What do you think?
Rate this book
Graphic Shakespeare
Henry VIII
Henry VIII is a history play generally believed to be a collaboration between William Shakespeare and John Fletcher, based on the life of Henry VIII of England. An alternative title, All is True, is recorded in contemporary documents, the title Henry VIII not appearing until the play's publication in the First Folio of 1623. Stylistic evidence indicates that individual scenes were written by either Shakespeare or his collaborator and successor, John Fletcher. It is also somewhat characteristic of the late romances in its structure. It is noted for having more stage directions than any of Shakespeare's other plays.[1]
During a performance of Henry VIII at the Globe Theatre in 1613, a cannon shot employed for special effects ignited the theatre's thatched roof (and the beams), burning the original building to the ground.
During a performance of Henry VIII at the Globe Theatre in 1613, a cannon shot employed for special effects ignited the theatre's thatched roof (and the beams), burning the original building to the ground.
296 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1613
About the author
William Shakespeare
19.7k books44.4k followersWilliam Shakespeare was an English playwright, poet, and actor. He is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist. He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon" (or simply "the Bard"). His extant works, including collaborations, consist of some 39 plays, 154 sonnets, three long narrative poems, and a few other verses, some of uncertain authorship. His plays have been translated into every major living language and are performed more often than those of any other playwright. Shakespeare remains arguably the most influential writer in the English language, and his works continue to be studied and reinterpreted.
Shakespeare was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire. At the age of 18, he married Anne Hathaway, with whom he had three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith. Sometime between 1585 and 1592, he began a successful career in London as an actor, writer, and part-owner ("sharer") of a playing company called the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later known as the King's Men after the ascension of King James VI and I of Scotland to the English throne. At age 49 (around 1613), he appears to have retired to Stratford, where he died three years later. Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive; this has stimulated considerable speculation about such matters as his physical appearance, his sexuality, his religious beliefs, and even certain fringe theories as to whether the works attributed to him were written by others.
Shakespeare produced most of his known works between 1589 and 1613. His early plays were primarily comedies and histories and are regarded as some of the best works produced in these genres. He then wrote mainly tragedies until 1608, among them Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth, all considered to be among the finest works in the English language. In the last phase of his life, he wrote tragicomedies (also known as romances) and collaborated with other playwrights.
Many of Shakespeare's plays were published in editions of varying quality and accuracy during his lifetime. However, in 1623, John Heminge and Henry Condell, two fellow actors and friends of Shakespeare's, published a more definitive text known as the First Folio, a posthumous collected edition of Shakespeare's dramatic works that includes 36 of his plays. Its Preface was a prescient poem by Ben Jonson, a former rival of Shakespeare, that hailed Shakespeare with the now famous epithet: "not of an age, but for all time".
Shakespeare was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire. At the age of 18, he married Anne Hathaway, with whom he had three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith. Sometime between 1585 and 1592, he began a successful career in London as an actor, writer, and part-owner ("sharer") of a playing company called the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later known as the King's Men after the ascension of King James VI and I of Scotland to the English throne. At age 49 (around 1613), he appears to have retired to Stratford, where he died three years later. Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive; this has stimulated considerable speculation about such matters as his physical appearance, his sexuality, his religious beliefs, and even certain fringe theories as to whether the works attributed to him were written by others.
Shakespeare produced most of his known works between 1589 and 1613. His early plays were primarily comedies and histories and are regarded as some of the best works produced in these genres. He then wrote mainly tragedies until 1608, among them Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth, all considered to be among the finest works in the English language. In the last phase of his life, he wrote tragicomedies (also known as romances) and collaborated with other playwrights.
Many of Shakespeare's plays were published in editions of varying quality and accuracy during his lifetime. However, in 1623, John Heminge and Henry Condell, two fellow actors and friends of Shakespeare's, published a more definitive text known as the First Folio, a posthumous collected edition of Shakespeare's dramatic works that includes 36 of his plays. Its Preface was a prescient poem by Ben Jonson, a former rival of Shakespeare, that hailed Shakespeare with the now famous epithet: "not of an age, but for all time".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 524 reviews
March 15, 2020
There are lots of things about this play that please and impress me, but somehow I don't think it quite works.
The best things about it are two scenes probably by Fletcher: the sympathetic portrait of Katharine of Aragon's self-defense and the dignified soliloquy of the disgraced Cardinal Wolsey after his fall. The next best thing is the artful, ironic context Shakespeare builds around them, first by creating a magnificent description of the wrestling match staged between Henry VIII and Francis I --evoking a golden age in much the same way that Enobarbus' barge-speech does in Antony and Cleopatra--and then following it almost immediately with the fall of the Duke of Buckingham, engineered on trumped-up charges by the Machiavellian Wolsey. Thus the authors let us know early on that the nobility here is superficial, barely concealing calculation and self-interest.
I think the major reasons the play as a whole is unsatisfactory is that Henry VIII never really comes to life, either as a king or a man, and the ending--which seems to imply that "all's well that ends well" because of the birth of Elizabeth--leaves the major dramatic issues unresolved.
Still, the verse is often effective and occasionally powerful, and I think every Shakespeare fan should read it--at least once.
January 18, 2020
Book Review
3 of 5 stars to Henry VIII, a play written in 1613 by William Shakespeare. This play originally had a different title and there is also some suspicion that it was co-written with another person at the time. It was towards the end of Shakespeare's career where while his brilliance had grown quite impressive, his fame and fortune was also being thrust more and more into the spotlight to the point of being accused of some level of crimes against the government. Similarly, the battles between the different churches of England were in full swing. When you read this play, you sense a bit of disconnect. It's not a comedy or a tragedy in my opinion. It's about reality, i.e. what King Henry VIII had been previously going through with this divorces, six wives, etc. The focus is on Katherine of Aragon and the church's position on Henry's request to re-marry. There are lots of good lines and passages in the play, but it isn't one of his better plays. I'm also not one for propaganda-type literature, instead preferring something to take me away from reality.
About Me
For those new to me or my reviews... here's the scoop: I read A LOT. I write A LOT. And now I blog A LOT. First the book review goes on Goodreads, and then I send it on over to my WordPress blog at https://thisismytruthnow.com, where you'll also find TV & Film reviews, the revealing and introspective 365 Daily Challenge and lots of blogging about places I've visited all over the world. And you can find all my social media profiles to get the details on the who/what/when/where and my pictures. Leave a comment and let me know what you think. Vote in the poll and ratings. Thanks for stopping by.
3 of 5 stars to Henry VIII, a play written in 1613 by William Shakespeare. This play originally had a different title and there is also some suspicion that it was co-written with another person at the time. It was towards the end of Shakespeare's career where while his brilliance had grown quite impressive, his fame and fortune was also being thrust more and more into the spotlight to the point of being accused of some level of crimes against the government. Similarly, the battles between the different churches of England were in full swing. When you read this play, you sense a bit of disconnect. It's not a comedy or a tragedy in my opinion. It's about reality, i.e. what King Henry VIII had been previously going through with this divorces, six wives, etc. The focus is on Katherine of Aragon and the church's position on Henry's request to re-marry. There are lots of good lines and passages in the play, but it isn't one of his better plays. I'm also not one for propaganda-type literature, instead preferring something to take me away from reality.
About Me
For those new to me or my reviews... here's the scoop: I read A LOT. I write A LOT. And now I blog A LOT. First the book review goes on Goodreads, and then I send it on over to my WordPress blog at https://thisismytruthnow.com, where you'll also find TV & Film reviews, the revealing and introspective 365 Daily Challenge and lots of blogging about places I've visited all over the world. And you can find all my social media profiles to get the details on the who/what/when/where and my pictures. Leave a comment and let me know what you think. Vote in the poll and ratings. Thanks for stopping by.
September 20, 2023
I did it. I finished Willie's entire body of work within 4 years (August 2016 - July 2020). I didn't even try that hard. I just kept reading. Huh. What a concept.
Henry VIII was a somewhat underwhelming play to end it with but I think it's only fair that the Globe burned down at the end of Act I so that spectators wouldn't have to suffer through the remaining four acts.
Henry VIII is a collaborative play between William Shakespeare and John Fletcher, following the story of Henry's forbidden love with Anne Bullen and the Dukes' plots to turn the king against Cardinal Wolsey. It is a story of a ruthless race to power and the desire for an heir.
The year Henry VIII was first performed, the spectacular nature of the action, and the conclusion in universal rejoicing for a round Princess Elizabeth (the only surviving daughter of James VI and I, King of Scotland, England, and Ireland, and his queen, Anne of Denmark) suggests an association with a great state occasion, the marriage on 14 February 1613 of Frederick the Elector Palatine and Princess Elizabeth (daughter of Anne of Denmark and James I.).
It is the only history play in the first Folio to treat a peaceful (though partly a tragic) action, the only one save for Henry V to show a monarch settled unquestionably on his throne. The kingdom, at this point, rides on the crest of a wave. But the sense of a conclusion in which nothing is concluded is strongest of all in Henry VIII. And not just Jacobean spectators can feel the deep historical irony of the disastrous future lying ahead of those who when the play finished are highest in future.
But nonetheless, Henry VIII ends in a flourish of triumph and is clearly meant to celebrate a reign which, whatever terrors it involved in reality, is here approved as establishing Tudor supremacy and Protestant assurance.
At the beginning of the play, the Duke of Norfolk tells Buckingham of the meeting between Henry VIII and Francis I of France at the Field of the Cloth of Gold. On the instigation of Cardinal Wolsey, Buckingham is arrested for high treason. The Queen interrupts the indictment of Buckingham to demand that the king undo a tax imposed by Wolsey to finance the French war.
A conspiracy by the Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk to disgrace Wolsey is successful, and Wolsey falls. Cranmer is appointed Archbishop of Canterbury. Katherine is divorced, Anne is crowned queen. Katherine is told of Wolsey's death and she herself dies. Anne gives birth to a girl, who will grow up to become Queen Elizabeth.
Like I mentioned in the beginning, during a performance of Henry VIII at the Globe Theatre in 1613, a cannon shot employed for special effects ignited the theatre's thatched roof (and the beams), burning the original Globe building to the ground. No people were harmed, "only one man had his breeches set on fire, that would perhaps have broiled him, if he had not by the benefit of a provident wit put it out with bottle ale." What a mood.
Henry VIII was a somewhat underwhelming play to end it with but I think it's only fair that the Globe burned down at the end of Act I so that spectators wouldn't have to suffer through the remaining four acts.
Henry VIII is a collaborative play between William Shakespeare and John Fletcher, following the story of Henry's forbidden love with Anne Bullen and the Dukes' plots to turn the king against Cardinal Wolsey. It is a story of a ruthless race to power and the desire for an heir.
The year Henry VIII was first performed, the spectacular nature of the action, and the conclusion in universal rejoicing for a round Princess Elizabeth (the only surviving daughter of James VI and I, King of Scotland, England, and Ireland, and his queen, Anne of Denmark) suggests an association with a great state occasion, the marriage on 14 February 1613 of Frederick the Elector Palatine and Princess Elizabeth (daughter of Anne of Denmark and James I.).
It is the only history play in the first Folio to treat a peaceful (though partly a tragic) action, the only one save for Henry V to show a monarch settled unquestionably on his throne. The kingdom, at this point, rides on the crest of a wave. But the sense of a conclusion in which nothing is concluded is strongest of all in Henry VIII. And not just Jacobean spectators can feel the deep historical irony of the disastrous future lying ahead of those who when the play finished are highest in future.
But nonetheless, Henry VIII ends in a flourish of triumph and is clearly meant to celebrate a reign which, whatever terrors it involved in reality, is here approved as establishing Tudor supremacy and Protestant assurance.
At the beginning of the play, the Duke of Norfolk tells Buckingham of the meeting between Henry VIII and Francis I of France at the Field of the Cloth of Gold. On the instigation of Cardinal Wolsey, Buckingham is arrested for high treason. The Queen interrupts the indictment of Buckingham to demand that the king undo a tax imposed by Wolsey to finance the French war.
KING HENRY:At a party held by Wolsey, Henry meets Anne Bullen and falls in love with her. It's quite ridiculous because you get to see what a manwhore Henry really is, but the #instalove aspect of it is rather fun. Buckingham is tried and executed. [Let me tell you, the flashbacks to The Three Musketeers gave me whiplash. It was so hard to keep all of these same names straight.] The Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk fail to turn the king against Wolsey. Henry, questioning the legality of his marriage to Katherine, sets up a tribunal, presided over by Wolsey and the papal representative Cardinal Campeius.
