Henry VI, Part 1

By William Shakespeare

The first play of Shakespeare’s “War of the Roses Tetralogy”, which includes “Henry VI, Part 2”, “Henry VI, Part 3”, and “Richard III”, “Henry VI, Part 1” is set during the lifetime of King Henry VI and deals with the loss of England’s French territories and the political events that lead to the War of the Roses. The play was written sometime before 1591 and is among some of the Bard’s earliest works. “Henry VI, Part 1” was published in the “First Folio” in 1623 and some scholars believe it was written in collaboration with Christopher Marlowe and Thomas Nashe. This play begins just after the death of Henry V, when England is embroiled in a war with France. Across the English Channel, Sir John Talbot battles Joan of Arc, or “La Pucelle”, while the jealousy and petty squabbles that lead to the War of the Roses begins in England. Full of political and military machinations, “Henry VI, Part 1” provides a solid introduction to the king’s reign and is an important addition to Shakespeare’s historical plays concerning this significant and dramatic chapter of English history. This edition includes a biographical afterword, annotations by Henry N. Hudson, and an introduction by Charles Harold Herford.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Digireads.com Publishing
• Release date: Jul 12, 2020
• ISBN: 9781420974225

William Shakespeare

William Shakespeare is widely regarded as the greatest playwright the world has seen. He produced an astonishing amount of work; 37 plays, 154 sonnets, and 5 poems. He died on 23rd April 1616, aged 52, and was buried in the Holy Trinity Church, Stratford.

Book preview

cover.jpg

HENRY VI, PART 1

By WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE

Annotated by

HENRY N. HUDSON

Introduction by

CHARLES HAROLD HERFORD

Henry VI, Part 1

By William Shakespeare

Annotated by Henry N. Hudson

Introduction by Charles Harold Herford

Print ISBN 13: 978-1-4209-7363-1

eBook ISBN 13: 978-1-4209-7422-5

This edition copyright © 2021. Digireads.com Publishing.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.

Cover Image: a detail of Choosing the Red and White Roses in the Temple Garden, by Henry A. (Harry) Payne (1868-1940), c. 1910 (fresco) / Bridgeman Images.

Please visit www.digireads.com

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION.

DRAMATIS PERSONAE.

ACT I.

SCENE I.

SCENE II.

SCENE III.

SCENE IV.

SCENE V.

ACT II.

SCENE I.

SCENE II.

SCENE III.

SCENE IV.

SCENE V.

ACT III.

SCENE I.

SCENE II.

SCENE III.

SCENE IV.

ACT IV.

SCENE I.

SCENE II.

SCENE III.

SCENE IV.

SCENE V.

SCENE VI.

SCENE VII.

ACT V.

SCENE I.

SCENE II.

SCENE III.

SCENE IV.

SCENE V.

BIOGRAPHICAL AFTERWORD

INTRODUCTION.

In the Folio of 1623, where it was first completely printed, Henry VI. is presented as a kind of Trilogy. But it is evident that its three Parts have not the same continuity and coherence as e.g. the two Parts of Henry IV. The most colossal tragic theme in English history looms uncertainly through a surface intersected by the sharpest divergences of style, intention, and power. Hardly any critic now contends that Shakespeare was the author of the whole; but the evidences of his hand are very unevenly distributed. In particular, the First Part clearly stands apart from the other two. It deals mainly with the war in France, they with the Civil War; it contains a far larger mass of utterly un -Shakespearean work; it diverges far more recklessly from history; it is connected with the second and third parts by slighter and looser links of action than they with each other. It was printed, moreover, to all appearance, for the first time in the Folio of 1623, while the substance of the other two parts had appeared, under other titles, nearly twenty years before, in Quarto editions, the relation of which to the Folio texts presents one of the most crucial problems in Shakespeare.

The substance of all three Parts of Henry VI. was already familiar to the stage in 1592. But they were probably not yet united in a single drama under that name.

1. The First Part.—In a famous passage of his Piers Penniless (1592) Thomas Nash defends the representations of ‘our forefathers’ valiant acts’ on the stage with a telling allusion to what was clearly the dramatic sensation of the hour. ‘How would it have joyed brave Talbot, the terror of the French, to think that after he had lien two hundred year in his tomb, he should triumph again on the stage, and have his bones new embalmed with the tears of ten thousand spectators at least, at several times, who in the tragedian that represents his person, imagine they behold him fresh bleeding.’ This was probably written in the summer of 1592, the pamphlet being entered in the Stationers’ Register on August the 8th. From another source (Henslowe’s Diary) we know that a play which he calls Henry (or Harey) the Sixth was acted that summer fourteen times, by Lord Strange’s company, at the Rose, and for the first time, as a new play, on March the 3rd. There is very little doubt that Nash’s Talbot tragedy and Henslowe’s Henry VI. were the same. And since the play was new on March the 3rd, and the company that to which Shakespeare belonged, it is tolerably certain that his participation in it, whatever that amounted to, must be dated in 1591-2.

