The Wars of the Roses (adaptation)

Last updated

Cover of the play script published in 1970. The Wars of the Roses.jpg
Cover of the play script published in 1970.

The Wars of the Roses was a 1963 theatrical adaptation of William Shakespeare's first historical tetralogy ( 1 Henry VI , 2 Henry VI , 3 Henry VI and Richard III ), which deals with the conflict between the House of Lancaster and the House of York over the throne of England, a conflict known as the Wars of the Roses. The plays were adapted by John Barton, and directed by Barton and Peter Hall at the Royal Shakespeare Theatre. The production starred David Warner as Henry VI, Peggy Ashcroft as Margaret of Anjou, Donald Sinden as the Duke of York, Paul Hardwick as the Duke of Gloucester, Janet Suzman as Joan la Pucelle, Brewster Mason as the Earl of Warwick, Roy Dotrice as Edward IV, Susan Engel as Queen Elizabeth and Ian Holm as Richard III.

Contents

The plays were heavily politicised, with Barton and Hall allowing numerous contemporaneous events of the early 1960s to inform their adaptation. The production was a huge critical and commercial success, and is generally regarded as revitalizing the reputation of the Henry VI plays in the modern theatre. Many critics feel The Wars of the Roses set a standard for future productions of the tetralogy which has yet to be surpassed. In 1965, the BBC adapted the plays for television. The broadcast was so successful that they were shown again, in a differently edited form, in 1966. In 1970, BBC Books published the play scripts along with extensive behind-the-scenes information written by Barton and Hall, and other members of the Royal Shakespeare Company who worked on the production.

Theatrical

Rewriting

The most significant initial alteration to the original text was to conflate the four plays into a trilogy. This was not unprecedented, as adaptations from the seventeenth century onwards had employed truncation when staging the sequence, especially the Henry VI trilogy. In 1681, John Crowne adapted 2 Henry VI and 3 Henry VI into a two-part play called Henry the Sixth, The First Part and The Misery of Civil War . Henry the Sixth comprised Acts 1–3 of 2 Henry VI, with material added by Crowne himself, focusing mainly on the death of Gloucester, whilst Misery adapted the last two acts of 2 Henry VI and a shortened version of 3 Henry VI. [1] In 1699, Colley Cibber's The Tragical History of King Richard the Third used scenes from 3 Henry VI as a form of prologue to rest of the play, [2] establishing a tradition still in use in filmic adaptations of Richard III (see, for example, James Keane and André Calmettes's 1912 version, Laurence Olivier's 1955 version or Richard Loncraine's 1995 version). In 1723, Theophilus Cibber's King Henry VI: A Tragedy used Act 5 of 2 Henry VI and Acts 1 and 2 of 3 Henry VI. [3] In 1817, J.H. Merivale's Richard Duke of York; or the Contention of York and Lancaster used material from all three Henry VI plays, but removed everything not directly related to York. [4] Robert Atkins adapted all three plays into a single piece for a performance at The Old Vic in 1923 as part of the celebrations for the tercentenary of the First Folio . [5] In 1957, also at The Old Vic, Douglas Seale directed a production of the trilogy under the title The Wars of the Roses. Adapted by Barry Jackson, the trilogy was again altered to a two-part play; 1 Henry VI and 2 Henry VI were combined (with almost all of 1 Henry VI eliminated) and 3 Henry VI was performed in a shortened version. [6]

John Barton's adaptation would divide the plays up in a new way. The first play (Henry VI) featured a shortened version of 1 Henry VI and roughly half of 2 Henry VI (up to the death of Cardinal Beaufort). The second play (Edward IV) featured the second half of 2 Henry VI and a shortened version of 3 Henry VI. This was followed by a shortened version of Richard III as the third play. In all, 1,450 lines written by Barton were added to roughly 6,000 lines of original Shakespearean material, with a total of 12,350 lines removed. [7] Barton defended the controversial decision to cut from and add to the text on the grounds that the Henry VI plays "are not viable as they stand," arguing they needed to be adapted "in the interests of audience accessibility." [8] As an example of the alterations, in the original text, the character of the Duke of Exeter appears only in 1 Henry VI, whereas in The Wars of the Roses, he appears throughout all three plays, as a constant ally of Henry VI and the House of Lancaster. Numerous characters were also removed, such as Warwick's father, the Earl of Salisbury, a major character in 2 Henry VI, and some of the battle scenes were amalgamated to cut down on stage combat (such as the First Battle of St Albans and the Battle of Wakefield, which take place in 2 Henry VI and 3 Henry VI, respectively).

