcast as part of NBC Blue's 'Radio Guild' series. Comprising three
sixty-minute episodes aired a week apart, the adaptation was written
by Vernon Radcliffe and starred Henry Herbert as Henry and Janet Nolan
as Margaret. In 1954, CBC Radio presented an adaptation of the trilogy
by Andrew Allen, who combined '1 Henry VI', '2 Henry VI' and '3 Henry
VI' into a one-hundred-and-sixty-minute episode. There is no known
cast information for this production.
In 1985, German radio channel Sender Freies Berlin broadcast a heavily
edited seventy-six-minute two-part adaptation of the octology adapted
by Rolf Schneider, under the title 'Shakespeare's Rosenkriege'.
Manga
=======
Aya Kanno's Japanese manga comic 'Requiem of the Rose King' is a loose
adaptation of the first Shakespearean historical tetralogy, covering
'Henry VI' and 'Richard III'.
Citations
===========
All references to 'Henry VI, Part 1', unless otherwise specified, are
taken from the 'Oxford Shakespeare' (Taylor), based on the First Folio
text of 1623. Under its referencing system, 4.3.15 means act 4, scene
3, line 15.
Editions of ''Henry VI, Part 1''
==================================
* Bate, Jonathan and Rasmussen, Eric (eds.) 'Henry VI, Parts I, II and
III' (The RSC Shakespeare; London: Macmillan, 2012)
* Bevington, David. (ed.) 'The First Part of Henry the Sixth' (The
Pelican Shakespeare; London: Penguin, 1966; revised edition 1979)
* Burns, Edward (ed.) 'King Henry VI, Part 1' (The Arden Shakespeare,
3rd Series; London: Arden, 2000)
* Cairncross, Andrew S. (ed.) 'King Henry VI, Part 1' (The Arden
Shakespeare, 2nd Series; London: Arden, 1962)
* Dover Wilson, John (ed.) 'The First Part of Henry VI' (The New
Shakespeare; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952)
* Evans, G. Blakemore (ed.) 'The Riverside Shakespeare' (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, 1974; 2nd edn., 1997)
* Greenblatt, Stephen; Cohen, Walter; Howard, Jean E. and Maus,
Katharine Eisaman (eds.) 'The Norton Shakespeare: Based on the Oxford
Shakespeare' (London: Norton, 1997; 2nd edn., 2008)
* Hart, H. C. and Pooler, C. Knox (eds.) 'The First Part of Henry the
Sixt' (The Arden Shakespeare, 1st Series; London: Arden, 1909)
* Hattaway, Michael (ed.) 'The First Part of King Henry VI' (The New
Cambridge Shakespeare; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990)
* Kingsley-Smith, Jane (ed.) 'Henry VI, Part One' (The New Penguin
Shakespeare, 2nd edition; London: Penguin, 2005)
* Montgomery, William (ed.) 'Henry VI Part I' (The Pelican
Shakespeare, 2nd edition; London: Penguin, 2000)
* Ryan, Lawrence V. (ed.) 'Henry VI, Part I' (Signet Classic
Shakespeare; New York: Signet, 1967; revised edition, 1989; 2nd
revised edition 2005)
* Sanders, Norman (ed.) 'Henry VI, Part One' (The New Penguin
Shakespeare; London: Penguin, 1981)
* Taylor, Michael (ed.) 'Henry VI, Part One' (The Oxford Shakespeare;
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003)
* Wells, Stanley; Taylor, Gary; Jowett, John and Montgomery, William
(eds.) 'The Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works' (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1986; 2nd edn., 2005)
* Werstine, Paul and Mowat, Barbara A. (eds.) 'Henry VI, Part 1'
(Folger Shakespeare Library; Washington: Simon & Schuster, 2008)
Secondary sources
===================
* Alexander, Peter. 'Shakespeare's Henry VI and Richard III'
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1929)
* Berry, Edward I. 'Patterns of Decay: Shakespeare's Early Histories'
(Charlottesville: Virginia University Press, 1975)
* Brockbank, Philip. "The Frame of Disorder - 'Henry VI'" in John
Russell Brown and Bernard Harris (editors), 'Early Shakespeare'
(London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1961), 72-99
* . "Shakespeare: His Histories, English and Roman" in Christopher
Ricks (editor), 'The New History of Literature (Volume 3): English
Drama to 1710' (New York: Peter Bedrick, 1971), 148-181
* Bullough, Geoffrey. 'Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare
(Volume 3): Early English History Plays' (Columbia: Columbia
University Press, 1960)
* Candido, Joseph. "Getting Loose in the 'Henry VI' Plays",
'Shakespeare Quarterly', 35:4 (Winter, 1984), 392-406
* Clarke, Mary. 'Shakespeare at the Old Vic, Volume 4 (1957-1958):
Hamlet, King Henry VI Parts 1, 2 and 3, Measure for Measure, A
Midsummer Night's Dream, King Lear, Twelfth Night' (London: A. &
C. Black, 1958)
* Daniel, P. A. 'A Time Analysis of the Plots of Shakespeare's Plays'
(London: New Shakspere Society, 1879)
