Blame the French

Whatever kind of Shakespeare reader you are -- casual, afficianado, avoider -- there is a very good chance that you have not read Henry VI, Part 1. It's not the kind of play you wake up one day and decide to read. As a matter of fact, most of the histories fit under this category. There are perhaps two that are widely known: Richard III and Henry V. And herein lies a problem: both of those plays are the final parts to Shakespeare's two history Tetralogies (four-part stories). In order to get the required backstory in those plays, it may behoove you to read their prequels.

This journey for me began with a nosebleed. I was home with one when I saw Lawrence Olivier's stunning performance of Richard III. His agonized cry, "A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!" made me want to go back and read the play. But -- lo and behold -- you really do have to read the whole tetralogy first.

(I could have even started earlier. Shakespeare's Tetralogies weren't written in order; he was the George Lucas of his time. The one beginning with Henry VI, Part 1 was written first, and probably with collaborators. He wrote the Prequel Tetralogy later. But since this play is the likely chronological beginning of Shakespeare's works, I had no problem starting here.)

This was my first exposure to the Histories, of which I'd always wondered: how can they be interesting as plays? I imagined them very dry and pointless, like my high school textbooks.

Henry VI, Part 1 defied my expectations entirely. Firstly, the story is framed around the well-known story (well-known to me, anyway) of Joan of Arc. The story of the British histories is one of nobles quarreling amongst themselves, but this one brings in an enemy -- the French and their new leader. (Opposition would be a better word -- you see the story from their position often, and they're not wholly evil.) Thus the story balances precariously between the worlds of standard good-guys-versus-bad-guys story, and tragedy. The British nobles' tragic flaw, you see, is that they quarrel so much among themselves without getting anything done. The question becomes whether English losses are the France's fault, or England's. (Naturally, England tends to blame the French.)

Another reason why Henry VI, Part 1 works is that British history is just... interesting. It helps that I can flip back and forth in this yarn, and also that three family trees are provided. Shakespeare simplifies things -- in the first scene, for example, crisis after crisis reaches the British when in reality the problems were more spread apart. But simplifications of factions into lead characters is a good device which keeps the story moving.

Often the reasons for the infighting aren't given. I don't know whether I'm missing some information from earlier plays, but I largely doubt it. The point here is that English nobles are fighting for control, for dignity, and for power. And the king is no help.

The title is a misnomer. "The First Part of the Reign of Henry the Sixth" would be more accurate, as his reign begins upon the death of Henry V. His funeral begins the play; the new king shows up in act 3 of 5, and is absolutely useless at reparing the damage.

Another interesting device is some of the scenes in act 4, which have significant chronological gaps but feature the same characters. As a reader, it works, but I imagine that directors would have a tough time of it.

Last on my list here is the note that this play ends on a cliffhanger. As well it should -- the play sets up the next two at the end. Seeing it alone, I imagine theatregoers would be a little bit miffed, for good reason. All in all, though, I think the play told a complete story, which is more than I expected (neither a complete yarn nor a story). It's a pretty good introduction to British history.