======================================================================
=                          Henry_VI,_Part_2                          =
======================================================================

                            Introduction
======================================================================
'Henry VI, Part 2' (1591) is a Shakespearean history play about King
Henry VI of England's inability to quell the bickering of his
noblemen, the death of his trusted advisor Humphrey, Duke of
Gloucester, and the political rise of Richard of York, 3rd Duke of
York; it culminates with the First Battle of St Albans (1455), the
initial battle of the Wars of the Roses, which were civil wars between
the House of Lancaster and the House of York.

In the early historical narrative of 'Henry VI, Part 1' (1591),
William Shakespeare deals with the low morale consequent to the loss
of England's French territories (1429-1453) during the Hundred Years'
War (1337-1453) and the political machinations that precipitated the
Wars of the Roses (1455-1487). In the concluding play, 'Henry VI, Part
3' (1591), he deals with the fraternal horrors of civil war amongst
Englishmen.

In English literature, 'The Tragedy of Richard III' (1594) is included
with the trilogy of stageplays about King Henry VI to make up an
informal tetralogy of history plays about the family sagas that
motivated the Wars of the Roses for control of the throne of England.
Shakespeare's historical narrative begins with the death of Henry V of
England in 1422 and continues for sixty-three years to the ascent of
Henry VII of England in 1485.


                             Characters
======================================================================
'Of the King's Party'
* King Henry VI - King of England
* Queen Margaret - Queen to Henry VI
* Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester - Henry VI's uncle and Lord Protector
of England
* Eleanor, Duchess of Gloucester - Gloucester's wife
* Cardinal Beaufort - Bishop of Winchester, Henry VI's great-uncle
* William de la Pole - Marquis, later Duke, of Suffolk; lover of Queen
Margaret
* Duke of Buckingham - Henry VI's second cousin once removed
* Duke of Somerset - Henry VI's first cousin once removed
* Lord Clifford - military commander
* Young Clifford - Lord Clifford's son

'Of the Duke of York's Party'
* Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York - Henry VI's second cousin one
removed, asserts he should be king
* Edward, Earl of March - Richard's son
* Richard Plantagenet - Richard's son
* Earl of Salisbury - Richard's brother-in-law
* Earl of Warwick - Salisbury's son

'The Petitions and the Combat'
* Thomas Horner - armourer
* Peter Thump - his apprentice
* Petitioners, Prentices, Neighbours

'The Conjuration'
* John Hum - priest
* John Southwell - priest
* Margery Jourdayne - witch
* Roger Bolingbroke - conjurer
* Asmath - a spirit

'The False Miracle'
* Sander Simpcox - impostor
* Simpcox's wife
* Mayor of St Albans
* Alderman of St Albans
* A beadle of St Albans

'Eleanor's Penance'
* Sheriff of London
* Sir John Stanley - Governor of the Isle of Man (historically Sir
Thomas Stanley)
* Gloucester's Servants
* Herald

'Murder of Gloucester'
* Two Murderers

'Murder of Suffolk'
* Lieutenant - commander of a ship
* Master of the Ship
* Master's Mate
* Walter Whitmore - sailor on ship
* Two Gentlemen - prisoners with Suffolk

'The Cade Rebellion'
* Jack Cade - rebel leader
* Dick the Butcher - rebel
* Smith the Weaver - rebel
* George Bevis - rebel
* John Holland - rebel
* John - rebel
* Emmanuel - Clerk of Chatham
* Sir Humphrey Stafford - military commander
* William Stafford - Sir Humphrey's brother
* Lord Saye - Lord High Treasurer
* Lord Scales - defends the Tower of London
* Matthew Gough - King's soldier stationed at the Tower (non-speaking
role)
* Alexander Iden - Kentish Gentleman

'Others'
* Vaux - messenger
* Messengers, soldiers, guards, servants, commons, rebels, etc.


                              Synopsis
======================================================================
The play begins with the marriage of King Henry VI of England to the
young Margaret of Anjou. Margaret is the protégée and lover of William
de la Pole, 4th Earl of Suffolk, who aims to influence the king
through her. The major obstacle to Suffolk and Margaret's plan is the
Lord Protector, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, who is extremely popular
with the common people and deeply trusted by the King. Gloucester's
wife, however, has designs on the throne, and has been led by an agent
of Suffolk to dabble in necromancy. She summons a spirit and demands
it reveal the future to her, but its prophecies are vague and before
the ritual is finished, she is interrupted and arrested. At court she
is then banished, greatly to the embarrassment of Gloucester. Suffolk
then conspires with Cardinal Beaufort and the Duke of Somerset to
bring about Gloucester's ruin. Suffolk accuses Gloucester of treason
and has him imprisoned, but before Gloucester can be tried, Suffolk
sends two assassins to kill him. Meanwhile, Richard, 3rd Duke of York,
reveals his claim to the throne to the Earls of Salisbury and Warwick,
who pledge to support him.
Suffolk is banished for his role in Gloucester's death, whilst
Winchester (Cardinal Beaufort) contracts a fever and dies, cursing
God. Margaret, horrified at Suffolk's banishment, vows to ensure his
return, but he is killed by pirates shortly after leaving England, and
his head sent back to the distraught Margaret. Meanwhile, York has
been appointed commander of an army to suppress a revolt in Ireland.
Before leaving, he enlists a former officer of his, Jack Cade, to
stage a popular revolt in order to ascertain whether the common people
would support York should he make an open move for power. At first,
the rebellion is successful, and Cade sets himself up as Mayor of
London, but his rebellion is put down when Lord Clifford (a supporter
of Henry) persuades the common people, who make up Cade's army, to
abandon the cause. Cade is killed several days later by Alexander
Iden, a Kentish gentleman, into whose garden he climbs looking for
food.

York returns to England with his army, claiming that he intends to
protect the King from the duplicitous Somerset. York vows to disband
his forces if Somerset is arrested and charged with treason.
Buckingham swears that Somerset is already a prisoner in the tower,
but when Somerset enters ("at liberty"), accompanied by the Queen,
York holds Buckingham's vow broken, and announces his claim to the
throne, supported by his sons, Edward and Richard. The English
nobility take sides, some supporting the House of York, others
supporting Henry and the House of Lancaster. A battle is fought at St
Albans in which the Duke of Somerset is killed by York's son Richard,
and Lord Clifford by York. With the battle lost, Margaret persuades
the distraught King to flee the battlefield and head to London. She is
joined by Young Clifford, who vows revenge on the Yorkists for the
death of his father. The play ends with York, Edward, Richard, Warwick
and Salisbury setting out in pursuit of Henry, Margaret and Clifford.


                              Sources
======================================================================
Shakespeare's primary source for '2 Henry VI' was Edward Hall's 'The
Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Families of Lancaster and York'
(1548). He also drew upon the second edition of Raphael Holinshed's
'Chronicles' (1587). Although Holinshed's treatment of the Wars of the
Roses is derived in large part from Hall's work, even to the point of
reproducing large portions of it verbatim, there are enough
differences between Hall and Holinshed to establish that Shakespeare
must have consulted both of them.

For example, the marked contrast between Henry and Margaret, a
recurring theme in the play, comes from Hall, who presents Henry as a
"saint-like" victim of circumstances, and Margaret as a cunning and
manipulative egotist. Shakespeare must have used Hall to establish
York's claim to the throne (outlined in 2.2), as the corresponding
section in Holinshed adds an extra generation to York's lineage.
However, the meeting between Buckingham and York before the Battle of
St Albans (dramatised in 5.1) is found only in Holinshed.

Only Holinshed contains information about the Peasants' Revolt of
1381, which Shakespeare used for the scenes of Cade's rebellion
throughout Act 4 (for example, details such as having people killed
because they could read, and promises of setting up a state with no
money). The Peasants' Revolt of 1381 was highly anti-intellectual and
anti-textual as well, an aspect that Shakespeare used to characterize
his version of Cade's Rebellion (while in reality, Cade's Rebellion
was one of the first popular uprisings in England that used writing to
voice their grievances). The presentation of Henry's reaction to the
rebellion also differs in Hall and Holinshed. In Hall, Henry pardons
everyone who surrenders and lets them all return home unpunished, and
this is how Shakespeare presents it in the play. In Holinshed, by
contrast, Henry convenes a court and has several of the leaders
executed (as he did in reality). Another historical parallel found in
Holinshed is that Henry is presented as unstable, constantly on the
brink of madness, something which is not in Hall, who presents a
gentle but ineffective King (again, Shakespeare follows Hall here).