The fairest hand I ever touched! O beauty,
Till now I never knew thee.
I think you have hit the mark; but is't not cruelThis whole situation made me absolutely furious for Katherine. She was literally the only character that I rooted for in this play, and she was done so dirty by all the men around her, like the Cardinal who was actively advocating against her, or her own damn husband who completely disregarded her. At one point Norfolk describes her as "a jewel that has hung twenty years about his neck [Henry's], yet never lost her lustre", and I could've puked. However, my gurl Katherine really came through at her own damn trial and defended herself:
That she should feel the smart of this? The Cardinal
Will have his will, and she must fall.
In what have I offended you? What causeThough she had little power, what power she did have she held on to and fought for with great ferocity. Whereas Buckingham did not stand up for himself at all when he was mistreated by the King at Wolsey’s advising, Katherine remained dignified and fought to remain with the man that she loved. And for that we have to stan. I think my favorite moment in the entire play was her threatening Wolsey:
Hath my behaviour given to your displeasure
That thus you should proceed to put me off
And take your good grace from me?
Sir, I am about to weep: but, thinking thatYAAAAAS QUEEN (like, literally, QUEEN!). Also, that during another encounter she took none of Wolsey's shit and told him straight to his face:
We are a queen, or long have dreamed so, certain
The daughter of a king, my drops of tears
I’ll turn to sparks of fire.
Would I had never trod this English earth,I love her more than life itself. Her scenes were the only things worthwhile in this entire play. Anyways, back to the otherwise boring plot: Anne Bullen is made Marchioness of Pembroke. Katherine walks out of the tribunal and demands that the case be decided in Rome. Wolsey and Campeius fail to convince the queen to throw herself on the king's mercy. Anne secretly marries Henry.
Or felt the flatteries that grow upon it!
Ye have angels' faces, but heaven knows your heart.
A conspiracy by the Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk to disgrace Wolsey is successful, and Wolsey falls. Cranmer is appointed Archbishop of Canterbury. Katherine is divorced, Anne is crowned queen. Katherine is told of Wolsey's death and she herself dies. Anne gives birth to a girl, who will grow up to become Queen Elizabeth.
This royal infant – heaven still move about her! –Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, attempts to charge Cranmer for heresy. He fails through Henry's intervention. Elizabeth is christened and Cranmer predicts the glory of her reign.
Though in her cradle, yet now promises
Upon this land a thousand thousand blessings,
Which time shall bring to ripeness: she shall be –
But few now living can behold that goodness –
A pattern to all princes living with her,
And all that shall succeed:
Like I mentioned in the beginning, during a performance of Henry VIII at the Globe Theatre in 1613, a cannon shot employed for special effects ignited the theatre's thatched roof (and the beams), burning the original Globe building to the ground. No people were harmed, "only one man had his breeches set on fire, that would perhaps have broiled him, if he had not by the benefit of a provident wit put it out with bottle ale." What a mood.
February 9, 2017
I can't say that the writing is bad, per-se, more that the topic is unworthy except for being an obligatory propagandist piece to prop up the worthiness of the Anglican church versus the Catholics.
I'm sure no one is surprised on this count.
There's rather less of the real drama that surrounded the King the man and all his travails or misogyny surrounding his six wives or the interesting women surrounding this historic character, rather it's just the focus on the single quasi-divorce still under the Catholic eye and the fall of the Cardinal and the succession of our dear Elisabeth by her on-stage birth under the Anglican eye.
Does it read as a set piece? A vanity play? A yawn-worthy white-wash of the man the Queen's father? Um, yeah, yeah, it does. *sigh*
And here I'd hoped for a bit more drama more in line with the actual history. Alas. Not my favorite. By a long shot.
I'm sure no one is surprised on this count.
There's rather less of the real drama that surrounded the King the man and all his travails or misogyny surrounding his six wives or the interesting women surrounding this historic character, rather it's just the focus on the single quasi-divorce still under the Catholic eye and the fall of the Cardinal and the succession of our dear Elisabeth by her on-stage birth under the Anglican eye.
Does it read as a set piece? A vanity play? A yawn-worthy white-wash of the man the Queen's father? Um, yeah, yeah, it does. *sigh*
And here I'd hoped for a bit more drama more in line with the actual history. Alas. Not my favorite. By a long shot.
July 18, 2019
“O, how wretched is that poor man that hangs on princes’ favors!”
There is a lot of telling about things in “Henry VIII”, almost no showing, with just a few exceptions. The action happens offstage, we just get to hear about it in some exquisite language. Writer and scholar Harold Bloom has said that “Henry VIII” is a “better dramatic poem than a play” and he may be right. But whatever you call it, I enjoyed it.
I gave "Henry VIII” a 3 star rating compared to other Shakespeare, not to literature as a whole. The Bard is in a class of his own.
In this edition the Introduction by Jonathan Crewe focuses on defending the play as worthy of Shakespeare. It is worth reading.
Ironically, in this text Henry VIII is the least interesting character in the play. The text has some wonderful flashes, and three supporting characters get the play’s best moments and language.
The first such instant is Act 2:1, the downfall of Buckingham, who as he is condemned to death for treason speaks some beautiful poetry. In Act 3:2 we get Cardinal Wolsey’s downfall and once again Shakespeare imbues an undeserving character with a moment of redemption and wonderful pathos at the scene of their decline and fall.
The lesson in this, Will Shakespeare can write one heck of an awesome farewell/final moment.
Act 2:4 and Act 3:1 are the Queen Katherine show. I really loved what she says and does in these scenes. Shakespeare has given her some of the greatest lines this text offers.
And “Henry VIII” even boasts some ribald Shakespeare as there is a delightful scene (Act 2:3) where Anne Boleyn and an old woman share a discussion filled with bawdy sexual innuendo, subtext, and just plain human truth that is an example of the reason I love Will!
Unfortunately, the last Act of this play is the weakest, by far. The text ends on a whimper and that greatly detracts from it.
Hey, it happens. I enjoyed what preceded it enough to make up for it.
The Pelican editions of Shakespeare contain some simple yet informative essays, “Theatrical World” & “The Texts of Shakespeare” that preface every play in this Pelican series. They are worth a read.
As for the Pelican Shakespeare series, they are one of my two favorite editions since the scholarly research is usually top notch and the editions themselves look good as an aesthetic unit. It looks and feels like a play and this compliments the text's contents admirably. The Pelican series was recently reedited and has the latest scholarship on Shakespeare and his time period. Well priced and well worth it.
There is a lot of telling about things in “Henry VIII”, almost no showing, with just a few exceptions. The action happens offstage, we just get to hear about it in some exquisite language. Writer and scholar Harold Bloom has said that “Henry VIII” is a “better dramatic poem than a play” and he may be right. But whatever you call it, I enjoyed it.
I gave "Henry VIII” a 3 star rating compared to other Shakespeare, not to literature as a whole. The Bard is in a class of his own.
In this edition the Introduction by Jonathan Crewe focuses on defending the play as worthy of Shakespeare. It is worth reading.
Ironically, in this text Henry VIII is the least interesting character in the play. The text has some wonderful flashes, and three supporting characters get the play’s best moments and language.
The first such instant is Act 2:1, the downfall of Buckingham, who as he is condemned to death for treason speaks some beautiful poetry. In Act 3:2 we get Cardinal Wolsey’s downfall and once again Shakespeare imbues an undeserving character with a moment of redemption and wonderful pathos at the scene of their decline and fall.
The lesson in this, Will Shakespeare can write one heck of an awesome farewell/final moment.
Act 2:4 and Act 3:1 are the Queen Katherine show. I really loved what she says and does in these scenes. Shakespeare has given her some of the greatest lines this text offers.
And “Henry VIII” even boasts some ribald Shakespeare as there is a delightful scene (Act 2:3) where Anne Boleyn and an old woman share a discussion filled with bawdy sexual innuendo, subtext, and just plain human truth that is an example of the reason I love Will!
Unfortunately, the last Act of this play is the weakest, by far. The text ends on a whimper and that greatly detracts from it.
Hey, it happens. I enjoyed what preceded it enough to make up for it.
The Pelican editions of Shakespeare contain some simple yet informative essays, “Theatrical World” & “The Texts of Shakespeare” that preface every play in this Pelican series. They are worth a read.
As for the Pelican Shakespeare series, they are one of my two favorite editions since the scholarly research is usually top notch and the editions themselves look good as an aesthetic unit. It looks and feels like a play and this compliments the text's contents admirably. The Pelican series was recently reedited and has the latest scholarship on Shakespeare and his time period. Well priced and well worth it.
October 21, 2020
This was outrageously bad
February 5, 2020
Henry VIII, the first of two surviving collaborative plays written by Shakespeare and John Fletcher (the third, Cardenio, is lost to us), is an ironic celebration and a historically complicated pageant. It suggests a progressive view of history that moves to a glorious end, and yet that dynamic is undercut by a cyclical rise-and-fall pattern of human history. Buckingham and Wolsey and Katherine fall, while Anne and More and Cranmer rise. Yet, as we know from history, Anne, More, and Cranmer, would fall after the end of the play — the first two by the hand of Henry VIII, and the last by the hand of his daughter Mary, Queen of Scots. Mary herself would fall by the hand of Queen Elizabeth I, whom this play celebrates in a retrospective prophecy.
Though such irony does not inherently make a play better than "simplicity," knowing, as Shakespeare and Fletcher and their audience would have known, of the fates of the characters in history does enrich my reception of Henry VIII. Though I am inclined to think that a Henry VIII written completely by Shakespeare would have be greater, I am pleased to say that the play as it is has a unity to it, such that I can treat it as “a Shakespeare play”, and that it functions as a kind of historical romance play that prefigures and foreshadows the romance of Queen Elizabeth I and her “golden age.” It resembles Henry V in showing a kind of happy ending that is undercut in happiness by the future ironies and sad events, and it recalls Richard III in its Tudor ending. It also resembles The Tempest in its display of poetry and pageantry, while it resembles Antony and Cleopatra in its mixture of poetic and linguistic extravagance with a kind of ambiguity about the movement of history and power. William Hazlitt is right to find the play of “considerable interest of a more mild and thoughtful cast, and [with] some of the most striking passages in the author's works,” while Harold Bloom, a descendant of the Hazlitt school of Shakespeare criticism, admired it as “a better dramatic poem than a play” and said the play “deserves more aesthetic esteem than it has been accorded” as it has “a new and original style, one that transcends the stage images who chant it.” As I read it, I could not help but admire the beauty of the poetry, the complexity of Shakespeare’s late language, Shakespeare’s and Fletcher’s bestowing of grand speech on their characters, and the pageantry of this play.
The prologue is noteworthy for what it sets up for the play’s audience. “I come no more to make you laugh” could be a signal that Shakespeare has ended his funny plays for good, though there will be humor at moments. “A weighty and a serious brow,/Sad, high, and working, full of state and woe” signals what I imagine the gestures of many of its anxious historical characters such as Henry VIII, Wolsey, and Cranmer to be, while “pity” and “truth” highlight major themes and concerns. All is True, the play’s other title, is suggestive of a kind of ambiguity around truth and honesty. For example, Katherine is “true” in her fidelity to a husband and king that rejects her for matters of state and for personal reasons, while Henry VIII is “true” to the State and to his desires in his choice of Anne Boelyn. In addition, the side that stands for a kind of Catholicism has its truth, perhaps best represented by a fallen and mostly repentant Wolsey (the main villain of the piece for some time), while the Protestantism is also true. All is True highlight for us the play’s thematic and verbal interest in truth and honesty, which the other title of Henry VIII might not immediately bring to mind.
The opening of the play sets up the grandeur of language and spectacle and the concerns of honesty and honor that set up. See Norfolk’s speech:
Men might say
Till this time pomp was single, but now married
To one above itself. Each following day
Became the next day’s master, till the last
Made former wonders its. Today the French,
All clinquant, all in gold, like heathen gods,
Shone down the English, and tomorrow they
Made Britain India: every man that stood
Showed like a mine. Their dwarfish pages were
As cherubins, all gilt. The madams too,
Not used to toil, did almost sweat to bear
The pride upon them, that their very labor
Was to them as a painting. Now this masque
Was cried incomparable; and th’ ensuing night
Made it a fool and beggar.
Just as Norfolk describes a pageant, so his verse becomes a kind of verbal pageant of imagery, equivalent to Enobarbus’ grand barge speech in Antony and Cleopatra. Pomp is married, and becomes more. The days master one another. French and English are grand together. Pages and madams are gilded and painted. Shakespeare’s multiplication of imagery, so common in the energy of his dramatic verse, gains a kind of stately flow.
