Critical history Some critics argue that the
Henry VI trilogy was the first ever plays to be based on recent English history, and as such, they deserve an elevated position in the
canon and a more central role in Shakespearean criticism. According to F. P. Wilson, "There is no certain evidence that any dramatist before the defeat of the
Spanish Armada in 1588 dared to put upon the public stage a play based upon English history [... so that] so far as we know, Shakespeare was the first." Michael Taylor, however, argues that there were at least thirty-nine history plays prior to 1592, including the two-part
Christopher Marlowe play
Tamburlaine (1587),
Thomas Lodge's
The Wounds of Civil War (1588),
George Peele's
The Troublesome Reign of King John (1588), the anonymous
Edmund Ironside (1590),
Robert Green, and Thomas Lodge's
Selimus (1591), and another anonymous play,
The True Tragedy of Richard III (1591). Paola Pugliatti attempts a synthesis, arguing, "Shakespeare may not have been the first to bring English history before the audience of a public playhouse, but he was certainly the first to treat it in the manner of a mature historian rather than in the manner of a worshipper of historical, political and religious myth." In any case, there is much more critical disagreement about the play, not the least of which concerns its relationship to
The Contention.
The Contention as reported text Over the years, critics have debated the connection between
2 Henry VI and
The Contention, to the point where four main theories have emerged: •
The Contention is a reconstructed version of a performance of what we today call
2 Henry VI; i.e. a
bad quarto, an attempt by actors to reconstruct the original play from memory and sell it. Originated by
Samuel Johnson in 1765 and refined by
Peter Alexander in 1929. Traditionally, this is the most accepted theory. •
The Contention is an early draft of the play that was published in the 1623 Folio under the title
The second Part of Henry the Sixt. Originated by
Edmond Malone in 1790 as an alternate to Johnson's memorial report theory. Supported today by critics such as Steven Urkowitz. •
The Contention is
both a reported text
and an early draft of
2 Henry VI. This theory has been gaining increasing support from the latter half of the 20th century, and is championed by many modern editors of the play. • Shakespeare did not write
The Contention at all; it was an
anonymous play which he used as the basis for
2 Henry VI. Originated by
Georg Gottfried Gervinus in 1849, this theory remained popular throughout the nineteenth century, with
Robert Greene the leading candidate as a possible author. It has fallen out of favour in the twentieth century. Traditionally, critical opinion has tended to favour the first theory; that
The Contention is a bad quarto, a memorial reconstruction, perhaps by the actor who had played Suffolk and/or Cade in early performance. Samuel Johnson put forth this theory in 1765, but was challenged by Edmond Malone in 1790, who suggested that
The Contention could be an early draft of
2 Henry VI. Malone's view was the dominant one until 1929, when Peter Alexander and
Madeleine Doran, working independently of one another, re-established the dominance of the bad quarto theory. They focused on a genealogical error in
The Contention, which they argue seems unlikely to have been made by an author, and is therefore only attributable to a reporter. In
The Contention, when York sets out his claim to the throne, he identifies
Edmund of Langley as Edward III's second son, instead of his fifth. In
2 Henry VI, Langley is correctly placed in the genealogy. This error renders unnecessary York's need to claim the throne through his mother's ancestry: were he descended from the second son, he himself would be descended directly from an elder son than Henry. It has been argued that "no one who understood what he was writing—that is, no author—could have made this error, but someone parroting someone else's work, of which he himself had but a dim understanding—that is, a reporter—easily could." Act 3, Scene 1, has been pinpointed as another scene which provides evidence that
The Contention is a reported text. In
The Contention, after the court has turned on Gloucester, Suffolk then illogically switches back to discussing the regentship of France. Horner and Thump are introduced and Gloucester arranges for them to formally
duel. At this point, Gloucester leaves, but without any discernible reason. Margaret then strikes Eleanor, Gloucester returns, and he and his wife leave together. Steven Urkowitz (a staunch opponent of the theory of bad quartos in general) argues that the difference in the two scenes is an example of "the finely Shakespearean first choices recorded in the Quarto." Roger Warren, however, argues that the scene provides strong evidence that
The Contention is a reported text; "it is not hard to conjecture how the Quarto's version came about. The conflicting claims of York and Somerset led to the Armourer and his Man being introduced too soon; whoever was compiling the Quarto text remembered that Humphrey left the stage, though not why, but
did remember that while he was offstage Margaret struck his wife. The utterly unmotivated exit and reappearance of Humphrey in itself rules out any possibility that the Quarto's scene is a legitimate alternative to the Folio version, rather than a confused report of it." Further evidence for the reported text theory is provided in how other plays are used throughout
The Contention. For example, the line from Marlowe's
The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus "Now Faustus, what wouldst thou have me do?" (1.3.36) is reproduced as "Now Bolingbroke, what wouldst thou have me do?", while Marlowe's "The wild O'Neill, with swarms of Irish kerns, / Lives uncontrolled within the English pale" (2.2.163–164) from
Edward II is paraphrased in Act 3, Scene 1, as "The wild O'Neill, my lords, is up in arms,/ With troops of Irish kerns that uncontrolled / Doth plant themselves within the English pale". Even a line from
3 Henry VI ("If our King Henry had shook hands with death" (1.4.103)) appears in Act 3, Scene 1, all of which suggests that, as is so often the case in the bad quartos, the reporter was filling in blanks (i.e. passages he could not remember) with extracts from other plays.