Shakespeare's largest departure from Hall and Holinshed is in his
conflation of the Cade rebellion, York's return from Ireland and the
Battle of St Albans into one continuous sequence. Both Hall and
Holinshed present these events as covering a four-year period (as they
did in reality), but in the play they are presented as one leading
directly, and immediately, to the other. This is how the events are
depicted in Robert Fabyan's 'New Chronicles of England and France'
(1516), suggesting that this too may have been a source.

Another definite source for Shakespeare was Richard Grafton's 'A
Chronicle at Large' (1569). Like Holinshed, Grafton reproduces large
passages of unedited material from Hall, but some sections are
exclusive to Grafton, showing Shakespeare must also have consulted
him. The false miracle for example (dramatised in 2.1) is found only
in Grafton, not in Hall or Holinshed (although a similar scene is also
outlined in John Foxe's 'Acts and Monuments, Book of Martyrs' (1563),
with which Shakespeare may have been familiar).


Date
======
On 12 March 1594, a play was entered in the Stationers' Register by
the bookseller Thomas Millington and printed in quarto by Thomas
Creede later that year as '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 Cardinall of VVinchester,
vvith the notable Rebellion of Jacke Cade: And the Duke of Yorkes
first claime vnto the Crowne'. It has been theorised that 'The
Contention' is a reported text of a performance of what is today
called 'Henry VI, Part II'. If so, the play was written no later than
1594.

However, it has been suggested the play may have been written several
years earlier. Robert Greene's pamphlet 'Greene's Groats-Worth of Wit'
(entered in the Stationers' Register on 20 September 1592) mocks
Shakespeare as "an upstart crow, beautified with our feathers, that
with his 'tiger's heart wrapped in a player's hide', supposes that he
is as well able to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you." This
parody of '3 Henry VI', 1.4.138, where York refers to Margaret as a
"tiger's heart wrapped in a woman's hide!", proves that '3 Henry VI'
was well known by September 1592, which means it must have been staged
before 23 June, when the government closed the theatres to prevent the
spread of plague. As it is known for certain that '3 Henry VI' was a
sequel to '2 Henry VI', it is certain that if '3 Henry VI' was on
stage by June 1592, so too was '2 Henry VI' and that both were
probably written in 1591 or 1592.

For a discussion of whether the three parts of the trilogy were
composed in chronological order, see '1 Henry VI'.


Text
======
The 1594 quarto text of 'The Contention' was reprinted twice, in 1600
(in quarto) and 1619 (also in quarto). The 1600 text was printed by
Valentine Simmes for Millington. The 1619 text was part of William
Jaggard's False Folio, which was printed for Thomas Pavier. This text
was printed together with a version of '3 Henry VI' which had been
printed in octavo 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'. In the False Folio, the two plays were grouped under the
general title 'The Whole Contention betweene the Two Famous Houses,
Lancaster and Yorke, With the Tragicall ends of the good Duke Humfrey,
Richard Duke of Yorke, and King Henrie the sixt'. Also printed with
'The Whole Contention' was 'Pericles, Prince of Tyre'. The 1619 text
of '2 Henry VI' was not directly taken from 'The Contention', however.
The original text was edited to correct an error in York's outline of
his genealogy in 2.2.

The text of the play that today forms '2 Henry VI' was not published
until the 1623 'First Folio', under the title 'The second Part of
Henry the Sixt, with the death of the Good Duke Humfrey'.

When the play came to be called 'Part 2' is unclear, although most
critics tend to assume it was the invention of John Heminges and Henry
Condell, the editors of the 'First Folio', as there are no references
to the play under the title 'Part 2', or any derivative thereof,
before 1623.


Critical history
==================
Some critics argue that the 'Henry VI' trilogy was the first ever
plays to be 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, "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 that] so far as we know, Shakespeare was the
first." Michael Taylor, however, 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), George Peele's 'The Troublesome Reign of
King John' (1588), the anonymous 'Edmund Ironside' (1590), Robert
Green, and Thomas Lodge's 'Selimus' (1591), and another anonymous
play, 'The True Tragedy of Richard III' (1591). Paola Pugliatti
attempts a synthesis, arguing, "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."

In any case, there is much more critical disagreement about the play,
not the least of which concerns its relationship to 'The Contention'.


''The Contention'' as reported text
=====================================
Over the years, critics have debated the connection between '2 Henry
VI' and 'The Contention', to the point where four main theories have
emerged:

# 'The Contention' is a reconstructed version of a performance of what
we today call '2 Henry VI'; i.e. a bad quarto, an attempt by actors to
reconstruct the original play from memory and sell it. Originated by
Samuel Johnson in 1765 and refined by Peter Alexander in 1929.
Traditionally, this is the most accepted theory.
# 'The Contention' is an early draft of the play that was published in
the 1623 Folio under the title 'The second Part of Henry the Sixt'.
Originated by Edmond Malone in 1790 as an alternate to Johnson's
memorial report theory. Supported today by critics such as Steven
Urkowitz.
# 'The Contention' is 'both' a reported text 'and' an early draft of
'2 Henry VI'. This theory has been gaining increasing support from the
latter half of the 20th century, and is championed by many modern
editors of the play.
# Shakespeare did not write 'The Contention' at all; it was an
anonymous play which he used as the basis for '2 Henry VI'. Originated
by Georg Gottfried Gervinus in 1849, this theory remained popular
throughout the nineteenth century, with Robert Greene the leading
candidate as a possible author. It has fallen out of favour in the
twentieth century.

Traditionally, critical opinion has tended to favour the first theory;
that 'The Contention' is a bad quarto, a memorial reconstruction,
perhaps by the actor who had played Suffolk and/or Cade in early
performance. Samuel Johnson put forth this theory in 1765, but was
challenged by Edmond Malone in 1790, who suggested that 'The
Contention' could be an early draft of '2 Henry VI'. Malone's view was
the dominant one until 1929, when Peter Alexander and Madeleine Doran,
working independently of one another, re-established the dominance of
the bad quarto theory.

They focused on a genealogical error in 'The Contention', which they
argue seems unlikely to have been made by an author, and is therefore
only attributable to a reporter. In 'The Contention', when York sets
out his claim to the throne, he identifies Edmund of Langley as Edward
III's second son, instead of his fifth. In '2 Henry VI', Langley is
correctly placed in the genealogy. This error renders unnecessary
York's need to claim the throne through his mother's ancestry: were he
descended from the second son, he himself would be descended directly
from an elder son than Henry. It has been argued that "no one who
understood what he was writing--that is, no author--could have made
this error, but someone parroting someone else's work, of which he
himself had but a dim understanding--that is, a reporter--easily
could."

Act 3, Scene 1, has been pinpointed as another scene which provides
evidence that 'The Contention' is a reported text. In 'The
Contention', after the court has turned on Gloucester, Suffolk then
illogically switches back to discussing the regentship of France.
Horner and Thump are introduced and Gloucester arranges for them to
formally duel. At this point, Gloucester leaves, but without any
discernible reason. Margaret then strikes Eleanor, Gloucester returns,
and he and his wife leave together. Steven Urkowitz (a staunch
opponent of the theory of bad quartos in general) argues that the
difference in the two scenes is an example of "the finely
Shakespearean first choices recorded in the Quarto." Roger Warren,
however, argues that the scene provides strong evidence that 'The
Contention' is a reported text; "it is not hard to conjecture how the
Quarto's version came about. The conflicting claims of York and
Somerset led to the Armourer and his Man being introduced too soon;
whoever was compiling the Quarto text remembered that Humphrey left
the stage, though not why, but 'did' remember that while he was
offstage Margaret struck his wife. The utterly unmotivated exit and
reappearance of Humphrey in itself rules out any possibility that the
Quarto's scene is a legitimate alternative to the Folio version,
rather than a confused report of it."

Further evidence for the reported text theory is provided in how other
plays are used throughout 'The Contention'. For example, the line from
Marlowe's 'The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus' "Now Faustus, what
wouldst thou have me do?" (1.3.36) is reproduced as "Now Bolingbroke,
what wouldst thou have me do?", while Marlowe's "The wild O'Neill,
with swarms of Irish kerns, / Lives uncontrolled within the English
pale" (2.2.163-164) from 'Edward II' is paraphrased in Act 3, Scene 1,
as "The wild O'Neill, my lords, is up in arms,/ With troops of Irish
kerns that uncontrolled / Doth plant themselves within the English
pale". Even a line from '3 Henry VI' ("If our King Henry had shook
hands with death" (1.4.103)) appears in Act 3, Scene 1, all of which
suggests that, as is so often the case in the bad quartos, the
reporter was filling in blanks (i.e. passages he could not remember)
with extracts from other plays.