In addition, that poetic power is evoked in the introduction of honesty into the play’s scheme:
As I belong to worship, and affect
In honor honesty, the tract of everything
Would by a good discourser lose some life
Which action’s self was tongue to. All was royal;
To the disposing of it naught rebelled.
Order gave each thing view. The office did
Distinctly his full function.
The general sense goes something like this: As I am an aristocrat and honorably love truth, the event would [even] by a good speaker lose some of the life which the action itself spoke of. All of it was so splendid, and it was so orderly.
Yet attending to the lines closely, something happens. “Honor” and “honesty, linked together,” bring to the forefront and together what will be depicted, challenged, debunked in some and vindicated in others. Wolsey will be shown to have had neither true honor nor honesty, while Katherine and Cranmer are opposites who ultimately are shown to have honor and honesty in them. The case of Henry VIII himself, as I will explain further, shows much ambiguity. How much “honour” does Henry have in divorcing his wife and in affecting another woman? How much “honesty” does he show in the way he deals with his conscience and scruples? The play is ambiguous about Henry VIII’s own character, and that ambiguity depends on the audience’s awareness of history as it does on the playwrights’ creativity. In addition, “all was royal” and orderly signals something of the orderliness that appears in this work in my mind and imagination as I read it.
I should add also that “honesty” and “truth,” like “brave” in The Tempest, “honest” in Othello, and “nothing” in King Lear, functions as a repeated motif that causes us to reflect on what is true about history, what is true about religion, and what is true about the human face of political action and ambition. That repetition becomes part of the beauty, I feel, of Shakespeare’s (and Fletcher’s) language.
How do we approach the King as Shakespeare and Fletcher depict him? Henry VIII’s later career as a wife-killer calls into doubt the way he appears in the play. Yet does it necessarily detract from the not-unsympathetic portrait of the play? Not necessarily, if one keeps in mind the attitude of a providential viewpoint that views all of this as part of the drama that leads to the splendor of Elizabeth I and her successor King James I. Henry is depicted, so it seems, as a loving husband who divorces his wife as much for reasons of state and conscience as for an interest in a new wife. Henry is also depicted as the vindicator of the righteous Cranmer and the punisher of the venial and ambitious Wolsey. These things make him somewhat sympathetic, and at times he resembles Shakespeare’s Henry IV, another problematic figure not unsympathetically portrayed. Some readers might think that this portrait is not negative enough on him.
But William Hazlitt, interestingly, thought that Shakespeare does depict the negative in the play. “The character of Henry VIII is drawn with great truth and spirit. It is like a very disagreeable portrait, sketched by the hand of a master. His gross appearance, his blustering demeanour, his vulgarity, his arrogance, his sensuality, his cruelty, his hypocrisy, his want of common decency and common humanity, are marked in strong lines. His traditional peculiarities of expression complete the reality of the picture.” Though one might find the play more sympathetic than Hazlitt saw it, it is noteworthy how the play also sets up and qualifies Henry’s stings of conscience. Henry’s meeting of Anne, which resembles the first meeting of Romeo and Juliet in their play, is both economic and full of portentous and weighty (and sad) meaning. In addition, noble commentary undercuts Henry’s “scruple and prick” of conscience:
CHAMBERLAIN
It seems the marriage with his brother’s wife
Has crept too near his conscience.
SUFFOLK
No, his conscience
Has crept too near another lady.
The viewer sometimes cannot help but feel that such was indeed the case, and in many ways this is how I tended to have understood Henry VIII’s situation. But I am also inclined to believe that Henry’s decisions were as motivated by genuine religious and political reasons as they were by amorous inclinations, and Shakespeare and Fletcher brilliantly register some of this complexity as they show his taking back of a power that he once did not fully exercise.
The play also treats with ambiguity the fates of the fallen ones in the play. The falls of Buckingham, Wolsey, and Katherine are “necessary” so as to make way for Elizabeth I and her age. But Shakespeare and Fletcher depict their ends with sympathy and poetry. Buckingham gives his great speech, sharing with his father the fate of political execution while dying more nobly than him. Wolsey, hitherto scheming and ambitious, is made to reflect on the state of man in lines of beautiful poetry. Katherine is vouchsafed a vision worthy of The Tempest. Thus, through their falls, Shakespeare and Fletcher can have their cake of Tudor celebration and eat with it the whipped cream of sympathy for the fallen.
In addition to the glory of the play’s pageantry, I was also struck by how effective Henry VIII could work as a drama and how it vividly evoked the Shakespeare plays that led up to this point. As I alluded to earlier, the scene where Henry and Anne first meet is brilliant. The Blackfriars “trial” resembles The Winter’s Tale while giving Katherine and Wolsey a kind of eloquent back-and-forth, with King Henry VIII to reflect on his conscience. The final conversation of Wolsey and Henry VIII, followed by his great speech, resembles the Southampton scene in Henry V while also being full of irony. The palace yard scene in Act 5 resembles the “side” view of a reunion in The Winter’s Tale while also signalling the popularity of Elizabeth’s coronation, which alludes to her later popularity as the great queen of England.
The speech by Wolsey deserves quotation for its beauty, grandeur, and closure:
WOLSEY
Farewell? A long farewell to all my greatness!
This is the state of man: today he puts forth
The tender leaves of hopes; tomorrow blossoms
And bears his blushing honors thick upon him;
The third day comes a frost, a killing frost,
And when he thinks, good easy man, full surely
His greatness is a-ripening, nips his root,
And then he falls, as I do. I have ventured,
Like little wanton boys that swim on bladders,
This many summers in a sea of glory,
But far beyond my depth. My high-blown pride
At length broke under me and now has left me,
Weary and old with service, to the mercy
Of a rude stream that must forever hide me.
Vain pomp and glory of this world, I hate you.
I feel my heart new opened. O, how wretched
Is that poor man that hangs on princes’ favors!
There is betwixt that smile we would aspire to,
That sweet aspect of princes, and their ruin,
More pangs and fears than wars or women have;
And when he falls, he falls like Lucifer,
Never to hope again.
Much has been written on this, so I cannot hope to reflect further, except that it has a rich flow, and signals a kind of transformation. And yet the poetry is grander than the man. It is ironic in that this speech is followed by a conversation between the fallen Wolsey and the rising Cromwell (who is later to fall). And yet this granting of a great speech to a small man shows the imaginative sympathy and generosity of Shakespeare and Fletcher in their depiction of character and history.
The final scene has that grand prophecy which I will quote in full to close with:
CRANMER Let me speak, sir,
For heaven now bids me; and the words I utter
Let none think flattery, for they’ll find ’em truth.
This royal infant—heaven still move about her!—
Though in her cradle, yet now promises
Upon this land a thousand thousand blessings,
Which time shall bring to ripeness. She shall be—
But few now living can behold that goodness—
A pattern to all princes living with her
And all that shall succeed. Saba was never
More covetous of wisdom and fair virtue
Than this pure soul shall be. All princely graces
That mold up such a mighty piece as this is,
With all the virtues that attend the good,
Shall still be doubled on her. Truth shall nurse her;
Holy and heavenly thoughts still counsel her.
She shall be loved and feared. Her own shall bless her;
Her foes shake like a field of beaten corn
And hang their heads with sorrow. Good grows with
her.
In her days every man shall eat in safety
Under his own vine what he plants and sing
The merry songs of peace to all his neighbors.
God shall be truly known, and those about her
From her shall read the perfect ways of honor
And by those claim their greatness, not by blood.
Nor shall this peace sleep with her; but, as when
The bird of wonder dies, the maiden phoenix,
Her ashes new create another heir
As great in admiration as herself,
So shall she leave her blessedness to one,
When heaven shall call her from this cloud of darkness,
Who from the sacred ashes of her honor
Shall starlike rise as great in fame as she was
And so stand fixed. Peace, plenty, love, truth, terror,
That were the servants to this chosen infant,
Shall then be his, and like a vine grow to him.
Wherever the bright sun of heaven shall shine,
His honor and the greatness of his name
Shall be, and make new nations. He shall flourish,
And like a mountain cedar reach his branches
To all the plains about him. Our children’s children
Shall see this and bless heaven.
KING Thou speakest wonders.
CRANMER
She shall be to the happiness of England
An agèd princess; many days shall see her,
And yet no day without a deed to crown it.
Would I had known no more! But she must die,
She must, the saints must have her; yet a virgin,
A most unspotted lily, shall she pass
To th’ ground, and all the world shall mourn her.
As with so much of the play, this grand prophecy is fraught with irony.
And yet one cannot help but feel that this speech and prophecy is good, true, beautiful, and eloquent. So one must, with reservations, accept this, and the rest of the play. As do I.
Though such irony does not inherently make a play better than "simplicity," knowing, as Shakespeare and Fletcher and their audience would have known, of the fates of the characters in history does enrich my reception of Henry VIII. Though I am inclined to think that a Henry VIII written completely by Shakespeare would have be greater, I am pleased to say that the play as it is has a unity to it, such that I can treat it as “a Shakespeare play”, and that it functions as a kind of historical romance play that prefigures and foreshadows the romance of Queen Elizabeth I and her “golden age.” It resembles Henry V in showing a kind of happy ending that is undercut in happiness by the future ironies and sad events, and it recalls Richard III in its Tudor ending. It also resembles The Tempest in its display of poetry and pageantry, while it resembles Antony and Cleopatra in its mixture of poetic and linguistic extravagance with a kind of ambiguity about the movement of history and power. William Hazlitt is right to find the play of “considerable interest of a more mild and thoughtful cast, and [with] some of the most striking passages in the author's works,” while Harold Bloom, a descendant of the Hazlitt school of Shakespeare criticism, admired it as “a better dramatic poem than a play” and said the play “deserves more aesthetic esteem than it has been accorded” as it has “a new and original style, one that transcends the stage images who chant it.” As I read it, I could not help but admire the beauty of the poetry, the complexity of Shakespeare’s late language, Shakespeare’s and Fletcher’s bestowing of grand speech on their characters, and the pageantry of this play.
The prologue is noteworthy for what it sets up for the play’s audience. “I come no more to make you laugh” could be a signal that Shakespeare has ended his funny plays for good, though there will be humor at moments. “A weighty and a serious brow,/Sad, high, and working, full of state and woe” signals what I imagine the gestures of many of its anxious historical characters such as Henry VIII, Wolsey, and Cranmer to be, while “pity” and “truth” highlight major themes and concerns. All is True, the play’s other title, is suggestive of a kind of ambiguity around truth and honesty. For example, Katherine is “true” in her fidelity to a husband and king that rejects her for matters of state and for personal reasons, while Henry VIII is “true” to the State and to his desires in his choice of Anne Boelyn. In addition, the side that stands for a kind of Catholicism has its truth, perhaps best represented by a fallen and mostly repentant Wolsey (the main villain of the piece for some time), while the Protestantism is also true. All is True highlight for us the play’s thematic and verbal interest in truth and honesty, which the other title of Henry VIII might not immediately bring to mind.
The opening of the play sets up the grandeur of language and spectacle and the concerns of honesty and honor that set up. See Norfolk’s speech:
Men might say
Till this time pomp was single, but now married
To one above itself. Each following day
Became the next day’s master, till the last
Made former wonders its. Today the French,
All clinquant, all in gold, like heathen gods,
Shone down the English, and tomorrow they
Made Britain India: every man that stood
Showed like a mine. Their dwarfish pages were
As cherubins, all gilt. The madams too,
Not used to toil, did almost sweat to bear
The pride upon them, that their very labor
Was to them as a painting. Now this masque
Was cried incomparable; and th’ ensuing night
Made it a fool and beggar.
Just as Norfolk describes a pageant, so his verse becomes a kind of verbal pageant of imagery, equivalent to Enobarbus’ grand barge speech in Antony and Cleopatra. Pomp is married, and becomes more. The days master one another. French and English are grand together. Pages and madams are gilded and painted. Shakespeare’s multiplication of imagery, so common in the energy of his dramatic verse, gains a kind of stately flow.
In addition, that poetic power is evoked in the introduction of honesty into the play’s scheme:
As I belong to worship, and affect
In honor honesty, the tract of everything
Would by a good discourser lose some life
Which action’s self was tongue to. All was royal;
To the disposing of it naught rebelled.
Order gave each thing view. The office did
Distinctly his full function.
The general sense goes something like this: As I am an aristocrat and honorably love truth, the event would [even] by a good speaker lose some of the life which the action itself spoke of. All of it was so splendid, and it was so orderly.
