The History Plays - Shakespeare

Now that I'm done with all of Shakespeare's History plays, I wanted to sum them up with a post.  I won't try and rank them, like I did with the Comedies.  The history plays are too connected for that type of approach.  They have different aims than the stand alone stories of the comedies and tragedies.  (Besides, I have no idea if I prefer Henry IV part one or two better.  Maybe someone does, but I don't.)
There are ten plays in all and they come in two sets of four and two stand alone stories.  I read the 'Henriad' quartet first and I think that was lucky.  It let me read of a fairly straightforward history from the deposing of Richard II by Henry IV, to his son's journey from young Hal to the heroic Henry V.  I was able to read of the comparatively weak Henry VI and the passing of the throne back and forth with Edward IV and the final climb to the throne of Richard III.  (With a brief glimpse of poor Edward V.)  I can honestly say that I have a much, much firmer grasp on that time period of England than I did six months ago.
There are some very compelling stories throughout the group.  I doubt that I'll ever forget either of the Richards.  Richard II has been raised as a king and can hardly believe that his will isn't absolute.  When his crown is taken from him, it is as if a fundamental law of nature has been violated.  The sheer act causes his world to come apart.
Richard III has no such hang up over the sacred nature of the crown.  To him it is a goal that must be attained even at a heavy cost.  He will be king and he doesn't care who he upsets to do so.  Of course, the people of England decided he was a monster, so this was ultimately his downfall.
If there is a theme throughout the history plays, it is probably the questioning of who should enjoy power.  Who deserves it?  What is the natural line for power to follow?  Is the rule of the king absolute?  What do the people do if someone manifestly unworthy becomes king?  We don't think of modern power in terms of kings and crowns, but the questions of leadership and power are still very familiar.


The stand alones are comparative orphans.  King John was a somewhat weak king who lost the faith of his nobles.  He ended up being poisoned by a monk.  Henry VIII, though prettied up, was a man who reveled in the trappings of the throne but was ruthless towards those who got in his way.  He cruelly cast aside his first wife and was lucky to end up with the jewel that was Elizabeth I. 
Neither play is produced much anymore and it's hard to blame anyone for this.  If I was going to rank them, they would be ninth and tenth in some order.  They don't build to a greater story.  Both of them are fine reading, but I'd be surprised if any but completests read them nowadays.


I love the idea of the history plays.  I'd love to see a similar attempt made with American presidents.  They would have to dodge a minefield of propaganda that Shakespeare wasn't able to dodge, but so be it.  It would be worth it.

Henry VIII - Shakespeare

Henry VIII is a History play in the episodic form.  The play covers the highlights of the early part of Henry VIII's reign.  We open with the fall of Buckingham, one of the king's close advisors.  It's not clear if Buckingham was guilty or framed but he handles everything with grace.  Even as he is lead off to execution, he preaches piety and faith to the king.
Then we move on to the divorce with Katherine of Aragon.  This is preceded by a trial in which the legitimacy of the marriage is questioned.  The chief complaint is the lack of a male son, which seems to point to general disapproval on the union.  Katherine is shattered but she also is gracious.  She later dies in an aura of holiness.
Another king's advisor, this one named Wolsey, is caught with his hand in the cookie jar.  He is arrested and shamed.  He also dies with grace and humility. 
The king remarries, this time to Anne Bullen (Boleyn).  Everyone hopes for the best.  A daughter is born, the to-be Elizabeth I.  Much praise is heaped on her for she is the hope for a better future.


Henry VIII is an odd play.  It was written (we think) more than ten years after the previous history play, Henry V.  It probably was written as a collaboration.  It feels disjointed.  I'm glad I read it for completest reasons but I wouldn't really recommend it.
It's also interesting because of the timing of the play.  The last scene takes place in 1533.  The play was probably written about 1613, so the time span is much closer than in the other history plays.  This undoubtedly overshadows how the play is set up.  King Henry VIII is not a nice guy and his court was not a nice place.  But everyone accepts their fate and goes off to death or abandon without much difficulty.  It's not hard to see the censor's hands at work there.  (Or perhaps, that really was the prevailing feeling at the time and only later do we see the rougher spots?)  Whichever it is, this play feels like propaganda in the same way that Henry V does. 
There is a bit of trivia that brings the play to the forefront.  It was during a performance of this play that the Globe caught fire and burned down.  The performance was on June 29, 1613.  This is one of the most exact dates of Shakespearian performance available.  We don't know if the play was in its first run or if the script we have was rewritten at some point or not.  But this is more info than we have for many other plays.

