The
three plays that comprise Henry VI
are classified as histories, but they were never intended to be precise
accounts of historical events. These
plays were not historically accurate biopics but large-scale entertainment
meant to amuse, captivate, and inspire audiences with scenes of valor, cunning,
passion, humor, and English patriotism. Shakespeare
drew heavily on the historical chronicles written by Edward Hall and Raphael
Holinshed as sources, and he did accurately depict some historical events in Henry VI. However, he frequently deviated from history
when it suited his needs as a dramatist, omitting historical facts, condensing
timelines, inventing characters, and embellishing historical incidents.
 |
| from http://www.warsoftheroses.com/henryvi.cfm |
Shakespeare’s
decision not to incorporate the historical Henry VI’s bouts of extreme mental
illness into the plays bearing his name had a profound effect on the narrative
of Henry VI. The historical Henry VI was so incapacitated by
illness that other government officials, including the Lord Protector, were
forced to completely take over ruling the kingdom several times during his reign. The tenor of the plays of Henry VI would be very different if
Shakespeare had included depictions of Henry’s illness.
Instead, Shakespeare’s illustration of Henry
as an incredibly pious, virtuous man who perhaps lacked the forcefulness
required to navigate court intrigue and defend his crown, fit more with popular
perceptions of Henry VI, who was revered and respected for his piety. King Henry VII unsuccessfully attempted to
have Henry VI canonized as a saint, and a popular cult developed around Henry
VI during Henry VII’s reign. Public
regard for Henry VI steadily grew after his death, and Shakespeare’s depiction
of the pious king would have appealed to many of his sixteenth-century audience
members.
Henry VI, Part One provides a
multitude of examples small and large of Shakespeare altering or adding to
historical facts. While we don’t have
any personal writings in which Shakespeare explained his thought process,
scholars have posited why Shakespeare might have been inclined to stray from
historical details. Sometimes
Shakespeare changed historical facts because they were not crucial to the
plot. For example, the list of French
towns that the English messenger says have been lost in the beginning of the
play are historically incorrect but the intended effect of demonstrating that
the English are losing the land that Henry VI’s father famously won in France remains. Shakespeare invented new, fictitious characters
like the Countess of Auvergne, whose attempt to imprison Talbot in her castle
provides a moment of levity in the play and reinforces Talbot’s power in
France.
Shakespeare greatly condensed
historical events to create a play that covers decades of history in three
hours; for example, Joan of Arc convinces the Duke of Burgundy to defect from
the English in one scene in Act Three, whereas in reality his defection took
place four years after her death and was the result of ten years of negotiations
between him and the French nobles.
Shakespeare also relied on biased depictions of historical figures when
he knew it would appeal to his audience; his portrayal of Joan of Arc as a
conniving sorceress catered to a very pro-English, anti-French audience.
Shakespeare changed historical details to
create scenes with higher stakes and dramatic intensity; whereas the historical
John Talbot was one of Talbot’s several sons and was a grown man with children,
Shakespeare’s John Talbot is Talbot’s sole son, and he is young and unmarried,
making his death and the subsequent end of the Talbot bloodline more
poignant.
Shakespeare
continued the trend of choosing historical accuracy when it fit his needs as a
dramatist in Part Two and Part Three of Henry VI. Shakespeare
overlapped historical figures who did not meet in real life to create tension; the
shared dislike between Margaret and Eleanor is historically inaccurate because
Eleanor’s disgrace and downfall happened four years before Margaret came to the
English court. Shakespeare established
Margaret as a powerful, forceful woman at court immediately after her marriage,
having her collude with Suffolk to bring down Gloucester and having her fight
for power on Henry’s behalf, whereas the historical Margaret was only fifteen
and relatively politically inexperienced when she married Henry, and she did
not immediately get involved in power plays at the court. The affair between Suffolk and Margaret was
largely Shakespeare’s invention after he expanded on historical hints of
Suffolk’s interest in Margaret.
Shakespeare
invented York’s involvement in the Cade rebellion, and he drew more on the
Peasant’s Revolt than the historical Cade rebellion in his depiction of the
rebels, who, in reality, were reasonably educated middle- and upper-class
artisans. At the end of Part Two, Shakespeare incorporated the
Duke of York’s son, Richard, into the battle, although the historical Richard
was only two when the battle of Saint Albans took place. That was not the only time Shakespeare
changed a character’s age in Henry VI;
in Part Three, he decreased the age
of York’s youngest son, Rutland, which made his murder by Clifford more
shocking.
These
are just a few examples of Shakespeare’s changes to history in Henry VI. For more information, check out Peter
Saccio’s book Shakespeare’s English
Kings: History, Chronicle, and Drama, from which the examples of
Shakespeare’s adherence to and deviation from the historical record in Henry VI listed in this blog were
taken. For more information about Henry
VI’s legacy, look into David Grummitt’s book, Henry VI.
