Type of plot: Historical
Time of plot: 1422–44
Locale: England and France
First performed: ca. 1592; first published, 1598
PRINCIPAL CHARACTERS
King Henry VI
Duke of Gloucester, uncle of the king and Protector of the Realm
Duke of Bedford, uncle of the king and Regent of France
Henry Beaufort, bishop of Winchester, afterward cardinal
Richard Plantagenet, who becomes Duke of York
John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset
Earl of Suffolk
Lord Talbot, a general, afterward Earl of Shrewsbury
Charles, the Dauphin, afterward King of France
The Bastard of Orleans, a French general
Margaret of Anjou, afterward married to King Henry
Joan La Pucelle, also known as Joan of Arc
THE STORY
The great nobles and churchmen of England gathered in Westminster Abbey for the state funeral of King Henry V, hero of Agincourt and conqueror of France. The eulogies of Gloucester, Bedford, Exeter, and the bishop of Winchester, profound and extensive, were broken off by messengers bringing reports of English defeat and failure in France, where the Dauphin, taking advantage of King Henry’s illness, had raised a revolt. The gravest defeat reported was the imprisonment of Lord Talbot, general of the English armies. Bedford swore to avenge his loss. Gloucester said that he would also hasten military preparations and proclaim young Prince Henry, nine months old, King of England. The bishop of Winchester, disgruntled because the royal dukes had asked neither his advice nor aid, planned to seize the king’s person and ingratiate himself into royal favor.
In France, the Dauphin and his generals, discussing the conduct of the war, attempted to overwhelm the depleted English forces. Although outnumbered and without leaders, the English fought valiantly and tenaciously. Hope of victory came to the French, however, when the Bastard of Orleans brought to the Dauphin’s camp a soldier-maid, Joan La Pucelle, described as a holy young girl with God-given visionary powers. The Dauphin’s attempt to trick her was unsuccessful, for she recognized him although Reignier, Duke of Anjou, stood in the Dauphin’s place. Next she vanquished the prince in a duel to which he had challenged her in an attempt to test her fighting skill.
The followers of the Duke of Gloucester and the bishop of Winchester rioted in the London streets, as dissension between church and state grew because of Winchester’s efforts to keep Gloucester from seeing young Henry. The mayor of London declaimed the unseemly conduct of the rioters.
When the English and the French fought again, Lord Salisbury and Sir Thomas Gargrave, the English leaders, were killed by a gunner in ambush. Meanwhile Lord Talbot, greatly feared by the French, had been ransomed in time to take command of English forces in the siege of Orleans. Enraged by the death of Salisbury, Talbot fought heroically, on one occasion with La Pucelle herself. At last the English swarmed into the town and put the French to rout. Talbot ordered Salisbury’s body to be carried into the public market place of Orleans as a token of his revenge for that lord’s murder.
The countess of Auvergne invited Lord Talbot to visit her in her castle. Fearing chicanery, Bedford and Burgundy tried to keep him from going into an enemy stronghold, but Talbot, as strong-willed as he was brave, ignored their pleas. He whispered to his captain, however, certain instructions concerning his visit.
On his arrival at Auvergne Castle the countess announced that she was making him her prisoner in order to save France from further scourges. Talbot proved his wit by completely baffling the countess with double talk and by signaling his soldiers, who stormed the castle, ate the food and drank the wine, and then won the favor of the countess with their charming manners.
In addition to continued internal strife resulting from Gloucester’s and Winchester’s personal ambitions, new dissension arose between Richard Plantagenet and the Earl of Somerset. Plantagenet and his followers chose a white rose as their symbol, Somerset and his supporters a red rose, and in the quarrel of these two men the disastrous Wars of the Roses began. In the meantime Edmund Mortimer, the rightful heir to the throne, who had been imprisoned when King Henry IV usurped the crown some thirty years before, was released from confinement. He urged his nephew, Richard Plantagenet, to restore the family to the rightful position the Plantagenets deserved. Youthful King Henry VI, after making Plantagenet Duke of York, much to the displeasure of Somerset, was taken to France by Gloucester and other lords to be crowned King of France. In Paris, Talbot’s chivalry and prowess were rewarded when he was made Earl of Shrewsbury.