In his introduction to the published script of the plays, Peter Hall defended Barton's edits, arguing "there is a difference between interfering with the text of the mature Shakespeare and with the text of the Henry VI's. These plays are not only apprentice work, uneven in quality; we cannot be sure that Shakespeare was their sole author." [9] : vii–ix  In tandem with Barton, Hall also argued the plays simply didn't work in unedited form;

I have seen the original versions played twice. Shakespeare's voice is heard sporadically, and his vision, sharp and intense in some scenes, is swamped by the mass of Tudor history in others. All the same, I was doubtful about publishing our version. Our production was perceived with a knowledge of the whole text. If we cut an important passage, we only did so in the conviction that its values were being expressed in other ways. What follows is what we found meaningful in the 1960s in Shakespeare's view of history. Its values are ephemeral, and its judgements are inevitably of the decade which produced it and us. [9] : vii–ix 

Although some scholars were highly critical of Barton's edits, others praised them, arguing they improved on the originals. G.K. Hunter, for example, who was actually critical of the production itself, praised the editing, commenting that Barton was able to "cut away the superfluous fat, tap out the unhealthy fluids, and rescue from the diffuse, stumbling, dropsical giant, a trim, lithe, and with-it figure, sharp and resilient." [10] Frank Cox referred to the plays as "a triumph of scholarship and theatrical awareness," arguing that "by inspired weeding, contradiction, and even in places by brazen invention, he has created from a seldom revived mass of sword-rattling chronicles, a positive addition to the canon of popular works." [11] : 20  Robert Speaight argued the additions were so well integrated into the existing material, he was at times unable to distinguish between the original Shakespearean blank verse and Barton's new verse, whilst J.C. Trewin noted that although the changes to the plays represented the most drastic alteration to Shakespeare since the days of the Restoration, the resulting production was of such a consistently high quality that any such changes could be forgiven. [12]

Politics

In terms of the dramaturgy of the plays, Barton and Hall were both equally concerned they reflect, but not directly refer to, the contemporary political milieu . According to Trevor Nunn, when Hall founded the Royal Shakespeare Company in 1960, he "insisted upon one simple rule: that whenever the Company did a play by Shakespeare, they should do it because the play was relevant, because the play made some demand upon our current attention." [13] This was very much in evidence during the production of The Wars of the Roses. Both Hall and Barton felt the civil chaos and breakdown of society depicted in the plays were mirrored by the contemporary political situation, in events such as the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961, the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 and the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963. Hall argued that "we live among war, race riots, revolutions, assassinations, and the imminent threat of extinction. The theatre is, therefore, examining fundamentals in staging the Henry VI plays." [14] He also stated that during pre-production, "I realised that the mechanism of power had not changed in centuries. We were in the middle of a blood-soaked century. I was convinced that a presentation of one of the bloodiest and most hypocritical periods in history would teach many lessons about the present." [11] : 9  Similarly, in her introduction to the Folio Society edition of the trilogy, Peggy Ashcroft challenged William Hazlitt's dismissal of the Henry VI plays as a depiction of England as a "perfect beargarden", writing "perhaps because we are more aware than ever before what a beargarden the whole world is, we see in these plays a microcosm of so many of the violent and tragic conflicts of our own time. The romantic view of Shakespeare, popular with the Victorians and lasting almost to the first half of this century has now changed, and we have become more aware of Shakespeare's political absorption and inspired interpretations of man's difficulty in governing himself and others." [15]

Bertolt Brecht's theories of dramaturgy were especially influential on The Wars of the Roses. Bertolt-Brecht.jpg
Bertolt Brecht's theories of dramaturgy were especially influential on The Wars of the Roses.

Barton and Hall were also influenced by certain politically focused literary theory of the time; both were subscribers to Antonin Artaud's theory of the "Theatre of Cruelty", and both had attended the 1956 London visit of Bertolt Brecht's Berliner Ensemble. Brecht's influence on The Wars of the Roses was especially pronounced, and many scholars have since cited Brecht's theories on drama in general, and historical drama in specific, as the impetus behind the 'rediscovery' of the Henry VI plays in the 1960s. For example, Ton Hoenselaars argues that Brecht

provided a theatrical language and advanced a method of social analysis which together proved capable of turning Shakespeare's representation of politics in action into compelling drama [...] the impact of Brecht's view of the early histories as representations of the now historically distant decline and fall of medieval feudalism and the rise of the bourgeoisie was obvious [...] one of the major reasons why Brecht could trigger a truly international revival of interest in the neglected Henry VI plays was that by the 1960s, specific national interests were subordinated to supranational class concerns. [16]

Another major influence on the production was Jan Kott. Hall had read a proof copy of Kott's soon-to-be-influential Shakespeare Our Contemporary, prior to its publication in Britain, just before he began rehearsals for The Wars of the Roses. He was strongly taken by Kott's theory regarding Shakespeare's conception of the "Grand Mechanism" of history; as history continually revolves, each claimant to the throne rises, only to be subsequently deposed and crushed in an ongoing cycle. In the programme notes for Henry VI, Barton and Hall included a quotation from Kott, which they felt was especially relevant to their production;

There are two fundamental types of historical tragedy. The first is based on the conviction that history has a meaning, fulfils its objective tasks, and leads in a definite direction. Tragedy here consists in the cost of history, the price of progress that humanity must pay. The tragic figure then is the man out of step. He who hinders or hurries the relentless steamroller of history must also be crushed by it, simply because he comes too soon or too late [...] There is another kind of historical tragedy, originating in the conviction that history has no meaning but stands still, or constantly repeats its cruel cycle; that it is an elemental force, like hail, storm, hurricane, birth and death. [17]

