Analysis and criticism Henry VI, Part 3

1 analysis , criticism

1.1 critical history

1.1.1 true tragedy reported text
1.1.2 true tragedy draft
1.1.3 differences between true tragedy , 3 henry vi
1.1.4 montague problem


1.2 language
1.3 themes

1.3.1 revenge
1.3.2 power , barbarism
1.3.3 family conflict , family dissolution

analysis , criticism
critical history

some critics argue henry vi trilogy first ever plays based on recent english history, , such, deserve elevated position in canon, , more central role in shakespearean criticism. according f.p. wilson example, there no evidence dramatist before defeat of spanish armada in 1588 dared put upon public stage play based upon english history [...] far know, shakespeare first. however, not critics agree wilson here. example, michael taylor argues there @ least thirty-nine history plays prior 1592, including two-part christopher marlowe play tamburlaine (1587), thomas lodge s wounds of civil war (1588), anonymous troublesome reign of king john (1588), edmund ironside (1590 – anonymous), robert green s selimus (1591) , anonymous play, true tragedy of richard iii (1591). paola pugliatti, however, argues case may somewhere between wilson , taylor s argument; shakespeare may not have been first bring english history before audience of public playhouse, first treat in manner of mature historian rather in manner of worshipper of historical, political , religious myth.

another issue discussed amongst critics quality of play. along 1 henry vi, 3 henry vi has traditionally been seen 1 of shakespeare s weakest plays, critics citing amount of violence indicative of shakespeare s artistic immaturity , inability handle chronicle sources, when compared more nuanced , far less violent second historical tetralogy (richard ii, 1 henry iv, 2 henry iv , henry v). example, critics such e.m.w. tillyard, irving ribner , a.p. rossiter have claimed play violates neoclassical precepts of drama, dictate violence , battle should never shown mimetically on stage, should reported digetically in dialogue. view based on traditional notions of distinction between high , low art, distinction based partly upon philip sidney s apology poetry (1579). based on work of horace, sidney criticised gorboduc showing many battles , being violent when have been more artistic verbally represent such scenes. belief play showed violence crude, appealing ignorant masses, , therefore low art. on other hand, play elevated above such direct representation of violence , instead relied on writer s ability verbalise , skill diegesis, considered artistically superior , therefore, high art. writing in 1605, ben jonson commented in masque of blackness showing battles on stage vulgar, better delighted pleaseth eye, contenteth ear. based upon these theories, 3 henry vi, 4 on-stage battles , multiple scenes of violence , murder, considered coarse play little recommend intelligentsia.

on other hand, however, writers thomas heywood , thomas nashe praised battle scenes in general oftentimes being intrinsic play , not vulgar distractions illiterate. in piers penniless supplication devil (1592), nashe praised didactic element of drama depicted battle , martial action, arguing such plays way of teaching both history , military tactics masses; in such plays our forefather s valiant acts (that have lain long buried in rusty brass , worm-eaten books) revived. nashe argued plays depict glorious national causes past rekindle patriotic fervour has been lost in puerility of insipid present, , such plays provide rare exercise of virtue in reproof these degenerate effeminate days of ours. similarly, in apology actors (1612), heywood writes, bewitching thing lively , well-spirited action, hath power new mould hearts of spectators, , fashion them shape of noble , notable attempt. more recently, speaking of 1 henry vi, michael goldman has argued battle scenes vital overall movement , purpose of play; sweep of athletic bodies across stage used not provide exciting spectacle focus , clarify, render dramatic, entire unwieldy chronicle.

in line thinking, recent scholarship has tended @ play being more complete dramatic text, rather series of battle scenes loosely strung flimsy narrative. modern productions in particular have done bring re-evaluation (such peter hall s , john barton s in 1963 , 1964, terry hands in 1977, michael bogdanov s in 1986, adrian nobles in 1988, katie mitchell s in 1994, edward hall s in 2000 , michael boyd s in 2000 , 2006). based upon revised way of thinking, , looking @ play more complex has traditionally been allowed for, critics argue play juxtaposes stirring aesthetic appeal of martial action discursive reflection on political causes , social consequences.

the question of artistic integrity, however, not critical disagreement 3 henry vi has provoked. there numerous other issues critics divided, not least aspect of concerns relationship true tragedy.

true tragedy reported text

josiah boydell illustration of father , son tragedy act 2, scene 5, engraved john ogborne shakspeare gallery pall mall (1794)

over years, critics have debated connection between true tragedy , 3 henry vi. 4 main theories have emerged:

critical opinion favoured samuel johnson s theory true tragedy bad quarto, memorial reconstruction. edmond malone challenged johnson s theory in 1790, suggesting true tragedy draft of shakespeare s 3 henry vi. malone s view dominant 1 until 1929, when peter alexander re-established dominance of bad quarto theory.

one of alexander s main arguments hinged on start of act 4, scene 1, richard , clarence reproach edward favouring wife s relatives on themselves. in true tragedy, after edward has been informed of warwick s allegiance lancastrians, upbraided brothers recent actions;

clarence

...lord hastings deserves,

to have daughter , heir of lord hungerford.



edward

and then? our should so.



clarence

ay, , such thing lord scales

did deserve @ hands, have the

daughter of lord bonfield, , left your

brothers go seek elsewhere.

(ll.2074-2083)

this implies lord hastings set marry daughter of lord hungerford, , lord scales set marry daughter of lord bonfield. in 3 henry vi, however, lines different;

clarence

...lord hastings deserves

to have heir of lord hungerford.



edward

what of that? , grant,

and once, shall stand law.



richard

and yet methinks grace hath not done well

to give heir , daughter of lord scales

unto brother of loving bride;

she better have fitted me, or clarence,

but in bride bury brotherhood.



clarence

or else, not have bestowed heir,

of lord bonville on new wife s son,

and leave brothers go speed elsewhere.