2. The Second and Third Parts.—These were also already familiar on the stage by 1592. Greene’s often - quoted death - bed reference to Shakespeare as the ‘upstart crow beautified with our feathers, that, with his Tyger’s heart wrapt in a Player’s hide,{1} supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you,’{2} makes it certain that before May of that year (when Greene died) Shakespeare had written or rewritten plays on the subject of Henry VI., and the bitterness of Greene’s tone suggests that the offence was recent. On the other hand, it is impossible to separate the three Parts of Henry VI. from their climax and culmination, Richard III. Hence Shakespeare’s participation in the Second and Third as well as the First Parts of Henry VI. may be probably dated in 1591-2.

It remains to ask what the nature and extent of his participation was.

1. The First Part.—The view that I Henry VI. was wholly the work of Shakespeare is now probably extinct in England. It is still orthodox, however, in Germany, where the Shakespearean canon has, since Tieck, never been excessively rigid; it has had the sanction of Delius, and quite recently that of Professor Brandl.{3} Its defenders rely upon a single argument: the inclusion of the play among Shakespeare’s works by the editors of the First Folio. The world owes a vast debt to Hemyng and Condell; but it is impossible to regard them as ideal editors, or to credit them with either an exact knowledge of what Shakespeare wrote, critical skill in discerning it, or even, in many cases, decent care in protecting it from errors. It is beyond question, further, that they included in the Folio plays of which Shakespeare was not sole author, like the Taming of the Shrew, Timon of Athens, and Henry VIII., to say nothing of the still-debated Titus Andronicus. Their inclusion of Henry VI. proves, it may be allowed, that Shakespeare had some share in it, but it proves nothing more, and so much every one admits.

English criticism, on the other hand, has, since Coleridge, peremptorily dismissed the claims of by far the greater part of I Henry VI. to have been written at any time of his life by Shakespeare. But two scenes, or groups of scenes, have been generally admitted to show his hand: the dispute in the temple garden (ii. 4), and the last battle and death of Talbot (iv. 4-7). The former has the grace and point of his early dialogue, at moments tending to the too nicely balanced repartee of Love’s Labour’s Lost; elsewhere, as in Warwick’s ‘mannerly forbearance’ (v. 11 f.), turning to delightful dramatic account a blank verse which emulates all the lyric symmetries of Venus and Adonis. The latter scene rather anticipates the magnificent battle-poetry of Henry V.; but the exuberance of its ringing rhymes proclaims even more loudly the lyric poet. Marlowe alone, among Shakespeare’s contemporaries, could have written the death-scene of Talbot ; that Marlowe did write it is refuted not merely by the use of rhyme, but by the numerous touches in Talbot of a finer humanity and chivalry than belong to the great soldiers of Marlowe.

As regards the remainder of the play, English criticism has inclined to conclude too readily from fluctuations of style to diversity of authorship. Dr. Furnivall declares that ‘there must be at least four hands in the play.’{4} Mr. Fleay, in an elaborate analysis,{5} divides the play up between Marlowe, Greene or Kyd, Peele, Lodge, and Shakespeare. Such attempts are at least premature. In a time of feverish experiment, like the early nineties of the sixteenth century, when a throng of young dramatists were emulously struggling towards adequate dramatic style, of which none was yet completely master, a change of manner does not necessarily argue a change of hand. Differences of manner can be detected; but they are rather of the kind we should expect in a clever but not very original dramatist whose writing at times took a Marlowesque colour, yet without approaching the greatness of Marlowe, and who was capable at other times of so far forgetting the ‘mighty line’ as to write (e.g. in a scene ascribed by Mr. Fleay to Marlowe, ii. 5):—

Thy grave admonishments prevail with me:

But yet methinks my father’s execution

Was nothing less than bloody tyranny.

2. The Second and Third Parts.—The problem of Shakespeare’s participation is here complicated by the existence of the early Quartos already referred to. Their full titles are as follows:

(1) The | First part of the Con | tention 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 Winchester, with the notable rebellion of Jacke Cade: | And the Duke of Yorke’s first claim unto the | Crowne…. 1594.

(2) 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, as it was sundrie times | acted by the Right Honoura | ble the Earle of Pem | brooke his servants. | … 1595.