''The Contention'' as early draft
===================================
Steven Urkowitz has spoken at great length about the debate between
the bad quarto theory and the early draft theory, coming down firmly
on the side of the early draft. Urkowitz argues that the quarto of '2
Henry VI' and the octavo of '3 Henry VI' actually present scholars
with a unique opportunity to see a play evolving, as Shakespeare
edited and rewrote certain sections; "the texts of '2' and '3 Henry
VI' offer particularly rich illustrations of textual variation and
theatrical transformation." Urkowitz cites the dialogue in the opening
scene of '2 Henry VI' as especially strong evidence of the early draft
theory. In 'The Contention', Henry receives Margaret with joy and an
exclamation that all his worldly troubles are behind him. Margaret is
then depicted as utterly humble, vowing to love the King no matter
what. After the initial meeting then, Henry asks Margaret to sit
beside him before bidding the Lords to stand nearby and welcome her.
In '2 Henry VI', on the other hand, Henry is more cautious in greeting
Margaret, seeing her as a relief for his problems, but only if she and
he can find common ground and love one another. She herself is also
much bolder and self-congratulatory in '2 Henry VI' than in 'The
Contention'. Additionally, in '2 Henry VI' there is no reference to
anyone sitting, and the lords kneel before speaking to Margaret.
Urkowitz summarises these differences by arguing,


In the visible geometry of courtly ceremony, the Folio version offers
us a bold Queen Margaret and an exuberant king who stands erect while
the visibly subordinated nobles kneel before them. In contrast to the
modest queen seated beside the king surrounded by standing nobles, in
this text at the equivalent moment, we have an assertive queen
standing upright with her monarch, visibly subordinating the kneeling,
obedient lords. Distinct theatrical representations of psychological
and political tensions distinguish the two versions of the passage.
Both texts "work" by leading an audience through an elaborate
ceremonial display fraught with symbolic gestures of emotional
attachment, sanctification, regal authority, and feudal obedience, but
each displays a distinct pattern of language and coded gestures. Such
fine-tuning of dramatic themes and actions are staples of professional
theatrical writing.


The differences in the texts are of the sort one tends to find in
texts that were altered from an original form, and Urkowitz cites Eric
Rasmussen, E. A. J. Honigmann, and Grace Ioppolo as supporting this
view. He refers to the case of Richard Brinsley Sheridan's 'The School
for Scandal' (1777), which existed in an earlier form, also by
Sheridan, in a two-part play 'The Slanderers' and 'Sir Peter Teazel',
which he argues contain the same type of modifications as is found in
the 'Henry VI' plays.


Urkowitz is not alone in finding evidence to support the early draft
theory. For example, in 'The Contention', Margery Jourdayne is
referred to as "the cunning witch of Ely", but in '2 Henry VI' she is
referred to merely as "the cunning witch." The traditional argument to
explain this disparity is that such information was added by either
Shakespeare or someone else during rehearsals, but was not found in
the prompt book which was used to print the 'First Folio'. However, R.
B. McKerrow argues against the likelihood of this theory. He asks why
a writer would go back to a chronicle source to add a piece of
information which is of no importance dramatically, and brings nothing
to the scene. McKerrow suggests that the line was cut after
performance. A similar example is found in Act 4, Scene 7, where Cade
orders his men to kill Lord Saye and Sir James Comer. In '2 Henry VI',
Cade orders them to cut off Saye's head and then go to Cromer's house
and kill him, but in 'The Contention', he tells them to bring Saye to
"Standard in Cheapside", and then go to Cromer's house in "Mile End
Green." McKerrow argues that such unimportant detail suggests removal
after performance rather than addition before performance.

More evidence is found in Act 2, Scene 1. In 'The Contention', after
Winchester has accepted Gloucester's challenge to a duel (l. 38;
"Marry, when thou dar'est"), there is additional dialogue not found in
'2 Henry VI';


'GLOUCESTER'
Dare? I tell thee priest,
Plantagenets could never brook the dare.

'WINCHESTER'
I am Plantagenet as well as thou,
And son of John of Gaunt.

'GLOUCESTER'
In bastardy.

'WINCHESTER'
I scorn thy words.


Again, McKerrow's argument here is not that these lines were added
during rehearsals, but that they existed in an early draft of the play
and were removed after rehearsals, as they were simply deemed
unnecessary; the animosity between the two had already been well
established.

However, the theory that 'The Contention' may be an early draft does
not necessarily imply that it could not also represent a bad quarto.
Traditionally, most critics (such as Alexander, Doran, McKerrow and
Urkowitz) have looked at the problem as an either-or situation; 'The
Contention' is 'either' a reported text 'or' an early draft, but
recently there has been some argument that it may be both. For
example, this is the theory supported by Roger Warren in his 'Oxford
Shakespeare' edition of the play. It is also the theory advanced by
Randall Martin in his 'Oxford Shakespeare' edition of '3 Henry VI'.
The crux of the argument is that both the evidence for the bad quarto
theory and the evidence for the early draft theory are so compelling
that neither is able to completely refute the other. As such, if the
play contains evidence of being both a reported text 'and' an early
draft, it must be both; i.e. 'The Contention' represents a reported
text 'of' an early draft of '2 Henry VI'. Shakespeare wrote an early
version of the play, which was staged. Shortly after that staging,
some of the actors constructed a bad quarto from it and had it
published. In the meantime, Shakespeare had rewritten the play into
the form found in the 'First Folio'. Warren argues that this is the
only theory which can account for the strong evidence for both
reporting and revision, and it is a theory which is gaining increased
support in the late twentieth/early twenty-first century.


Language
==========
Language, throughout the play, helps to establish the theme as well as
the tone of each particular episode. For example, the opening speech
of the play is an ornate, formal declaration by Suffolk:


As by your high imperial majesty
I had in charge at my depart for France,
As Procurator to your excellence,
To marry Princess Margaret for your grace,
So in the famous ancient city Tours,
In presence of the Kings of France and Sicil,
The Dukes of Orléans, Calabre, Bretagne, and Alençon,
Seven earls, twelve barons, and twenty reverend bishops,
I have performed my task and was espoused,
And humbly now upon my bended knee,
In sight of England and her lordly peers,
Deliver up my title in the Queen
To your most gracious hands, that are the substance
Of that great shadow I did represent:
The happiest gift that ever marquis gave,
The fairest queen that ever king received.
::::::: (1.1.1-16)


The substance of Suffolk's speech is "As I was instructed to marry
Margaret on your behalf, I did so, and now I deliver her to you."
However, the formality of the scene and the importance of the event
require him to deliver this message in heightened language, with the
formal significance of Henry's marriage to Margaret mirrored in the
formal language used by Suffolk to announce that marriage.


Language conveys the importance of religion throughout the play.
Henry's language often echoes the Bible. For example, hearing of the
Cade rebellion, he comments "Ο graceless men, they know not what they
do" (4.4.37), echoing the Gospel of Luke: "Father, forgive them: for
they know not what they do" (23:34). Earlier in the play, he refers to
heaven as "the treasury of everlasting joy" (2.1.18), recalling the
Gospel of Matthew's "lay up treasures for yourselves in heaven"
(6:20), and then a few lines later he muses "blessèd are the
peacemakers on earth" (2.1.34), echoing Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. On
both of these occasions, however, Cardinal Winchester, ostensibly a
pious man, distorts Henry's genuine piety. After Henry's assessment of
heaven, Winchester says to Gloucester, "Thy heaven is on earth, thine
eyes and thoughts/Beat on a crown, the treasure of thy heart"
(2.1.19-20). Then, after Henry praises peacemakers, Winchester
hypocritically says, "Let me be blessèd for the peace I make,/Against
this proud Protector with my sword" (2.1.35-36). The Cardinal mocks
religion shortly before the murder of Gloucester. Speaking of the
forthcoming murder, Suffolk says, "And to preserve my sovereign from
his foe,/Say but the word and I will be his priest" (3.1.271-272), to
which Winchester responds "But I would have him dead, my Lord of
Suffolk,/Ere you can take due orders for a priest" (3.1.273-274),
disdaining priesthood and trivialising murder. After Gloucester is
dead, Winchester continues to blaspheme himself, proclaiming the death
of Gloucester to be "God's secret judgement" (3.2.31), a callous and
knowing distortion.