In preparation for the battle at Rouen, La Pucelle won Burgundy over to the cause of France by playing upon his vanity and appealing to what she termed his sense of justice. The immaturity of the king was revealed in his request that Talbot go to Burgundy and chastise him for his desertion. The Duke of York and the Earl of Somerset finally brought their quarrel to the king, who implored them to be friendly for England’s sake. He pointed out that disunity among the English lords would only weaken their stand in France. To show how petty he considered their differences he casually put on a red rose, the symbol of Somerset’s faction, and explained that it was merely a flower and that he loved one of his rival kinsmen as much as the other. He appointed York a regent of France and ordered both him and Somerset to supply Talbot with men and supplies for battle. Then the king and his party returned to London.
The king’s last assignment to his lords in France was Talbot’s death knell; Somerset, refusing to send horses with which York planned to supply Talbot, accused York of self-aggrandizement. York, in turn, blamed Somerset for negligence. As their feud continued, Talbot and his son were struggling valiantly against the better-equipped and larger French army at Bordeaux. After many skirmishes Talbot and his son were slain, and the English suffered tremendous losses. Flushed with the triumph of their great victory, the French leaders planned to march on to Paris.
In England, meanwhile, there was talk of a truce, and the king agreed, after a moment of embarrassment because of his youth, to Gloucester’s proposal that Henry accept in marriage the daughter of the Earl of Armagnac, a man of affluence and influence in France. This alliance, designed to effect a friendly peace between the two countries, was to be announced in France by Cardinal Beaufort, former bishop of Winchester, who, in sending money to the pope to pay for his cardinalship, stated that his ecclesiastical position gave him status equal to that of the loftiest peer. He threatened mutiny if Gloucester ever tried to dominate him again. The king sent a jewel to seal the contract of betrothal.
The fighting in France dwindled greatly, with the English forces converging for one last weak stand. La Pucelle cast a spell and conjured up fiends to bolster her morale and to assist her in battle, but her appeal was to no avail, and York took her prisoner. Berated as a harlot and condemned as a witch by the English, La Pucelle pleaded for her life. At first she contended that her virgin blood would cry for vengeance at the gates of heaven. When this appeal failed to move York and the Earl of Warwick, she implored them to save her unborn child, fathered, she said variously, by the Dauphin, the Duke of Alencon, and the Duke of Anjou. She was condemned to be burned at the stake.
In another skirmish the Earl of Suffolk had taken as his prisoner Margaret, daughter of the Duke of Anjou. Enthralled by her loveliness, he was unable to claim her for himself because he was already married. He finally struck upon the notion of wooing Margaret for the king. After receiving her father’s permission to present Margaret’s name to Henry as a candidate for marriage, Suffolk went to London to petition the king. While Henry weighed the matter against the consequences of breaking his contract with the Earl of Armagnac, Exeter and Gloucester attempted to dissuade him from following Suffolk’s suggestions. Their pleas were in vain. Margaret’s great courage and spirit, as described by Suffolk, held promise of a great and invincible offspring.
Terms of peace having been arranged, Suffolk was ordered to conduct Margaret to England. Suffolk, because he had brought Margaret and Henry together, planned to take advantage of his opportune political position and, through Margaret, rule youthful Henry and his kingdom.
CRITICAL EVALUATION
This play is the first in a trilogy of plays about the reign of King Henry VI of England, and the story is continued in a fourth play, Richard III (ca. 1592–93). The series of plays depicts the Wars of the Roses, which was civil warfare in England arising out of a dispute about the rightful succession to the throne. The theme of the series, an important and practical one to William Shakespeare’s Elizabethan audience, is the necessity for a strong and secure monarchy to ensure the peace and prosperity of the realm. Henry VI, Part I deals with events leading up to the war.