The Contention as early draft Steven Urkowitz has spoken at great length about the debate between the bad quarto theory and the early draft theory, coming down firmly on the side of the early draft. Urkowitz argues that the quarto of
2 Henry VI and the octavo of
3 Henry VI actually present scholars with a unique opportunity to see a play evolving, as Shakespeare edited and rewrote certain sections; "the texts of
2 and
3 Henry VI offer particularly rich illustrations of textual variation and theatrical transformation." Urkowitz cites the dialogue in the opening scene of
2 Henry VI as especially strong evidence of the early draft theory. In
The Contention, Henry receives Margaret with joy and an exclamation that all his worldly troubles are behind him. Margaret is then depicted as utterly humble, vowing to love the King no matter what. After the initial meeting then, Henry asks Margaret to sit beside him before bidding the Lords to stand nearby and welcome her. In
2 Henry VI, on the other hand, Henry is more cautious in greeting Margaret, seeing her as a relief for his problems, but only if she and he can find common ground and love one another. She herself is also much bolder and self-congratulatory in
2 Henry VI than in
The Contention. Additionally, in
2 Henry VI there is no reference to anyone sitting, and the lords kneel before speaking to Margaret. Urkowitz summarises these differences by arguing, In the visible geometry of courtly ceremony, the Folio version offers us a bold Queen Margaret and an exuberant king who stands erect while the visibly subordinated nobles kneel before them. In contrast to the modest queen seated beside the king surrounded by standing nobles, in this text at the equivalent moment, we have an assertive queen standing upright with her monarch, visibly subordinating the kneeling, obedient lords. Distinct theatrical representations of psychological and political tensions distinguish the two versions of the passage. Both texts "work" by leading an audience through an elaborate ceremonial display fraught with symbolic gestures of emotional attachment, sanctification, regal authority, and feudal obedience, but each displays a distinct pattern of language and coded gestures. Such fine-tuning of dramatic themes and actions are staples of professional theatrical writing. The differences in the texts are of the sort one tends to find in texts that were altered from an original form, and Urkowitz cites Eric Rasmussen, E. A. J. Honigmann, and Grace Ioppolo as supporting this view. He refers to the case of
Richard Brinsley Sheridan's
The School for Scandal (1777), which existed in an earlier form, also by Sheridan, in a two-part play
The Slanderers and
Sir Peter Teazel, which he argues contain the same type of modifications as is found in the
Henry VI plays. (1795) Urkowitz is not alone in finding evidence to support the early draft theory. For example, in
The Contention, Margery Jourdayne is referred to as "the cunning witch of
Ely", but in
2 Henry VI she is referred to merely as "the cunning witch." The traditional argument to explain this disparity is that such information was added by either Shakespeare or someone else during rehearsals, but was not found in the
prompt book which was used to print the
First Folio. However, R. B. McKerrow argues against the likelihood of this theory. He asks why a writer would go back to a chronicle source to add a piece of information which is of no importance dramatically, and brings nothing to the scene. McKerrow suggests that the line was cut after performance. A similar example is found in Act 4, Scene 7, where Cade orders his men to kill Lord Saye and Sir James Comer. In
2 Henry VI, Cade orders them to cut off Saye's head and then go to Cromer's house and kill him, but in
The Contention, he tells them to bring Saye to "Standard in
Cheapside", and then go to Cromer's house in "
Mile End Green." McKerrow argues that such unimportant detail suggests removal after performance rather than addition before performance. More evidence is found in Act 2, Scene 1. In
The Contention, after Winchester has accepted Gloucester's challenge to a duel (l. 38; "Marry, when thou dar'est"), there is additional dialogue not found in
2 Henry VI;
GLOUCESTER Dare? I tell thee priest,
Plantagenets could never brook the dare.