Yet attending to the lines closely, something happens. “Honor” and “honesty, linked together,” bring to the forefront and together what will be depicted, challenged, debunked in some and vindicated in others. Wolsey will be shown to have had neither true honor nor honesty, while Katherine and Cranmer are opposites who ultimately are shown to have honor and honesty in them. The case of Henry VIII himself, as I will explain further, shows much ambiguity. How much “honour” does Henry have in divorcing his wife and in affecting another woman? How much “honesty” does he show in the way he deals with his conscience and scruples? The play is ambiguous about Henry VIII’s own character, and that ambiguity depends on the audience’s awareness of history as it does on the playwrights’ creativity. In addition, “all was royal” and orderly signals something of the orderliness that appears in this work in my mind and imagination as I read it.
I should add also that “honesty” and “truth,” like “brave” in The Tempest, “honest” in Othello, and “nothing” in King Lear, functions as a repeated motif that causes us to reflect on what is true about history, what is true about religion, and what is true about the human face of political action and ambition. That repetition becomes part of the beauty, I feel, of Shakespeare’s (and Fletcher’s) language.
How do we approach the King as Shakespeare and Fletcher depict him? Henry VIII’s later career as a wife-killer calls into doubt the way he appears in the play. Yet does it necessarily detract from the not-unsympathetic portrait of the play? Not necessarily, if one keeps in mind the attitude of a providential viewpoint that views all of this as part of the drama that leads to the splendor of Elizabeth I and her successor King James I. Henry is depicted, so it seems, as a loving husband who divorces his wife as much for reasons of state and conscience as for an interest in a new wife. Henry is also depicted as the vindicator of the righteous Cranmer and the punisher of the venial and ambitious Wolsey. These things make him somewhat sympathetic, and at times he resembles Shakespeare’s Henry IV, another problematic figure not unsympathetically portrayed. Some readers might think that this portrait is not negative enough on him.
But William Hazlitt, interestingly, thought that Shakespeare does depict the negative in the play. “The character of Henry VIII is drawn with great truth and spirit. It is like a very disagreeable portrait, sketched by the hand of a master. His gross appearance, his blustering demeanour, his vulgarity, his arrogance, his sensuality, his cruelty, his hypocrisy, his want of common decency and common humanity, are marked in strong lines. His traditional peculiarities of expression complete the reality of the picture.” Though one might find the play more sympathetic than Hazlitt saw it, it is noteworthy how the play also sets up and qualifies Henry’s stings of conscience. Henry’s meeting of Anne, which resembles the first meeting of Romeo and Juliet in their play, is both economic and full of portentous and weighty (and sad) meaning. In addition, noble commentary undercuts Henry’s “scruple and prick” of conscience:
CHAMBERLAIN
It seems the marriage with his brother’s wife
Has crept too near his conscience.
SUFFOLK
No, his conscience
Has crept too near another lady.
The viewer sometimes cannot help but feel that such was indeed the case, and in many ways this is how I tended to have understood Henry VIII’s situation. But I am also inclined to believe that Henry’s decisions were as motivated by genuine religious and political reasons as they were by amorous inclinations, and Shakespeare and Fletcher brilliantly register some of this complexity as they show his taking back of a power that he once did not fully exercise.
The play also treats with ambiguity the fates of the fallen ones in the play. The falls of Buckingham, Wolsey, and Katherine are “necessary” so as to make way for Elizabeth I and her age. But Shakespeare and Fletcher depict their ends with sympathy and poetry. Buckingham gives his great speech, sharing with his father the fate of political execution while dying more nobly than him. Wolsey, hitherto scheming and ambitious, is made to reflect on the state of man in lines of beautiful poetry. Katherine is vouchsafed a vision worthy of The Tempest. Thus, through their falls, Shakespeare and Fletcher can have their cake of Tudor celebration and eat with it the whipped cream of sympathy for the fallen.
In addition to the glory of the play’s pageantry, I was also struck by how effective Henry VIII could work as a drama and how it vividly evoked the Shakespeare plays that led up to this point. As I alluded to earlier, the scene where Henry and Anne first meet is brilliant. The Blackfriars “trial” resembles The Winter’s Tale while giving Katherine and Wolsey a kind of eloquent back-and-forth, with King Henry VIII to reflect on his conscience. The final conversation of Wolsey and Henry VIII, followed by his great speech, resembles the Southampton scene in Henry V while also being full of irony. The palace yard scene in Act 5 resembles the “side” view of a reunion in The Winter’s Tale while also signalling the popularity of Elizabeth’s coronation, which alludes to her later popularity as the great queen of England.
The speech by Wolsey deserves quotation for its beauty, grandeur, and closure:
WOLSEY
Farewell? A long farewell to all my greatness!
This is the state of man: today he puts forth
The tender leaves of hopes; tomorrow blossoms
And bears his blushing honors thick upon him;
The third day comes a frost, a killing frost,
And when he thinks, good easy man, full surely
His greatness is a-ripening, nips his root,
And then he falls, as I do. I have ventured,
Like little wanton boys that swim on bladders,
This many summers in a sea of glory,
But far beyond my depth. My high-blown pride
At length broke under me and now has left me,
Weary and old with service, to the mercy
Of a rude stream that must forever hide me.
Vain pomp and glory of this world, I hate you.
I feel my heart new opened. O, how wretched
Is that poor man that hangs on princes’ favors!
There is betwixt that smile we would aspire to,
That sweet aspect of princes, and their ruin,
More pangs and fears than wars or women have;
And when he falls, he falls like Lucifer,
Never to hope again.
Much has been written on this, so I cannot hope to reflect further, except that it has a rich flow, and signals a kind of transformation. And yet the poetry is grander than the man. It is ironic in that this speech is followed by a conversation between the fallen Wolsey and the rising Cromwell (who is later to fall). And yet this granting of a great speech to a small man shows the imaginative sympathy and generosity of Shakespeare and Fletcher in their depiction of character and history.
The final scene has that grand prophecy which I will quote in full to close with:
CRANMER Let me speak, sir,
For heaven now bids me; and the words I utter
Let none think flattery, for they’ll find ’em truth.
This royal infant—heaven still move about her!—
Though in her cradle, yet now promises
Upon this land a thousand thousand blessings,
Which time shall bring to ripeness. She shall be—
But few now living can behold that goodness—
A pattern to all princes living with her
And all that shall succeed. Saba was never
More covetous of wisdom and fair virtue
Than this pure soul shall be. All princely graces
That mold up such a mighty piece as this is,
With all the virtues that attend the good,
Shall still be doubled on her. Truth shall nurse her;
Holy and heavenly thoughts still counsel her.
She shall be loved and feared. Her own shall bless her;
Her foes shake like a field of beaten corn
And hang their heads with sorrow. Good grows with
her.
In her days every man shall eat in safety
Under his own vine what he plants and sing
The merry songs of peace to all his neighbors.
God shall be truly known, and those about her
From her shall read the perfect ways of honor
And by those claim their greatness, not by blood.
Nor shall this peace sleep with her; but, as when
The bird of wonder dies, the maiden phoenix,
Her ashes new create another heir
As great in admiration as herself,
So shall she leave her blessedness to one,
When heaven shall call her from this cloud of darkness,
Who from the sacred ashes of her honor
Shall starlike rise as great in fame as she was
And so stand fixed. Peace, plenty, love, truth, terror,
That were the servants to this chosen infant,
Shall then be his, and like a vine grow to him.
Wherever the bright sun of heaven shall shine,
His honor and the greatness of his name
Shall be, and make new nations. He shall flourish,
And like a mountain cedar reach his branches
To all the plains about him. Our children’s children
Shall see this and bless heaven.
KING Thou speakest wonders.
CRANMER
She shall be to the happiness of England
An agèd princess; many days shall see her,
And yet no day without a deed to crown it.
Would I had known no more! But she must die,
She must, the saints must have her; yet a virgin,
A most unspotted lily, shall she pass
To th’ ground, and all the world shall mourn her.
As with so much of the play, this grand prophecy is fraught with irony.
And yet one cannot help but feel that this speech and prophecy is good, true, beautiful, and eloquent. So one must, with reservations, accept this, and the rest of the play. As do I.
December 27, 2017
“Men's evil manners live in brass; their virtues we write in water.”
- Shakespeare & Fletcher, Henry VIII
What do you get when you co-write a play and the other guy phones-it-in? What do you do when the other guy is William Shakespeare and his phoned-in stuff is still better than most writing you've seen or your own writing? I guess you just do what you do, write your scenes, work hard, and shut up. Here are my three main knocks against this play:
1. Phoned-in by the Bard (see also Cymbeline).
2. Co-written by John Fletcher (see also The Two Noble Kinsmen)
3. Quasi-propaganda crap for the Tudors see also ("Too soon, Too soon").
For those interested, according to Erdman and Fogel in 'Evidence for Authorship: Essays on Problems of Attribution,' the breakdown of authorship for this play is the following:
Shakespeare: Act I, scenes i and ii; II,iii and iv; III,ii, lines 1–203 (to exit of King); V,i.
Fletcher: Prologue; I,iii; II,i and ii; III,i, and ii, 203–458 (after exit of King); IV,i and ii; V ii–v; Epilogue.
Anyway, the play is so bad it basically destroyed the Globe Theatre.* I kid, I kid.
Favorite Lines:
"Heat not a furnace for your foe so hot
That it do singe yourself.” (Act 1, Scene 1)
"I have touched the highest point of all my greatness;
And from that full meridian of my glory
I haste now to my setting: I shall fall
Like a bright exhalation in the evening,
And no man see me more.” (Act 3, Scene 2)
"Press not a falling man too far!” (Act 3, Scene 2)
“We all are men, in our own natures frail, and capable of our flesh; few are angels.” (Act 5, Scene 2).
*Technically, it was a canon shot during the play that caught the thatched roof on fire, but give me a bit of poetic license here.
- Shakespeare & Fletcher, Henry VIII
What do you get when you co-write a play and the other guy phones-it-in? What do you do when the other guy is William Shakespeare and his phoned-in stuff is still better than most writing you've seen or your own writing? I guess you just do what you do, write your scenes, work hard, and shut up. Here are my three main knocks against this play:
1. Phoned-in by the Bard (see also Cymbeline).
2. Co-written by John Fletcher (see also The Two Noble Kinsmen)
3. Quasi-propaganda crap for the Tudors see also ("Too soon, Too soon").
For those interested, according to Erdman and Fogel in 'Evidence for Authorship: Essays on Problems of Attribution,' the breakdown of authorship for this play is the following:
Shakespeare: Act I, scenes i and ii; II,iii and iv; III,ii, lines 1–203 (to exit of King); V,i.
Fletcher: Prologue; I,iii; II,i and ii; III,i, and ii, 203–458 (after exit of King); IV,i and ii; V ii–v; Epilogue.
Anyway, the play is so bad it basically destroyed the Globe Theatre.* I kid, I kid.
Favorite Lines:
"Heat not a furnace for your foe so hot
That it do singe yourself.” (Act 1, Scene 1)
"I have touched the highest point of all my greatness;
And from that full meridian of my glory
I haste now to my setting: I shall fall
Like a bright exhalation in the evening,
And no man see me more.” (Act 3, Scene 2)
"Press not a falling man too far!” (Act 3, Scene 2)
“We all are men, in our own natures frail, and capable of our flesh; few are angels.” (Act 5, Scene 2).
*Technically, it was a canon shot during the play that caught the thatched roof on fire, but give me a bit of poetic license here.
August 30, 2016
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00js7zbDescription: A rare chance to hear Shakespeare's last play, starring Matthew Marsh and Patrick Malahide. Originally recorded to mark the 500th anniversary of the accession of Henry VIII.
In 1509, the 17-year-old Henry acceded to the throne of England. Shakespeare's play, co-authored with John Fletcher, opens with the arrest for treason of the Duke of Buckingham 12 years later, and tells the story of Henry's struggle to divorce Katherine of Aragon, and the catastrophic fall of the all-powerful Cardinal Wolsey.
Henry VIII ..... Matthew Marsh
Queen Katherine ..... Yolanda Vazquez
Cardinal Wolsey ..... Patrick Malahide
Duke of Norfolk ..... Joseph Mydell
Thomas Cranmer ..... Adam Godley
Duke of Suffolk ..... Stuart McQuarrie
Old Lady ..... Ann Beach
Anne Boleyn ..... Donnla Hughes
Buckingham/Cromwell ..... Paul Rider
Chamberlain/Capuchius ..... Chris Pavlo
Abergavenny/Surrey ..... Stephen Critchlow
Surveyor/Gardiner ..... Gunnar Cauthery
Sands/Campeius ..... Jonathan Tafler
Lovell/Griffith ..... Dan Starkey
Princess Elizabeth ..... Sonny Crowe
Other parts played by Jill Cardo, Robert Lonsdale, Manjeet Mann, Inam Mirza, Malcolm Tierney.