(4.1.48-59)

this explains lord scales daughter (elizabeth de scales) marry lady grey s brother (anthony woodville, 2nd earl of rivers), , lady grey s son (thomas grey, 1st marquess of dorset) marry daughter of lord bonville (cecily bonville). such, based on inconsistency between scales marrying bonfield s daughter in true tragedy , scales daughter marrying grey s brother in 3 henry vi, alexander argued representation of scene in true tragedy nonsensical , came because reporter became confused married whom. furthermore, unlike account in true tragedy, version in 3 henry vi corresponds closely chronicle material found in hall ( heir of lord scales [edward] hath married wife s brother, heir of lord bonville , harrington hath given wife s son, , heir of lord hungerford hath granted lord hastings ). in relation mistakes this, has been argued no 1 understood writing, – no author – have made such error[s], parroting else s work of himself had dim understanding – is, reporter – have.

title page of 1594 quarto of lamentable romaine tragedie of titus andronicus

however, more telling difference between details of proposed marriages contrast between 2 names; bonfield in true tragedy , bonville in 3 henry vi. bonfield never mentioned in chronicles, , there no known historical personage of name. bonville on other hand mentioned numerous times both hall , holinshed, , known historical figure. however, there minor character named bonfield in robert greene play george greene, pinner of wakefield (1587–1590), member of group of staunch opponents of edward iii. george greene published in quarto in 1599, , title page states performed sussex s men. in 1594, sussex s men had performed titus andronicus, which, according title page of 1594 quarto, performed strange s men (i.e. derby s men) , pembroke s men. furthermore, according title page of 1595 octavo of true tragedy, performed pembroke s men. such, pembroke s men performed both true tragedy , titus andronicus, whereas sussex s men performed both george greene , titus andronicus, creating link between true tragedy , george greene, , perhaps suggesting either sussex s men have performed true tragedy or pembroke s men have performed george greene, or both. taken together, name of bonfield in 2 historically unrelated texts performed companies shared scripts , personnel indicates name non-authorial interpolation players. case further supported fact reported texts use material other plays. example, contention uses material christopher marlowe s tragical history of doctor faustus (c1592), edward ii (c1593) , line 3 henry vi; if our king henry had shook hands death (1.4.103).

more evidence of reporting found in act 2 scene 5. in scene, in true tragedy, after realising battle of towton lost, exeter, margaret , prince edward urge henry flee, exeter exclaiming, away lord vengeance comes along him (l.1270). however, totally unqualified – there no indication whatsoever of is. in 3 henry vi, however, line away; vengeance comes along them (l.124). in case, them warwick, richard , edward, of whom mentioned prince edward , margaret in lines preceding exeter s. such, line in true tragedy can understood if 1 refers equivalent scene in 3 henry vi. type of anomaly, vital pieces of qualifying information omitted, common in bad quartos.

a similar piece of evidence found in act 5, scene 1. after warwick , troops have entered coventry , awaiting arrival of oxford, somerset, montague , clarence, richard urges edward storm city , attack warwick immediately. in true tragedy, edward refuses, arguing no, other may set upon our backs/we ll stay till entered , follow them (ll.2742–2743). in 3 henry vi however, edward says, other foes may set upon our backs./stand in array: no doubt/will issue out again, , bid battle (ll.61–63). difference between 2 passages in true tragedy, edward knows more regiments coming ( ll stay till entered ), in context of play, has no way of knowing this, should unaware oxford, somerset, montague , clarence heading coventry. in 3 henry vi however, merely feels attacking bad idea leave rear defenceless ( other foes may set upon our backs ). suggests in true tragedy, reporter thinking ahead, anticipating arrival of others , anachronistically having character aware of inevitable arrival. again, omission of important information, illogical foreknowledge of events type of mistake characterises bad quartos in general.

true tragedy draft

steven urkowitz has spoken @ great length debate between bad quarto theory , draft theory, coming down firmly on side of draft. urkowitz argues quarto of 2 henry vi , octavo of 3 henry vi present scholars unique opportunity see play evolving, shakespeare edited , rewrote sections; texts of 2 , 3 henry vi offer particularly rich illustrations of textual variation , theatrical transformation. urkowitz argues bonfield/bonville variant in true tragedy/3 henry vi dramatically defensible because still supports clarence s complaint against edward , motivates ensuing defection lancastrians. change therefore, gets across intent of chronicle history. urkowitz argues such fine-tuning of dramatic themes , actions staples of professional theatrical writing. such, differences in texts types of differences 1 tends find in texts altered original form, , urkowitz cites eric rasmussen, e.a.j. honigmann , grace ioppolo supporting view. particularly refers case of richard brinsley sheridan s school scandal (1777), existed in earlier form, sheridan, in two-part play slanderers , sir peter teazel, , argues contain same type of modifications found in henry vi plays.

urkowitz not alone in finding evidence support draft theory. 1 of main arguments draft theory how true tragedy , 3 henry vi use holinshed , hall. whereas in true tragedy, shakespeare uses hall more holinshed, in 3 henry vi use of hall , holinshed equal. argument difference cannot accounted faulty reporting, , instead must represent revision on shakespeare s part; nature of differences between true tragedy , 3 henry vi in terms of factual details, diction, , interpretive commentary hall , holinshed reasonably suggests direction of change, presence of informed agency @ work in revising play reported true tragedy.

an example of can found when clarence returns yorkist forces in act 5, scene 1. in true tragedy, turn anticipated;

clarence

clarence, clarence lancaster.



edward

et tu, brute, wilt thou stab caesar too?

a parley sir, george of clarence.



sound parley, , richard , clarence whisper together, , clarence takes red rose out of hat, , throws @ warwick.



warwick

come clarence come, thou wilt if warwick call.



clarence

father of warwick, know means?

i throw mine infamy @ thee.