In Shakespeare's histories, the Grand Mechanism is manifested nowhere more clearly than in the rise and fall of Richard III. Kott argued that "Richard is impersonal like history itself. He is the consciousness and mastermind of the Grand Mechanism. He puts in motion the roller of history, and later is crushed by it. Psychology does not apply to him. He is just history, one of its ever-repeating characters. He has no face." [18] This concept of Richard as a faceless personification of the process of a cyclical history became extremely important in Ian Holm's performance. Whilst some critics felt that Holm was physically too slight to play such a 'large' character, this was precisely the point. Holm's Richard is not the dominating larger-than-life presence of the third play as he appears on the page, but is instead a small figure, nurtured by, trapped within and ultimately destroyed by the times that have produced him. Holm himself has stated "I played Richard very much as a cog in the historical wheel, and not as an individual character. We tried very hard to get away from the Olivier/Irving image of the great Machiavellian villain." [11] : 54 

Both directors were also supporters of E.M.W. Tillyard's 1944 book Shakespeare's History Plays, which was still a hugely influential text in Shakespearean scholarship, especially in terms of its argument that the tetralogy advanced the Tudor myth or "Elizabethan World Picture"; the theory that Henry VII was a divinely appointed redeemer, sent to rescue England from a century of bloodshed and chaos initiated upon the usurpation and murder of the divinely ordained Richard II, a century which reached its debased and cruel apotheosis in Richard III. [19] According to Hall, "all Shakespeare's thinking, whether religious, political or moral, is based upon a complete acceptance of this concept of order. There is a just proportion in all things: man is above beast, king is above man, and God above king [...] Revolution, whether in the individual's temperament, in the family, or in the state or the heavens, destroys the order and leads to destructive anarchy." [9] : x  Indeed, the programme notes for Henry VI included an article entitled "The Cycle of a Curse," which states that "as Orestes was haunted in Greek drama, so Englishmen fight each other to expunge the curse pronounced upon Bolingbroke's usurpation of the tragically weak Richard II." [20] : 14  Similarly, in the notes for Edward IV, Hall wrote, "underlying these plays is the curse on the House of Lancaster. Bolingbroke deposed Richard II to become Henry IV. Richard II was a weak and sometimes a bad king, ungoverned, unbalanced; he could not order the body politic. Yet for Shakespeare, his deposition is a wound on the body politic, which festers through reign after reign, a sin which can only be expiated by blood-letting. The bloody totalitarianism of Richard III is the expiation of England." [20] : 76 

John Jowett argues the production very much reinforced the teleological assumptions upon which the Tudor myth is based; "it generated an epic sense of history as a horrific process. Richard's deeds, far from appearing as gratuitous crimes, were the final retributive throes of a sequence of events starting far back in the murder of Richard II." [21] Randall Martin similarly writes "Barton created a compelling dynastic saga about the houses of Lancaster and York, as one falls and the other triumphs - or appears to do so. This emphasis on family history over any single personal story was reinforced by the plays' relationship to the wider cycle, which affiliated individual episodes to an epic structure and teleological interpretation of history." [22] Likewise, Nicholas Grene explains that "as Tillyard saw the history plays, they were the grandly consistent embodiment of the orthodox political and social morality of the Elizabethan period, preaching order and hierarchy, condemning factious power-seeking and the anarchy of civil war to which it led, commending the divinely sanctioned centralised monarchy of the Tudors. Barton and Hall worked to homogenise, to accentuate and underline the orthodoxy postulated by Tillyard." [23]

Production

However, although the political sphere was very much to the fore in the thematic foundations of the production, unlike many other politically minded productions of the tetralogy (such as, for example, Michael Bogdanov's production of both historical tetralogies for the English Shakespeare Company in 1987), modern parallels were not brought out in the actual performance. Barton and Hall were insistent there be no direct references to contemporary events in the production itself; "instead, contemporary issues were used to help the company explore the political and psychological meanings of the plays." [24] The plays were approached as a collective analysis of power, with the behaviour of unscrupulous politicians contrasted with the political innocence and religious idealism of Henry. As Hall argued, "in theory, he should be a good king. He applies Christian ethics to government. But he is up against men who don't. They justify their behaviour by invoking the great sanctions – God, the King, Parliament, the People – that unscrupulous statesmen, motivated by the naked desire to be on top, have used throughout the ages. Here is the central irony of the play: Henry's Christian goodness produces evil." [11] : xiv 