Pipe and Tabor played by Bill Tuck
Eaxtra info: Known sometimes by the title 'All is True', Shakespeare and Fletcher's rarely performed play is a masterful analysis of the murky world of Tudor politics. A world where nothing can be taken on face value. Wolsey (Patrick Malahide) has control of the key offices of state as both Chancellor and Cardinal of York. Henry (Matthew Marsh) appears to be oblivious to criticism levelled at Wolsey by some of his senior courtiers, and the play opens with the trial and execution of one of Wolsey's most outspoken critics, the Duke of Buckingham. The trial of Katherine of Aragon (Yolanda Vazquez), motivated by Henry's scruple that his marriage to his late brother's wife was unlawful, is one of the most poignant scenes in Shakespeare. Henry is seen to be moved by Katherine's plight, and protests that she is the best of women. Following the divorce, Cardinal Wolsey is the author of his own undoing when he unwittingly reveals to Henry the true extent of his own profit from his position, and that he has been plotting with the Pope to undermine Henry's bid to marry Anne Boleyn. The play finishes with the rise of reformer Thomas Cranmer, and ends with the christening of the young Elizabeth.
I once browsed this as I have all the plays, sonnets etc. in a volume, and found this to be sorely lacking on the page. However, this particular rendition by the BBC was thoroughly enjoyable and can recommend Sunday night's production, available for another 28 days via the link at the top of my review.Mantel's two books must be considered the defining literature on the times IMHO.
March 14, 2019
The core of the play is an allegory as England switches from Catholicism to Protestant, Cranmer is on trial accused of practicing the Protestant religion, he’s found guilty by a court who follows Catholicism, but not for long, Henry VIII steps in and overrules the verdict, makes Cranmer a godfather to his newly born, later to be Queen Elizabeth I, and tells them all to be friends. They do, all is forgiven and it ends on happy note praising Elizabeth at her christening. Whilst all this happening, Shakespeare compacts historical that span decade, starting with Wolsey’s falls, Henry VIII divorcing Catherine of Aragon for Anne Boleyn, and England’s religion going through a major overhaul and ending on a happy Henry VIII to have a new daughter.
I found reading this enjoyable and helpful alongside Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall, and it was a bonus I understood it without too much difficulty, probably more down to having a vague sense of Tudor history. Though the notes did come in handy, like on page 213, where the line says: “My noble gossips …”, where I would not have realised ‘gossip’ means ‘godparents’ – I would have never guessed that :)
This play is not factually accurate, but the essay in this edition explains why. It also explains how many critics thought Shakespeare wrote to be performed as part of the wedding celebrations of Princess Elizabeth, the daughter of James I, who succeeded the English throne after Elizabeth I. In the text I am told through his reign people remembered Elizabeth I fondly.
This addition also come with illustrations and photos, and in detail talks about performances of this play over the centuries on both sides of the Atlantic, naming casts and summarising critical reception. Overall, whenever this play was performed it was well received, but the essays go on to say it is rarely performed now. I read this as a kindle, but the formatting is a complete mess (making it impossible to follow and hope OUP issue an update with corrections, soon would be good :)) ) so I had to get a paperback copy to follow it, and after a while I got the hang of it. Regardless, the notes are very detailed, perfect if you are bookish like me. I could have also enjoyed reading a version without any notes and extras, which surprises me, the poetry, the drama all came to together for me, and I would definitely read this again.
I found reading this enjoyable and helpful alongside Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall, and it was a bonus I understood it without too much difficulty, probably more down to having a vague sense of Tudor history. Though the notes did come in handy, like on page 213, where the line says: “My noble gossips …”, where I would not have realised ‘gossip’ means ‘godparents’ – I would have never guessed that :)
This play is not factually accurate, but the essay in this edition explains why. It also explains how many critics thought Shakespeare wrote to be performed as part of the wedding celebrations of Princess Elizabeth, the daughter of James I, who succeeded the English throne after Elizabeth I. In the text I am told through his reign people remembered Elizabeth I fondly.
This addition also come with illustrations and photos, and in detail talks about performances of this play over the centuries on both sides of the Atlantic, naming casts and summarising critical reception. Overall, whenever this play was performed it was well received, but the essays go on to say it is rarely performed now. I read this as a kindle, but the formatting is a complete mess (making it impossible to follow and hope OUP issue an update with corrections, soon would be good :)) ) so I had to get a paperback copy to follow it, and after a while I got the hang of it. Regardless, the notes are very detailed, perfect if you are bookish like me. I could have also enjoyed reading a version without any notes and extras, which surprises me, the poetry, the drama all came to together for me, and I would definitely read this again.
June 15, 2019
"Tudors" ve "Wolf Hall" dizilerinden sonra büyük bir hevesle elime aldığım "Kral VIII. Henry / King Henry VIII"yi okuduktan sonra Shakespeare’in neden bu oyunu rafa kaldırdığını daha iyi anladım. Ölümünden sonra John Fletcher tarafından tamamlanıp yayımlanan Kral VIII. Henry’nin, Catherine of Aragon’dan ayrılıp Anne Boleyn’le evlenmesini ve Elizabeth’in doğumunu konu alan oyun ne yazık ki okuduğum en başarısız Shakespeare oyunu. Shakespeare’in diğer tragedyalarının aksine içinde herhangi baş karaktere ait bir trajediye rastlamadığımız oyunun finali ise Kraliçe I. Elizabeth’i övmek için yapılan bir propagandadan öteye gidemiyor. Lord Buckingham ve Wolsey’nin düşüşlerini anlatırken diğer yandan saray içinde dönen politik oyunları okuma şansı bulduğumuz hikayede adının aksine Kral VIII Henry’e ait pek sahne bulunmuyor. Oyundaki asıl trajedi Boleyn yüzünden kenara itilan Catherine of Aragon’un ölümü; fakat oyun bu trajik olayı da yeterince etkili bir şekilde işlemeyip, Elizabeth’i Tanrı katına çıkaran finaliyle asıl amacının propaganda olduğunu gösteriyor. Açıkçası bu zamana kadar Fletcher’ın tamamlayıp da güzel olan herhangi bir Shakespeare oyununa rastlamadım. "Kral VIII. Henry" de istisna değil; hatta içlerinden en kötüsü. Tam notum: 2,5/5.
İstanbul, Türkiye
09.06.2019
Alp Turgut
http://www.filmdoktoru.com/kitap-labo...
İstanbul, Türkiye
09.06.2019
Alp Turgut
http://www.filmdoktoru.com/kitap-labo...
December 12, 2018
Henry VIII, Wolsey, Cramner, Thomas Cromwell, Thomas More, Anne Boleyn, Catherine of Aragorn! So much history makes the politics of this play incredibly interesting.
April 27, 2023
they burned down the globe for THIS???
August 28, 2016
From BBC Radio 3 - Drama on 3:
A rare chance to hear Shakespeare's last play, starring Matthew Marsh and Patrick Malahide. Originally recorded to mark the 500th anniversary of the accession of Henry VIII.
In 1509, the 17-year-old Henry acceded to the throne of England. Shakespeare's play, co-authored with John Fletcher, opens with the arrest for treason of the Duke of Buckingham 12 years later, and tells the story of Henry's struggle to divorce Katherine of Aragon, and the catastrophic fall of the all-powerful Cardinal Wolsey.
Henry VIII ..... Matthew Marsh
Queen Katherine ..... Yolanda Vazquez
Cardinal Wolsey ..... Patrick Malahide
Duke of Norfolk ..... Joseph Mydell
Thomas Cranmer ..... Adam Godley
Duke of Suffolk ..... Stuart McQuarrie
Old Lady ..... Ann Beach
Anne Boleyn ..... Donnla Hughes
Buckingham/Cromwell ..... Paul Rider
Chamberlain/Capuchius ..... Chris Pavlo
Abergavenny/Surrey ..... Stephen Critchlow
Surveyor/Gardiner ..... Gunnar Cauthery
Sands/Campeius ..... Jonathan Tafler
Lovell/Griffith ..... Dan Starkey
Princess Elizabeth ..... Sonny Crowe
Other parts played by Jill Cardo, Robert Lonsdale, Manjeet Mann, Inam Mirza, Malcolm Tierney.
Pipe and Tabor played by Bill Tuck
Adapted for radio and directed by Jeremy Mortimer
First broadcast in April 2009
Known sometimes by the title 'All is True', Shakespeare and Fletcher's rarely performed play is a masterful analysis of the murky world of Tudor politics. A world where nothing can be taken on face value. Wolsey (Patrick Malahide) has control of the key offices of state as both Chancellor and Cardinal of York. Henry (Matthew Marsh) appears to be oblivious to criticism levelled at Wolsey by some of his senior courtiers, and the play opens with the trial and execution of one of Wolsey's most outspoken critics, the Duke of Buckingham. The trial of Katherine of Aragon (Yolanda Vazquez), motivated by Henry's scruple that his marriage to his late brother's wife was unlawful, is one of the most poignant scenes in Shakespeare. Henry is seen to be moved by Katherine's plight, and protests that she is the best of women. Following the divorce, Cardinal Wolsey is the author of his own undoing when he unwittingly reveals to Henry the true extent of his own profit from his position, and that he has been plotting with the Pope to undermine Henry's bid to marry Anne Boleyn. The play finishes with the rise of reformer Thomas Cranmer, and ends with the christening of the young Elizabeth.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00js7zb
4* Antony and Cleopatra
4* A Midsummer Night's Dream
3* Twelfth Night
5* Lenny Henry in Shakespeare's Othello
5* Richard III
3* The Tempest
5* Hamlet
3* Romeo and Juliet
3* As You Like It
5* Macbeth
4* The Taming of the Shrew
4* Julius Caesar
3* The Winter's tale
5* King Lear
4* Henry VI
4* Henry VIII
TR The Comedy of Errors
About Shakespeare (fiction&non-fiction):
3* Mistress Shakespeare by Karen Harper
3* Mrs. Shakespeare: The Complete Works by Robert Nye
3* Shakespeare's Local by Pete Brown
4* Shakespeare's Restless World by Neil MacGregor
2* Chasing Shakespeares by Sarah Smith
3* Another Shakespeare by Martyn Wade
4* 1606: William Shakespeare and the Year of Lear by James Shapiro
4* Molière et Shakespeare by Paul Stapfer
3* A Play for the Heart: The Death of Shakespeare by Nick Warburton
A rare chance to hear Shakespeare's last play, starring Matthew Marsh and Patrick Malahide. Originally recorded to mark the 500th anniversary of the accession of Henry VIII.
In 1509, the 17-year-old Henry acceded to the throne of England. Shakespeare's play, co-authored with John Fletcher, opens with the arrest for treason of the Duke of Buckingham 12 years later, and tells the story of Henry's struggle to divorce Katherine of Aragon, and the catastrophic fall of the all-powerful Cardinal Wolsey.
Henry VIII ..... Matthew Marsh
Queen Katherine ..... Yolanda Vazquez
Cardinal Wolsey ..... Patrick Malahide
Duke of Norfolk ..... Joseph Mydell
Thomas Cranmer ..... Adam Godley
Duke of Suffolk ..... Stuart McQuarrie
Old Lady ..... Ann Beach
Anne Boleyn ..... Donnla Hughes
Buckingham/Cromwell ..... Paul Rider
Chamberlain/Capuchius ..... Chris Pavlo
Abergavenny/Surrey ..... Stephen Critchlow
Surveyor/Gardiner ..... Gunnar Cauthery
Sands/Campeius ..... Jonathan Tafler
Lovell/Griffith ..... Dan Starkey
Princess Elizabeth ..... Sonny Crowe
Other parts played by Jill Cardo, Robert Lonsdale, Manjeet Mann, Inam Mirza, Malcolm Tierney.