Second editions of both the ‘Contention’ and the ‘True Tragedy’ appeared in 1600; and in 1619 the two were issued together, with a new title, as ‘The Whole Contention … Divided into two Parts; and newly corrected and enlarged.’ The ‘enlargements’ and the ‘corrections’ are both slight.

The controversies which circle around these four texts embrace two distinct issues, often confused: (1) the relation in which the Contention and the True Tragedy respectively stand to the Second and Third Parts of Henry VI.; (2) their authorship. It is clear (1) that the old Quartos (henceforth called CT) are, in great part, mangled and garbled versions of a text which in substance agreed with that of 2 and 3 Henry VI. (henceforth called H). A theory prevalent in Germany, and held in particular by Delius, supposes that the text thus mangled was the actual text of Henry VI. as we have it, and seeks to explain all the variations in CT as the defects natural to a pirated publication put together, by some rude editorial process, from notes taken at the theatre, or accommodated to the exigencies of a rival company of players.

This certainly explains their more palpable imperfections. Many speeches, e.g., are mere centos of detached lines picked out of the corresponding speeches of H. We can often say with complete assurance that a passage wanting in CT was omitted there and not added in H. Thus at the beginning of the scene in Iden’s garden (2 H. iv. 10.) it is clearly necessary that Cade should appear and describe his position before Iden enters; but in the Contention it opens with Iden’s

Reviews for Henry VI, Part 1

[tanya8dogearedcopy · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This is the play noted for a couple of things: It's one of the earliest, if not the earliest play in the First Folio and; It lacks "dramatic unity" (lots of scenes and very episodic) and has an abundance of anachronisms— and the worse off for it all— so much so that its authorship has been questioned since 1735! Nonetheless, it's still Canon and in the play itself there are a few highlights: the scene set in the Inns of Court wherein red and white roses are picked to denote sides in "The War of the Roses"; the scene in which Talbot and his son are surrounded and fight together and; the incredible slander against Joan of Arc. While of course she would be the villain from the English point-of-view, the viciousness of the attacks against her are nonetheless surprising. She is basically reduced to a lying witch and whore in the play, reflecting contemporary thought. True, she would not be made a saint until 1920 but still, I can see why late-twentieth and twenty-first stages don't really groove on this play so much: The timelines have been telescoped so much that long-dead people at that time are fighting on the court and on the battlefield, people not of age are speaking as adults and; just a general jumble of events out of order. And too, that aforementioned slander against Joan of Arc now seems so transparently propaganda, it's pretty cringeworthy.

[mrslee_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

The more I read these history plays, the more I enjoy them. As I read them and research some of the actual history behind them, they make more sense and have a continuity.This play, in particular, had a can't-set-it-down quality to it. I had to see what was going on with Talbot, who would win the battle? What were the dastardly deeds that would work against him? Will the boy king be able to survive his "mentors?" Even though I know the answers from history, I don't know how William Shakespeare interpreted the history, so the tension of the read is still there.

[drfuriosa · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

For a play about Henry VI, he was barely even in it! There is quite a bit of jockeying for power that is easy to forget if you do not read this in one setting (and I did not). The first half is a bit lacking, but the back half is better. Joan of Arc (de Pucelle in the play) intrigued me, especially with her proclamations. Is she prophetic or deluded? The end is a fascinating cliffhanger, however, with hints that the move Henry is making will indeed be a bad one.

It seems as if both Shakespeare and George R.R. Martin drew inspiration from history for their work, and I am curious to see how Shakespeare pulls me into the royal drama. On to Part II!