Shakespeare uses language to distinguish between different types of
characters. The courtly scenes tend to be spoken in blank verse,
whereas the commons tend to speak in prose, with fewer metaphors and
less decorative language (Shakespeare uses this contrast in several
plays, such as 'The Two Gentlemen of Verona', where prose marks the
servants out from their masters). When power begins to go to Jack
Cade's head, he begins to slip into a more courtly way of speaking.
This is most noticeable in his adoption of the 'royal we', using
phrases such as "our jurisdiction regal" (4.7.24), and "we charge and
command" (4.7.116).

The longest speech in the play is Margaret's lament to Henry after
they have found Gloucester's dead body. This lengthy speech is full of
classical allusions, elaborate metaphors and verbosity as Margaret
moves through a litany of topics in an effort to make her point:



Be woe for me, more wretched than he is.
What, dost thou turn away and hide thy face?
I am no loathsome leper, look on me.
What, art thou like the adder waxen deaf?
Be poisonous too and kill thy forlorn queen.
Is all thy comfort shut in Gloucester's tomb?
Why then Queen Margaret was ne'er thy joy.
Erect his statua and worship it,
And make my image but an alehouse sign.
Was I for this nigh wracked upon the sea,
And twice by awkward winds from England's bank
Drove back again unto my native clime?
What boded this, but well forewarning winds
Did seem to say, 'Seek not a scorpion's nest,
Nor set no footing on this unkind shore'?
What did I then, but cursed the gentle gusts
And he that loosed them forth their brazen caves,
And bid them blow towards England's blessèd shore,
Or turn our stern upon a dreadful rock?
Yet Aeolus would not be a murderer,
But left that hateful office unto thee.
The pretty vaulting sea refused to drown me,
Knowing that thou wouldst have me drowned on shore
With tears as salt as sea through thy unkindness.
The splitting rocks cow'red in the sinking sands,
And would not dash me with their ragged sides,
Because thy flinty heart, more hard than they,
Might in thy palace perish Margaret.
As far as I could ken thy chalky cliffs,
When from thy shore the tempest beat us back,
I stood upon the hatches in the storm,
And when the dusky sky began to rob
My earnest-gaping sight of thy land's view,
I took a costly jewel from my neck--
A heart it was, bound in with diamonds--
And threw it towards thy land. The sea received it,
And so I wished thy body might my heart.
And even with this I lost fair England's view,
And bid mine eyes be packing with my heart,
And called them blind and dusky spectacles,
For losing ken of Albion's wishèd coast.
How often have I tempted Suffolk's tongue--
The agent of thy foul inconstancy--
To sit and witch me, as Ascanius did,
When he to madding Dido would unfold
His father's acts, commenced in burning Troy!
Am I not witched like her? Or thou not false like him?
Ay me, I can no more. Die Margaret,
For Henry weeps that thou dost live so long.
::::::: (3.2.73-121)



There is some debate amongst critics as to the meaning and purpose of
this speech, although all tend to agree that the meaning is inherently
tied up in the elaborate language. Some critics (such as Stanley
Wells) argue that the speech, with its wordiness, abstraction,
strained allusions, and lengthy metaphors, is poorly written, evidence
that Shakespeare was not yet in control of his medium. Proponents of
this theory point to 'The Contention', where only seven lines are
retained, with the argument being that the rest of the speech was cut
from performance. L.C. Knights, by contrast, argues that the speech is
deliberately excessive and highly-wrought because Margaret is trying
to deflect the already confused and dejected Henry from accusing
Suffolk of the murder.

Peter Hall suggested that "the speech is there to establish the
emotional, hysterical side of Margaret's nature. I think that is why
the language gets so extremely elaborate--it is an attempt by Margaret
to contain her turbulent emotions by expressing them in such a strange
way."

The complete antithesis of this theory has also been suggested as a
possibility: that the speech shows not that Margaret is losing
control, but that she is completely in control of herself and her
emotions. This theory is most noticeable in how director Jane Howell
had Julia Foster act the part in the 1981 'BBC Television Shakespeare'
adaptation. Here, Margaret uses her speech to vent her intense
emotions, not to contain them. The far ranging metaphors and classical
allusions are her way of letting go of her pent up rage and emotion,
her disdain for Henry and her inherent passion.

In Terry Hands' 1977 production for the Royal Shakespeare Company,
Margaret (played by Helen Mirren) tried to bring Henry back from the
brink of madness by engaging his mind in an elaborate, difficult to
follow verbal dance. Henry's preceding speech to Suffolk, where he
demands Suffolk not look at him, and then immediately demands that he
wants to look into Suffolk's eyes was played by Alan Howard in such a
way as to suggest that Henry was losing his grip on reality, and in
response to this, Mirren played the speech in such a way as to engage
Henry's mind in the here and now, focus his thoughts and prevent them
drifting away.


Henry's weakness
==================
A major theme of the play is Henry's inherent weakness and his
inability to control the country or even his own court. According to
Martin, Henry's weakness as king was the main reason that many
nineteenth century critics judged '2 Henry VI' to lack emotion: Henry
was so inept that audiences could not empathise with him, and hence,
his tragedy was diminished. There are numerous examples throughout the
play which such critics could have focused on. For example, Henry
fails to unite his bickering nobles, and instead allows them to push
him around as they decide for themselves how to act and what to do,
and at the same time, he allows himself to be utterly dominated by
Margaret. He is so subservient that he consents to the imprisonment of
a man (Gloucester) he loves and knows to be innocent, and then
attempts to hide from the implications of this decision, trying to
leave the court after Gloucester's arrest:


'KING HENRY'
My lords, what to your wisdoms seemeth best
Do or undo, as if ourself were here.

'QUEEN MARGARET'
What, will your highness leave the parliament?

'KING HENRY'
Ay Margaret, my heart is drowned with grief,
Whose flood begins to flow within mine eyes.
::::::: (3.1.195-199)


This leads Henry to a realisation of how he has failed Gloucester, and
to lament his own lack of decisiveness and resolution:


And as the butcher takes away the calf,
And binds the wretch, and beats it when it strains,
Bearing it to the bloody slaughterhouse,
Even so remorseless have they borne him hence;
And as the dam runs lowing up and down,
Looking the way her harmless young one went,
And can do naught but wail her darling's loss,
Even so myself bewails good Gloucester's case
With sad unhelpful tears, and with dimmed eyes
Look after him, and cannot do him good,
So mighty are his vowèd enemies.
::::::: (3.1.210-220)


Another example of his weakness as ruler is seen in his utter
indifference to the vital decision of choosing a new French regent; as
Somerset and York debate the issue, each trying to convince Henry that
they should be the one to get the job, Henry dismissively declares,
"For my part, noble Lords, I care not which:/Or Somerset or York,
all's one to me" (1.3.102-103). This lack of concern is forcibly
emphasised when Somerset later tells Henry that all French territories
have been lost, and Henry responds nonchalantly, "Cold news, Lord
Somerset; but God's will be done" (3.1.86). His lack of decisive
leadership is even referred to by others; Margaret claims that "Henry
my lord is cold in great affairs,/Too full of foolish pity"
(3.1.224-225). Later, when the Irish post appears with news of
rebellion, York says he will do whatever Henry deems necessary, to
which Suffolk responds "Why, our authority is his consent,/And what we
do establish he confirms" (3.1.316-317).


Henry is presented as a good man, but a poor king, to whom Roger
Warren refers as "a man of deep religious conviction but no political
acumen." He is a weak leader, and it is partly his failure to assert
his authority that is responsible for the chaos that takes over the
country. As director Peter Hall says, "In theory, Henry should be a
good king. He applies Christian ethics to government. But he is up
against men who don't. They justify their behaviour by invoking the
great sanctions--God, the King, Parliament, the People--that
unscrupulous statesmen, motivated by the naked desire to be on top,
have used throughout the ages. Here is the central irony of the play:
Henry's Christian goodness produces evil."