Pipe and Tabor played by Bill Tuck
Adapted for radio and directed by Jeremy Mortimer
First broadcast in April 2009
Known sometimes by the title 'All is True', Shakespeare and Fletcher's rarely performed play is a masterful analysis of the murky world of Tudor politics. A world where nothing can be taken on face value. Wolsey (Patrick Malahide) has control of the key offices of state as both Chancellor and Cardinal of York. Henry (Matthew Marsh) appears to be oblivious to criticism levelled at Wolsey by some of his senior courtiers, and the play opens with the trial and execution of one of Wolsey's most outspoken critics, the Duke of Buckingham. The trial of Katherine of Aragon (Yolanda Vazquez), motivated by Henry's scruple that his marriage to his late brother's wife was unlawful, is one of the most poignant scenes in Shakespeare. Henry is seen to be moved by Katherine's plight, and protests that she is the best of women. Following the divorce, Cardinal Wolsey is the author of his own undoing when he unwittingly reveals to Henry the true extent of his own profit from his position, and that he has been plotting with the Pope to undermine Henry's bid to marry Anne Boleyn. The play finishes with the rise of reformer Thomas Cranmer, and ends with the christening of the young Elizabeth.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00js7zb
4* Antony and Cleopatra
4* A Midsummer Night's Dream
3* Twelfth Night
5* Lenny Henry in Shakespeare's Othello
5* Richard III
3* The Tempest
5* Hamlet
3* Romeo and Juliet
3* As You Like It
5* Macbeth
4* The Taming of the Shrew
4* Julius Caesar
3* The Winter's tale
5* King Lear
4* Henry VI
4* Henry VIII
TR The Comedy of Errors
About Shakespeare (fiction&non-fiction):
3* Mistress Shakespeare by Karen Harper
3* Mrs. Shakespeare: The Complete Works by Robert Nye
3* Shakespeare's Local by Pete Brown
4* Shakespeare's Restless World by Neil MacGregor
2* Chasing Shakespeares by Sarah Smith
3* Another Shakespeare by Martyn Wade
4* 1606: William Shakespeare and the Year of Lear by James Shapiro
4* Molière et Shakespeare by Paul Stapfer
3* A Play for the Heart: The Death of Shakespeare by Nick Warburton
December 21, 2019
This play marks the end of my voyage through the dramas of William Shakespeare. It has taken me years, and even so I am still missing a couple of the lesser-known works, such as the Merry Wives of Windsor and all three parts of Henry VI (which I am sure I will get to—eventually). Shakespeare completed this work in 1613, three years before his death, while he was in the process of removing himself from the London theater scene. He seems even to have been delegating the task of writing to his successor, John Fletcher, making these last plays rather uneven collaborations.
For the most part this play is based on pageantry. Known for having the most stage directions of any Shakespearean drama, there are many scenes that consists of an elaborate procession of exalted personages. The characterization is strikingly uneven. Catherine emerges as the most compelling and dramatic figure, though even she did not come fully alive for me. Cardinal Wolsey, the play’s villain, has nothing of the Iago’s cunning, and for the most part has not much of a personality at all—that is, until he is undone, at which point he becomes suddenly noble and eloquent, speaking beautiful lines out of keeping both with his character and his situation. The king has no consistent character whatsoever, being now lustful, now irate, not gullible, now generous.
If any theme emerges as dominant in this work, it is that of being on the way down—of losing one’s worldly position. This is when Catherine and Wolsey have their most convincing moments. Can we infer something about Shakespeare himself from this theme? It is tempting, especially considering that he was in the process of extricating himself from his London theater career. In any case, the result is an uneven play with an unsatisfying ending (a long prophecy about the coming greatness of Queen Elizabeth). One naturally wishes that Shakespeare's career ended with more of a bang.
For the most part this play is based on pageantry. Known for having the most stage directions of any Shakespearean drama, there are many scenes that consists of an elaborate procession of exalted personages. The characterization is strikingly uneven. Catherine emerges as the most compelling and dramatic figure, though even she did not come fully alive for me. Cardinal Wolsey, the play’s villain, has nothing of the Iago’s cunning, and for the most part has not much of a personality at all—that is, until he is undone, at which point he becomes suddenly noble and eloquent, speaking beautiful lines out of keeping both with his character and his situation. The king has no consistent character whatsoever, being now lustful, now irate, not gullible, now generous.
If any theme emerges as dominant in this work, it is that of being on the way down—of losing one’s worldly position. This is when Catherine and Wolsey have their most convincing moments. Can we infer something about Shakespeare himself from this theme? It is tempting, especially considering that he was in the process of extricating himself from his London theater career. In any case, the result is an uneven play with an unsatisfying ending (a long prophecy about the coming greatness of Queen Elizabeth). One naturally wishes that Shakespeare's career ended with more of a bang.
April 29, 2020
Imagine doing a history of Henry VIII and ignoring almost everything that he is most famous for. The six wives - two of whom he had beheaded. The executions of Thomas Moore and Thomas Cromwell. The pillaging of the Catholic Church and abbeys in England.
This play ignores all of that, and instead makes a huge deal of Henry and Anne Boleyn because they produced Elizabeth. Other than that, this is an episodic mess. And worse, what we do get are largely the preludes or postludes to events. The events themselves - e.g. the execution of Buckingham, the death of Wolsey - are merely retold.
Once again, I need to remind myself not to save a writer's worst works for last. After this, I only had Merry Wives of Windsor and Cymbeline to read (and I've since finished Windsor, which wasn't much better).
This play ignores all of that, and instead makes a huge deal of Henry and Anne Boleyn because they produced Elizabeth. Other than that, this is an episodic mess. And worse, what we do get are largely the preludes or postludes to events. The events themselves - e.g. the execution of Buckingham, the death of Wolsey - are merely retold.
Once again, I need to remind myself not to save a writer's worst works for last. After this, I only had Merry Wives of Windsor and Cymbeline to read (and I've since finished Windsor, which wasn't much better).
November 9, 2020
This play gets better each time I see/read it. I think the most interesting characters are scheming Cardinal Wolsey and poor deserted Katherine.
Wolsey: I have ventured, Like little wanton boys that swim on bladders,
This many summers in a sea of glory,
But far beyond my depth.
My high-blown pride
At length broke under me, and now has left me,
Weary and old with service, to the mercy
Of a rude stream that must for ever hide me.
Wolsey: I have ventured, Like little wanton boys that swim on bladders,
This many summers in a sea of glory,
But far beyond my depth.
My high-blown pride
At length broke under me, and now has left me,
Weary and old with service, to the mercy
Of a rude stream that must for ever hide me.
August 31, 2015
Shakespeare's Comeback
31 August 2015
You know those directors/authors who go into retirement (or even sporting heroes, but this is book website so I don't think sports stars quite cut it) and then a few years later decided to make a comeback with another movie/book and despite all of the hype it ends out being little more than rubbish? Well, this is one of those books. Yes, I know, it was written by William Shakespeare, and yes, I know, I have given it two stars, so I guess you probably think I am some sort of heathen, but I must admit that I really didn't enjoy this play. Okay, maybe I should fall back onto the argument that it is a play and it is meant to be performed, not read, but to be honest with you I'm not all that willing to fork out my hard earned money to go and see a production of this play.
I guess the first problem that I had with this play was that one of the main characters had the name Wolsley and every time he appeared in a scene I simply could not help but picture him looking like this:
Yeah, I know, I've watched too much Stargate, but seriously that was one awesome science-fiction series and it is very rare that a science-fiction series of that calibure not only comes along, let alone lasts fifteen seasons. Anyway, while it is really tempting to write about how awesome Stargate is this review is of a less than ordinary Shakespeare play so I better remain on topic (not that that has stopped me in the past).
Anyway, as you can tell, the play is about King Henry VIII – you know, the one that was famous for removing his wive's heads from their body. It seemed as if divorce wasn't good enough, so when he got sick and tired of Anne Boylen instead of paying her off and dumping her in some remote castle he decided to make sure that she couldn't come back and haunt him. Okay, removing Kathrine of Aragon's head probably wouldn't have endeared him all that much to the King of Spain, but then again I'm sure the King of Spain, upon hearing that Henry had divorced Katherine, didn't sit back and say something along the lines of 'she probably deserved it'.
Despite Henry having more than just two wives this play focuses only on the transition between Katherine and Anne. The problem with Katherine was that she didn't produce an heir, but the fact that all of the women that he married had the same problem sort of makes me wonder whether the problem didn't rest with his wives, but with him – but then again he was king of England and any suggestion that the king was shooting blanks probably wouldn't go down all that well. Actually, come to think of it, that is probably why poor Anne ended up losing her head.
It goes without saying that the events in this play are incredibly significant in the history of England. We all know the story: Katherine wasn't producing an heir (because Henry was shooting blanks) and one day at a party he meets this ravishing young lady named Anne. Anyway, he decided that he wants to get rid of Katherine (through no fault of her own) and marry Anne. However, he can't annul the marriage so instead he goes and asks the Pope for a divorce. The Pope say's no, so Henry throws a tanty and says 'hey, I'm King of England, I don't have to take orders from you' and then proceeds to make himself the head of the church (as you do when you are king and you're not getting your own way).
The play itself ends with the baptism of Princess Elizabeth, who goes on to become a pretty competent monarch in her own right. I guess this is Shakespeare's tribute to a woman, and a ruler, who managed to pull England out of the chaos that ensured under the reign of Bloody Mary (the queen, not the drink) and established it as the Protestant nation that we know today. It wasn't as if Elizabeth's reign was easy – it wasn't. She had to deal with Spanish Armadas and internal plots, but then again how many rulers don't have to deal with intrigue – behind every ruler is a person with a knife that wants the job. However, as we see from many of Shakespeare's earlier plays there is a strong message that pretty much says that removing a monarch only brings about disorder and chaos.
This is probably why I really didn't like this play. Okay, there was intrigue and political manoeuvrings, but it wasn't anywhere near the complexity as the likes of King Lear or the other history plays. In fact I don't even think anybody dies (though I could be wrong). While one could argue that it is a tragedy of sorts – the tragedy of Katherine of Aragon, it isn't as if she has a fatal flaw that causes the world around her to crash. Rather it is just that she happened to marry some guy that simply couldn't have children, and in those days, especially when your husband is the king, you can't actually accuse him of being the problem, simply because it will mean that he would lose face (and the person with the knife will then make their move).
Anyway, I can now say that I have read this play, even though it isn't strictly a Shakespearean play because it is generally accepted that he wrote it in collaboration with some guy named John Fletcher. However, of note, as far as I am aware, the only play that Fletcher has any credit for, and is still performed, is the one he wrote with Shakespeare – this one. In the end, he generally isn't remembered as a playwright but rather the guy that helped Shakespeare write his final play (even though I still consider The Tempest to be Shakespeare's final play).
31 August 2015
You know those directors/authors who go into retirement (or even sporting heroes, but this is book website so I don't think sports stars quite cut it) and then a few years later decided to make a comeback with another movie/book and despite all of the hype it ends out being little more than rubbish? Well, this is one of those books. Yes, I know, it was written by William Shakespeare, and yes, I know, I have given it two stars, so I guess you probably think I am some sort of heathen, but I must admit that I really didn't enjoy this play. Okay, maybe I should fall back onto the argument that it is a play and it is meant to be performed, not read, but to be honest with you I'm not all that willing to fork out my hard earned money to go and see a production of this play.
I guess the first problem that I had with this play was that one of the main characters had the name Wolsley and every time he appeared in a scene I simply could not help but picture him looking like this:
Yeah, I know, I've watched too much Stargate, but seriously that was one awesome science-fiction series and it is very rare that a science-fiction series of that calibure not only comes along, let alone lasts fifteen seasons. Anyway, while it is really tempting to write about how awesome Stargate is this review is of a less than ordinary Shakespeare play so I better remain on topic (not that that has stopped me in the past).
Anyway, as you can tell, the play is about King Henry VIII – you know, the one that was famous for removing his wive's heads from their body. It seemed as if divorce wasn't good enough, so when he got sick and tired of Anne Boylen instead of paying her off and dumping her in some remote castle he decided to make sure that she couldn't come back and haunt him. Okay, removing Kathrine of Aragon's head probably wouldn't have endeared him all that much to the King of Spain, but then again I'm sure the King of Spain, upon hearing that Henry had divorced Katherine, didn't sit back and say something along the lines of 'she probably deserved it'.
Despite Henry having more than just two wives this play focuses only on the transition between Katherine and Anne. The problem with Katherine was that she didn't produce an heir, but the fact that all of the women that he married had the same problem sort of makes me wonder whether the problem didn't rest with his wives, but with him – but then again he was king of England and any suggestion that the king was shooting blanks probably wouldn't go down all that well. Actually, come to think of it, that is probably why poor Anne ended up losing her head.