(ll.2762-2768)

in version of scene, richard shown responsible turning clarence yorkist side; whatever says during parley convinces clarence rejoin brothers. how incident represented in hall; richard duke of gloucester, brother [clarence , edward], though had been made arbiter between them, first rode [clarence] , him communed secretly; him came king edward , secretness used him in conclusion no unnatural war fraternal amity concluded , proclaimed , both brethren lovingly embraced, , familiarly communed together.

in 3 henry vi however, scene plays out differently;

enter clarence drum , soldiers bearing colours.



warwick

and lo, george of clarence sweeps along.

of force enough bid brother battle:

with whom, in upright zeal right, prevails

more nature of brother s love

come clarence, come: thou wilt if warwick call.



clarence

father of warwick, know means?



he shows red rose.



look here, throw infamy @ thee.

(5.1.76-82)

this version of scene corresponds holinshed, richard plays no part in clarence s decision; duke of clarence began weigh himself great inconvenience brother king edward, himself , younger brother duke of gloucester fallen through dissension betwixt them (which had been compassed , brought pass politic working of earl of warwick). argument here difference in 3 henry vi not result of faulty reporting, or interpolation on part of reporter, must represent authorial agency, hence, true tragedy must represent earlier draft of 3 henry vi.

thomas stothard illustration of death of prince edward; engraved augustus fox (1824)

also important in argument action implied taking place between act 5, scene 4 , act 5, scene 5. in both true tragedy , 3 henry vi, after margaret rallies troops, exit stage sounds of battle, followed entry of victorious yorkists. difference in 2 texts in presentation of victory. in true tragedy, margaret, prince edward, oxford , somerset introduced together, taken captive @ same time, how incident reported in hall; lancastrian leaders captured in field , brought yorkist camp together. however, in 3 henry vi, margaret, oxford , somerset introduced initially, , subsequently prince edward led camp (l.11; , lo youthful edward comes ). separate capture of edward follows holinshed, outlines edward fled field, captured in nearby house, , brought camp alone fellow lancastrians, prisoners there. again, implication shakespeare used hall when composing true tragedy, time after 1594, , whatever reason, modified thinking, , changed scene reflect account in holinshed instead.

however, theory true tragedy may draft not imply not represent bad quarto well. traditionally, critics (such alexander, mckerrow , urkowitz) have looked @ problem either-or situation; true tragedy either reported text or draft, there has been argument may both. example, theory supported randall martin in oxford shakespeare edition of play. theory advanced roger warren in oxford shakespeare edition of 2 henry vi. crux of argument both evidence bad quarto theory , evidence draft theory compelling neither able refute other. such, if play contains evidence of being both reported text , draft, must both; i.e. true tragedy represents reported text of draft of 3 henry vi. shakespeare wrote version of play, staged. shortly after staging, of actors constructed bad quarto , had published. in meantime, shakespeare had rewritten play form found in first folio. martin argues theory can account strong evidence both reporting , revision, , theory gaining increased support in late twentieth/early twenty-first century.

differences between true tragedy , 3 henry vi

if 1 accepts shakespeare made conscious decision use holinshed more during re-editing of true tragedy, 1 must ask why may have done so. true tragedy 1 thousand lines shorter 3 henry vi, , whilst many of differences simple aesthetic changes , alternate phraseology (much of attributable inaccurate reporting), 1 major difference between 2 runs throughout how each handle violence. on whole, 3 henry vi far more restrained in depiction of war, whereas true tragedy has more explicit , sustained on-stage combat , more royal processions , celebrations after combat. more 3 henry vi, true tragedy conforms so-called tudor myth wars of roses god s punishment people straying path laid out them, , means of purging country of evil , opening way righteous tudor dynasty establish peace. traditionally, has been common way of interpreting entire octalogy; advocated , elaborated upon critics diverse august wilhelm schlegel, hermann ulrici, georg gottfried gervinus, irving ribner, m.m. reese, robert rentoul reed, and, famously, e.m.w. tillyard, whom phrase tudor myth associated.

some critics, however, such henry ansgar kelly, a.p. rossiter, a.l. french, david frey, j.p. brockbank, david riggs, michael hattaway, michael taylor, randall martin , ronald knowles, argue main reason shakespeare chose use holinshed rather hall, holinshed s attitude violence less celebratory hall s, patriotic fervour less pronounced, , attitude carnage more ambiguous; i.e. shakespeare had become less enamoured of tudor view of history, , altered play accordingly. paola pugliatti puts it, source manipulation , sheer invention may read distinctly critical gesture, in show need question official historiographical tradition.

examples of difference in depictions of violence between true tragedy , 3 henry vi include act 2, scene 6; in true tragedy, stage direction dictates clifford enter arrow in neck , whereas in 3 henry vi, enters wounded. in act 4, scene 3, when warwick surprises edward in tent, in 3 henry vi, richard , hastings flee, in true tragedy, there short battle between warwick s , richard s soldiers. similarly, in true tragedy, act 5, scene 5 begins alarms battle, york flies, chambers discharged. enter king, clarence , gloucester , rest, , make great shout, , cry york, york , , queen taken, , prince , oxford , somerset, , sound , enter again. 3 henry vi begins far less grandiose flourish. enter edward, gloucester, clarence, , soldiers, queen margaret, oxford , somerset prisoners.

taking of these differences account, argument shakespeare reconceived action, toning down sound , fury, , thereby altering overall effect , meaning of 3 henry vi play attitude war more rueful.

montague problem

another aspect of play has provoked critical disagreement character of montague. introduced in act 1, scene 1 yorkist supporter fought @ battle of st albans (dramatised @ end of 2 henry vi), , accompanies york, richard, edward, warwick , norfolk battlefield london in pursuit of henry, margaret , clifford. in act 1, scene 2, upon realising margaret set attack, york sends montague london warwick; brother montague shall post london./let noble warwick, cobham, , rest/whom have left protectors of king,/with powerful policy strengthen (ll.55–58). montague duly leaves, , when warwick returns in act 2, scene 1, accompanied character called montague, introduces apparently new character; ...therefore warwick came seek out,/and therefore comes brother montague. (ll.166–167).