In order to capture this sense of innocence, Barton and Hall took what was considered a huge risk - casting an inexperienced twenty-two-year-old actor as Henry; David Warner. The gamble paid off, and Warner's Henry was one of the most celebrated performances in the piece, helping to establish both Warner the actor and Henry the character. Harold Hobson wrote in The Sunday Times that Warner "discovers in Henry one of Shakespeare's greatest parts. The discovery is the more exciting for being improbable, since drama gives its principal opportunities to active men. Henry is never active [...] He suffers only, and endures, never resisting, never striking back [...] Yet [Warner's] sad, distressed face, meeting each new misfortune with an absolute absence of protest or indignation, spreads over the darkest waters of the play a quiet and persistent golden glory." [25] Speaking of Henry's death, in which he gently kisses Richard after being mortally stabbed, The Observer 's Kenneth Tynan wrote "I have seen nothing more Christ-like in modern theatre." [26] Writing in the Signet Classics Shakespeare edition of 1 Henry VI in 1967, Lawrence V. Ryan remarked that "unlike the almost featureless, nearly imbecilic Henry of historical legend and of earlier productions [...] Warner showed the king as growing from youthful naiveté and subservience to the intriguers around him into a man of perception and personal integrity entrapped in and lamenting a world of violence not of his own making." [27] In his 2001 Oxford Shakespeare edition of 3 Henry VI, Randall Martin writes "Warner created a painfully shy, physically awkward, but ultimately saintly figure, who passed through agonies of doubt before reaching a Christ-like serenity. He characterised Henry above all through qualities of deep piety and lost innocence." [28]

Peggy Ashcroft in 1962. Ashcroft relished the opportunity to develop the character of Margaret of Anjou over all four plays, and her resulting performance was one of the most lauded aspects of the entire production. Actrice Peggy Ashcroft op Schiphol voor optreden in Stadsschouwburg, Bestanddeelnr 914-0309.jpg
Peggy Ashcroft in 1962. Ashcroft relished the opportunity to develop the character of Margaret of Anjou over all four plays, and her resulting performance was one of the most lauded aspects of the entire production.

Another lauded performance was that of Peggy Ashcroft as Margaret, whose role is usually heavily cut, and often eliminated entirely from both 1 Henry VI and, especially, Richard III. Margaret is the only character to appear in all four plays (unless one counts the Ghost of Henry VI in Richard III), and Ashcroft relished the chance to develop the character over the entire production, arguing that Margaret is "a Dark Lady if ever there was one - and prototype for Cressida, Cleopatra, Lady Macbeth - was Shakespeare's first "heroine" - if such she can be called [...] It takes four plays to make her one of the great female characters in Shakespeare - and the full-length portrait has been seen only in The Wars of the Roses cycle - but she has facets that are not touched on in any other." [15] Ashcroft saw the scene from 2 Henry VI where she appears on-stage carrying the head of her lover, the Duke of Suffolk, as pivotal to both the character's development and her own understanding of Margaret; "I came to realise why this scene was of paramount importance - for later in what is one of the greatest and certainly most horrific scenes [...] when Margaret wipes the blood of York's son on the Duke's face [...] I found that seemingly impossible bestial act to be credible as the result of the violence that has been perpetrated on her lover." [29]

John Russell Brown singled out Ashcroft's performance during this scene as especially noteworthy, arguing that her performance, with its mixture of hatred, violence and laughter, "was a portrayal of weakness in cruelty, helplessness in victory [...] the cruel humour of the lines was played close to hysteria: "I prithee grieve to make me merry" was an almost necessary request to excuse Margaret's impulse towards helpless laughter, a physical and emotional relief and a breakdown of control." [30] Writing in the Financial Times , T.C. Worsley commented, "I shall long remember the speech she makes to her dispirited followers making their last stand. She summons some inner strength from out of the weariness of defeat and, though she speaks like a lioness, the beast in her, you can feel, is already dead." [31] Randall Martin wrote

Ashcroft's full-spectrum performance [extended] the dramatic boundaries of Margaret's public agency and personal emotions. This came about [...] in part because of [Hall and Barton's] emphasis on psychological detail and motivational complexity. Ashcroft convinced audiences of Margaret's human growth from passionate youth to self-possessed maturity. By the time she reached Edward IV, and until the moment of Prince Edward's death, she dominated the production's two main sites of power and conflict; the council-board and the battlefield [...] At the same time, Ashcroft strongly conveyed Part Three's new dimension of maternal solicitude, problematizing the Amazon stereotype to which her male opponents always seek to reduce her. [32]

Another especially celebrated aspect of the production was the set, designed by John Bury, who used the work of Karl von Appen and Caspar Neher as his primary visual inspiration. Bury constructed the set primarily from plated steel, even the walls and floors were covered in textured metal, giving the entire stage a cold, metallic appearance. [33] At the back of the stage was a steel trellis and movable walls of triangular shape covered with riveted plates. [34] T.C. Worlsey commented of the set that "we seem to be claustrophobically caught between two swinging metal wings that crush us from one side then from the other." [31] According to Bury, "this was a period of armour and a period of the sword; they were plays about warfare, about power, about danger [...] This was the image of the plays. We wanted an image rather than a naturalistic setting. We were trying to make a world, a dangerous world, a terrible world, in which all these happenings fit." [35] Bury employed the notion of "selective realism"; using one or two realistic props to emphasise the social dimensions of the narrative. In this case, such realism was manifested by a massive oval shaped iron council table which took up a large portion of the stage - the constantly changing group of figures who sit at the table visually emphasising the turbulence and political instability of the period. [33] Peter Hall himself wrote of the set, "on the flagged floor of sheet steel tables are daggers, staircases are axe-heads, and doors the traps on scaffolds. Nothing yields: stone walls have lost their seduction and now loom dangerously - steel-clad - to enclose and to imprison. The countryside offers no escape, the danger is still there in the iron foliage of the cruel trees, and, surrounding all, the great steel cage of war." [9] : 237 