It goes without saying that the events in this play are incredibly significant in the history of England. We all know the story: Katherine wasn't producing an heir (because Henry was shooting blanks) and one day at a party he meets this ravishing young lady named Anne. Anyway, he decided that he wants to get rid of Katherine (through no fault of her own) and marry Anne. However, he can't annul the marriage so instead he goes and asks the Pope for a divorce. The Pope say's no, so Henry throws a tanty and says 'hey, I'm King of England, I don't have to take orders from you' and then proceeds to make himself the head of the church (as you do when you are king and you're not getting your own way).
The play itself ends with the baptism of Princess Elizabeth, who goes on to become a pretty competent monarch in her own right. I guess this is Shakespeare's tribute to a woman, and a ruler, who managed to pull England out of the chaos that ensured under the reign of Bloody Mary (the queen, not the drink) and established it as the Protestant nation that we know today. It wasn't as if Elizabeth's reign was easy – it wasn't. She had to deal with Spanish Armadas and internal plots, but then again how many rulers don't have to deal with intrigue – behind every ruler is a person with a knife that wants the job. However, as we see from many of Shakespeare's earlier plays there is a strong message that pretty much says that removing a monarch only brings about disorder and chaos.
This is probably why I really didn't like this play. Okay, there was intrigue and political manoeuvrings, but it wasn't anywhere near the complexity as the likes of King Lear or the other history plays. In fact I don't even think anybody dies (though I could be wrong). While one could argue that it is a tragedy of sorts – the tragedy of Katherine of Aragon, it isn't as if she has a fatal flaw that causes the world around her to crash. Rather it is just that she happened to marry some guy that simply couldn't have children, and in those days, especially when your husband is the king, you can't actually accuse him of being the problem, simply because it will mean that he would lose face (and the person with the knife will then make their move).
Anyway, I can now say that I have read this play, even though it isn't strictly a Shakespearean play because it is generally accepted that he wrote it in collaboration with some guy named John Fletcher. However, of note, as far as I am aware, the only play that Fletcher has any credit for, and is still performed, is the one he wrote with Shakespeare – this one. In the end, he generally isn't remembered as a playwright but rather the guy that helped Shakespeare write his final play (even though I still consider The Tempest to be Shakespeare's final play).
June 4, 2024
Rating: 2.5 stars
The historical play "Henry VIII", alternatively titled "All Is True", is a collaborative effort between William Shakespeare and John Fletcher. The play is noted for having more stage directions than any of Shakespeare's other plays.
Shakespeare and Co. squashed together the timeline and jumbled the order of events that actually occurred over approximately 20 years. The play recounts the fall of three main figures of King Henry VIII's court and the near fall of a fourth character. Unlike Shakespeare's early history plays titled with a king's name, this play is not so much concerned with Henry VIII's rise and fall as with the successive demise of the court figures of Buckingham, Katharine, Cardinal Wolsey, and, nearly, Cranmer. I like that Queen Katharine gets more page time. But ultimately, this is an unmemorable play.
This play is mostly politicking, with the usual scheming and someone being executed for treason. In this case Cardinal Wolsey is the scheming abuser of power in power who is involved in getting the Duke of Buckingham arrested on a concocted treason charge. Queen Katherine isn't a fan of Wolsey either, so must also be removed one way or another. Enter Henry VIII without a legitimate son to succeed him, and looking for an excuse to get rid of his current wife (at least she gets to keep her head in this one). Enter Anne Boleyn. Here follows more scheming and the exposure of the schemes, something of a government overhaul, and the formation of the Church of England (barely mentioned in the play). Also, the marriage and coronation of the new Queen of England with a nice portentous "prediction" at the baptism of Princess Elizabeth, from the Archbishop of Canterbury, of England's glory under the future monarch. Elizabeth's birth is the most important event and the goal of the play, not least because, historically, that birth ensured the succession of James I/IV, the king who ruled in Shakespeare's time (talk about sucking up to the boss!). There is no mention in the play of the remainder of Henry VIII's unfortunate wives or their ultimate fates.
Random factoid: During a 1613 performance of Henry VIII at the Globe Theatre, a cannon shot employed for special effects ignited the theatre's thatched roof and beams, burning the original Globe building to the ground.
Well, that would definitely have added to the excitement of a rather bland play.
SUMMARY OF PLAY: https://www.shakespeare.org.uk/explor...
The historical play "Henry VIII", alternatively titled "All Is True", is a collaborative effort between William Shakespeare and John Fletcher. The play is noted for having more stage directions than any of Shakespeare's other plays.
Shakespeare and Co. squashed together the timeline and jumbled the order of events that actually occurred over approximately 20 years. The play recounts the fall of three main figures of King Henry VIII's court and the near fall of a fourth character. Unlike Shakespeare's early history plays titled with a king's name, this play is not so much concerned with Henry VIII's rise and fall as with the successive demise of the court figures of Buckingham, Katharine, Cardinal Wolsey, and, nearly, Cranmer. I like that Queen Katharine gets more page time. But ultimately, this is an unmemorable play.
This play is mostly politicking, with the usual scheming and someone being executed for treason. In this case Cardinal Wolsey is the scheming abuser of power in power who is involved in getting the Duke of Buckingham arrested on a concocted treason charge. Queen Katherine isn't a fan of Wolsey either, so must also be removed one way or another. Enter Henry VIII without a legitimate son to succeed him, and looking for an excuse to get rid of his current wife (at least she gets to keep her head in this one). Enter Anne Boleyn. Here follows more scheming and the exposure of the schemes, something of a government overhaul, and the formation of the Church of England (barely mentioned in the play). Also, the marriage and coronation of the new Queen of England with a nice portentous "prediction" at the baptism of Princess Elizabeth, from the Archbishop of Canterbury, of England's glory under the future monarch. Elizabeth's birth is the most important event and the goal of the play, not least because, historically, that birth ensured the succession of James I/IV, the king who ruled in Shakespeare's time (talk about sucking up to the boss!). There is no mention in the play of the remainder of Henry VIII's unfortunate wives or their ultimate fates.
Random factoid: During a 1613 performance of Henry VIII at the Globe Theatre, a cannon shot employed for special effects ignited the theatre's thatched roof and beams, burning the original Globe building to the ground.
Well, that would definitely have added to the excitement of a rather bland play.
SUMMARY OF PLAY: https://www.shakespeare.org.uk/explor...
February 15, 2016
I enjoyed this play so much! It had a tight plot and delightfully interesting characters. I was especially intrigued with the changes that some characters went through, or the way some of them reacted under extreme circumstances.
This is the story of how Henry VIII got rid of his wife, Katherine, and fell in love with Anne Boleyn, married her instead, and had a daughter, Elizabeth. Of course, there's a ton of political intrigue going on, and people being accused as traitors right and left. The Duke of Buckingham goes on trial as a traitor in the first scene, even though he's innocent. Along with a bunch of corrupt Bishops and Cardinals, Cromwell is lurking in the background.
There are some really tense and emotional scenes with really powerful dialogue!
I loved Queen Katherine for her noble spirit and her gallant manners towards even her enemies. She is never shrewish, but always courteous and kind to everyone even when she is under the most horrible stress. Only once does she openly denounce the terrible Cardinal, and even then she does it with the language of justice and righteousness, not revenge or hatred.
She is always saying how humble she is, that she's 'only a woman and unable to speak properly among the educated nobles', but I wonder if these lines aren't delivered sarcastically. She's obviously able to verbally spar with any of those high-born or highly-educated cardinals and bishops and lords. Her best defense is how virtuous her life has been, and she clings to that to the end. With her final breath, she blesses her enemies and forgives them. What a character!
I think Queen Katherine is the real hero of the story. She's such a noble person, pure of heart and mind, and humble and kind to everyone. I just love her powerful dialogue!
Cardinal Wolsey is so sly and deceptive and horrible! He's greedy and nasty and vengeful. He just lies right to everybody's face, and then goes on with his evil plans! It makes for wonderful drama.
It's interesting to me that Wolsey seems to have a change of heart once all his evil shenanigans are exposed. He seems to show true remorse once all is lost, or is it just a case of "I'm sorry that I was caught," not "I'm sorry that I did it"? What a character! I don't know what to think. He does make himself ill with all that remorse though, so maybe he really did repent of his evil ways.
Henry VIII himself is just a selfish old dog. He finds all sorts of clever ways to justify his actions and get what he wants. He is definitely a powerful personality and a sharp mind to be reckoned with. Even when he was sweet-talking everyone and making his excuses for bad behavior, I pretty much despised him. At least he stood by some of his friends in the end, instead of believing all the bad rumors about them. Too bad that it was too late for Buckingham.
I loved this play!
This is the story of how Henry VIII got rid of his wife, Katherine, and fell in love with Anne Boleyn, married her instead, and had a daughter, Elizabeth. Of course, there's a ton of political intrigue going on, and people being accused as traitors right and left. The Duke of Buckingham goes on trial as a traitor in the first scene, even though he's innocent. Along with a bunch of corrupt Bishops and Cardinals, Cromwell is lurking in the background.
There are some really tense and emotional scenes with really powerful dialogue!
I loved Queen Katherine for her noble spirit and her gallant manners towards even her enemies. She is never shrewish, but always courteous and kind to everyone even when she is under the most horrible stress. Only once does she openly denounce the terrible Cardinal, and even then she does it with the language of justice and righteousness, not revenge or hatred.
She is always saying how humble she is, that she's 'only a woman and unable to speak properly among the educated nobles', but I wonder if these lines aren't delivered sarcastically. She's obviously able to verbally spar with any of those high-born or highly-educated cardinals and bishops and lords. Her best defense is how virtuous her life has been, and she clings to that to the end. With her final breath, she blesses her enemies and forgives them. What a character!
I think Queen Katherine is the real hero of the story. She's such a noble person, pure of heart and mind, and humble and kind to everyone. I just love her powerful dialogue!
Cardinal Wolsey is so sly and deceptive and horrible! He's greedy and nasty and vengeful. He just lies right to everybody's face, and then goes on with his evil plans! It makes for wonderful drama.
It's interesting to me that Wolsey seems to have a change of heart once all his evil shenanigans are exposed. He seems to show true remorse once all is lost, or is it just a case of "I'm sorry that I was caught," not "I'm sorry that I did it"? What a character! I don't know what to think. He does make himself ill with all that remorse though, so maybe he really did repent of his evil ways.
Henry VIII himself is just a selfish old dog. He finds all sorts of clever ways to justify his actions and get what he wants. He is definitely a powerful personality and a sharp mind to be reckoned with. Even when he was sweet-talking everyone and making his excuses for bad behavior, I pretty much despised him. At least he stood by some of his friends in the end, instead of believing all the bad rumors about them. Too bad that it was too late for Buckingham.
I loved this play!
June 9, 2009
Make no mistake, Henry VIII is not a "bad" play. It rates 2 stars only because it doesn't hold up against the 3- and 4-star ratings I've given other Shakespeare plays here on my shelves.
The biggest problem Henry VIII has is a lack of focus and/or a central character.
In terms of focus, we go from Katherine's divorce to Wolsey's downfall to Cranmer's rise to Elizabeth's baptism. All in five acts. There's too much here to adequately develop in the scope of a single play; even in the hands of a master like the Bard.
In terms of characters, there a several good potentials here, Katherine and Wolsey standing out above all others. Both get some good scenes and some good monologues like their confrontation in Act 3, scene 1: Katherine protests that she is a "mere woman" and Wolsey pretends to be her friend with only her best interests at heart:
And there's Wolsey's leave-taking of Cromwell in scene 2 of that act.
The overall effect of the play, though, is diluted and weak even if there are good parts to be found.
The biggest problem Henry VIII has is a lack of focus and/or a central character.
In terms of focus, we go from Katherine's divorce to Wolsey's downfall to Cranmer's rise to Elizabeth's baptism. All in five acts. There's too much here to adequately develop in the scope of a single play; even in the hands of a master like the Bard.
In terms of characters, there a several good potentials here, Katherine and Wolsey standing out above all others. Both get some good scenes and some good monologues like their confrontation in Act 3, scene 1: Katherine protests that she is a "mere woman" and Wolsey pretends to be her friend with only her best interests at heart:
Wolsey: Noble lady,/ I am sorry my integrity should breed,/ and service to his majesty and you,/ so deep suspicion, where all faith was meant./ We come not by the way of accusation,/ to taint that honour every good tongue blesses,/ nor to betray you any way to sorrow - / you have too much, good lady - / but to know/ how you stand minded in the weighty difference/ between the king and you, and to deliver,/ like free and honest men, our just opinions/ and comforts to your cause....