Contrast between Henry and Margaret
=====================================
Another major theme throughout the play is the contrast between
Margaret and Henry, something which is introduced when they first
meet. Henry thanks God for bringing Margaret to him, and exclaims "For
thou hast given me in this beauteous face/A world of earthly blessing
to my soul,/If sympathy of love unite our thoughts" (1.1.21-23). The
irony here, much commented on by critics, is that this unity is
exactly what does not happen--their thoughts never unite, and their
contrasting and incompatible attitudes are seen time and again
throughout the play. For example, after the false miracle, Henry is
distraught and laments, "O God, seest thou this and bear'st so long?"
(2.1.150), while Margaret's response is much more mundane; "It made me
laugh to see the villain run" (2.1.151). When Buckingham arrives to
bring news to Henry of Eleanor's dabbling in necromancy, Henry's
reaction is pious and sorrowful, "O God, what mischiefs work the
wicked ones,/Heaping confusion on their heads thereby" (2.1.181-182).
Margaret's response, however, is combative, using the news to forward
her own agenda; "Gloucester, see here the tainture of thy nest,/And
look thyself be faultless, thou wert best" (2.1.183-184). Later, when
Horner and Thump are about to fight, Henry sees the contest as a
sacred point of honour: "A God's name, see the lists and all things
fit;/Here let them end it, and God defend the right" (2.3.54-55).
Margaret, however, is simply looking forward to a fight; "For
purposely therefore,/Left I the court to see this quarrel tried"
(2.3.52-53). Henry is "fatally married to his polar opposite."

The contrast between them is perhaps most forcibly realised when
Gloucester dies in Act 3, Scene 2. Margaret makes a speech in which
she points out how it is unfair to accuse Suffolk of the murder simply
because Suffolk and Gloucester were enemies, as she and Gloucester's
wife were enemies too, so if Suffolk is a suspect, so should she be
one as well; "Ay me unhappy,/To be a queen, and crowned with infamy"
(70-71). Again, she is turning events to focus on herself. Henry,
however, completely ignores her, calling out sorrowfully; "Ah, woe is
me for Gloucester, wretched man" (72). This situation is repeated
during the Cade rebellion, but this time they ignore one another.
After the rebels deliver their terms to Henry, he tells Buckingham he
will speak with Cade, but Margaret is concerned only with herself and
Suffolk (whose head she is now carrying). Speaking to the head she
ignores Henry's problems and exclaims, "Ah barbarous villain! Hath
this lovely face/Ruled like a wandering planet over me,/And could it
not enforce them to relent,/That were unworthy to behold the same?"
(4.4.14-17). Henry, however, ignores this, and continues to deal with
the rebel demands, saying simply, "Lord Saye, Jack Cade hath sworn to
have thy head" (4.4.18). This tendency for them to ignore one another
is another example of their incompatibility, their failure to unite in
thoughts.


Religion
==========
Religion is a fundamental fact of life to Henry, who is presented as
truly pious. Shakespeare may have taken this aspect of Henry's
character from Edward Hall's description of him: "He did abhor of his
own nature, all the vices, as well of the body as of the soul; and
from his very infancy he was of honest conversation and pure
integrity; no knower of evil, and a keeper of all goodness; a despiser
of all things which were wont to cause the minds of mortal men to
slide or appair. Besides this, patience was so radicate in his heart
that of all the injuries to him committed (which were no small number)
he never asked vengeance nor punishment, but for that rendered to
Almighty God, his Creator, hearty thanks, thinking that by this
trouble and adversity his sins were to him forgotten and forgiven."

When Henry first meets Margaret, his reaction is to welcome her, and
then immediately thank God for bringing her to him; "I can express no
kinder sign of love/Than this kind kiss. O Lord that lends me
life,/Lend me a heart replete with thankfulness!" (1.1.18-20). Hearing
later of the false miracle, even before meeting Simpcox, Henry
exclaims, "Now God be praised, that to believing souls/Gives light in
darkness, comfort in despair" (2.1.64-65). Henry accepts the
authenticity of the event without evidence, trusting in his faith that
it is true and that God has performed a miracle. Later, when Henry is
defending Gloucester against accusations of treason, he uses two
religious images to get his point across: "Our kinsman Gloucester is
as innocent/From meaning treason to our royal person/As is the sucking
lamb or harmless dove" (3.1.69-71). Upon seeing the delirious
Winchester, Henry exclaims "O thou eternal mover of the heavens,/Look
with a gentle eye upon this wretch" (3.3.19-20). Then, after
Winchester's death, Warwick comments "So bad a death argues a
monstrous life", to which Henry replies "Forbear to judge, for we are
sinners all" (3.3.30-31).

Henry believes that justice, truth and guilt are determined by God,
not through human actions. After the fight between Horner and Thump,
Henry announces,


For by his death we do perceive his guilt.
And God in justice hath revealed to us
The truth and innocence of this poor fellow,
Which he had thought to have murdered wrongfully.
::::::: (2.3.101-104)


Indeed, so devoted to God is Henry that other characters comment on
it. For example, when Margaret is mockingly describing Henry to
Suffolk, she says,


But all his mind is bent to holiness,
To number Ave-Maries on his beads,
His champions are the prophets and apostles,
His weapons holy saws of sacred writ,
His study is his tilt-yard, and his loves
Are brazen images of canonized saints.
I would the college of the cardinals
Would choose him Pope, and carry him to Rome,
And set the triple crown upon his head;
That were a state fit for his holiness.
::::::: (1.3.56-65)


York twice refers to Henry's piousness. First, when outlining his plan
to assume power he refers to Henry as a king "Whose church-like
humours fits not for a crown" (1.1.246). Then, when making his
argument as to why he should be king, he says to Henry, "Thy hand is
made to grasp a palmer's staff/And not to grace an awful princely
sceptre" (5.1.97-98).


Justice
=========
Ideas of justice are paramount throughout the play, especially the
notion of where justice comes from and who determines it. This is
hinted at when Thump first meets Henry, and Henry asks Gloucester's
opinion. Gloucester says,


And let these have a day appointed them
For single combat in convenient place,
For he hath witness of his servant's malice.
This is the law, and this Duke Humphrey's doom.
::::::: (1.3.208-211)


Of this scene, Michael Hattaway has commented, "the feudal ritual of
trial by combat is reduced to the grotesque fights between the drunken
armourer and his apprentice [...] It serves to mirror the realities of
the play: instead of seeing justice determined by God with regards to
the rights of the adversaries, here we see simply a trial of might."
As Henry himself says,


For by his death we do perceive his guilt.
And God in justice hath revealed to us
The truth and innocence of this poor fellow,
Which he had thought to have murdered wrongfully.
::::::: (2.3.101-104)


He returns to this notion later, again arguing that truth is a defence
against death and defeat:


What stronger breastplate than a heart untainted?
Thrice is he armed that hath his quarrel just;
And he but naked, though locked up in steel,
Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted.
::::::: (3.2.232-235)


Henry believes in the purity of justice, and cannot imagine how it
could possibly be corrupt; "And poise the cause in justice' equal
scales/Whose beam stands sure, whose rightful cause prevails"
(2.1.199-200).

However, the perversion of justice is also a dominant theme throughout
the play, despite Henry's inability to see it. One of the most famous
lines in the play, spoken by the rebel Cade's sidekick Dick the
Butcher, is "the first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".
Whether this means that lawyers are the protectors of justice, or the
agents of its corruption is disputed.

Gloucester assures Eleanor that as long as he has truth on his side,
his enemies cannot destroy him: "I must offend before I be
attainted,/And had I twenty times so many foes,/And each of them had
twenty times their power,/All these could not procure me any scathe/So
long as I am loyal, true, and crimeless" (2.4.60-64). His claims prove
false, however, as he is arrested on false charges and then
assassinated before his trial. Later in the play, Lord Saye makes a
similar claim. When Buckingham warns him to be careful as the rebels
are targeting people like him, Saye responds "The trust I have is in
mine innocence,/And therefore am I bold and resolute" (4.4.58-59).
Like Humphrey, his "innocence" does not save him, and both he and his
son-in-law are killed by the rebels.

The nobles disdain for justice is revealed more forcibly when Henry,
unaware that Gloucester is dead, asks the court to treat him fairly,
and Margaret, knowing he is both innocent and dead, responds, "God
forbid any malice should prevail/That faultless may condemn a noble
man" (3.2.23-24). As Hattaway points out "In England under Henry, law
bears little relation to divinity and stands divorced from equity. The
regal and judicial roles of the king's court are hopelessly confused,
so that the status of the institution itself is compromised."