WINCHESTER I am Plantagenet as well as thou, And son of
John of Gaunt.
GLOUCESTER In bastardy.
WINCHESTER I scorn thy words. Again, McKerrow's argument here is not that these lines were added during rehearsals, but that they existed in an early draft of the play and were removed after rehearsals, as they were simply deemed unnecessary; the animosity between the two had already been well established. However, the theory that
The Contention may be an early draft does not necessarily imply that it could not also represent a bad quarto. Traditionally, most critics (such as Alexander, Doran, McKerrow and Urkowitz) have looked at the problem as an either–or situation;
The Contention is
either a reported text
or an early draft, but recently there has been some argument that it may be both. For example, this is the theory supported by Roger Warren in his
Oxford Shakespeare edition of the play. It is also the theory advanced by Randall Martin in his
Oxford Shakespeare edition of
3 Henry VI. The crux of the argument is that both the evidence for the bad quarto theory and the evidence for the early draft theory are so compelling that neither is able to completely refute the other. As such, if the play contains evidence of being both a reported text
and an early draft, it must be both; i.e.
The Contention represents a reported text
of an early draft of
2 Henry VI. Shakespeare wrote an early version of the play, which was staged. Shortly after that staging, some of the actors constructed a bad quarto from it and had it published. In the meantime, Shakespeare had rewritten the play into the form found in the
First Folio. Warren argues that this is the only theory which can account for the strong evidence for both reporting and revision, and it is a theory which is gaining increased support in the late twentieth/early twenty-first century.
Language Language, throughout the play, helps to establish the theme as well as the tone of each particular episode. For example, the opening speech of the play is an ornate, formal declaration by Suffolk: As by your high imperial majesty I had in charge at my depart for France, As Procurator to your excellence, To marry Princess Margaret for your grace, So in the famous ancient city
Tours, In presence of the Kings of France and
Sicil, The Dukes of
Orléans,
Calabre,
Bretagne, and
Alençon, Seven earls, twelve barons, and twenty reverend bishops, I have performed my task and was espoused, And humbly now upon my bended knee, In sight of England and her lordly peers, Deliver up my title in the Queen To your most gracious hands, that are the substance Of that great shadow I did represent: The happiest gift that ever marquis gave, The fairest queen that ever king received. ::::::: (1.1.1–16) The substance of Suffolk's speech is "As I was instructed to marry Margaret on your behalf, I did so, and now I deliver her to you." However, the formality of the scene and the importance of the event require him to deliver this message in heightened language, with the formal significance of Henry's marriage to Margaret mirrored in the formal language used by Suffolk to announce that marriage. (1788) Language conveys the importance of religion throughout the play. Henry's language often echoes the
Bible. For example, hearing of the Cade rebellion, he comments "Ο graceless men, they know not what they do" (4.4.37), echoing the
Gospel of Luke: "Father, forgive them: for they know not what they do" (23:34). Earlier in the play, he refers to
heaven as "the treasury of everlasting joy" (2.1.18), recalling the
Gospel of Matthew's "lay up treasures for yourselves in heaven" (6:20), and then a few lines later he muses "blessèd are the peacemakers on earth" (2.1.34), echoing Jesus'
Sermon on the Mount. On both of these occasions, however, Cardinal Winchester, ostensibly a pious man, distorts Henry's genuine piety. After Henry's assessment of heaven, Winchester says to Gloucester, "Thy heaven is on earth, thine eyes and thoughts/Beat on a crown, the treasure of thy heart" (2.1.19–20). Then, after Henry praises peacemakers, Winchester hypocritically says, "Let me be blessèd for the peace I make,/Against this proud Protector with my sword" (2.1.35–36). The Cardinal mocks religion shortly before the murder of Gloucester. Speaking of the forthcoming murder, Suffolk says, "And to preserve my sovereign from his foe,/Say but the word and I will be his priest" (3.1.271–272), to which Winchester responds "But I would have him dead, my Lord of Suffolk,/Ere you can take due orders for a priest" (3.1.273–274), disdaining
priesthood and trivialising murder. After Gloucester is dead, Winchester continues to