as such, character of montague seems represent 2 separate historical personages in play, , whilst not unusual in shakespearean histories, manner of dual representation is. example, in 1 henry vi , 2 henry vi, character of somerset represents both john beaufort, 1st duke of somerset , younger brother, edmund beaufort, 2nd duke of somerset. similarly, in 3 henry vi, character called somerset represents both henry beaufort, 3rd duke of somerset , younger brother edmund beaufort, 4th duke of somerset. however, both somerset in 1 henry vi , 2 henry vi , somerset in 3 henry vi presented consistent characters within play, i.e. somerset in 1 henry vi , 2 henry vi not represent john beaufort , edmund beaufort @ others; consistently same character in milieu of play. same true of somerset in 3 henry vi; character, same person.

montague however, seems represent 2 different people @ different times in play; i.e. character himself changes identities during play. seems represent salisbury, warwick s father (richard neville, 5th earl of salisbury – major character in 2 henry vi) , subsequently, seems represent salisbury s son , warwick s brother, john neville (1st marquis of montague – new character). in 3 henry vi, @ 1.1.14, 1.1.117–118 , 1.2.60, montague refers york brother . similarly, @ 1.2.4, 1.2.36 , 1.2.55, york refers montague brother . if montague here represents salisbury, reference 1 brother makes sense, salisbury york s brother-in-law (york married salisbury s sister, cecily neville). however, if montague here represents john neville, , york s references 1 brother inaccurate. subsequently, @ 2.1.168, warwick refers montague brother, , called marquis first time, neither descriptions of applied salisbury or character describes himself brother york. such, in 1.1 , 1.2, montague seems york s brother-in-law, , warwick s father, richard neville (i.e. salisbury), point forward, after re-introduction in act 2, seems represent salisbury s son , warwick s younger brother, john neville. salisbury major character in 2 henry vi, in both hall , holinshed s chronicles, , in reality, outlined in chronicles, killed @ pontefract in 1461 having been captured margaret @ battle of wakefield (depicted in 1.3 , 1.4).

interestingly, in true tragedy (which treats character of montague 1 consistent persona throughout play), salisbury s death reported richard;

thy noble father in thickest throngs,

cried full warwick, thrice valiant son,

until thousand swords beset,

and many wounds made in aged breast,

as tottering sat upon steed,

he waft hand me , cried aloud:

richard, commend me valiant son ,

and still cried warwick revenge death ,

and words tumbled off horse,

and noble salisbury gave ghost.

(ll.1075-1085)

in corresponding scene in 3 henry vi however, richard reports death of of warwick s brothers, thomas neville, never features character in of henry vi plays;

thy brother s blood thirsty earth hath drunk,

broached steely point of clifford s lance,

until thousand swords beset,

and in pangs of death cried,

like dismal clangor heard afar

warwick revenge, brother, revenge death.

so underneath belly of steeds,

that stained fetlocks in smoking blood,

the noble gentleman gave ghost.

(2.3.14-23)

it agreed amongst critics differences between these 2 passages represents authorial revision opposed faulty reporting, leading 1 ask question of why shakespeare removed references salisbury, , why wrote preceding lines warwick re-introduces montague brother. there no definitive answer question, nor there answer question of why shakespeare changed character s name salisbury montague , then, after act 1, equated him personage entirely.

obviously, such character discrepancy can create problem productions of play. example of 1 way in productions can resolve problem, in act 1, scene 1 of 1981 bbc shakespeare adaptation, montague not present in either persona of salisbury or of john neville. such, first 2 lines, brother, thou lov st , honour st arms,/let s fight out , not stand cavilling (ll.117–118), reassigned clarence , altered set on head father/if thou lov st , honour st arms,/let s fight out , not stand cavilling thus. montague s second line, , unto sea when came (l.210), entirely absent. character, montague introduced in act 1, scene 2, played michael byrne (as rest of production). first line in scene however, have reasons strong , forcible (l.3) reassigned clarence. later, when york giving men instructions, order montague, brother, thou shalt london presently (l.36) changed cousin, thou shalt london presently , , york s reiteration of order brother montague shall post london (l.54) changed hast london cousin montague. additionally, montague s brother, go, ll win them, fear not (l.60) changed cousin, go, ll win them, fear not. serves establish single figure york s cousin , warwick s brother (i.e. john neville).

how adaptation handles report of death of warwick , montague s brother thomas neville in act 2, scene 3 worth noting. text 3 henry vi reporting death of neville used, altered report becomes salisbury;

thy father s blood thirsty earth hath drunk,

broached steely point of clifford s lance,

until thousand swords beset,

and in pangs of death cried,

like dismal clangor heard afar

warwick revenge, son, revenge death.

so underneath belly of steeds,

that stained fetlocks in smoking blood,

the noble salisbury gave ghost.

(2.3.14-23)

from point forward, character remains consistent warwick s brother, , there no further alteration of text. such, in adaptation, character presented 1 figure throughout – of john neville, warwick s brother, salisbury s son , york s cousin, , lines seemingly contradict have been changed accordingly.

language

language has extremely important role throughout play, in terms of repetition. several motifs, words , allusions occur time , again, serving contrast characters , situations, , foreground important themes.

king henry vi of england @ towton william dyce (1860)

perhaps obvious recurring linguistic motif in play of state power represented crown , throne. both words occur multiple times throughout play. example, in act 1, scene 1 (which set in parliament, york spending of scene sitting on throne), warwick introduces imagery, saying york before see thee seated in throne,/which house of lancaster usurps,/i vow heaven these eyes shall never close (ll.22–24). introduces word crown ; resolve thee richard, claim english crown (l.49). after york sits in throne, henry enters, exclaiming, lords, sturdy rebel sits,/even in chair of state. belike means,/backed power of warwick, false peer,/to aspire unto crown , reign king (ll.50–54). during subsequent debate on legitimacy, exeter tells york thy father traitor crown (l.80), york replies exeter, thou art traitor crown (l.81). during debate, henry asks york, , shall stand, , thou sit in throne? (l.85). york next asks henry, show our title crown? (l.103), henry says title hast thou, traitor, crown? (l.105). debate reaches impasse, richard urges york, father, tear crown usurper s head (l.115). henry refuses yield however, declaring think st thou leave kingly throne? (l.125). subsequently, during debate conflict between henry bolingbrook , richard ii, york asks exeter if richard s abdication prejudicial crown? (l.145) exeter responds no, not resign crown (l.146). york demands henry confirm crown me , mine heirs (l.173), henry reluctantly agrees, here entail/the crown thee , thine heirs forever (ll.195–196).