The lords' failure to understand the need for an impartial and
functioning judiciary is echoed in the rebellion; "The virulent
ambition and hostility to law that characterised the barons equally
characterise the workmen," suggesting there is no difference between
the old order and the new. This is evident in Cade's speech after
ordering the execution of Lord Saye; "The proudest peer in the realm
shall not wear a head on his shoulders unless he pay me tribute. There
shall not a maid be married but she shall pay to me her maidenhead ere
they have it. Men shall hold of me 'in capite'. And we charge and
command that their wives be as free as heart can wish or tongue can
tell" (4.7.112-117). In this proposed new world order, Cade envisions
establishing an autocracy where all will pay fealty to him, and where
his laws, which he can make arbitrarily, stand for everyone. As such,
in this political system, as in the old, law and justice seem to have
little relevance.


Physical destruction
======================
Physical violence permeates the play, with many characters dying
violently. Gloucester is suffocated in his bed; Winchester dies in a
passionate frenzy; Suffolk is beheaded; Somerset and Clifford are
killed in battle; Cade has Matthew Gough, Humphrey Stafford, William
Stafford, Lord Saye, James Comer, and the Clerk of Chatham executed
during the rebellion, and is then killed and beheaded himself by
Alexander Iden.

Gloucester's death in particular is associated with the physical, as
seen in Warwick's detailed description of the body;


See how the blood is settled in his face.
Oft have I seen a timely-parted ghost,
Of ashy semblance, meagre, pale, and bloodless,
Being all descended to the labouring heart,
Who in the conflict that it holds with death
Attracts the same for aidance 'gainst the enemy,
Which with the heart there cools, and ne'er returneth
To blush and beautify the cheek again.
But see, his face is black and full of blood;
His eyeballs further out than when he lived,
Staring full ghastly like a strangled man;
His hair upreared, his nostrils stretched with struggling,
His hands abroad displayed, as one that grasped
And tugged for life and was by strength subdued.
Look on the sheets: his hair, you see, is sticking;
His well-proportioned beard made rough and rugged,
Like to the summer's corn by tempest lodged.
It cannot be but he was murdered here.
The least of all these signs were probable.
::::::: (3.2.160-178)


Winchester's death is also physically grotesque as he distorts his
face and curses God, haunted by the ghost of Gloucester.

However, many of the after-death actions are even more macabre than
the deaths themselves. Suffolk's head is delivered to Margaret, who
carries it around court for the last two acts of the play. Lord
Stafford and his brother are killed and their bodies dragged through
the streets behind horses. Lord Saye and his son-in-law are beheaded
and their heads carried throughout the streets on poles and made to
kiss. Cade is beheaded and his head delivered to the king. Not only is
physical violence presented as a major theme, but so too is physical
desecration, a disregard for the body after death.


                            Performance
======================================================================
After the original 1592 performances, the complete text of '2 Henry
VI' seems to have been rarely acted. The first recorded performance
after Shakespeare's day was on 23 April 1864 (Shakespeare's
tercentenary) at the Surrey Theatre in London, as a stand-alone
performance, with director James Anderson playing York and Cade. Of
this production, 'The Illustrated London News' wrote, "It is a
revival, or rather restoration to the stage, of an utterly neglected
work, which has not been played for 270 years." The next definite
performance was in 1889, when George Osmond Tearle directed another
stand-alone production at the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre in
Stratford-upon-Avon, starring Erskine Lewis as Henry and Ellen
Cranston as Margaret. In 1899, F.R. Benson directed another
stand-alone production of the play at the Shakespeare Memorial
Theatre. In 1906, he revived the play, and included '1 Henry VI' and
'3 Henry VI' 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 1951, Douglas Seale directed a production at the Birmingham
Repertory Theatre, starring Paul Daneman as Henry, Rosalind Boxall as
Margaret, John Arnatt as York and Alfred Burke as Gloucester. '2 Henry
VI' has not been performed as a stand-alone play since then, although
Seale's production was so successful that '3 Henry VI' followed in
1952, and '1 Henry VI' in 1953, all with linked casting.

A production that made much of its unedited status came in 1977, at
the Royal Shakespeare Theatre, where Terry Hands presented all three
'Henry VI' plays with Alan Howard as Henry and Helen Mirren as
Margaret. Although the production was only moderately successful at
the box office, it was critically lauded at the time 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. Also praised was the staging of the battle of St Albans,
which was fought between the principal characters only, without any
extras or suggestions of it being a larger battle, thus emphasising
that the whole conflict grew from what was originally a small family
squabble. 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 Emrys
James as York and Graham Crowden as Gloucester.

Under the direction of Michael Boyd the play was presented at the Swan
Theatre in Stratford in 2000, with David Oyelowo as Henry, Fiona Bell
as Margaret, Clive Wood as York, and Richard Cordery as Gloucester.
The play was presented with the five other history plays ('Richard
II', '1 Henry IV', '2 Henry IV', 'Henry V' and 'Richard III') to form
a complete eight-part history cycle under the general title 'This
England: The Histories' (the first time the 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, Katy Stephens as Margaret, Jonathan
Slinger as York and, reprising his role from 2000, Richard Cordery as
Gloucester. 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. '2 Henry VI' was performed under the title 'Henry VI, Part
2: England's Fall'. 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. Another alteration was that the
'Lieutenant' who orders Suffolk's death in 4.1 was in fact the ghost
of Lord Talbot (played by Keith Bartlett), who had been killed in '1
Henry VI'. Additionally, during Jack Cade's rebellion, the ghosts of
Gloucester, Winchester and Suffolk all appear as rebels, and in a much
lauded piece of double casting, Clayton and Bunsee also played Dick
the Butcher in their respective performances. 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. '2 Henry VI' was staged by the
National Theater of Albania, directed by Adonis Filipi, and starring
Indrit Çobani as Henry, Ermina Hysaj as Margaret, Vasjan Lami as York
and Kristaq Skrami as Gloucester. 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'. '2 Henry VI' was performed under the title
'Henry VI: The Houses of York and Lancaster'. 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, Brendan O'Hea as York and Garry Cooper as
Gloucester.

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 succeeded 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. In 1999, director Ruediger Burbach presented '2 Henry
VI' and '3 Henry VI' at the Zurich Playhouse. This production was
unique insofar as a woman (Katharina Schmoelzer) played Henry.
Margaret was played by Katharina von Bock.


Theatrical
============
Evidence for the first adaptation of '2 Henry VI' is found during the
Restoration, when, in 1681, John Crowne created a two-part play
entitled 'Henry the Sixth, The First Part' and 'The Misery of Civil
War'. 'Henry' comprised Acts 1-3 of '2 Henry VI' focusing on the death
of Gloucester, 'Misery' adapted the last two acts of '2 Henry VI' and
much of '3 Henry VI'. Writing at the time of Popish Plot, Crowne, who
was a devout royalist, used his adaptation to warn about the danger of
allowing England to descend into another civil war, which would be the
case should the Whig party rise to power. As such, the scenes of Jack
Cade's rebellion, as depicted in 'Misery', were much more violent than
in Shakespeare, with painted backdrops of people on fire and children
impaled on pikes. Crowne also rewrote the roles of Gloucester and
Winchester to make Gloucester more saint-like and taintless, and
Winchester even more villainous. He also linked the murder of
Gloucester to the recent assassination of Edmund Berry Godfrey, an
incident which had led to an outbreak of anti-Catholic hysteria in
London in 1678. By creating this link, Crowne was aiming to enhance
anti-Catholic sentiment even more and ensure the passing of the
Exclusion Bill, which would prevent the Catholic James Stuart, Duke of
York succeeding his brother, the Protestant Charles II. To this end,
Crowne rewrote the murder scene to give more characterisation to the
three murderers, who were depicted as devout, but cold-blooded
Catholics.

Two more adaptations followed in 1723. The first was 'Humfrey Duke of
Gloucester' by Ambrose Philips, which used about thirty lines from
Acts 1-3 of '2 Henry VI' and was performed at Drury Lane. In a
possible comment on the politics of Crowne's adaptation, Phillips
dedicated his version to William Pulteney, 1st Earl of Bath, a leading
Whig politician. The second 1723 adaptation, also performed at Drury
Lane, was Theophilus Cibber's 'King Henry VI: A Tragedy', which used
Act 5 of '2 Henry VI' and Acts 1 and 2 of '3 Henry VI', and which
featured his father Colley Cibber as Winchester.

In 1817, Edmund Kean appeared in J.H. Merivale's 'Richard Duke of
York; or the Contention of York and Lancaster', which used material
from all three 'Henry VI' plays, but removed everything not directly
related to York. Material from '2 Henry VI' included the lamentation
about the loss of Anjou and Maine, the conflict between Gloucester and
Winchester, the murder of Gloucester, the death of Winchester (where
all Warwick's dialogue is reassigned to York), and Cade's rebellion.