Katherine: (aside) To betray me. - / My lords, I thank you both for your good wills;/ ye speak like honest men: pray God, ye prove so!/ But how to make ye suddenly an answer,/ in such a point of weight, so near mine honour,/ more near my life, I fear, with my weak wit,/ and to such men of gravity and learning,/ in truth, I know not..../ Alas, I am a woman, friendless, hopeless!
And there's Wolsey's leave-taking of Cromwell in scene 2 of that act.
The overall effect of the play, though, is diluted and weak even if there are good parts to be found.
December 29, 2017
Previously, things I've read covering the historically crucial events surrounding Henry VIII's divorce and subsequent break from the Catholic Church have focused on Wolsey, More, Cromwell and Henry himself, ignoring Katherine, whom Henry is dumping in favour of Anne Boleyn. This is different: Thomas More is conspicuous by his absence - he's not even name-dropped - and Katherine is very much front and centre of the middle part of the play.
Katherine and Wolsey are presented as Tragic figures: Katherine as undeserving victim, powerless but eloquent in her own, ultimately futile defence. Wolsey as worldly schemer for Rome and his own self-aggrandisement who ultimately repents, apparently sincerely and with great humility, when caught conspiring against the divorce and lining his own pockets from the national Treasury.
What of Henry? He reminds me of Julius Caesar; the instigator of the action but really not the dramatic lead. Intrigue, plots, chaos and death swirl around him but he remains mostly a cypher. He doesn't die half way through, like Caesar, of course. Instead he lives on to see Anne Boleyn betray his hopes by giving birth to a daughter.
That daughter is prophetically praised in the final scene; the baby that will become the legendary Virgin Queen of Shakespeare's day and save Britain from Spain, Rome, all and sundry...
How much of the Tudor idolatry was merely political expediency is open to question, given the extremely sympathetic treatment of Katherine, the fact that Shakespeare was brought up in a Catholic household and the lack of any unequivocal statement about Will's own religious leanings.
The play impresses more by way of the characterisation and eloquence of Wolsey and Katherine than it does as a coherent drama as a whole.
Katherine and Wolsey are presented as Tragic figures: Katherine as undeserving victim, powerless but eloquent in her own, ultimately futile defence. Wolsey as worldly schemer for Rome and his own self-aggrandisement who ultimately repents, apparently sincerely and with great humility, when caught conspiring against the divorce and lining his own pockets from the national Treasury.
What of Henry? He reminds me of Julius Caesar; the instigator of the action but really not the dramatic lead. Intrigue, plots, chaos and death swirl around him but he remains mostly a cypher. He doesn't die half way through, like Caesar, of course. Instead he lives on to see Anne Boleyn betray his hopes by giving birth to a daughter.
That daughter is prophetically praised in the final scene; the baby that will become the legendary Virgin Queen of Shakespeare's day and save Britain from Spain, Rome, all and sundry...
How much of the Tudor idolatry was merely political expediency is open to question, given the extremely sympathetic treatment of Katherine, the fact that Shakespeare was brought up in a Catholic household and the lack of any unequivocal statement about Will's own religious leanings.
The play impresses more by way of the characterisation and eloquence of Wolsey and Katherine than it does as a coherent drama as a whole.
July 18, 2009
Chewed through this mainly because I badly sprained my ankle and am stuck in bed, and saw the BBC production of it but could barely follow it and felt vaguely guilty, like I'd slighted Will or something. After reading it and viewing it once again and focusing on the long, detailed critical introduction by Jay L. Halio (which was quite good and hardly at all stiff), what strikes me is not how it's about Henry VIII -- because it isn't, really, just as King John isn't really about that king and Henry VI is a sort of marginal figure in the three plays which bear his name.....and come to think of it Henry IV isn't really the full focus of the two-parter with his name on it, either. (The two kings who seem to command their respective plays are Richards II and III. The effects of being named Dick rather than Harry are left as an exercise for the reader.) Halio emphasizes the linked way Buckingham, Katherine and Wolsey all foreshadow each other's downfalls, one worst than the next, and the tragic flaw causing it all isn't even really overweening ambition (as Wolsey's fate is presented) but rather the way Henry becomes an increasingly powerful juggernaut who can rid himself of troublesome nobles, his wife, and even the second most powerful man in England. But he remains a shadowy and contradictory figure, motivated not so much by lust (although Shakespeare explicitly makes desire for Anne, rather than worry over succession, his main motive) but the realization that whatever he wants -- Anne, a divorce, telling the Pope to piss up a rope -- he can just take. This exercise of absolute power casts a bit of a shadow over the celebratory joy at Elizabeth's birth which ends the play (IIRC, the Beeb just whacked the Epilogue, not even allowing it to be a VO, as happened to the Prologue).
Personally, I went into the play detesting Wolsey and expecting some major fireworks from Anne Boleyn/Bullen, who is one of my favourite figures of that period, but wound up sympathetic to the Cardinal (well, with those fantastic final speeches Will gives him, can you blame me -- "he falls like Lucifer, Never to hope again") and v impressed by Shakespeare's portrayal of Katherine, one of his strongest and most dignified women. However, I just absolutely cannot STAND Henry VIII and this play did nothing to counteract that. People who think that this play glorifies Elizabeth's father are about as clueless as the ones who say that Henry V is a piece of pro-war jingoistic propaganda.
I didn't enjoy reading this, exactly, but I'm glad I made the effort and dug into it and especially read the critical matter, which was very helpful. Shakespeare almost always rewards really engaging with the text -- doesn't Woolf call his influence 'fertilizing'? (No no, not like that. Smartasses.)
Personally, I went into the play detesting Wolsey and expecting some major fireworks from Anne Boleyn/Bullen, who is one of my favourite figures of that period, but wound up sympathetic to the Cardinal (well, with those fantastic final speeches Will gives him, can you blame me -- "he falls like Lucifer, Never to hope again") and v impressed by Shakespeare's portrayal of Katherine, one of his strongest and most dignified women. However, I just absolutely cannot STAND Henry VIII and this play did nothing to counteract that. People who think that this play glorifies Elizabeth's father are about as clueless as the ones who say that Henry V is a piece of pro-war jingoistic propaganda.
I didn't enjoy reading this, exactly, but I'm glad I made the effort and dug into it and especially read the critical matter, which was very helpful. Shakespeare almost always rewards really engaging with the text -- doesn't Woolf call his influence 'fertilizing'? (No no, not like that. Smartasses.)
April 29, 2024
I listened to the Arkangel audio of the play along with reading the text from the Delphi Complete Works of William Shakespeare. It is a very subdued play indeed considering how this King's reign turned England upside down. Perhaps the Bard wanted to keep his head attached to his shoulders, that would be my guess. The author goes only so far with this play...the birth of the Princess Elizabeth. What I found most interesting that during one of the performances of the play in 1613, a cannon shot ignited the Globe theatre's thatched roof, burning the original building to the ground (From introduction to play Delphi Complete Works). Although not one of my favorite plays I still found it was excellently performed and entertaining.
4-29-24 Listened to the recording done by the Marlowe Professional players...excellent
4-29-24 Listened to the recording done by the Marlowe Professional players...excellent
February 1, 2010
Read this as a companion piece after I finished Wolf Hall. I didn't even know he wrote a play about Henry VIII, and now I know why: it pretty much sucks. And a total whitewash, which makes sense in retrospect. Where's the fucking beheadings, Will?
September 27, 2021
You’d think more might happen in the play about Henry VIII leaving his wife and the church for Anne Bullen, but I found this to be a snooze. Not enough romance, cunning, violence, or political jockeying. A real meh.
November 24, 2019
The best part of this was the short-lived intro to Doctor Butts.
I'm six years old, but it's fine.
I'm six years old, but it's fine.
July 22, 2022
Definitely written to please his monarch, the virgin queen!
April 25, 2015
In the school I went, we studied everything related to Spain: Literature, geography, history, etc. I don't live in Spain, nor I am Spanish, but the school has some kind of “pact” (I don't really know how to call it) with Spain, so they teach those things.
Why do I say all this? Because in 2012, I studied the story behind this book... but from Spain's point of view. It was interesting to contrast them. Not that they're any different, but it's not the same to listen to a story told by two people in two different sides.
To be honest, we didn't study King Henry's life, but that of the wife he got divorced from in this play, that is, Katherine.
So well, as the long name of this book says (The Famous History of the Life of King Henry the Eight), this is indeed the story, not of his entire life, but the part that goes from a little before his divorce from Katherine of Aragon to the christening of his daughter Elizabeth.
I did enjoy reading this at some points, but I didn't like it as much as the other of Shakespeare's plays I've managed to read so far. It felt dull and flat at some points, but hey! It's Shakespeare! He deserves points for the writing... again.
My favorite part was the epilogue. I guess it's not the most important part of the play, but well, I liked it.
I don't really know why I prefered the epilogue to the rest of the play, though.
Anyway, I'll leave it here. Anything I write beyond this point os gonna be rubbish, and I'm good at talking about unnecessary things, so yeah... The end.
Why do I say all this? Because in 2012, I studied the story behind this book... but from Spain's point of view. It was interesting to contrast them. Not that they're any different, but it's not the same to listen to a story told by two people in two different sides.
To be honest, we didn't study King Henry's life, but that of the wife he got divorced from in this play, that is, Katherine.
So well, as the long name of this book says (The Famous History of the Life of King Henry the Eight), this is indeed the story, not of his entire life, but the part that goes from a little before his divorce from Katherine of Aragon to the christening of his daughter Elizabeth.
I did enjoy reading this at some points, but I didn't like it as much as the other of Shakespeare's plays I've managed to read so far. It felt dull and flat at some points, but hey! It's Shakespeare! He deserves points for the writing... again.
My favorite part was the epilogue. I guess it's not the most important part of the play, but well, I liked it.
Tis ten to one this play can never please
All that are here: some come to take their ease,
And sleep an act or two; but those, we fear,
We have frighted with our trumpets; so, 'tis clear,
They'll say 'tis naught: others, to hear the city
Abused extremely, and to cry 'That's witty!'
Which we have not done neither: that, I fear,
All the expected good we 're like to hear
For this play at this time, is only in
The merciful construction of good women;
For such a one we show'd 'em: if they smile,
And say 'twill do, I know, within a while
All the best men are ours; for 'tis ill hap,
If they hold when their ladies bid 'em clap.
I don't really know why I prefered the epilogue to the rest of the play, though.
Anyway, I'll leave it here. Anything I write beyond this point os gonna be rubbish, and I'm good at talking about unnecessary things, so yeah... The end.
January 3, 2011
I was initially surprised Shakespeare wrote this play; I would’ve thought this a dangerous subject, especially since it was practically current history, Elizabeth having been dead only about 10 years after it was penned. After reading it, there is definitely a noticeable conservative element to the writing. The main focus on the play is pageantry, leading up to the birth and christening of Elizabeth. Most of the action takes place off stage. Instead, we’re offered a summation of the events by side characters who recount what has happened. If you’re expecting drama, sex and intrigue, as in The Tudors series, don’t look for it here.
There is a sort of villain in the form of Cardinal Wolsey, but when his villainy gets exposed, he merely gets a smack on the wrist for his grand machinations. It’s rather disappointing. The same goes for the portrayal of Queen Katherine, who’s initially portrayed as a strong woman, readily suspecting Wolsey’s schemes, and actively seeks ways to trip him up. Yet, this image is completely reversed at the end of the play, which depicts a woman completely defeated, seeking solace in death. It’s actually kind of funny how both of these characters—Wolsey and Katherine—regress at the end, both in essence being reduced to tears as they reflect upon all that has passed.
The ironic element of this play is the fact that our main character, Henry VIII, doesn’t really have that much to say. He’s mostly used as a tool that gets us to the conclusion. The play essentially is a vehicle to describe Elizabeth’s birth, prophesying how this infant will one day become a queen for the ages.
There is a sort of villain in the form of Cardinal Wolsey, but when his villainy gets exposed, he merely gets a smack on the wrist for his grand machinations. It’s rather disappointing. The same goes for the portrayal of Queen Katherine, who’s initially portrayed as a strong woman, readily suspecting Wolsey’s schemes, and actively seeks ways to trip him up. Yet, this image is completely reversed at the end of the play, which depicts a woman completely defeated, seeking solace in death. It’s actually kind of funny how both of these characters—Wolsey and Katherine—regress at the end, both in essence being reduced to tears as they reflect upon all that has passed.
The ironic element of this play is the fact that our main character, Henry VIII, doesn’t really have that much to say. He’s mostly used as a tool that gets us to the conclusion. The play essentially is a vehicle to describe Elizabeth’s birth, prophesying how this infant will one day become a queen for the ages.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 524 reviews