although not subsequent scenes heavily saturated references monarchical power opening scene, imagery recur throughout play. other notable examples include richard s how sweet thing wear crown,/within circuit elysium/and poets feign of bliss , joy (1.2.29–31) , edward s battle cry, crown or else glorious tomb,/a sceptre, or earthly sepulchre (1.4.16). significant torture of york in act 1, scene 4, forced wear paper crown, whilst margaret alludes both real crown , throne numerous times;

ay, marry sir, looks king.

ay, took king henry s chair,

and adopted heir.

but how it, great plantagenet

is crowned , broke solemn oath?

as bethink me, should not king,

till our king henry had shook hands death.

and pale head in henry s glory

and rob temples of diadem

now in life, against holy oath?

o tis fault too unpardonable.

off crown; , crown, head,

and whilest breath, take time him dead.

(ll.96-108)

later, york takes off crown , throws @ margaret, exclaiming there, take crown, , crown curse (l.164).

another example of language foregrounding authority references crown , throne found in act 2, scene 1, edward laments death of father; dukedom , chair me left (l.90), richard answers, foregrounding issue of language , importance of words, chair , dukedom , throne , kingdom (l.93). warwick says similar later in scene, calling edward no longer earl of march, duke of york;/the next degree england s royal throne (l.192–193). after decapitating york, margaret points out head henry, saying, yonder s head of arch-enemy/that sought encumbered crown (2.2.2–3). later, edward asks henry, wilt thou kneel grace/and set thy diadem upon head? (2.2.81–82). edward says margaret, king, though wear crown (2.2.90). later, in act 2, scene 6, when edward blaming margaret civil war, says henry if hadn t provoked house of york thou day hadst kept thy chair in peace (l.19). says warwick, in thy shoulder build seat (l.99). in act 3, scene 1, henry debates gamekeepers importance of crown role of kingship;

second gamekeeper

but if thou king, thy crown?



henry

my crown in heart, not on head,

not decked diamonds , indian stones,

nor seen: crown called content,

a crown seldom kings enjoy.



second gamekeeper

well, if king crowned content,

your crown content , must contented

to go along us.

(ll.61-68)

during lengthy soliloquy in act 3, scene 2, richard mentions crown numerous times;

i ll make heaven dream upon crown,

and whiles live t account world hell

until misshaped trunk bears head

be round impaled glorious crown.

and yet know not how crown.

(ll.168-173)

in act 3, scene 3, after warwick has joined lancastrians, vows margaret force tyrant seat war (l.206), , promises ll uncrown him ere t long (l.232). muses himself chief raised him crown,/and ll chief bring him down again (ll.263–264). in act 4, scene 6, after warwick has deposed edward, henry says him, warwick, although head still wear crown,/i here resign government thee (l.24). finally, upon meeting richmond (the future henry vii), henry proclaims, head nature framed wear crown,/his hand wield sceptre, , himself/likely in time bless regal throne (ll.72–74).

another recurring motif animal imagery, particularly, bird imagery. first example in act 1, scene 1, when warwick says [no-one] dares stir wing if warwick shake bells (l.47), reference falconry. again in opening scene, henry claims york will, empty eagle/tire on flesh of me , son (ll.269–270). later, york describes failed attempts win concluded battle, muses himself, botched again, have seen swan/with bootless labour swim against tide (1.4.19–20). subsequently, clifford tells york die, york declares ashes, phoenix , may bring forth/a bird revenge upon (1.4.35–36), clifford replies cowards fight when can fly no further,/so doves peck falcon s piercing talons (1.4.40–41). after news of york s death has reached them, richard encourages edward take york s place; if thou princely eagle s bird (2.1.91). later, warwick points out henry has been compelled rescind oath yield throne house of york; clifford , lord northumberland/and of feather many more proud birds,/have wrought easy-melting king wax (2.1.169–171). when clifford urging henry protect prince s birthright, attempts illustrate henry doing right thing children should natural course of action; doves peck in safeguard of brood (2.2.18). during debate rightful king, edward refers clifford fatal screech owl/that nothing sung death , ours (2.6.55–56). bird imagery continues used contemptuously in france, margaret says of edward , warwick, both of birds of selfsame feather (3.3.161). prior battle of barnet, somerset attempts rally troops, says , not fight such hope,/go home bed, , owl day,/if arise, mocked , wondered @ (5.4.55–57). when richard visits henry in tower, henry defends suspicion of richard s intentions; bird hath been lim d in bush,/with trembling wings misdoubteth every bush (5.6.13–14). birds play important part in henry s prophecy of richard s future evil reign, points out many ill omens accompanying richard s birth; owl shrieked @ thy birth, evil sign,/the night-crow cried, aboding luckless time,/dogs howled , hideous tempest shook down trees,/the raven rooked on chimney s top,/and chatt ring pies in dismal discords sung (5.6.44–48).

the flight of henry vi towton william lindsay windus (1860)

another commonly recurring animal motif of lambs , wolves. introduced in opening scene when margaret chastises henry yielding york s demands , relinquishing throne house of york; such safety finds/the trembling lamb environ d wolves (ll.243–244). later, york watches army lose battle of wakefield, laments followers eager foe/turn , fly, ships before wind/or lambs pursued hunger-starv d wolves (1.4.3–5). after being captured lancastrians, york refer margaret she-wolf of france, worse wolves of france (1.4.111). during battle of tewkesbury, richard , clifford fight, interrupted warwick, , clifford flees. warwick attempts pursue him, richard says, nay warwick, single out other chase,/for myself hunt wolf death (2.4.13). prior battle of barnet, margaret rallies troops claiming edward has destroyed country , usurped throne, pointing out , yonder wolf makes spoil (5.4.80). finally, upon being left alone richard in tower, henry proclaims flies reckless shepherd wolf,/so first harmless sheep doth yield fleece,/and next throat, unto butcher s knife (5.6.7–9).