Reception

The production was hailed as a triumph, and is generally recognised as reviving the reputation of the Henry VI plays in the modern theatre. [21] [20] : 72–74  [36] Writing for the Daily Mail , Bernard Levin called it a

monumental production. One of the mightiest stage projects of our time, a production to remember all our lives, whose final third was carried through to the end with the same bloodstained power, the same attention to the verse and the depth of characters who speak it that characterised the first two-thirds. The last scene - the Battle of Bosworth - sums up and sets the seal on all that has gone before. At the end Richard, broken, mad, and exhausted, a Hitler with only his visor for a bunker, summons up his last strength for the duel with Richmond. It is savage, primitive, and horrible: so were the Wars of the Roses. [37]

Harold Hobson wrote "I doubt if anything as valuable has ever been done for Shakespeare in the whole history of the stage." [25] The adaptation was immediately seen as the yardstick against which all future productions would be measured, and as late as 2000, it was still regarded by some critics as the finest ever production of the tetralogy; reviewing Michael Boyd's 2000/2001 production for the RSC, Carole Woddis wrote The Wars of the Roses "remains still the benchmark in terms of political and psychological elucidation and drive." [38]

Television

In 1965, BBC 1 broadcast all three plays from the trilogy. Produced by Michael Barry and directed for television by Robin Midgley and Michael Hayes, the plays were presented as more than simply filmed theatre, with the core idea being "to recreate theatre production in televisual terms - not merely to observe it, but to get to the heart of it." [39] Filming was done on the Royal Shakespeare Theatre stage, but not during actual performances, thus allowing cameras to get close to the actors, and cameramen with hand-held cameras to shoot battle scenes. Additionally, camera platforms were created around the theatre. In all, twelve cameras were used, allowing the final product to be edited more like a film than a piece of static filmed theatre. The TV adaptation was shot following the 1964 run of the plays at Stratford-upon-Avon, and took place over an eight-week period, with fifty-two BBC staff working alongside eighty-four RSC staff to bring the project to fruition. [40]

1965 broadcast

Henry VI

David Warner in 2013. Warner was a relatively unknown actor when he was cast as Henry VI, and his casting was considered a risk by some. However, his subsequent performance received critical acclaim. David Warner (Actor) Rory Lewis Photographer.jpg
David Warner in 2013. Warner was a relatively unknown actor when he was cast as Henry VI, and his casting was considered a risk by some. However, his subsequent performance received critical acclaim.
  • Originally aired: 8 April 1965
  • Content: Abridged versions of 1 Henry VI and 2 Henry VI up to Act 3, Scene 2 (Winchester's death).

The English

The French

Edward IV

Ian Holm in 2004. Holm portrayed Richard III in an understated manner, wanting his performance to move away from the larger-than-life Machiavellian villain seen in other productions and films. Ian Holm.jpg
Ian Holm in 2004. Holm portrayed Richard III in an understated manner, wanting his performance to move away from the larger-than-life Machiavellian villain seen in other productions and films.
  • Originally aired: 15 April 1965
  • Content: A newly written scene followed by 2 Henry VI from Act 4, Scene 1 (the introduction of Jack Cade) onwards, and an abridged version of 3 Henry VI.

The House of Lancaster

The House of York

The Commons

The French

Richard III

  • Originally aired: 22 April 1965
  • Abridged version of Richard III.

The House of York

The House of Lancaster

Reconcilers of the Two Houses

The Commons

1966 broadcast

In 1966, the production was repeated on BBC 1 where it was re-edited into eleven episodes of fifty minutes each. [41]

"The Inheritance"
"Margaret of Anjou"
"The Lord Protector"
"The Council Board"
"The Fearful King"
"The Kingmaker"
"Edward of York"
"The Prophetess"
"Richard of Gloucester"
"Richard the King"
"Henry Tudor"

DVD

In June 2016, Illuminations Media released the series on DVD for the first time. Presented in the original three-play format, the box-set also included a new "Making of" featurette, featuring interviews with David Warner and Janet Suzman. [42]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Edward V of England</span> King of England in 1483

Edward V was King of England from 9 April to 25 June 1483. He succeeded his father, Edward IV, upon the latter's death. Edward V was never crowned, and his brief reign was dominated by the influence of his uncle and Lord Protector, the Duke of Gloucester, who deposed him to reign as King Richard III; this was confirmed by the Act entitled Titulus Regius, which denounced any further claims through his father's heirs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Henry VI of England</span> King of England (1422–61, 1470–71)

Henry VI was King of England from 1422 to 1461 and again from 1470 to 1471, and disputed King of France from 1422 to 1453. The only child of Henry V, he succeeded to the English throne at the age of nine months upon his father's death, and succeeded, disputedly, to the French throne on the death of his maternal grandfather, Charles VI, shortly afterwards.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence</span> English magnate (1449–1478)

George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence, was the sixth child and third surviving son of Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York, and Cecily Neville, and the brother of English kings Edward IV and Richard III. He played an important role in the dynastic struggle between rival factions of the Plantagenets now known as the Wars of the Roses.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Battle of Barnet</span> 1471 engagement in the Wars of the Roses

The Battle of Barnet was a decisive engagement in the Wars of the Roses, a dynastic conflict of 15th-century England. The military action, along with the subsequent Battle of Tewkesbury, secured the throne for Edward IV.