blaspheme himself, proclaiming the death of Gloucester to be "God's secret judgement" (3.2.31), a callous and knowing distortion. Shakespeare uses language to distinguish between different types of characters. The courtly scenes tend to be spoken in blank verse, whereas the commons tend to speak in
prose, with fewer metaphors and less decorative language (Shakespeare uses this contrast in several plays, such as
The Two Gentlemen of Verona, where prose marks the servants out from their masters). When power begins to go to Jack Cade's head, he begins to slip into a more courtly way of speaking. This is most noticeable in his adoption of the '
royal we', using phrases such as "our jurisdiction regal" (4.7.24), and "we charge and command" (4.7.116). The longest speech in the play is Margaret's lament to Henry after they have found Gloucester's dead body. This lengthy speech is full of classical allusions, elaborate metaphors and verbosity as Margaret moves through a litany of topics in an effort to make her point: Be woe for me, more wretched than he is. What, dost thou turn away and hide thy face? I am no loathsome leper, look on me. What, art thou like the adder waxen deaf? Be poisonous too and kill thy forlorn queen. Is all thy comfort shut in Gloucester's tomb? Why then Queen Margaret was ne'er thy joy. Erect his statua and worship it, And make my image but an alehouse sign. Was I for this nigh wracked upon the sea, And twice by awkward winds from England's bank Drove back again unto my native clime? What boded this, but well forewarning winds Did seem to say, 'Seek not a scorpion's nest, Nor set no footing on this unkind shore'? What did I then, but cursed the gentle gusts And he that loosed them forth their brazen caves, And bid them blow towards England's blessèd shore, Or turn our stern upon a dreadful rock? Yet
Aeolus would not be a murderer, But left that hateful office unto thee. The pretty vaulting sea refused to drown me, Knowing that thou wouldst have me drowned on shore With tears as salt as sea through thy unkindness. The splitting rocks cow'red in the sinking sands, And would not dash me with their ragged sides, Because thy flinty heart, more hard than they, Might in thy palace perish Margaret. As far as I could ken thy
chalky cliffs, When from thy shore the tempest beat us back, I stood upon the hatches in the storm, And when the dusky sky began to rob My earnest-gaping sight of thy land's view, I took a costly jewel from my neck— A heart it was, bound in with diamonds— And threw it towards thy land. The sea received it, And so I wished thy body might my heart. And even with this I lost fair England's view, And bid mine eyes be packing with my heart, And called them blind and dusky spectacles, For losing ken of
Albion's wishèd coast. How often have I tempted Suffolk's tongue— The agent of thy foul inconstancy— To sit and witch me, as
Ascanius did, When he to madding
Dido would unfold
His father's acts, commenced in burning
Troy! Am I not witched like her? Or thou not false like him? Ay me, I can no more. Die Margaret, For Henry weeps that thou dost live so long. ::::::: (3.2.73–121) There is some debate amongst critics as to the meaning and purpose of this speech, although all tend to agree that the meaning is inherently tied up in the elaborate language. Some critics (such as
Stanley Wells) argue that the speech, with its wordiness, abstraction, strained allusions, and lengthy metaphors, is poorly written, evidence that Shakespeare was not yet in control of his medium. Proponents of this theory point to
The Contention, where only seven lines are retained, with the argument being that the rest of the speech was cut from performance.
L.C. Knights, by contrast, argues that the speech is deliberately excessive and highly-wrought because Margaret is trying to deflect the already confused and dejected Henry from accusing Suffolk of the murder. Peter Hall suggested that "the speech is there to establish the emotional, hysterical side of Margaret's nature. I think that is why the language gets so extremely elaborate—it is an attempt by Margaret to contain her turbulent emotions by expressing them in such a strange way." The complete antithesis of this theory has also been suggested as a possibility: that the speech shows not that Margaret is losing control, but that she is completely in control of herself and her emotions. This theory is most noticeable in how director
Jane Howell had
Julia Foster act the part in the 1981
BBC Television Shakespeare adaptation. Here, Margaret uses her speech to vent her intense emotions, not to contain them. The far ranging metaphors and classical allusions are her way of letting go of her pent up rage and emotion, her disdain for Henry and her inherent passion.