The play can be confusing to read for a number of reasons, one of which is that it portrays disunity. The society it reflects is confused, inconsistent, and disorderly. In addition, the events shown in the play occurred over a period of many years, but in the play are telescoped down to fit into two or three hours. Consequently, the action tends to be fast-paced, unevenly developed, and sometimes disjointed. There are many short scenes and complete reversals of fortune in the war. The historical details are sometimes distorted and not always fully consistent. The cast of characters is very large, and several of them are central to the action of the play, but no single one of them dominates the play as a whole. Finally, a number of conflicts are presented, the causes of which are complex. An audience may be helped along by abridgment and stagecraft; audiences and readers alike benefit from an understanding of the play’s historical background.
After the death of the strong and popular Henry V, the English face two problems: the resurgence of unity and fighting spirit among the French, who seek to reestablish France’s sovereignty, and the disintegration of England, lacking an effective leader. The Duke of Bedford makes a gloomy prophecy at the funeral of Henry V, “Posterity, await for wretched years,” which is fulfilled during the course of the play in the emergence of a power struggle between the Duke of Gloucester and the bishop of Winchester and in the ultimately disastrous quarrel between Richard Plantagenet and the Earl of Somerset.
Winchester is portrayed as a corrupt, power-hungry bishop who buys his elevation to cardinal and who seeks to overthrow the rightful, secular authority of the Protector. This can be seen as anti-Roman Catholic propaganda, a politically orthodox, patriotic bias widely shared by the Elizabethan audience. The dispute between Richard and Somerset is more complex. They are motivated by the desire for power and influence as well as by envy and mutual dislike. In Richard’s case, he seems to be more than a mere opportunist. The dying Edmund Mortimer establishes his position, and right seems to be on Richard’s side in his claim to the house of York, and perhaps the English throne. Richard is more developed and more ambiguous than most of the characters in the play. Audiences see in him not only imperative ambition but also a more thoughtful judgment, as in the scene in which Henry unwisely puts on a red rose and Richard chooses to hold his tongue.
The situation of the English armies fighting in France, poorly provisioned and equipped, lacking reinforcements, and close to mutiny, is a consequence of the dissension among the nobles at home, and to some extent a parallel to it. Leadership, values, and focus are generally absent, and replaced by uncertainty and self-interest.
Lord Talbot is an example of how an English leader should be. He is courageous and strong, loved by his own people and feared by his enemies. In the incident with the countess of Auvergne, audiences see he is charming but nobody’s fool. He is loyal, optimistic, and God-fearing. Talbot, like England, is betrayed and brought to ruin by the self-serving discord among the English nobility.
The portrayal of the French is unflattering. Their success in battle is the result of problems in the English ranks rather than to any virtue of their own, and the English blame it on French sorcery. Any pretensions the French have to valor are undercut. The Dauphin, Charles, for example, proclaims that he prefers to die rather than run; the next thing the audience sees him do is flee, complaining bitterly of the cowardice of his men. The scenes about the French are often comic, with Shakespeare mocking the French as effete blusterers whose main interest is in making love.
Many critics have objected to the playwright’s version of Joan of Arc, but in this play, with its clear anti-French, anti-Catholic bias, the portrayal is hardly surprising. Even the French characters undermine Joan’s holiness with lust and wisecracking innuendo. The play shows her to be a whore, hypocrite, sorceress, and liar. All these attributes of a characterization were presumably popular with an Elizabethan audience.
In the final act, the alliance between Margaret of Anjou and the Earl of Suffolk, the arrangements for the marriage between Henry and Margaret, and Suffolk’s vow to use his influence with her to control the king and the realm form a strong link with the next play in the trilogy. Henry VI, Part I, written early in Shakespeare’s career, lacks the stature of the later plays. Its structure is loose and episodic. The characters are generally impelled by one dominant characteristic and lack the subtlety of Shakespeare’s later characterizations. The verse does not achieve the fluency and grandeur seen in the later plays. Critics have disputed whether the play was written by Shakespeare alone, or even whether Shakespeare wrote any of it at all. Modern scholarship tends to attribute the play entirely to Shakespeare, however, and to find in its vigor the greatness that the playwright would later show in abundance.