a third recurring image of lion. introduced rutland in act 1, scene 3; looks pent-up lion o er wretch (l.174). later, richard, speaking of york, says methought bore him in thickest troop/as doth lion in herd of neat (2.1.13–14). clifford chastises henry disinheriting prince edward, asks whom lions cast gentle looks?/not beast usurp den (2.2.11–12). lions mentioned in conjunction lambs during battle of tewkesbury; while lions roar , battle dens/poor harmless lambs abide enmity (2.5.74–75). lions , lambs again combined when, before second capture, henry wondering why people prefer edward him; , when lion fawns upon lamb,/the lamb never cease follow him (4.8.49–50). warwick later combines lions , birds during death speech, must yield body earth/and fall, conquest foe./thus yields cedar axe s edge,/whose arms gave shelter princely eagle,/under shade ramping lion slept (5.2.9–13).

other animals referred in play include dogs (1.4.56, 2.1.15 , 2.5.129), woodcocks (1.4.61), rabbits (1.4.62), snakes (1.4.112 , 2.2.15), tigers (1.4.138, 1.4.155 , 3.1.39), cattle (2.1.14), bears (2.1.15, 2.2.13 , 3.2.161), toads (2.2.138), bulls (2.5.126), hares (2.5.131), chameleons (3.2.191) , foxes (4.7.25).

themes

drawing john hamilton mortimer act 1, scene 4 (the duke of york wipes away tears handkerchief soaked in rutland s blood).


revenge

one of obvious themes in play revenge, cited numerous times various different characters driving force actions. @ different points in play, henry, northumberland, westmorland, clifford, richard, edward , warwick cite desire revenge major factor in guiding decisions, , revenge becomes shared objective between both sides of conflict, each seek redress apparent wrongs perpetrated other; in 3 henry vi, witness final degradation of chivalry: play contains of horrific scenes in canon england s warlords sacrifice honour remorseless ethic of revenge.

the theme of revenge introduced in opening scene. upon seeing york seated on royal throne, henry reminds allies of conflict yorkists in attempt motivate them; earl of northumberland, [york] slew thy father,/and thine lord clifford, , both have vowed revenge/on him, sons, favourites , friends (1.1.54–56). northumberland responds if not, heavens revenged on me (1.1.57). later, after henry has resigned crown house of york , has been abandoned clifford, westmorland , northumberland, exeter explains, seek revenge , therefore shall not yield (1.1.191). later, after edward has been installed king, oxford refuses acknowledge him, arguing call him king, injurious doom/my elder brother lord aubrey vere/was done death? , more so, father (3.3.101-102).

revenge, however, not confined lancastrians. upon learning of death of father, richard overwhelmed manic thirst vengeance;

i cannot weep, body s moisture

scarce serves quench furnace-burning heart,

nor can tongue unload heart s great burden,

for selfsame wind should speak withal

is kindling coals fires breast

and burns me flames tears quench.

to weep make less depth of grief;

tears babes, blows , revenge me.

richard, bear thy name, ll venge thy death,

or die renown d attempting it.

(2.1.79-88)

similarly, upon hearing of death of brother, warwick vows, here on knee vow god above/i ll never pause again, never stand still,/till either death hath closed these eyes of mine/or fortune given me measure of revenge (2.3.29–32). during time in france, warwick again cites revenge part of reason joining lancastrians; did let pass th abuse done niece? (3.3.188 – reference incident reported in both hall , holinshed edward attempted rape either warwick s daughter or niece; edward did attempt thing once in earl s house against earl s honesty (whether have deflowered daughter or niece, certainty not both honours openly known) surely such thing attempted king edward ). few lines later, warwick exclaims, revenge [edward s] wrong lady bona (3.3.197). acknowledges revenge primary motive in joining lancastrians, not devotion cause; ll chief bring [edward] down again,/not pity henry s misery,/but seek revenge on edward s mockery (3.3.264–266). indeed, perhaps warwick sums revenge ethic of play; in act 2, scene 6, upon finding clifford s body, warwick orders clifford s head replace york s @ gates of city, declaring measure measure must answer d (l.54).

h.c. selous illustration of death of york in act 1, scene 4; plays of william shakespeare: historical plays, edited charles cowden clarke , mary cowden clarke (1830)

of characters advocate revenge however, clifford far passionate. obsession revenge death of father takes root before play begins, in penultimate scene of 2 henry vi;

wast thou ordained, dear father,

to lose thy youth in peace, , achieve

the silver livery of advis d age,

and in thy reverence , thy chair-days, thus

to die in ruffian battle? @ sight

my heart turned stone; , while tis mine

it shall stony. york not our old men spares;

no more babes. tears virginal

shall me dew fire,

and beauty tyrant oft reclaims

shall flaming wrath oil , flax.

henceforth not have pity.

meet infant of house of york,

into many gobbets cut it

as wild medea young absyrtus did.

in cruelty seek out fame.