Themes Henry's weakness A major theme of the play is Henry's inherent weakness and his inability to control the country or even his own court. According to Martin, Henry's weakness as king was the main reason that many nineteenth century critics judged
2 Henry VI to lack emotion: Henry was so inept that audiences could not empathise with him, and hence, his tragedy was diminished. There are numerous examples throughout the play which such critics could have focused on. For example, Henry fails to unite his bickering nobles, and instead allows them to push him around as they decide for themselves how to act and what to do, and at the same time, he allows himself to be utterly dominated by Margaret. He is so subservient that he consents to the imprisonment of a man (Gloucester) he loves and knows to be innocent, and then attempts to hide from the implications of this decision, trying to leave the court after Gloucester's arrest:
KING HENRY My lords, what to your wisdoms seemeth best Do or undo, as if ourself were here.
QUEEN MARGARET What, will your highness leave the parliament?
KING HENRY Ay Margaret, my heart is drowned with grief, Whose flood begins to flow within mine eyes. ::::::: (3.1.195–199) This leads Henry to a realisation of how he has failed Gloucester, and to lament his own lack of decisiveness and resolution: And as the butcher takes away the
calf, And binds the wretch, and beats it when it strains, Bearing it to the bloody slaughterhouse, Even so remorseless have they borne him hence; And as the dam runs lowing up and down, Looking the way her harmless young one went, And can do naught but wail her darling's loss, Even so myself bewails good Gloucester's case With sad unhelpful tears, and with dimmed eyes Look after him, and cannot do him good, So mighty are his vowèd enemies. ::::::: (3.1.210–220) Another example of his weakness as ruler is seen in his utter indifference to the vital decision of choosing a new French regent; as Somerset and York debate the issue, each trying to convince Henry that they should be the one to get the job, Henry dismissively declares, "For my part, noble Lords, I care not which:/Or Somerset or York, all's one to me" (1.3.102–103). This lack of concern is forcibly emphasised when Somerset later tells Henry that all French territories have been lost, and Henry responds nonchalantly, "Cold news, Lord Somerset; but God's will be done" (3.1.86). His lack of decisive leadership is even referred to by others; Margaret claims that "Henry my lord is cold in great affairs,/Too full of foolish pity" (3.1.224–225). Later, when the Irish post appears with news of rebellion, York says he will do whatever Henry deems necessary, to which Suffolk responds "Why, our authority is his consent,/And what we do establish he confirms" (3.1.316–317). (1900) Henry is presented as a good man, but a poor king, to whom Roger Warren refers as "a man of deep religious conviction but no political acumen." He is a weak leader, and it is partly his failure to assert his authority that is responsible for the chaos that takes over the country. As director
Peter Hall says, "In theory, Henry should be a good king. He applies
Christian ethics to government. But he is up against men who don't. They justify their behaviour by invoking the great sanctions—God, the King, Parliament, the People—that unscrupulous statesmen, motivated by the naked desire to be on top, have used throughout the ages. Here is the central irony of the play: Henry's Christian goodness produces evil."
