For the purposes of this blog, and since I am quickly running out of time to complete my blogging challenge, I have decided to cover Henry VI Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 in one blog post.
None of these quite live up to most of the other histories (except King John and Henry VIII; they form the less impressive half of the histories), but there is still a lot to love.
A quick note about plot: these plays take place directly after Henry V ends, and are crucial in building events that lead to what happens in Richard III, which I will be posting about shortly.
The power struggle that we see played out over the course of these three plays is a fascinating one. Even though I know there are many, many inaccuracies, I think it fairly captures the essence of the conflict in a way that is really engaging. (I’m not a historian, though, so maybe that’s not even the case, but work with me here.)
I was particularly struck with looking at this power struggle as it related to the women in these plays. None of them are very likable or relatable, but they are incredibly engaging, fully-developed, complex, and charismatic. I would almost go as far as to say they take Lady Macbeth to the next level. (Although there is that one part where Lady Macbeth says she would smash her child’s head, so maybe not, but it’s not too far off.) The women have a power struggle that mirrors the larger struggle taking place, and it really serves to underscore, in my opinion, how little power women had at this time. I love watching them take control. It’s amazing.
I am also really intrigued with the characters of Gloucester and Winchester, but I can’t quite put my finger on why.
Henry VI reminds me of Richard II in many ways, which I think is no accident. If you haven’t seen any Henry VI or Richard II, I highly recommend viewing or reading them together. It really added a lot to the powerful messages that are all through these plays.
At the heart of all of these history plays, unsurprisingly I suppose, I have found one central question:
What does it mean to be English/British/American/Canadian/French/Ethiopian/Russian, etc.?
Reading the histories has forced me to confront my ideas about what nationality means. This question is important now more than ever.
If you have not yet read any of Shakespeare’s histories, now would be a really great time to do so. It’s a perfect example of the endless/perpetual relevance that the Bard’s work continues to have, 400 years later.