(5.2.45-60)

early in 3 henry vi, clifford makes clear nothing has changed in desire revenge father s death. when warwick mentions father, clifford responds urge no more, lest instead of words,/i send thee, warwick, such messenger/as shall revenge death before stir (1.1.99–101). later, refusing bow york, clifford exclaims may ground gape , swallow me alive/where shall kneel him slew father (1.1.162–163). murder of rutland particularly important in terms of clifford s pursuit of vengeance, scene punctuated debate limits , moral implications of exacting revenge on did no wrong in first place;

rutland

sweet clifford, hear me speak before die:

i mean subject thy wrath;

be thou revenged on men, , let me live.



clifford

in vain thou speak st, poor boy: father s blood

hath stopped passage thy words should enter.



rutland

then let father s blood open again:

he man, , clifford cope him.



clifford

had thy brethren here, lives , thine

were not revenge sufficient me:

no, if digged thy forefathers graves

and hung rotten coffins in chains,

it not slake mine ire, nor ease heart.

the sight of of house of york

is fury torment soul,

and till root out accurs d line

and leave not 1 alive, live in hell.

therefore -

robert ker porter illustration of murder of rutland in act 1, scene 3; engraved cranston (1800)

he lifts hand.



rutland

o let me pray, before take death!

to thee pray; sweet clifford pity me.



clifford

such pity rapier s point affords.



rutland

i never did thee harm, why wilt thou slay me?



clifford

thy father hath.



rutland

but twas ere born.

thou hast 1 son: sake pity me,

least in revenge thereof, sith god just,

he miserably slain i.

ah, let me live in prison days,

and when give occasion of offence,

then let me die, thou hast no cause.



clifford

no cause? thy father slew father: therefore die.



he stabs him.



rutland

dii faciant laudis summa sit ista tuæ.



clifford

plantagenet, come plantagenet,

and thy son s blood cleaving blade

shall rust upon weapon, till thy blood

congealed this, make me wipe off both.

(1.3.19-52)

clifford subverts notions of morality , chivalry in dogged pursuit of revenge, determined visit onto house of york same type of suffering delivered onto him death of father. culminates during torture of york in act 1, scene 4. moments after capturing york, clifford wants execute him immediately, prevented doing margaret, wishes talk to, , taunt, york prior killing him. when margaret tells york die soon, clifford points out, office, father s sake (l.109). clifford remains relatively silent throughout of scene, speaking prior stabbing of york, , again, citing revenge foremost in mind; here s oath, here s father s death (l.175).

however, death of father s killer, clifford seems remain obsessed revenge. during single combat richard @ battle of towton, clifford attempts evoke desire revenge in richard pointing out how killed 2 members of richard s family;

now richard, here thee alone,

this hand stabbed thy father york

and hand slew thy brother rutland,

and here s heart triumphs in death

and cheers these hands slew thy sire , brother

to execute upon thyself;

and have @ thee.

(2.4.5-11)

even @ point of own death, clifford cannot let go of revenge, transferring own obsession onto enemies, , assuming in death, have measure of revenge yearns for; come york , richard, warwick , rest,/i stabbed father s bosom, split breast (2.6.28–29).

power , barbarism

illustration of death of henry in act 5, scene 6; works of mr. william shakespeare, edited nicholas rowe (1709)

despite prevalence of revenge in earlier parts of play, loses significance motivating factor nature of conflict changes , develops pursuit of power, without recourse past antagonisms. revenge ceases primary driving force many of characters, lust power taking over, , past conflicts rendered unimportant each side desperately races victory; revenge ethic has been outstripped expedient violence no aim other seizure of power.

for example, when edward , richard urging york break oath henry, edward says, kingdom, oath may broken;/i break thousand oaths reign 1 year (1.2.16–17), showing attraction power has characters, , willing attain it. later, echoing warwick s statement reasons joining lancastrians, richard outlines why has remained loyal yorkists; stay not love of edward crown (4.1.125), again showing attraction of power , subversion of other concerns, including familial relations. example when prince edward killed in act 5, scene 5. death brought because taunts plantagenet brothers, , lose temper him, not because exacting revenge ongoing feud family. similarly, when richard kills henry, motives have nothing conflict between family , henry s. murders him because henry stands in way of attempts gain throne. michael hattaway writes, family loyalties may have been initial cause of feuds, audience watching 3 henry vi feel individual ambition rather family honour fuels vendettas inform play. both [families] seem have forgotten quarrel between [them] dynastic one: claims legitimacy , authority in play validated forces can muster jane howell, director of bbc shakespeare adaptation argues, anarchy loosed , re left different set of values – every man himself. re time of change in there no code except survival of fittest – happens richard.

the play depicts happens when nation turns on in epic savagery, dissolving own social foundations. in sense, play has no antagonist, , both sides in conflict depicted capable of atrocities in pursuit of victory. example, opening moments of play see richard introduced carrying head of duke of somerset, killed @ end of 2 henry vi. degradation of chivalric customs , human decency emphasised when york responds richard s arrival talking head itself; grace dead, lord of somerset (1.1.18). michael hattaway sees scene important prologue play insofar act of desecration signifies extinguishing of residual chivalric code of conspicuous virtue, eclipsing of honour main force.

another example of barbarism perpetrated yorkists abuse of clifford s body in act 2, scene 6, edward, richard, clarence , warwick speak corpse in derision, sardonically wondering why doesn t answer them. richard s treatment of henry s body in final scene example of lack of reverence dead; after henry s death, richard stabs corpse, proclaiming down, down hell, , sent thee hither (5.6.67).

as such, power being seen many of characters ultimate goal, play deals themes of disloyalty , betrayal, , outlines results of political factionalism , social breakdown; once calm world seen spiralling toward chaos barbarism , immorality come fore. e.m.w. tillyard has written of henry vi trilogy; second part had showed murder of duke humphrey of gloucester, rise of york, destruction of 2 of humphrey s murderers , enmity of 2 survivors, york , queen margaret. through these happenings country had been brought edge of chaos. in third part, shakespeare shows chaos itself, full prevalence of civil war, perpetration of 1 horrible deed after another. in second part there had remained chivalric feeling [...] in third part decencies of chivalric warfare abandoned.