* Dobson, Michael S. 'The Making of the National Poet: Shakespeare,
Adaptation and Authorship, 1660-1769' (Oxford, Oxford University
Press, 1995)
* Dockray, Keith. 'Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou and the Wars of the
Roses: A Source Book' (Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 2000)
* Duthie, G. I. 'Shakespeare' (London: Hutchinson, 1951)
* Foakes, R. A. and Rickert, R. T. (eds.) 'Henslowe's Diary'
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961; 2nd edn. edited by only
Foakes, 2002)
* Frey, D. L. 'The First Tetralogy: Shakespeare's Scrutiny of the
Tudor Myth' (The Hague: Mouton, 1976)
* Goodwin, John. 'Royal Shakespeare Theatre Company, 1960-1963'
(London: Max Reinhardt, 1964)
* Goy-Blanquet, Dominique. "Elizabethan Historiography and
Shakespeare's Sources", in Michael Hattaway (editor), 'The Cambridge
Companion to Shakespeare's History Plays' (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2002), 57-70
* Grafton, Richard. 'A Chronicle at Large', 1569
* Griffiths, Ralph A. 'The Reign of King Henry VI' (London: Ernest
Benn, 1981; 2nd edn. 1998)
* Hall, Edward. 'The Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Families of
Lancaster and York', 1548
* Halliday, F. E. 'A Shakespeare Companion, 1564-1964' (Baltimore:
Penguin, 1964)
* Heywood, Thomas. 'An Apology for Actors', 1612
* Hodgdon, Barbara. 'The End Crowns All: Closure and Contradiction in
Shakespeare's Histories' (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1991)
* Holderness, Graham. 'Shakespeare: The Histories' (New York:
Macmillan, 2000)
* Holinshed, Raphael. 'Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland',
1587
* Jackson, Gabriele Bernhard. "Topical Ideology: Witches, Amazons and
Shakespeare's Joan of Arc", 'English Literary Renaissance', 18:1
(Spring, 1988), 40-65
* Jones, Emrys. 'The Origins of Shakespeare' (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1977)
* Jonson, Ben. 'The Masque of Blackness', 1605
* Kastan, David Scott. "Shakespeare and English History", in Margreta
de Grazia and Stanley Wells (editors), 'The Cambridge Companion to
Shakespeare' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 167-183
* Kay, Carol McGinis. "Traps, Slaughter and Chaos: A Study of
Shakespeare's 'Henry VI' plays", 'Studies in the Literary
Imagination', 5 (1972), 1-26
* Leggatt, Alexander. "The Death of John Talbot" in John W. Velz
(editor), 'Shakespeare's English Histories: A Quest for Form and
Genre' (New York: Medieval & Renaissance Texts, 1996), 11-30
* Lull, Janis. "Plantagenets, Lancastrians, Yorkists and Tudors: '1-3
Henry VI, Richard III, Edward III'", in Michael Hattaway (editor) 'The
Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare's History Plays' (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2002), 106-125
* Martin, Randall. "Elizabethan Pageantry in 'Henry VI'", 'University
of Toronto Quarterly', 60:1 (Spring, 1990), 244-264
* McAlindon, Tom. "Swearing and Foreswearing in Shakespeare's
Histories", 'The Review of English Studies', 51 (2000), 208-229
* Mincoff, Marco. "The Composition of 'Henry VI, Part 1'",
'Shakespeare Quarterly', 16:2 (Summer, 1965), 199-207
* Muir, Kenneth. 'The Sources of Shakespeare's Plays' (London:
Routledge, 1977; rpt 2005)
* Onions, C. T. 'A Shakespeare Glossary' (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1953; 2nd edn. edited by Robert D. Eagleson, 1986)
* Pearlman, E. "Shakespeare at Work: The Two Talbots", 'Philological
Quarterly', 75:1 (Spring, 1996), 1-20
* Pearson, Richard. 'A Band of Arrogant and United Heroes: The Story
of the Royal Shakespeare Company's Staging of' The Wars of the Roses
(London: Adelphi, 1991)
* Pendleton, Thomas A. (ed.) 'Henry VI: Critical Essays' (London:
Routledge, 2001)
* Pugliatti, Paola. 'Shakespeare the Historian' (New York: Palgrave,
1996)
* Rackin, Phyllis. "Foreign Country: The Place of Women and Sexuality
in Shakespeare's Historical World", in Richard Burt and John Michael
Archer (editors) 'Enclosure Acts: Sexuality, Property and Culture in
Early Modern England' (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994), 68-95
* Rackin, Phyllis and Howard, Jean E. 'Engendering a Nation: A
Feminist Account of Shakespeare's English Histories' (London:
Routledge, 1997)
* . "Women's Roles in the Elizabethan History Play", in Michael
Hattaway (editor) 'The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare's History
Plays' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 71-88
* Reed, Robert Rentoul. 'Crime and God's Judgement in Shakespeare'
(Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1984)
* Ribner, Irving. 'The English History Play in the Age of Shakespeare'
(London: Routledge, 1957; 2nd edn. 1965)
* Riggs, David. 'Shakespeare's Heroical Histories' (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1971)
* Rossiter, A. P. "Ambivalence: The Dialectics of the Histories", in
Russ McDonald (editor), 'Shakespeare: An Anthology of Criticism and
Theory, 1945-2000' (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004), 100-115
* . 'Angel with Horns: Fifteen Lectures on Shakespeare' (London:
Longmans, 1961; edited by Graham Storey)
* Shaheen, Naseeb. 'Biblical References in Shakespeare's History
Plays' (London: Associated University Presses, 1989)
* Speaight, Robert. 'Shakespeare on the Stage: An Illustrated History
of Shakespearean Performance' (London: Collins, 1973)
* Sokol, B. J. "Manuscript evidence for an earliest date of 'Henry VI
Part One'", 'Notes and Queries', 47:1 (Spring, 2000), 58-63
* Swandler, Homer D. "The Rediscovery of 'Henry VI'", 'Shakespeare
Quarterly', 29:2 (Summer, 1978), 146-163
* Taylor, Gary. "Shakespeare and Others: The Authorship of 'Henry the
Sixth, Part One'", 'Medieval and Renaissance Drama', 7 (1995), 145-205
* Tillyard. E. M. W. 'Shakespeare's History Plays' (London: The
Athlone Press, 1944; rpt. 1986)
* Vickers, Brian. "Incomplete Shakespeare: Or, Denying Coauthorship in
'Henry the Sixth, Part 1'", 'Shakespeare Quarterly', 58:3 (Fall,
2007), 311-352
* . "Thomas Kyd, Secret Sharer", 'The Times Literary Supplement', 18
April 2008, 13-15
* Vincent, Paul J. "Structuring and Revision in '1 Henry VI'",
'Philological Quarterly', 84:4 (Fall, 2005), 377-402
* Watkins, Ronald. "The only Shake-scene", 'Philological Quarterly',
54:1 (Spring, 1975), 47-67
* Watt, R. J. C. "The Siege of Orléans and the Cursing of Joan:
Corruptions in the Text of 'Henry VI, Part 1'", 'English Language
Notes', 33:3 (Autumn, 1996), 1-6
* Wells, Robert Headlam. "The Fortunes of Tillyard: Twentieth-Century
Critical Debate on Shakespeare's History Plays", 'English Studies',
66:4 (Winter, 1985), 391-403
* Wells, Stanley; Taylor, Gary; Jowett, John and Montgomery, William.
'William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion' (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1987)
* Williams, G. Walton. "Fastolf or Falstaff", 'English Literary
Renaissance', 5:4 (Winter, 1975), 308-312
* Williamson, Marilyn L. ""When Men Are Rul'd by Women": Shakespeare's
First Tetralogy", 'Shakespeare Studies', 19 (1987), 41-59
* Wilson, F. P. 'Shakespearian and Other Studies' (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1969; edited by Helen Gardner)
External links
======================================================================
*[
https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/yourcountry/collections/churchillexhibition/churchill-death/herbert-samuel/
Winston Churchill & Henry V - UK Parliament Living Heritage]
*
* [
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1500 'Henry VI, Part 1'] - from
Project Gutenberg.
* [
http://shakespeare.mit.edu/1henryvi/index.html 'The First part of
King Henry the Sixth'] - scene-indexed HTML version of the play.
* [
http://www.maximumedge.com/shakespeare/henryvi1.htm 'King Henry VI,
Part 1'] - scene-indexed, searchable HTML version of the play.
*
[
http://triggs.djvu.org/djvu-editions.com/SHAKESPEARE/H6-1/Download.pdf
'The first Part of Henry the Sixt'] - PDF version, with original
'First Folio' spelling.
*
* [
http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/plays/1H6.html 'Henry
the Sixth, Part 1' Home Page] at
[
https://web.archive.org/web/20100117202356/http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/index.html
'Internet Shakespeare Editions'].
*
[
https://web.archive.org/web/20041210112655/http://www.english.emory.edu/classes/Shakespeare_Illustrated/HenryVIPaintings.html
'Henry VI'] at
'[
http://www.english.emory.edu/classes/Shakespeare_Illustrated/Shakespeare.html
Shakespeare Illustrated] '. Accessed 30 October 2018.
* [
http://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/05-2/hampalar.htm "Alarums and Defeats:
'Henry VI' on Tour", by Stuart Hampton-Reeves; 'Early Modern Literary
Studies', 5:2 (September, 1999), 1-18].
* ('BBC Television Shakespeare' Version).
License
=========
All content on Gopherpedia comes from Wikipedia, and is licensed under CC-BY-SA
License URL:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Original Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VI,_Part_1