Links to the Past

10 Interesting Myths About Shakespeare link

Plato and Aristotle on 'Brexit vs Bremain' (note, I have no opinion on the underlying politics, but I like the exercise of using the big guns to think through it)  link

In defense of reading dead white guys link

Thomas Hobbes and Captain America 'Civil War' link

The Most Beautiful Poems in the English Language link

The French Play Monopoly (Existential Comics) link

King John - Shakespeare

King John is sole king of England but he faces a claim from a French prince, named Arthur.  In the face of this challenge, he goes to war.  The English and French forces face off outside of a city called Angiers.  Both sides demand that the city open their gates to them, and only them.  The conversation goes something like this (paraphrased):

Angiers: We're only going to open up for the king.
Eng & Fra: Yes, but which king?
Angiers: (pause) The rightful king.
Eng & Fra: Ok, but which one of us is the rightful king?
Angiers: (longer pause) Um, you figure it out and then we'll open our gates.

So they fight and scheme and fight until it is pointed out that they could join forces to punish Angiers for their indecision.  They agree but then quickly decide that maybe the could stop all of the fighting if the kings married their children together and hammered out a lasting peace.  They do so.
This absolutely horrifies the women behind the kings, Eleanor of Aquitane, King John's mother and Lady Constance on the French.  Both think that their side had given up too much and should have pressed harder.  (Both are very good roles, especially Lady Constance.)  They condemn the action but the marriage has taken place.
Before anything is resolved, an ambassador from the Pope, Pandolf, shows up and ex-communicates King John over a disputed archbishop.  John won't give in and Pandolf leans on the French to attack him if they want to stay in good with the church.  The war resumes and ruins the wedding glow.
Arthur is captured in battle and King John's party returns to England, leaving Eleanor to fight on in France.  The King asks one of his trusty men, Hubert, to kill Arthur and remove the threat.  Hubert agrees heartily but when it comes time to blind(!) and kill him, he cannot do so.  Word gets out that the king has killed innocent Arthur and King John faces a revolt of his nobles.  He repents of his actions and yells at Hubert for agreeing to kill Arthur.  Hubert tells him that he has not done so and the king is overjoyed.
Meanwhile, Arthur has tried to escape and fallen off of a wall and killed himself.  The nobles find his body and blame King John.  They go off to join a French expedition against the king.  King John decides to give sway to the Pope and asks Pandolf to bring about peace.  France decides to press their advantage and fight on.  The nobles go back to the English side and England wins.
As this has happened, King John has retired to a monastery and been poisoned by a monk.  The remaining cast gather around him and wish him godspeed to the afterlife.  The nobles then swear allegiance to Prince Henry, now Henry III.

King John is a big step down from Richard III.  The play, in style is more like Richard II or III in that it describes a long character arc of the king itself, rather than focusing on events of the time.  Even with that though, it falls short in quality of either one.  For one, the character of the king is much less remarkable.
From what we know of the play, it is fairly early Shakespeare.  There is dispute whether or not the story is reworked from someone else or whether a different play was copied from Shakespeare.  One of the most interesting things about reading so much of the man in one shot is finding out just how much we really know about when things were written.
There are some elements that I liked here, especially Lady Constance, but overall this isn't a great play.  It's not unreadable, but I can see why it isn't done in any kind of heavy rotation.

Timeline of Authors

It's been a while since I've done one of these, but I think this will be useful.  At least I've been wanting this as I figure out how to proceed.  This timeline will cover the authors that I'm looking at for the remainder of the year.

Hobbes 1588-1679
Milton 1608-1674
Pascal 1623-1662
Spinoza 1632-1677
Locke 1632-1704
Montesquieu 1689-1755
Rousseau 1712-1778
Mill 1806-1873

Cervantes 1547(?)-1616
Fielding 1707-1754
Sterne 1713-1768
Boswell 1740-1795
Goethe 1749-1832
Tolstoy 1828-1910

Richard III - Shakespeare

Now is the winter of our wading through mounds of similarly named nobles made glorious by a play which focuses on one central figure.


Richard III is very much a part of the same story that is set up by the Henry VI trilogy (and improved, I think, by reading them together) but it is very different in form.  The earlier plays are more of an epic and sprawling affair.  This one is the story of one man and his ambition.  As the play opens he calmly figures out just who would have to die in order for him to become king.  He then starts the wheels moving towards those deaths.  We, the audience, are invited to come along with him.  I won't go through the plot bit by bit, but I want to point out some of the highlights.


