The Shakespeare Project

So after an initial reading of H6A, I decided to pick up Asimov’s Guide as the first stop on my voyage through Henry VI, Part I, and I’m left a little disappointed by Asimov. Maybe it’s because I’ve picked a play that has a number of flaws to begin with, but Asimov spends the entire chapter (and his book is the only one I have which gives the play a full-length chapter) degrading the play not for its weaknesses in language — in fact, he spends less than a quarter page on one of the few interesting language passages, that in which Talbot and his son argue in rhyme — and endless pages discussing the anachronisms of the play.

While the play is vaguely based on historical events, and actual events feature regularly throughout the play, Asimov continuously complains that there’s no way two events could take place in the same scene because they ought to have happened 14 years apart from each other. I’ll leave you with the simple knowledge that the events in this play in no way accurately record the history of the last decades of the 100 years war, and if you need details, Mr. Asimov’s book will give you plenty.

Like many others, Asimov is terribly scandalized by the treatment of poor Saint Joan by the barbarous and anglocentric Bard of Avon. Asimov often discusses this anglocentric angle in his assertion that the play is simply a method for the poor bruised egos of the English. He regularly brings up this fervent nationalism describing how any Englishman would know that any man from England could easily defeat a dozen or more poor Frenchmen. While this is borne out with quite a bit of evidence, from Charles never being called King to only the victories of the English taking place on stage, I’m not convinced that Asimov’s assertions that these are a kind of anti-France discrimination so much as methods for making a stage play more entertaining.

In March, we’ll see what Asimov had to say about the second part of this play.

Introduction:

I’ve decided to start with the first part of the Henry VI plays, despite recent scholarship saying that this play was more likely than not written after the two War of the Roses plays that we know as Henry VI, parts II and III as a prequel. Looking at the cycle of Shakespeare’s histories, however, it seems to be a good point to start.

Many Americans hear the word “History” and they immediately think the plays will be boring, confusing, and tedious, but I find most of the histories more interesting and exciting than most of the comedies. They’re stories filled with heroes and villains that can only seem realistic because they’re based on real people.

I first became acquainted with the Henry VI plays when I went to England to take a course in Shakespeare and modern drama. I was lucky enough to head to see all three parts of Henry VI in two consecutive days in Stratford Upon Avon. Michale Boyd’s presentation was fantastic, tying not only all 3 Henry VI plays together, but also tying it into Henry V and Richard III, drawing the audience into a world that existed beyond the stage. I’ll talk more about this production later.

In general, however, H6A* is seen as one of Shakespeare’s least successful plays. Noted critic Harold Bloom even said, “Shakespeare’s play is bad enough… I would be pleased to believe that other botchers had been at work in addition to the very young Shakespeare.” (43) In reading over the play, you can see how this viewpoint seems valid. The use of language seems immature in comparison with Shakespeare’s later works and the characters seem thinner and less consistent (especially Joan la Pucelle).

But, even with it’s weaknesses, the play shows an early love of language and sense of drama for a young Shakespeare (et al?).

*For convenience sake, I’ll be using the abbreviations in Schmidt’s Shakespeare Lexicon and Quotation Dictionary for many of these plays. See Abbreviation Sidebar for details.