The History of Rome, Book Ii From the Abolition of the Monarchy in Rome to the Union of Italy Book

This one is episode 6 of Shakespeare’s massive historical drama cycle on the Plantagenet / Lancaster / York dynasty. Previously (Henry VI, Part 1), the English lords were trying to forcibly stifle the French rebellion led by a diabolical Joan of Arc, while, back in England, Gloucester and Winchester were pitched against each other and the War of the Roses was slowly brewing. This Part 2 is composed of two very different sections and storylines, sewn together into one single play.

The first part (from the beginning until the end of act III) could be titled “The downfall of Gloucester” (recommended to all Ned Stark’s fans). Henry VI is as yet too young to reign, so his uncle Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, rules in his stead. This situation, of course, stirs the greediness of everyone around him. Winchester, Suffolk, York and the Queen (Margaret of Anjou) plot in every possible way to remove Gloucester, taking advantage of his weak spot: his ambitious wife Eleanor (who is a sort of Lady Macbeth). The whole conspiracy against Gloucester gives rise to a few exciting pieces of drama. For instance, York’s monologue (I, 1, 210 sqq.) heralds Richard III similar speech a couple of plays later. Another of his addresses (II, 2, 10 sqq.) is a different version of the royal family tree and can be compared with the one put forward by Mortimer in Part 1. Another still (III, 1, 331 sqq.) is a straight-out Machiavellian manifesto and, quite simply, a fantastic line. The whole thing, however, culminates in act III with a series of frenzied arguments which, in many cases, are borderline bombastic.

Meanwhile, the King comes across as a well-meaning but bumbling bigot. The eventual separation of his unfaithful Queen Margaret from the Duke of Suffolk (a sort of dark Tristan/Isolde affair) is perhaps intended to be emotional. Unfortunately, I confess that the pomposity and pathos of it all got a bit exhausting in the end.

The second part (acts IV and V) takes a very different turn. It starts with a sea battle and a band of pirates, and, soon after, Jack Cade’s topsy-turvy, down-and-out and blood-spattered rebellion. For the duration, Shakespeare set aside his iambic pentameter and wrote the whole thing in prose. There is something surprisingly familiar and modern about the description of this popular uprising. Cade is just as hysterical as the Pucelle in Part 1. Furthermore, his political programme sounds like insane pre-Marxist communism. I couldn’t help but think of today’s corybantic politicians when I read some of Cade’s lines (e.g. IV, 2, 61 sqq.) — by the way, he too has a line and a claim regarding the family tree (see IV, 2, 124 sqq.).

Nevertheless, it eventually goes tits-up, with a nightmarish carnival of rape, looting and butchery, until the flip-flopping people of London turn their back on him. The play closes with the epic battle of Saint Albans — the real starting point of the War of the Roses —, the death of Old Clifford (an echo of that of Young Talbot in the previous play), and the victory of the evil mastermind, the Duke of York. In short, an energetic and brilliant play.

Edit: The Hollow Crown: The Wars of the Roses 2016 TV adaptation of Henry VI, Parts 1 and 2 is a drastically rewritten and condensed version of Shakespeare's plays. Most of Talbot and all of Cade’s scenes have been removed from the plot, to focus on the Gloucester drama. In truth, Hugh Bonneville (best known for his role in Downton Abbey) offers a first-class performance. Sophie Okonedo, in the role of the treacherous French queen, is outstanding as well.

> Previous play in The War of the Roses: Henry VI, Part 1
> Next play: King Henry VI, Part 3