[baswood · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

The first part of a tetralogy consisting of Henry VI parts 2 and 3 and Richard III. Critics agree it was one of the earliest of Shakespeare's plays and was performed in 1592, but they do not agree that it was the first play written of the tetralogy. Some critics claim that part 2 was written first closely followed by part 3 and then part1 and so I have read them in that order. There are no very famous lines from the play and it is the only one of the plays that I have read that does not have that "stand alone" feeling: it feels more obviously part of a series. It is a historical drama which does not aim to subvert the known facts, but does play havoc with the time line for dramatic effect. The play starts with the funeral of Henry V. England is in mourning and the nobility are already arguing amongst themselves. The new king Henry VI has not reached the age of majority and does not yet appear in the play. Messengers arrive to interrupt the pageantry and the news is bad. Henry V's conquests in France are already falling apart and Talbot the warrior knight and scourge of the French has been captured. The Duke of Bedford the regent of France says he will take 10,000 troops across the channel. The scene shifts to France who has found a new military leader - the peasant girl Joan of Arc. Back in England the disorder amongst the nobility grows worse The young kings protector the Duke of Gloucester finds himself locked out of the Tower of London by the Bishop of Winchester and the first of many fighting scenes is the English fighting amongst themselves. Back in France Talbot has escaped, but his attempts to regain the conquered territories are meeting with fierce resistance from the French led by the young Dauphin Charles and Joan Purcelle (Joan of Arc). In England the new king is crowned, but in the famous Temple garden scene the nobility choose their sides in the coming power struggle by selecting a red or white rose. Henry VI and his entourage travel to Paris where he will be crowned again as king of France, meanwhile Talbot is still involved in a see-saw struggle of arms with Joan and the French, but he attends the coronation and there are glimmers of unity, but Richard Plantagenet the Duke of York has been instructed by old Mortimer that he has a legitimate claim to the throne. Talbot is soon back in arms and the fighting continues, he and his son are slaughtered outside Bordeaux, but the Duke of York who failed to provide the necessary support for him has captured Joan of Arc outside Rouen. He instructs that she be burnt at the stake as a witch. A truce is brokered and as part of the agreement the Duke of Suffolk has arranged for Margaret of Anjou to be the young king Henry's bride. The play ends with Margaret arriving in London, but already being wooed by Suffolk himself. There is a lot of fighting: a continuous display of arms seems to take up the first three quarters of the play, all is bravado and derring-do and ends with the tragedy on the battlefield of the death of Talbot and his son. Then suddenly there is a truce and the play switches to a more romantic mode as Suffolk intrigues to get Margaret of Anjou wedded to the young king. On a first reading the play seems unbalanced and this readers attention was taken up by trying to work out who was fighting who and where, but it became clearer on a second read through. The play does have a logic to it and events follow each other as the play makes its dramatic points. The most obvious theme is the disunity caused by a king who has not reached the age of majority and of a disputed right of accession. Another is the end of chivalry, the French are being led by a female peasant for goodness sake and Talbot who is of the old school is mortally offended and says:"My thoughts are whirled like a Potters Wheele,I know not where I am, nor what I doe:A Witch by feare, not force, like Hannibal,Driues back our troupes, and conquers as she lists............ Seignior hang: base Muleters of France,Like Pesant foot-Boyes doe they keepe the Walls,And dare not take vp Armes, like GentlemenJoan is burnt as a witch and is treated with disdain by the Duke of York. Sir John Falstaff who runs away from battle is publicly stripped of his royal garter by Talbot who then lectures his fellow nobles on the significance of being awarded the order.Shakespeare is setting the scene in this play for his depiction of the wars of the roses and the descent of England into chaos. The English are fighting amongst themselves and the French change sides when it suits them, this changing of allegiance will soon cross the channel and become a feature of part 2 of the tetralogy. The characters that will populate the later plays start to emerge. The fiercely proud Duke of York, the peace-loving King Henry VI whose courtiers snigger at his naiveté behind the scenes. The old protector the Duke of Gloucester who sees his control slipping away and the entrance of Margaret of Anjou who Suffolk thinks he can manipulate, but will find that it is he who is being played. The BBC produced plays of this series has kept the same actors in their roles as the events move on, that is of course until they meet their end, this process is started by Talbot and son in this play and will accelerate until the bloodbath in part 3. Shakespeare does repeat scenes in this: one of his earliest plays and although the language is recognisably Shakespearian it never rises to the heights of his subsequent efforts. His play does however fit together quite well and with its rousing battle scenes would have provided entertainment for its Elizabethan audience. It has been produced a number of times on the modern stage and most successfully when it is followed by the other plays in the series. The poignant scene of the deaths of Talbot and his son John may have been Shakespeare's first tilt at tragedy:Come, come, and lay him in his Fathers armes,My spirit can no longer beare these harmes.Souldiers adieu: I haue what I would haue,Now my old armes are yong Iohn Talbots graue.I suppose it has to be said that this early play is one for Shakespeare completists, but if you are going to read the more substantial King Henry VI parts 2 and 3 then it would be amiss to leave out this one 3.5 stars.

[leslie398 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Great play. I am not one who loves all Shakespeare (especially the histories) but this one is very accessible. The language isn't too arcane plus it involves historical events that many will recognize (Joan of Arc, the War of the Roses, the 100 Years War etc.)