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 and Esther Whitehouse played Margaret. Atkins
himself played York.

The success of the 1951-1953 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 down. Seale again directed, with Paul Daneman again
appearing as Henry and Alfred Burke as Gloucester, alongside Barbara
Jefford as Margaret and Derek Godfrey as York.

The production which is 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 then 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, Donald Sinden as
York and Paul Hardwick as Gloucester. 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. The directors
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 tetraology
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 Adelaide, 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, before his abdication. Jack Cade, played by
Michael Pennington was presented as a punk with spiked hair and
wearing a shirt depicting a Union Jack with a white rose in the
middle, and during the Cade rebellion, football hooligan chants were
heard. Indeed, the Cade rebellion in general was modelled on the
National Front. Bogdanov also employed frequent anachronisms and
contemporary visual registers, in an effort to show the relevance of
the politics to the contemporary period. The production was noted for
its pessimism as regards contemporary 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 Brennen, the play starred Barry Stanton as York and Colin Farrell
as Gloucester.

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, Anton Lesser as York and David Waller as
Gloucester, 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 which
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.

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,
Thom Marriott played York and David Francis played Gloucester.

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 150 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'. The
original cast included Jonathan McGuinness as Henry, Robert Hands as
Margaret, Guy Williams as York and Richard Clothier as Gloucester.
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, Bruce A. Young as York and Sean
Fortunato as Gloucester.

Outside England, a major European 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 Piccolo Teatro 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), 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'.


Television
============
The first television adaptation of the play was in 1960 when the BBC
produced a serial entitled 'An Age of Kings'. The show comprised
fifteen sixty- and seventy-five-minute episodes which 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,
Jack May as York and John Ringham as Gloucester. The tenth episode,
"The Fall of a Protector" covers Acts 1, 2 and Act 3, Scene 1, ending
with York's soliloquy regarding the fact that he now has troops at his
disposal and his revelation of his plans to use Jack Cade to instigate
a popular rebellion. The eleventh episode, "The Rabble from Kent",
presents everything from Act 3, Scene 2 onwards, beginning with the
death of Humphrey. With each episode running one hour, a great deal of
text was necessarily removed, but aside from truncation, only minor
alterations were made to the original. For example, in "The Fall of a
Protector", Peter Thump does not kill Thomas Horner during the combat;
he compels him to confess by sitting on him, and Horner is promptly
arrested. In "The Rabble from Kent", we see the murder of Gloucester,
whereas in the text, it happens off-stage. Also worth noting is that
the characters of both George Plantagenet and Edmund, Earl of Rutland
are introduced just prior to the Battle of St Albans, whereas in the
text, neither character is introduced until '3 Henry VI' (Edmund in
Act 1, Scene 3; George in Act 2, Scene 2). Additionally, Edmund is
played by an adult actor, whereas in the text, he is a child.

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') with David Warner as Henry and Peggy
Ashcroft as Margaret. Directed for television by Robin Midgley and
Michael Hayes, the plays were presented as more than simply 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. Additionally,
camera platforms were created around the theatre. In all, twelve
cameras were used, allowing the final product to be edited more like a
film than a piece of 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 52 BBC staff working alongside 84 RSC staff
to bring the project to fruition. In 1966, the production was repeated
on BBC 1 where it was re-edited into eleven episodes of 50 minutes
each. The second episode, "Margaret of Anjou", presented '1 Henry VI'
from Act 4, Scene 2 onwards, 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' (concluding with Henry
and Margaret departing from the court). The third episode, "The Lord
Protector" covered Acts 1, 2 and Act 3, Scene 1 of '2 Henry VI',
ending with York's soliloquy regarding the fact that he now has troops
at his disposal and his revelation of his plans to use Jack Cade to
instigate a popular rebellion. The fourth episode, "The Council
Board", presented Act 3, Scene 2 up to Act 4, Scene 8, concluding with
Jack Cade's forces abandoning him. The fifth episode, "The Fearful
King", presented the rest of '2 Henry VI' (beginning with Henry
pardoning Cade's rebels) as well as '3 Henry VI' Act 1 and Act 2,
Scene 1, concluding with Warwick rallying Edward, Richard and George
after their father's death.

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 second part of the tetralogy (all four adaptations
directed by Howell) with linked casting; Henry was played by Peter
Benson, Margaret by Julia Foster, York by Bernard Hill and Gloucester
by David Burke. Howell's presentation of the complete first historical
tetralogy was one of the most lauded achievements of the entire 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' (where it is visible
throughout the entire first scene), 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 . Stanley Wells wrote of the set 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." 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 became more and
more monotone as the plays went on--'The First Part of Henry the Sixt'
features brightly coloured costumes which clearly distinguish the
various 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.

Another element of  in this production is the use of doubling,
particularly the use of the actors David Burke and Trevor Peacock.
Burke plays Henry's closest advisor and most loyal servant,
Gloucester, and after Gloucester's death, he plays Jack Cade's
right-hand man, Dick the Butcher. Peacock plays Cade himself, having
previously appeared in 'The First Part of Henry the Sixt' as Lord
Talbot, representative of chivalry. Both actors play complete
inversions of their previous characters, re-creating both an
authentically Elizabethan theatrical practice and a Breachtian
political commentary. 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 and straightforward manner favoured by then
series producer Cedric Messina; "where Messina saw the history plays
conventionally as orthodox Tudor historiography, and [David Giles]
employed dramatic techniques which 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."

Howell's 'The Second Part of Henry the Sixt' was based on the folio
text rather than the quarto; however, it departed from that text in a
number of places. For example, numerous lines were cut from almost
every scene. Some of the more notable omissions include: in Act 1,
Scene 1, both of Gloucester's references to Bedford are absent (ll.
82-83, 95-96), as is the reference to Suffolk's demands that he be
paid for escorting Margaret from France (ll. 131-133), and York's
allusion to Althaea and Calydon in his closing soliloquy (ll.231-235).
Absent in Act 2, Scene 1 is Gloucester's question to Winchester "Is
your priesthood grown peremptory? 'Tantaene animis caelestibus irae'?"
(ll.23-24), as are lines 173-180, where Winchester taunts Gloucester
about Eleanor's arrest and Gloucester calls off their duel. York's
outline of Edward III's seven sons is absent from Act 2, Scene 2
(ll.10-17), as is Salisbury's reference to Owen Glendower (l.41).
Suffolk's accusation that Gloucester was involved in necromancy with
Eleanor is omitted from Act 3, Scene 1 (ll.47-53), as is Gloucester's
outline of how he dealt with criminals during his time as Protector
(ll.128-132). Also absent from 3.1 are the comments by Winchester,
Suffolk and Margaret after Gloucester accuses them of conspiring to
bring him down (ll.172-185), and York's references to how he fought
alongside Cade in Ireland (ll.360-370). In Act 4, Scene 1, all
references to Walter Whitmore's name as Gualtier are absent
(ll.38-39). The entirety of Act 4, Scene 5 (a brief scene showing
Scales and Gough on patrol at the Tower of London) is absent. In Act
5, Scene 1, some of the dialogue between Clifford and Warwick is
absent (ll.200-210).

However, there were also some additions to the text, most noticeably
some lines from 'The Contention', such as in Act 1, Scene 1, where two
lines are added to Salisbury's vow to support York if he can prove he
is a legitimate heir to the crown. Between lines 197 and 198 is added
"The reverence of mine age and the Neville's name/Is of no little
force if I command." In Act 1, Scene 3, two lines are added to the
conversation between Margaret and Thump between lines 31 and 32, where
Thump mistakes the word 'usurper' for 'usurer" and is corrected by
Margaret. Another example is found in Act 2, Scene 1, where the
extended conversation between Gloucester and Winchester in which
Gloucester says Winchester was born "in bastardy" is included. Other
changes include the transferral of lines to characters other than
those who speak them in the Folio text. The most notable of these is
1.3.211 where Gloucester's line "This is the law, and this Duke
Gloucester's doom" is given to Henry. Additionally, in Act 1, Scene 4,
during the conjuration, there is no separate spirit in the scene; all
the spirit's dialogue is spoken 'through' Jourdayne, and her lines
from the Folio are omitted. Also, later in the scene, it is Buckingham
who reads the prophecies, not York. In Act 4, Scene 1, the second half
of line 139 ("Pompey the Great, and Suffolk dies by pirates") is
spoken by the Lieutenant, not Suffolk.