Near the beginning of the play, Richard woos Lady Anne, the widow of Prince Edward whom he had a direct hand in killing.  He meets her over the coffin of Henry VI, who he also killed.  In an astonishing manner, he woos and wins her by telling her that all of this was done for her beauty and for the future of England.  After she leaves, he winks at the audience to let them know that all of this was done for the sake of his schemes.
The deaths begin to mount and soon the only ones between Richard and the crown are his two young nephews.  They are 'invited' to London so that he can protect them.  This is done by stashing them in the Tower of London.  Richard quickly has them murdered.  (The Wikipedia article on the Princes in the Tower makes for good reading.)  Even as this has happened, Richard moves to make them illegitimate and therefore unable to inherit the throne.
The women of the play, Queens Elizabeth and Margaret and Anne, the Duchess of York) gather to lament the dead they have lost.  "I had an Edward, till a Richard kill'd him..."  They list the dead and their killers.  The effect is startling and I would love to see it live.  I'm sure it would bring chills.
Near the end, when Richard III is finally crowned and is readying for battle, he is visited by the ghosts of all he killed.  One by one they come and condemn him and then go over to the other side of the battlefield to bless his opponent, the future Henry VII.  Richard does indeed lose the battle, in part because he is unhorsed.  He is killed and the War of the Roses finally comes to an end.


This play is amazing.  I can see why top actors have tried their hand at the Richard III role.  He is devious and charming.  He is ruthless and evil.  He is a villain in the truest sense of the word.  Richard III is quite possibly the best villain that Shakespeare ever wrote. 
Over in England, they have capitalized on the success of the earlier 'Hollow Crown' series that dealt with Richard II, the Henry IV plays and Henry V.  They have created a sequel of sorts, that moves the Henry VI plays and Richard III into a trilogy.  I'm very anxious to watch it when it comes to the US.

Henry VI Part 3 - Shakespeare

As with the previous part, there is far too much action to try and sum up the plot.  Also, by it's nature, it's very confusing.  Instead I'll simply highlight some of the touching scenes.


The play begins with King Henry in Richard's hands.  They come to an agreement where Henry will live out his life and when he dies, the throne will go over to Richard and his heirs.  Queen Margaret is furious at Henry for selling out their children.  She flees London and goes to the north, where she has support.
There is more battle, near the city of York.  Clifford finds Richard's young son Rutland.  He won't allow him to flee.  Clifford remembers his vow to kill all of the family and kills Rutland there.  Soon after, Richard is captured.  Queen Margaret and Clifford taunt Richard with Rutland's blood and then kill him.  Richard's head is cut off and put on display above the city with a paper crown.  The king is horrified by all of this.
Fortunes reverse and Richard's son Edward is crowned king.  Queen Margaret flees to France.  She tries to convince the King of France to allow his daughter to marry her son, Edward.  As she is making her argument, an embassy by Warwick arrives from the opposing side for her to marry Edward.  The king of France is unsure what to do.  While he is deciding, word comes that Edward has already married someone else.  Warwick is incensed and changes sides.  France decides to aid Queen Margaret.
Another battle and Queen Margaret loses.  The sons of Richard capture her and her son Edward.  They kill him in front of her.  As it's done, Richard's son Richard (the youngest surviving son) leaves for London and the tower.  There, he confronts King Henry and calmly kills him.
King Edward IV is now king with no other major claimant.


Before starting on the Henry VI plays, I read that not many people bother with them.  I can see why.  The plot isn't easy to follow.  The casts are enormous and hard to keep track of.  Most of the nobles use several names, varying between Christian (i.e. 'first') names to their noble names.  Almost all of the important men are named Henry, Richard or Ed.  This would have been an absolute mess to watch.
But I enjoyed it.  In many ways, the three plays together were like an epic mini-series.  Factions gained prominence and were cut down.  Major people are introduced.  They do important things and then find themselves on the wrong end and are killed.  There is a broad scope to the entire spectacle.  (It helped to read some secondary sources on the War of the Roses.)
And the future Richard III gains prominence throughout.  In the third part he has a tasty soliloquy where he talks about how he is surprisingly ok with having to do violence and evil.  The crown is not far from him and he is on the look out for a way to put it on his own head.  He sees this as his certain future.  It's chilling and yet we can't look away.
The Henry VI plays were some of the earliest that Shakespeare wrote and apparently they were extremely popular during the time.  I can see why.  His contemporaries would have been able to follow the action much more easily than we could have.  They would have enjoyed the huge swings of power and fortune.  I'm sure they also shuddered as the villainous Richard III climbed higher and higher too.
I liked it too.