Read as part of my Kindle edition of "The Complete Works of Shakespeare"

[dypaloh · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

The text of Henry VI, Part I is easier to interpret than that of most other Shakespearean plays I’ve read. There seems to be academic contention about how many lines of Part I are due to Shakespeare, so it’s tempting to claim the language is easy because William didn’t write very much of it.Be that as it may, Part I is rather dull. Welcome exceptions to the dullness, when excitement fills the stage, include when the nobles are plucking the white and red roses and whenever Joan la Pucelle appears. Joan of Arc must have been quite a historical figure to witness, not that we could count on impartial witness coinciding well with the Joan presented in this play. Concerning her, Part I would have benefited from changes of attitude on the part of the playwright(s). What an interesting play we then could have had. The next Henry VI, called Part II, is, in contrast to Part I, a rouser.

[bookworm12_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Shakespeare’s histories have always felt less accessible to me than his other work. But I realized the other day that it’s probably because I’m not that familiar with the people involved. What is the musical “Hamilton” if not our version of Shakespeare's histories? It’s a theatrical show based on our own country’s history. Shakespeare's histories are not as easy for us to understand because we they are covering a time period that we don’t always learn about. But during Shakespeare's time everyone knew who those dukes and kings were, just as we know names like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.Anyway, all of that to say that these three plays worked much better for me than some of the other histories of his I've tackled and I think it’s because I finally made that connection. It was also incredibly helpful to me to watch the Hollow Crown series before reading the plays. It covers all three of these plays although it's called Henry VI Part one and two, it's really a combination of parts 1, 2 and 3.They are so well done and watching those first helped me picture a face with a name while reading the place, which helped me keep all the characters straight.These plays are part of the eight plays that make up the War of the Roses. Henry VI Part 1 includes the original scene where the characters pick a white or red rose to declare their allegiance. From there it’s a constant stream of battle and betrayal as they all fight for the thrown. Poor King Henry VI is thrust into his role as monarch when he’s only a baby. The death of his father meant a life time watching others attempt to steal his throne. Almost everyone in the plays comes to a bloody end by the final curtain. A few thoughts: Margaret was such a bad ass. She was conniving, but she was strong where her husband, King Henry VI, was weak. I have to admire her and she certainly has some of the best lines. We meet the infamous Richard in these plays. I'd read and seen Richard III before, so reading these gave me a better understanding of his character's background. He’s a delicious villain and one that I loved getting to know. “Why, I can smile and murder whiles I smile,And cry 'content' to that which grieves my heart,And wet my cheeks with artificial tears,And frame my face for all occasions”BOTTOM LINE: I ended up loving them. I was surprised by how hooked I got on the War of the Roses drama, but it’s like a soap opera. It’s amazing to see how power seems to corrupt all the touch it. Even those who are not driven with a desire for power are often the easiest to steal power from, because they aren’t as vicious as others. I would definitely read part 1, 2, and 3 back-to-back because they work better as one continuous story. I also highly recommend watching the Hollow Crown series first, but just dive into the plays and enjoy them! “Suspicion always haunts the guilty mind.”“For where thou art, there is the world itself,With every several pleasure in the world,And where thou art not, desolation.”“Unbidden guests are often welcomest when they are gone.”

[aliceanna-1 · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

Simply awful. Very much had the feel of being thrown together which, appropriately enough, seems to have been the case. An afterthought prequel to Parts II and III. The caricature of Joan of Arc was outrageous. Even if one believed she was a lunatic, it was a bit over the top.

[amerynth · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

William Shakespeare's "Henry VI, part one" certainly doesn't live up to the bard's later historical plays. The Henry VI series was apparently one of his first plays and it shows -- the language lacks sparkle and the writing seems a little flat. That said, I enjoyed it more than I expected to, mostly due to Joan of Arc, who is given an interesting yet fiercely anti-French portrayal as you'd expect from an Elizabethan playwright. The story starts with the unexpected death of Henry V, who leaves an infant as his heir. Powerful lords fight in the War of the Roses for control all while England and France remain at war.I'm interested to find out what happens in parts two and three.

[dinadansfriend · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

This is a confusing play, where BIG Bill follows a principal source, and then fits in some humanizing bits. It seems WS didn't write all of it, and the group of scenarists have some fights before production. Henry V being quite unexpectedly dead, the nobles of England attempt to bring the war in France to a successful conclusion. Joan of Arc, who is seriously defamed in the play, appears and re-animates the French defence. The losing English nobles fall to quarreling with each other, and we are worried about what will happen next. The play ends with Joan's execution, and the proposal of peace by the marriage of Henry VI, to Margaret a French lady the daughter of the Titular King of Jerusalem, a title with no territory to go with it. I think it's a hint that Henry will always go for form over substance, and the land will suffer for it.This play is recorded as being produced in 1592, and it's very early WS. it seems I've been over nine times, looking for good bits.