Contrast between Henry and Margaret Another major theme throughout the play is the contrast between Margaret and Henry, something which is introduced when they first meet. Henry thanks God for bringing Margaret to him, and exclaims "For thou hast given me in this beauteous face/A world of earthly blessing to my soul,/If sympathy of love unite our thoughts" (1.1.21–23). The irony here, much commented on by critics, is that this unity is exactly what does not happen—their thoughts never unite, and their contrasting and incompatible attitudes are seen time and again throughout the play. For example, after the false miracle, Henry is distraught and laments, "O God, seest thou this and bear'st so long?" (2.1.150), while Margaret's response is much more mundane; "It made me laugh to see the villain run" (2.1.151). When Buckingham arrives to bring news to Henry of Eleanor's dabbling in
necromancy, Henry's reaction is pious and sorrowful, "O God, what mischiefs work the wicked ones,/Heaping confusion on their heads thereby" (2.1.181–182). Margaret's response, however, is combative, using the news to forward her own agenda; "Gloucester, see here the tainture of thy nest,/And look thyself be faultless, thou wert best" (2.1.183–184). Later, when Horner and Thump are about to fight, Henry sees the contest as a sacred point of honour: "A God's name, see the lists and all things fit;/Here let them end it, and God defend the right" (2.3.54–55). Margaret, however, is simply looking forward to a fight; "For purposely therefore,/Left I the court to see this quarrel tried" (2.3.52–53). Henry is "fatally married to his polar opposite." The contrast between them is perhaps most forcibly realised when Gloucester dies in Act 3, Scene 2. Margaret makes a speech in which she points out how it is unfair to accuse Suffolk of the murder simply because Suffolk and Gloucester were enemies, as she and Gloucester's wife were enemies too, so if Suffolk is a suspect, so should she be one as well; "Ay me unhappy,/To be a queen, and crowned with infamy" (70–71). Again, she is turning events to focus on herself. Henry, however, completely ignores her, calling out sorrowfully; "Ah, woe is me for Gloucester, wretched man" (72). This situation is repeated during the Cade rebellion, but this time they ignore one another. After the rebels deliver their terms to Henry, he tells Buckingham he will speak with Cade, but Margaret is concerned only with herself and Suffolk (whose head she is now carrying). Speaking to the head she ignores Henry's problems and exclaims, "Ah barbarous villain! Hath this lovely face/Ruled like a wandering planet over me,/And could it not enforce them to relent,/That were unworthy to behold the same?" (4.4.14–17). Henry, however, ignores this, and continues to deal with the rebel demands, saying simply, "Lord Saye, Jack Cade hath sworn to have thy head" (4.4.18). This tendency for them to ignore one another is another example of their incompatibility, their failure to unite in thoughts.
Religion Religion is a fundamental fact of life to Henry, who is presented as truly pious. Shakespeare may have taken this aspect of Henry's character from Edward Hall's description of him: "He did abhor of his own nature, all the vices, as well of the body as of the soul; and from his very infancy he was of honest conversation and pure integrity; no knower of evil, and a keeper of all goodness; a despiser of all things which were wont to cause the minds of mortal men to slide or appair. Besides this, patience was so radicate in his heart that of all the injuries to him committed (which were no small number) he never asked vengeance nor punishment, but for that rendered to Almighty God, his Creator, hearty thanks, thinking that by this trouble and adversity his sins were to him forgotten and forgiven." When Henry first meets Margaret, his reaction is to welcome her, and then immediately thank God for bringing her to him; "I can express no kinder sign of love/Than this kind kiss. O Lord that lends me life,/Lend me a heart replete with thankfulness!" (1.1.18–20). Hearing later of the false miracle, even before meeting Simpcox, Henry exclaims, "Now God be praised, that to believing souls/Gives light in darkness, comfort in despair" (2.1.64–65). Henry accepts the authenticity of the event without evidence, trusting in his faith that it is true and that God has performed a miracle. Later, when Henry is defending Gloucester against accusations of treason, he uses two religious images to get his point across: "Our kinsman Gloucester is as innocent/From meaning treason to our royal person/As is the sucking
lamb or harmless
dove" (3.1.69–71). Upon seeing the delirious Winchester, Henry exclaims "O thou eternal mover of the heavens,/Look with a gentle eye upon this wretch" (3.3.19–20). Then, after Winchester's death, Warwick comments "So bad a death argues a monstrous life", to which Henry replies "Forbear to judge, for we are sinners all" (3.3.30–31). Henry believes that justice, truth and guilt are determined by God, not through human actions. After the fight between Horner and Thump, Henry announces, For by his death we do perceive his guilt. And God in justice hath revealed to us The truth and innocence of this poor fellow, Which he had thought to have murdered wrongfully. ::::::: (2.3.101–104) Indeed, so devoted to God is Henry that other characters comment on it. For example, when Margaret is mockingly describing Henry to Suffolk, she says, But all his mind is bent to holiness, To number
Ave-Maries on his beads, His champions are the prophets and
apostles, His weapons holy saws of sacred writ, His study is his
tilt-yard, and his loves Are brazen images of canonized saints. I would the
college of the cardinals Would choose him Pope, and carry him to Rome, And set the
triple crown upon his head; That were a state fit for his holiness. ::::::: (1.3.56–65) York twice refers to Henry's piousness. First, when outlining his plan to assume power he refers to Henry as a king "Whose church-like humours fits not for a crown" (1.1.246). Then, when making his argument as to why he should be king, he says to Henry, "Thy hand is made to grasp a
palmer's staff/And not to grace an awful princely sceptre" (5.1.97–98).