Another notable stylistic technique is that the soliloquies of York in
Act 1, Scene 1 and Act 3, Scene 1, as well as those of Eleanor and Hum
in Act 1, Scene 2, and York's asides in Act 1, Scene 1 and Act 3,
Scene 1 are all delivered direct to camera, as is the Dick the
Butcher's comments in Act 4, Scene 2, as Cade delivers his speech to
the masses. Also worth noting is that the character of George
Plantagenet is introduced just prior to the Battle of St Albans,
whereas in the text, he is not introduced until '3 Henry VI', Act 2,
Scene 2. Additionally, Buckingham is killed onscreen whereas in the
play, his fate is unknown, only revealed in the opening lines of '3
Henry VI' to have been killed by Edward.

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 Bryon as Henry,
Gladys Young as Margaret, Richard Williams as York and Baliol Holloway
as Gloucester. 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
reason for this was explained by Dover Wilson, who argued that '1
Henry VI' is "patchwork in which Shakespeare collaborated with
inferior dramatists." The adaptation starred Valentine Dyall as Henry,
Sonia Dresdel as Margaret, Stephen Jack as York and Gordon McLeod as
Gloucester. 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 and an abridged '3 Henry VI'. Nigel
Lambert played Henry, Barbara Jefford played Margaret and Ian McKellen
played both York and Richard III. 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, '2 Henry VI' comprised episodes 17 ("Witchcraft") and 18 ("Jack
Cade"). James Laurenson played Henry, Peggy Ashcroft played Margaret,
Peter Jeffrey played York 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
60-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 160-minute episode. There is no known cast information for
this production.

In 1985, German radio channel Sender Freies Berlin broadcast a heavily
edited 76-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'.


                              See also
======================================================================
* List of idioms attributed to Shakespeare


Citations
===========
All references to 'Henry VI, Part 2', unless otherwise specified, are
taken from the 'Oxford Shakespeare' (Warren), 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 2''
==================================
* Bate, Jonathan, and Rasmussen, Eric (eds.). 'Henry VI, Parts I, II
and III' (The RSC Shakespeare; London: Macmillan, 2012)
* Cairncross, Andrew S. (ed.). 'King Henry VI, Part 2' (The Arden
Shakespeare, 2nd Series; London: Arden, 1957)
* Dover Wilson, John (ed.). 'The Second 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)
* Freeman, Arthur (ed.). 'Henry VI, Part Two' (Signet Classic
Shakespeare; New York: Signet, 1967; revised edition, 1989; 2nd
revised edition 2005)
* 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 Second Part of Henry
the Sixt' (The Arden Shakespeare, 1st Series; London: Arden, 1909)
* Hattaway, Michael (ed.) 'The Second Part of King Henry VI' (The New
Cambridge Shakespeare; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991)
* Knowles, Ronald (ed.). 'King Henry VI, Part 2' (The Arden
Shakespeare, 3rd Series; London: Arden, 1999)
* Montgomery, William (ed.). 'The First Part of the Contention Betwixt
the Two Famous Houses of York and Lancaster: The 'Bad Quarto' of Henry
VI, Part 2' (London: Malone Society, 1985)
* . 'Henry VI Part II' (The Pelican Shakespeare, 2nd edition; London:
Penguin, 2000)
* Sanders, Norman (ed.). 'Henry VI, Part Two' (The New Penguin
Shakespeare; London: Penguin, 1981)
* Taylor, Michael (ed.). 'Henry VI, Part Two' (The New Penguin
Shakespeare, 2nd edition; London: Penguin, 2005)
* Turner, Robert K. Jr., and Williams, George Walton (eds.). 'The
Second Part of Henry the Sixth' (The Pelican Shakespeare; London:
Penguin, 1967; revised edition 1980)
* Warren, Roger (ed.). 'Henry VI, Part Two' (The Oxford Shakespeare;
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003)
* Montgomery, William, with Taylor, Gary (eds.). 'The First Part of
the Contention Betwixt the Two Famous Houses of York and Lancaster' in
'The Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works' (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1986; 2nd edn., 2005)
* Werstine, Paul, and Mowat, Barbara A. (eds.). 'Henry VI, Part 2'
(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)
* Born, Hanspeter. "The Date of '2', '3 Henry VI'", 'Shakespeare
Quarterly', 25:3 (Autumn, 1974), 323-334
* 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
* Chartier, Roger. "Jack Cade, the Skin of a Dead Lamb, and the Hatred
for Writing", 'Shakespeare Studies', 34 (2006), 77-89
* 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)
* Doran, Madeleine. 'Henry VI, Parts II and III: Their Relation to the
Contention and the True Tragedy' (Iowa: University of Iowa Press,
1928)
* 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
* Greg, W. W. "'The Bad Quartos' of '2' and '3 Henry VI'", 'The Review
of English Studies', 13 (1937), 64-72
* 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)
* 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
* Jones, Emrys. 'The Origins of Shakespeare' (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1977)
* Jordan, John E. "The Reporter of 'Henry VI, Part 2'", 'PMLA', 64:4
(October 1949), 1089-1113
* 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
* Lee, Patricia-Ann. "Reflections of Power: Margaret of Anjou and the
Dark Side of Queenship", 'Renaissance Quarterly', 39:2 (Summer, 1986),
183-217
* Longstaffe, Stephen. ""A short report and not otherwise": Jack Cade
in '2 Henry VI'", in Ronald Knowles (editor), 'Shakespeare and
Carnival: After Bakhtin' (London: Macmillan, 1998), 13-37
* 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", 'Review of English Studies', 51 (2000), 208-229
* McKerrow, R. B. "A Note on 'Henry VI, Part 2' and 'The Contention of
York and Lancaster'", 'Review of English Studies', 9 (1933), 157-269
* Muir, Kenneth. 'The Sources of Shakespeare's Plays' (London:
Routledge, 1977; rpt 2005)
* Myers, Norman J. "Finding a "Heap of Jewels" in "Lesser"
Shakespeare: 'The Wars of the Roses' and 'Richard Duke of York'", 'New
England Theatre Journal', 7 (1996), 95-107
* Onions, C. T. 'A Shakespeare Glossary' (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1953; 2nd edn. edited by Robert D. Eagleson, 1986)
* Owens, Margaret E. "The Many-Headed Monster in 'Henry VI, Part 2'",
'Criticism', 38:3 (Fall, 1996), 63-93
* 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
* . "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
* Rackin, Phyllis and Howard, Jean E. 'Engendering a Nation: A
Feminist Account of Shakespeare's English Histories' (London:
Routledge, 1997)
* 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)
* Swandler, Homer D. "The Rediscovery of 'Henry VI'", 'Shakespeare
Quarterly', 29:2 (Summer, 1978), 146-163
* Tillyard, E. M. W. 'Shakespeare's History Plays' (London: The
Athlone Press, 1944; rpt. 1986)
* Urkowitz, Steven "If I mistake in those foundations which I build
upon": Peter Alexander's textual analysis of 'Henry VI Parts 2' and
'3'", 'English Literary Renaissance', 18:2 (Summer, 1988), 230-256
* Warren, Roger "The Quarto and Folio Texts of '2 Henry VI': A
Reconsideration", 'Review of English Studies', 51 (2000), 193-207
* Watkins, Ronald. "The only Shake-scene", 'Philological Quarterly',
54:1 (Spring, 1975), 47-67
* 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)
* Williamson, Marilyn L. ""When Men Are Rul'd by Women": Shakespeare's
First Tetralogy", 'Shakespeare Studies', 19 (1987), 41-59
* Wilson, F. P. 'Shakespearean and Other Studies' (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1969; edited by Helen Gardner)


                           External links
======================================================================
*
* [https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1501 'Henry VI, Part 2'] - from
Project Gutenberg.
* [http://shakespeare.mit.edu/2henryvi/index.html 'The Second part of
King Henry the Sixth'] - scene-indexed HTML version of the play.
* [http://www.maximumedge.com/shakespeare/henryvi2.htm 'King Henry VI,
Part 2'] - scene-indexed, searchable HTML version of the play.
*
[http://triggs.djvu.org/djvu-editions.com/SHAKESPEARE/H6-2/Download.pdf
'The second Part of Henry the Sixt']  - PDF version, with original
'First Folio' spelling.
* [http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Annex/Texts/2H6/Q1/default/ 'The
First Part of the Contention']  - HTML version of the 1594 quarto.
*
* [http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/plays/2H6.html 'Henry
the Sixth, Part 2' 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_2

You are viewing proxied material from gopherpedia.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.