—Susan Henthorne
FILM ADAPTATIONS
1960 Michael Hayes Age of Kings Production
This version, part of the BBC television series An Age of Kings, starred Robert Lang as Cardinal of Winchester; Jerome Willis as The Dauphin; Eileen Atkins as Joan la Pucelle; Jack May as Duke of York; Edgar Wreford as Earl of Suffolk; Alan Rowe as Duke of Somerset; Terry Scully as King Henry VI; and Mary Morris as Margaret.
In his 2013 book Small-Screen Shakespeare (58), Peter Cochran noted that this version actually follows Henry V (58) and that it prunes all the French episodes (59).
1965 Wars of the Roses Production
This production, part of a BBC television series, starred David Warner as Henry VI; John Normington as Bedford; Paul Hardwick as Gloucester; Donald Burton as Exeter; and Nicholas Selby as Winchester.
Peter Cochran, in his 2013 book titled Small-Screen Shakespeare, said that this version, which significantly alters the text (59), is humorless (60).
1983 BBC Shakespeare Production
The 1983 BBC production, directed by Jane Howell (who directed the whole Henry VI trilogy), starred Peter Benson as King Henry VI; Brenda Blethyn as Joan La Pucelle; Antony Brown as Duke of Burgundy; David Burke as Duke of Gloucester; Michael Byrne as Duke of Alençon; and Paul Chapman as both Earl of Suffolk and Sir William Glasdale.
Henry Fenwick, in his essay on “The Production” (21–31) in the BBC booklet that accompanied the first broadcast of this adaptation, reported that Jane Howell, the director, was faced with the challenge of filming all three plays with few cuts to their texts; that she at first also did not care for the plays but soon found humor in them, especially when the French assault the English and then immediately change their opinions (21); that she saw the first play as somewhat resembling a soap opera involving feuding families; and that she commented that by the end of the trilogy all the imposing figures have died or been killed, leaving behind them the unimpressive Richard II (23). Howell said eventually she came to have great regard for the first play, especially thanks to its gags (22), remarking that she saw a transition from Part I to Part II as involving also a transition away from chivalry, so that eventually each main character is looking out for himself (22–23). Because she thought the lords behaved childishly, she decided to make the set resemble a playground with many doors and many exits and entrances (23).
Oliver Bayden, set designer, saw the play as one intended to stimulate vocal audience responses; he too liked the idea of creating a kind of “adventure playground” set with some sense of modernity so that the factional fighting the play emphasizes might seem relevant to present-day factional fighting, especially in various civil wars around the globe (24). Costume designer John Peacock similarly wanted to emphasize childishness by using bright colors of the kind often associated with children’s toys and children’s clothing, with the costumes becoming darker as the trilogy proceeded and with different colors associated with different main characters. He dressed the English mainly and reds and browns and the French in blue and wanted each character’s costume to be memorable and easily recognizable. Eventually, as new characters enter the plays, the costumes become less elaborate and more functional, with Peacock reporting that the armor was the most difficult kind of costume to work on and was influenced by the kind of protective clothing American football players wear (25).
Director Howell considered the battles, which are particularly heavy in part I, almost as entertainments designed to add energy to the play; young actors were added to participate in the battles, with Howell personally involved in training them (26–27). However, while the violence in the first part was designed to be partly entertaining, the violence in the second part was designed to seem more deadly serious; these fights had to be carefully planned and carefully filmed, especially when the French were attacking the English (27–28). Howell next discussed the difficulties and challenges of casting the many main actors, some of whom doubled roles and some of whom entered the trilogy part by part. She particularly discussed her strategy in doubling roles, so that the same actor would play the same kind of character from one play to the next (29). Howell explained that although the first play is somewhat playful, things get more serious as the trilogy develops, especially after the death of Talbot, whom she considered a particularly difficult role for an actor to play (30), with everything becoming increasingly dark after Talbot’s death (31).
David Warner as Henry VI in Wars of the Roses.
CSSF_p0151_0001.jpg
Image by RGR Collection, via Alamy. [Used under license.]