<i>Richard II</i> (play) History play by William Shakespeare

The Life and Death of King Richard the Second, commonly called Richard II, is a history play by William Shakespeare believed to have been written around 1595. Based on the life of King Richard II of England, it chronicles his downfall and the machinations of his nobles. It is the first part of a tetralogy, referred to by some scholars as the Henriad, followed by three plays about Richard's successors: Henry IV, Part 1; Henry IV, Part 2; and Henry V.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">House of Lancaster</span> Cadet branch of the House of Plantagenet

The House of Lancaster was a cadet branch of the royal House of Plantagenet. The first house was created when King Henry III of England created the Earldom of Lancaster—from which the house was named—for his second son Edmund Crouchback in 1267. Edmund had already been created Earl of Leicester in 1265 and was granted the lands and privileges of Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester, after de Montfort's death and attainder at the end of the Second Barons' War. When Edmund's son Thomas, 2nd Earl of Lancaster, inherited his father-in-law's estates and title of Earl of Lincoln he became at a stroke the most powerful nobleman in England, with lands throughout the kingdom and the ability to raise vast private armies to wield power at national and local levels. This brought him—and Henry, his younger brother—into conflict with their cousin King Edward II, leading to Thomas's execution. Henry inherited Thomas's titles and he and his son, who was also called Henry, gave loyal service to Edward's son King Edward III.

<i>Richard III</i> (play) Shakespearean history play

Richard III is a play by William Shakespeare. It was probably written c. 1592–1594. It is labelled a history in the First Folio, and is usually considered one, but it is sometimes called a tragedy, as in the quarto edition. Richard III concludes Shakespeare's first tetralogy and depicts the Machiavellian rise to power and subsequent short reign of King Richard III of England.

<i>Edward III</i> (play) 1596 play often attributed to Shakespeare

The Raigne of King Edward the Third, commonly shortened to Edward III, is an Elizabethan play printed anonymously in 1596, and at least partly written by William Shakespeare. It began to be included in publications of the complete works of Shakespeare only in the late 1990s. Scholars who have supported this attribution include Jonathan Bate, Edward Capell, Eliot Slater, Eric Sams, Giorgio Melchiori and Brian Vickers. The play's co-author remains the subject of debate: suggestions have included Thomas Kyd, Christopher Marlowe, Michael Drayton, Thomas Nashe and George Peele.

<i>Henry VI, Part 1</i> Play by Shakespeare

Henry VI, Part 1, often referred to as 1 Henry VI, is a history play by William Shakespeare—possibly in collaboration with Thomas Nashe and others—believed to have been written in 1591. It is set during the lifetime of King Henry VI of England.

<i>Henry VI, Part 2</i> Play by Shakespeare

Henry VI, Part 2 is a history play by William Shakespeare believed to have been written in 1591 and set during the lifetime of King Henry VI of England. Whereas Henry VI, Part 1 deals primarily with the loss of England's French territories and the political machinations leading up to the Wars of the Roses, and Henry VI, Part 3 deals with the horrors of that conflict, 2 Henry VI focuses on the King's inability to quell the bickering of his nobles, the death of his trusted adviser Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, the rise of the Duke of York and the inevitability of armed conflict. As such, the play culminates with the opening battle of the War, the First Battle of St Albans (1455).

<i>Henry VI, Part 3</i> 1591 play by Shakespeare

Henry VI, Part 3 is a history play by William Shakespeare believed to have been written in 1591 and set during the lifetime of King Henry VI of England. Whereas 1 Henry VI deals with the loss of England's French territories and the political machinations leading up to the Wars of the Roses and 2 Henry VI focuses on the King's inability to quell the bickering of his nobles, and the inevitability of armed conflict, 3 Henry VI deals primarily with the horrors of that conflict, with the once stable nation thrown into chaos and barbarism as families break down and moral codes are subverted in the pursuit of revenge and power.

<i>BBC Television Shakespeare</i> Series of British TV adaptations of the plays of Shakespeare

The BBC Television Shakespeare is a series of British television adaptations of the plays of William Shakespeare, created by Cedric Messina and broadcast by BBC Television. Transmitted in the UK from 3 December 1978 to 27 April 1985, the series spanned seven seasons and thirty-seven episodes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Shakespearean history</span> Shakespeares history plays

In the First Folio, the plays of William Shakespeare were grouped into three categories: comedies, histories, and tragedies. The histories—along with those of contemporary Renaissance playwrights—help define the genre of history plays. The Shakespearean histories are biographies of English kings of the previous four centuries and include the standalones King John, Edward III and Henry VIII as well as a continuous sequence of eight plays. These last are considered to have been composed in two cycles. The so-called first tetralogy, apparently written in the early 1590s, covers the Wars of the Roses saga and includes Henry VI, Parts I, II & III and Richard III. The second tetralogy, finished in 1599 and including Richard II, Henry IV, Parts I & II and Henry V, is frequently called the Henriad after its protagonist Prince Hal, the future Henry V.