family conflict , family dissolution

just revenge gives way desire power, national political conflict give way petty interfamily feud. example, play opens in aftermath of first battle of st albans (1455), , dramatises agreement between henry , york house of lancaster cede throne house of york upon henry s death. however, in reality, agreement brought not first battle of st albans battle of northampton in 1460, shakespeare chose not dramatise. furthermore, legal settlement whereby henry agreed relinquish crown house of york upon death came due lengthy parliamentary debate, not personal agreement between henry , york, depicted in play. such, wide-ranging political debate spanning 5 years, , involving virtually every peer in country telescoped in play immediate agreement between 2 men, illustrating personal nature of conflict.

another example of character personalises national conflict , turns political struggle personal quest clifford, desire revenge death of father seems reason fighting. clifford seems unconcerned henry s ability lead country, , desire personal vengeance seems outweigh sense has of aiding house of lancaster because believes right thing do. similarly, warwick s later actions in play, himself acknowledges, have nothing ensuring henry remain king, based wholly on personal feelings towards edward; more concerned bringing down house of york elevating house of lancaster. such, york-warwick alliance degenerates inter-family feud, more petty in tit-for-tat predictability york , lancaster s squabbles. although conflicts depicted in play national, treated many of characters personal quarrels.

this concentration on personal , familial aspects of war leads major theme in play; dissolution of family. throughout play, family ties shown fragile , under threat. first breach of familial bonds comes when henry agrees pass crown house of york after death. disinherits son , renders crown piece of transferable property, rather symbol of dynastic heritage or monarchic succession. of henry s followers aghast @ decision, none more margaret, exclaims,

ah, wretched man, had died maid

and never seen thee, never borne thee son,

seeing thou hast proved unnatural father.

hath deserved lose birthright thus?

hadst thou loved him half i,

or felt pain did him once,

or nourished him did blood,

thou wouldst have left thy dearest heart-blood there,

rather have made savage duke thine heir

and disinherited thine son.

(1.1217-226)

margaret not alone in efforts convince henry decision wrong. clifford attempts persuade him, arguing fathers not pass on successes sons unnatural;

ambitious york, did level @ thy crown,

thou smiling, while knit angry brows.

he duke have son king

and raise issue loving sire,

thou being king, blessed goodly son

didst yield consent disinherit him,

which argued thee unloving father.

unreasonable creatures feed young,

and though man s face fearful eyes,

yet in protection of tender ones,

who hath not seen them, wings

which sometime have used fearful flight,

make war him climbed unto nest,

offering own lives in young s defence?

for shame, liege, make them precedent.

were not pity goodly boy

should lose birth-right father s fault,

and long hereafter unto child,

great-grandfather , grandsire got,

my careless father fondly gave away ?

ah shame this! on boy,

and let manly face, promiseth

successful fortune, steel thy melting heart,

to hold thine own , leave thine own him.

(2.2.19-42)

henry however, disagrees clifford, arguing passing on burden of kingship not natural thing father do, brings no reward when title unlawfully obtained in first place ( things ill got, had ever bad success : henry referring deposition , assassination of richard ii own grandfather, henry iv). disinheriting son, henry seems think protecting prince, ensuring never suffer hardships himself experienced when left usurped inheritance own father ( ll leave son virtuous deeds behind , father had left me no more );

but clifford tell me, didst thou never hear

that things ill got, had ever bad success?

and happy son

whose father hoarding went hell?

i ll leave son virtuous deeds behind,

and father had left me no more,

for rest held @ such rate

as brings thousandfold more care keep

then in possession jot of pleasure.

(2.2.45-53)

as such, while margaret , clifford argue henry has destroyed family in deal york, henry himself seems feel has done offspring favour , prevented him experiencing future suffering.

york s deal henry doesn t have implications henry s family however, has implications york s. york willingly sacrifices personal glory sake of heirs, electing not become king himself promise sons , grandsons kings instead. however, after deal henry, york s family torn apart. act 1, scene 2 symbolically begins edward , richard arguing; no quarrel slight contention (l.6). act 1, scene 3 depicts murder of york s youngest son, whilst in act 1, scene 4, york himself tortured , murdered, knowledge rutland dead. in sense, york functions symbolic character insofar personal losses underlining york s political tragedy [magnify] play s theme of civil war s destruction of family relationships.

h.c. selous illustration of father , son tragedy in act 2, scene 5; plays of william shakespeare: historical plays, edited charles cowden clarke , mary cowden clarke (1830)

the dissolution of house of york doesn t end death of york himself. later, in act 3, scene 2, richard further dissolves family revealing ambition usurp edward s throne, , thereby disinherit edward s children, own nephews; ay, edward, use women honourably./would wasted, marrow, bones, , all,/that loins no hopeful branch may spring/to cross me golden time (ll.124–127). after murdering henry, richard outlines plan bring about, vowing turn edward against clarence:

clarence beware, thou keep st me light,

but sort pitchy day thee,

for buzz abroad such prophecies

that edward shall fearful of life,

and purge fear, ll thy death. (5.6.84–88)

in ambition, richard proves successful, utterly destroying own family in process.

act 2, scene 5 1983 bbc shakespeare adaptation.

also important theme of family dissolution act 2, scene 5, father unwittingly kills son, , son unwittingly kills father. stuart hampton-reeves argues scene symbolic 1 referring conscription debate in england during 1580s , 1590s. dutch revolt against spanish empire had begun in 1568, , although england , france both supporting dutch, had officially remained neutral fear of angering spanish. however, in 1585, elizabeth signed treaty of nonsuch, officially brought england conflict, promise of 6,500 troops (which changed 8,000 troops) dutch. such, supply these troops, mobilisation needed , government replaced traditional feudal system, whereby local nobles raised armies among own tenantry, national conscription. not without controversy, , incident involving fathers , sons allude both practices; feudal system , national system. upon discovering has killed father, son laments london king pressed forth./my father, being earl of warwick s man,/came on part of york, pressed master (2.5.64–66). son had left family home , travelled london, had been conscripted king s army upon outbreak of war. father had stayed @ home , had been compelled join army of local noble (i.e. warwick). ended on opposite sides in conflict, regional stability gives way national discord , social breakdown, , war begins quite literally tear families apart.