Susan Willis, in her 1991 book on the BBC Shakespeare plays, noted such aspects of this version of Henry VI, Part I as the use of “hobby horses” (167); the fact that the set eventually “shows the ravages of long conflict” (169); the “use of [a] repertory company” (170); and an emphasis on good old-fashioned “theater gags” and allusions to performance (176). She wrote that the trilogy’s battles progress from comic to brutal (177); that the production does “not celebrate violence” (178); that an emphasis on battles as “violent sport” is implied through “chants and cheers”; and that victorious characters are sometimes carried on shoulders, as in athletic matches (180).
In their 2006 book on the Henry VI plays, Stuart Hampton-Reeves and Carol Chillington Rutter (108–111, 114–24), commenting at first on the trilogy as a whole, noted that Jane Howell, initially uninterested in filming the plays, changed her mind after noting that they resembled “carnivals, pantomimes and fairgrounds”—examples of “popular traditions” rather than “high culture,” and thus resembling modern television. The authors thought that of “Shakespeare’s works, the Henry VI plays seem most fit for television—each play is episodic, spectacular and constantly varied,” with “riveting story arcs which twist and turn as they do in modern television serials” (108). Some scenes, they commented, also resemble television news reports (109). In fact, when the plays were originally broadcast in Britain, television news programs interrupted them, breaking them into two parts (110). Noting that the opening credits to each play stressed British traditionalism (110), Hampton-Reeves and Rutter emphasized the broadcasts’ British contexts in particular. They claimed that the Henry VI trilogy managed to be both “innovative and politically challenging” (115), with the plays as “dramas not about people but about society” (115). Hampton-Reeves and Rutter praised the “naturalistic” acting and the beautiful costumes (115) and argued that the stripped-down sets resembled those used in Shakespeare’s own day and earlier (116). Commenting that Howell’s adaptations “were full of artifice, both televisual and theatrical” (116), they reported that she innovated in filming her sets, which changed in appearance as the plays proceeded, thus exemplifying the plays’ progress from “chivalric heroism” to “thuggish ambition” (117). The authors noted the ways the trilogy alluded to various kinds of genres while featuring a flexible set (117). Conceding that although the productions can now look “dated and amateurish,” Hampton-Reeves and Rutter nonetheless considered them “still worth watching” (118), saying that their emphasis on political factionalism can still seem relevant (118), especially because “the films’ depictions of war became increasingly dark as the three plays developed” (118).
Turning specifically to the first of the three plays, Hampton-Reeves and Rutter noted that here, as in other parts of the trilogy, the opening focuses on an important event—the funeral of Henry V, which is followed by scenes they discussed in some detail (119–20). They suggested that this funeral would have reminded the film’s first viewers of the 1979 funeral of the Earl of Mountbatten, who had been assassinated by Irish rebels, a funeral that was seen at that time as relevant, like Henry’s, to the “death of chivalry” (120) and to other English defeats. Hampton-Reeves and Rutter called attention to this film’s emphasis on the quick growth of factionalism after Henry’s demise (123), adding that the French are depicted here as immature and farcical (121) and describing the ways the film presents Young Talbot, especially in his death and its aftermath (124).
In his 2013 book Small-Screen Shakespeare, Peter Cochran thought that the set and some props in this adaptation make some fine actors appear foolish because they are forced to act like children (61).
1991 English Shakespeare Company Wars of the Roses Production
This adaptation, directed by Michael Bogdanov as part of a British television series, starred Paul Brennen as King Henry VI; Ian Burford as Duke of Exeter; Jack Carr as Duke of Burgundy; Michael Cronin as Earl of Warwick; Colin Farrell as Duke of Gloucester; and June Watson as Queen Margaret.
Assessing this production in his 2013 book Small-Screen Shakespeare (61–62), Peter Cochran reported that director Michael Bogdanov preserves much of the text and uses eclectic costumes that allude to different eras (61–62).
Bibliography
Cochran, Peter. Small-Screen Shakespeare. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013.
Fenwick, Henry. “The Production.” Henry VI Part 1: The BBC TV Shakespeare, edited by Peter Alexander et. al., BBC Books, 1979, pp. 21–31.
Hampton-Reeves, Stuart, and Carol Chillington Rutter. The HenryVI Plays. Manchester UP, 2006.
Willis, Susan. The BBC Shakespeare Plays: Making the Televised Canon. U of North Carolina P, 1991.