This England: The Histories was a season of Shakespeare's history plays staged by the Royal Shakespeare Company in 2000–2001. The company staged both of Shakespeare's tetralogies of history plays so that audiences could see all eight plays over several days. The plays staged were: Richard II, Henry IV, Part 1, Henry IV, Part 2, Henry V, Henry VI, Part 1, Henry VI, Part 2, Henry VI, Part 3, and Richard III.

The Tudor myth is the tradition in English history, historiography and literature that presents the 15th century, including the Wars of the Roses, in England as a dark age of anarchy and bloodshed. The narrative that the Tudor myth perpetrated was curated with the political purpose of promoting the Tudor period of the 16th century as a golden age of peace, law, order, and prosperity. The hope was to elevate King Henry VII's rulership compared to his predecessors.

<i>Richard III</i> (1699 play) Play by Colley Cibber

The Tragical History Of King Richard Iii, Alter'd From Shakespeare (1699) is a history play written by Colley Cibber. It is based on William Shakespeare's Richard III, but reworked for Williamite audiences.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Barton (director)</span>

John Bernard Adie Barton, CBE, was a British theatre director and teacher whose close association with the Royal Shakespeare Company spanned more than half a century.

<i>An Age of Kings</i> 1960 British TV series

An Age of Kings is a fifteen-part serial adaptation of the eight sequential history plays of William Shakespeare, produced and broadcast in Britain by the BBC in 1960. The United States broadcast of the series the following year was hosted by University of Southern California professor Frank Baxter, who provided an introduction for each episode specifically tailored for the American audience. At the time, the show was the most ambitious Shakespearean television adaptation ever made, and was a critical and commercial success in both the UK and the US. Performed live, all episodes were telerecorded during their original broadcast.

"Henry VI, Part 2" is second episode of the second series of the British television series The Hollow Crown, based on the plays Henry VI, Part 2 and Henry VI, Part 3 by William Shakespeare. It was directed by Dominic Cooke, who also adapted the screenplay with Ben Power. It starred Tom Sturridge as Henry VI, Sophie Okonedo as Queen Margaret and Benedict Cumberbatch as Richard. The adaptation presents Henry VI in two parts, incorporating all three Henry VI plays. It was first broadcast on 14 May 2016 on BBC Two.

