Thomas Nashe

Considering that I took a whole class on Joan of Arc in film and literature, you would think I would remember that she was routing the English out of France during the reign of Henry VI… Apparently not! After the death of Henry V, who made strategic alliances and major military victories to take occupation of France, we see the unstable rule of his son, Henry VI, begin to crumble England’s foundation. Shakespeare (and his apparent co-authors) take advantage of the realistic instability in England during this time period, focusing in this first of the trilogy of Henry VI plays on the loss of French territories. A lot of the pre-Tudor plays focus specifically on dissension, whether it be war itself, feuding nobles, or courtly machinations, and this play has a bit of everything. As Henry VI comes of age the nobles who hold regency and true control of the court begin an almost inevitable bickering, a typical result of the system which pits noble families against one another to gain more power and riches. This specific eda of English history isn’t one which I’m particularly invested in, so some of the finer points of this play and linguistic sparring are a bit obtuse without further historical research, but we see the emergence of the York bid for the crown as well as Henry’s ill-advised alliance with France via Margaret of Anjou take hold of the narrative. Offsetting the rumblings at court, the nobles are also engaged in an ongoing battle in France, which they are beginning to lose due to the introduction of Joan of Arc into the narrative to rally the Frenchmen. Joan’s character features heavily throughout the story, and I feel almost like Shakespeare could have written a whole history play about her as a stand-alone, but considering the anti-French rhetoric of Shakespeare’s time it was enough to see her wage battle, spar linguistically, and then meet her fate for heresy at the stake. The play ends shortly after Joan’s death, as Henry makes his alliance with France through marriage, but we are left very much without a real ending and little in the way of satisfaction. The final speeches made by Lords Suffolk and Gloucester make it clear that Henry’s (and England’s) woes have not yet been solved, and further action must play out in subsequent drama. Without the dual story of Joan of Arc, I don’t think that this play is particularly well done in terms of heightening the realistic court drama of the time period, and without the further two story arcs can’t have been much of a success for audiences.… (plus d'informations)

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, one 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.… (plus d'informations)

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.… (plus d'informations)