Justice (1789) Ideas of
justice are paramount throughout the play, especially the notion of where justice comes from and who determines it. This is hinted at when Thump first meets Henry, and Henry asks Gloucester's opinion. Gloucester says, And let these have a day appointed them For single combat in convenient place, For he hath witness of his servant's malice. This is the law, and this Duke Humphrey's doom. ::::::: (1.3.208–211) Of this scene, Michael Hattaway has commented, "the
feudal ritual of
trial by combat is reduced to the grotesque fights between the drunken armourer and his apprentice [...] It serves to mirror the realities of the play: instead of seeing justice determined by God with regards to the rights of the adversaries, here we see simply a trial of might." As Henry himself says, For by his death we do perceive his guilt. And God in justice hath revealed to us The truth and innocence of this poor fellow, Which he had thought to have murdered wrongfully. ::::::: (2.3.101–104) He returns to this notion later, again arguing that truth is a defence against death and defeat: What stronger breastplate than a heart untainted? Thrice is he armed that hath his quarrel just; And he but naked, though locked up in steel, Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted. ::::::: (3.2.232–235) Henry believes in the purity of justice, and cannot imagine how it could possibly be corrupt; "And poise the cause in justice' equal scales/Whose beam stands sure, whose rightful cause prevails" (2.1.199–200). However, the perversion of justice is also a dominant theme throughout the play, despite Henry's inability to see it. One of the most famous lines in the play, spoken by the rebel Cade's sidekick Dick the Butcher, is "
the first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". Whether this means that lawyers are the protectors of justice, or the agents of its corruption is disputed. suggesting there is no difference between the old order and the new. This is evident in Cade's speech after ordering the execution of Lord Saye; "The proudest peer in the realm shall not wear a head on his shoulders unless he pay me tribute. There shall not a maid be married but she shall pay to me her
maidenhead ere they have it. Men shall hold of me
in capite. And we charge and command that their wives be as free as heart can wish or tongue can tell" (4.7.112–117). In this proposed
new world order, Cade envisions establishing an
autocracy where all will pay fealty to him, and where his laws, which he can make arbitrarily, stand for everyone. As such, in this political system, as in the old, law and justice seem to have little relevance.
Physical destruction Physical violence permeates the play, with many characters dying violently. Gloucester is suffocated in his bed; Winchester dies in a passionate frenzy; Suffolk is beheaded; Somerset and Clifford are killed in battle; Cade has Matthew Gough, Humphrey Stafford, William Stafford, Lord Saye, James Comer, and the Clerk of Chatham executed during the rebellion, and is then killed and beheaded himself by Alexander Iden. Gloucester's death in particular is associated with the physical, as seen in Warwick's detailed description of the body; See how the blood is settled in his face. Oft have I seen a timely-parted
ghost, Of ashy semblance, meagre, pale, and bloodless, Being all descended to the labouring heart, Who in the conflict that it holds with death Attracts the same for aidance 'gainst the enemy, Which with the heart there cools, and ne'er returneth To blush and beautify the cheek again. But see, his face is black and full of blood; His eyeballs further out than when he lived, Staring full ghastly like a strangled man; His hair upreared, his nostrils stretched with struggling, His hands abroad displayed, as one that grasped And tugged for life and was by strength subdued. Look on the sheets: his hair, you see, is sticking; His well-proportioned beard made rough and rugged, Like to the summer's corn by tempest lodged. It cannot be but he was murdered here. The least of all these signs were probable. ::::::: (3.2.160–178) Winchester's death is also physically grotesque as he distorts his face and curses God, haunted by the ghost of Gloucester. However, many of the after-death actions are even more macabre than the deaths themselves. Suffolk's head is delivered to Margaret, who carries it around court for the last two acts of the play. Lord Stafford and his brother are killed and their bodies dragged through the streets behind horses. Lord Saye and his son-in-law are beheaded and their heads carried throughout the streets on poles and made to kiss. Cade is beheaded and his head delivered to the king. Not only is physical violence presented as a major theme, but so too is physical desecration, a disregard for the body after death. == Performance ==