References

  1. ↑ Knowles, Ronald, ed. (2001). King Henry VI Part 2. The Arden Shakespeare, Third Series. London: Methuen. pp. 2–3. ISBN   9781903436639.
  2. ↑ Siemon, James R., ed. (2009). Richard III. The Arden Shakespeare, Third Series. London: Methuen. pp. 87–91. ISBN   9781903436899.
  3. ↑ Warren, Roger, ed. (2003). Henry VI, Part Two. The Oxford Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 7. ISBN   9780199537426.
  4. ↑ Knowles, Ronald, ed. (2001). King Henry VI Part 2. The Arden Shakespeare, Third Series. London: Methuen. pp. 4–5. ISBN   9781903436639.
  5. ↑ Martin, Randall, ed. (2001). Henry VI, Part Three. The Oxford Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 84. ISBN   9780199537112.
  6. ↑ Hattaway, Martin, ed. (1993). The Third Part of King Henry VI. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 44–45. ISBN   9780521377058.
  7. ↑ Taylor, Michael, ed. (2003). Henry VI, Part One. The Oxford Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 33. ISBN   9780199537105.
  8. ↑ Quoted in Hodgon, Barbara (1972). "The Wars of the Roses: Scholarship Speaks on the Stage". Shakespeare Jahrbuch. 108: 170.
  9. 1 2 3 4 Barton, John; Hall, Peter (1970). The Wars of the Roses: Adapted for the Royal Shakespeare Company from William Shakespeare's Henry VI, Parts 1, 2, 3 and Richard III. London: BBC Books. ISBN   9780563065135.
  10. ↑ Hunter, G.K. (1978). "The Royal Shakespeare Company Plays Henry VI". Renaissance Drama. 9: 97. doi:10.1086/rd.9.41917153. ISSN   2164-3415. JSTOR   41917153. S2CID   193083141.
  11. 1 2 3 4 Quoted in Pearson, Richard (1991). A Band of Arrogant and United Heroes: The Story of the Royal Shakespeare Company's Staging of The Wars of the Roses. London: Adelphi. ISBN   9781856540056.
  12. ↑ Ryan, Lawrence V., ed. (2005) [1967]. Henry VI, Part I. The Signet Classics Shakespeare (2nd revised ed.). New York: Signet. p. 215. ISBN   9780451529848.
  13. ↑ Quoted in Berry, Ralph (1989) [1977]. On Directing Shakespeare (2nd ed.). London: Hamish Hamilton. p.  56. ISBN   9780241126899.
  14. ↑ Quoted in Goodwin, John (1964). Royal Shakespeare Theatre Company, 1960–1963. London: Max Reinhardt. p. 47.
  15. 1 2 Quoted in Ryan, Lawrence V., ed. (2005) [1967]. Henry VI, Part I. The Signet Classics Shakespeare (2nd revised ed.). New York: Signet. p. 217. ISBN   9780451529848.
  16. ↑ Hoenselaars, Ton (2004). "Part II Introduction: The Appropriated Past". In Hoenselaars, Ton (ed.). Shakespeare's History Plays: Performance, Translation and Adaptation in Britain and Abroad. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 112. ISBN   9780521035484.
  17. ↑ Quoted in Grene, Nicholas (2002). Shakespeare's Serial History Plays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 46. ISBN   9780521045636.
  18. ↑ See Kott, Jan (1967). Shakespeare Our Contemporary. London: Methuen. pp. 32–47. ISBN   9780416696806.
  19. ↑ Knowles, Ronald, ed. (2001). King Henry VI Part 2. The Arden Shakespeare, Third Series. London: Methuen. pp. 12–13. ISBN   9781903436639.
  20. 1 2 3 Quoted in Richmond, Hugh M. (1989). Shakespeare in Performance: Richard III . Manchester: Manchester University Press. ISBN   9780719027239.
  21. 1 2 Jowett, John, ed. (2000). The Tragedy of King Richard III. The Oxford Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p.  101. ISBN   9780199535880.
  22. ↑ Martin, Randall, ed. (2001). Henry VI, Part Three. The Oxford Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 66. ISBN   9780199537112.
  23. ↑ Grene, Nicholas (2002). Shakespeare's Serial History Plays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 45. ISBN   9780521045636.
  24. ↑ Warren, Roger, ed. (2003). Henry VI, Part Two. The Oxford Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 10–11. ISBN   9780199537426.
  25. 1 2 Hobson, Harold (21 July 1963). "The Wars of the Roses Review". The Sunday Times .
  26. ↑ Tynan, Kenneth (21 July 1963). "The Wars of the Roses Review". The Observer .
  27. ↑ Quoted in Ryan, Lawrence V., ed. (2005) [1967]. Henry VI, Part I. The Signet Classics Shakespeare (2nd revised ed.). New York: Signet. p. 216. ISBN   9780451529848.
  28. ↑ Martin, Randall, ed. (2001). Henry VI, Part Three. The Oxford Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 38–39. ISBN   9780199537112.
  29. ↑ Ashcroft, Peggy (1973). "Margaret of Anjou". Shakespeare Jahrbuch. 109: 7–8.
  30. ↑ Brown, John Russell (1965). "Three Kinds of Shakespeare: 1964 Productions at London, Stratford-upon-Avon and Edinburgh". Shakespeare Survey. 18: 152. doi:10.1017/CCOL0521064317.013. ISBN   9781139052986 . Retrieved 6 September 2014.(subscription required)
  31. 1 2 Worsley, T.C. (18 July 1963). "The Wars of the Roses Review". Financial Times .
  32. ↑ Martin, Randall, ed. (2001). Henry VI, Part Three. The Oxford Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 87–88. ISBN   9780199537112.
  33. 1 2 Loehlin, James N. (2004). "Brecht and the rediscovery of Henry VI". In Hoenselaars, Ton (ed.). Shakespeare's History Plays: Performance, Translation and Adaptation in Britain and Abroad. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 138–139. ISBN   9780521035484.
  34. ↑ Hattaway, Michael, ed. (1990). The First Part of King Henry VI. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.  46–47. ISBN   9780521296342.
  35. ↑ Quoted in Greenwald, Michael (1986). "Henry VI". In Leiter, Samuel L. (ed.). Shakespeare Around the Globe: A Guide to Notable Postwar Revivals. New York: Greenwood. p.  234. ISBN   9780313237560.
  36. ↑ Warren, Roger, ed. (2003). Henry VI, Part Two. The Oxford Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 9–10. ISBN   9780199537426.
  37. ↑ Levin, Bernard (21 July 1963). "The Wars of the Roses Review". Daily Mail .
  38. ↑ Woddis, Carole (19 December 2000). "Henry VI, Part 2 Review". The Herald .
  39. ↑ Lennox, Patricia (2001). "Henry VI: A Television History in Four Parts". In Pendleton, Thomas A. (ed.). Henry VI: Critical Essays. London: Routledge. p. 243. ISBN   9780815338925.
  40. ↑ Griffin, Alice V. (Winter 1966). "Shakespeare Through the Camera's Eye: IV". Shakespeare Quarterly . 17 (4): 385. doi:10.2307/2867913. JSTOR   2867913.
  41. ↑ Willis, Susan (1991). The BBC Shakespeare Plays: Making the Televised Canon . Carolina: North Carolina Press. p.  328. ISBN   9780807819630.
  42. ↑ "The Wars of the Roses". Illuminations Media. Retrieved 25 May 2016.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.