{"id":187,"date":"2024-04-13T18:09:17","date_gmt":"2024-04-14T01:09:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ajdrake.com\/shakespeare\/?page_id=187"},"modified":"2026-02-27T17:52:15","modified_gmt":"2026-02-28T01:52:15","slug":"2-henry-vi-2","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.ajdrake.com\/shakespeare\/2-henry-vi-2\/","title":{"rendered":"2 Henry VI"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Commentaries on
Shakespeare’s History Plays<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
HOME<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
OLLI<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
QUESTIONS<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
COMMENTARIES<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
AUDIO<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
GUIDES<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
LINKS<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Shakespeare, William [and possibly Christopher Marlowe]. The Second Part of Henry the Sixth.<\/em> Folio. (The Norton Shakespeare: Histories,<\/em> 3rd ed. 147-218.) *Norton lists Shakespeare as sole author of this play.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Shakespeare Sources & Resources:<\/strong>\u00a0 RSC Resources<\/a>\u00a0|\u00a0ISE Resources<\/a>\u00a0|\u00a0S-O Sources<\/a>\u00a0| 1623 Folio 476-502 (Folger)<\/a> | Holinshed & Plays Compared: 2 Henry VI<\/em><\/a> | Holinshed Chronicles <\/em>onHenry VI<\/em><\/a> | Holinshed Chronicles <\/em>onEdward IV<\/em><\/a> | Hall\u2019s Chronicle, Henry VI<\/em><\/a> | Mirrour for Magistrates: Duke of York<\/em><\/a> | Mirrour for Magistrates: Henry VI<\/em><\/a> | Historic Royal Palaces: Henry VI<\/a> | \u201cAttributing Henry VI<\/em> Authorship \u2026\u201d (Ribeiro\/JSTOR)<\/a> <\/strong>| \u201cShakespeare and Marlowe\u201d (Folger SU Podcast)<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Encyclopedias\/Lexica:<\/strong> Britannica.com<\/a> <\/strong>| <\/strong>World History Encyclopedia<\/a> <\/strong>| <\/strong>Wikipedia<\/a> | Wiktionary<\/a> | C. T. Onions\u2019 Shakespeare Dictionary<\/a> | A. Schmidt\u2019s Shakespeare Dictionary<\/a> | Concordance (Shakespeare Network)<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Comprehensive Shakespeare:<\/strong> Folger Shakespeare Library<\/a> | RSC Shakespeare\u2019s Plays<\/a> | Shakespeare-Online (Mabillard)<\/a> | Internet Shakespeare Editions (U-Vic)<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Text\/Media Repositories:<\/strong> U-Penn Books Page<\/a> | Holinshed Project<\/a> | Early English Books (EEBO)<\/a> | Renascence\/Luminarium<\/a> | Gutenberg<\/a> | HathiTrust<\/a> | Internet Archive<\/a> | M\u00fcnchen Digital Lib. (MDZ)<\/a> | Wikisource<\/a> | Wikimedia Commons<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

English & European Royals:<\/strong> English Monarchy Timeline (Drake)<\/a> | English Monarchs<\/a> | Kings & Queens of Britain (Historic-UK)<\/a> | Historic-UK.com<\/a> | Shakespeare <\/a>& History<\/a> | Family Trees: Edward III  \/ Neville \/ Percy (Hist. of Eng.)<\/a> | Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford)<\/a> |Burke\u2019s Peerage<\/a> | European Royal History<\/a> | French Rulers 840 CE to Present (Thoughtco)<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hundred Years\u2019 War: <\/strong>Medievalists.net<\/a> | 100 Years\u2019 War (Britannica)<\/a> | 100 Years\u2019 War (WHE)<\/a> | 100 Years\u2019 War Timeline<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wars of the Roses:<\/strong> Wars of the Roses.com<\/a> | <\/strong>Key People<\/a>|Battles Timeline<\/a> <\/strong>| <\/strong>Battles (Brit. Battles)<\/a> | Battles (Battlefields Trust)<\/a> | R3 Society: Wars of the Roses<\/a> | R3 House of York Timeline<\/a> | History Extra<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Tudors: <\/strong>Tudor Society<\/a> | TudorHistory.org<\/a> | The Tudors (Eng-Heritage UK)<\/a> | Life in Elizabethan England (M. Secara)<\/a> | Elizabethan Era.org<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Date and New Oxford Shakespeare Attribution Note: <\/strong>The editors of the Oxford Shakespeare give a date for 2 Henry VI <\/em>of 1590, with a range of 1587-91, and probable revisions by Shakespeare in the mid-1590s. As for authorship, they identify in their Folio-based 1623 copy Scenes 9-12 (i.e., Act 3) and Young Clifford\u2019s speech at Scene 24.31-65. Marlowe, they suggest, probably wrote in large part the Jack Cade material in Act 4. Authorship for all else in this play is described as \u201ccontested.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ACT 1<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Act 1, Scene 1 (148-54, King Henry VI meets his Queen consort Margaret, whom Suffolk has transported from France; Cardinal Beaufort, Buckingham, and Somerset wrangle with Gloucester, who is backed by Salisbury and his son Warwick; in soliloquy, York expresses his strong ambition to become king.)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Act 1, Scene 1, the Marquess of Suffolk [1]<\/a> returns from France in April 1445 to present the young English king, Henry VI, with his queen consort, Margaret of Anjou, niece of the French King Charles VII and daughter of King Ren\u00e9 of Naples. The Marquess himself explains that he served as ceremonial or proxy husband to Margaret while still in France, saying, \u201cI have performed my task and was espoused, \/ And humbly now \u2026 \/ Deliver up my title in the Queen \/ To your most gracious hands \u2026\u201d (148, 1.1.9-13). [2]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

2 Henry VI <\/em>begins, then, with a delighted Henry, who historically would have been 23 years old, and his new queen consort, who, born in 1430, was considerably younger but seems more mature than her new husband. Henry praises God, and finds, as he says, in his bride\u2019s \u201cbeauteous face \/ A world of earthly blessings to my soul, \/ If sympathy of love unite our thoughts\u201d (149, 1.1.21-23).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The young man can\u2019t know how badly the match will betray that fond \u201cIf,\u201d but for now, the bride refers effusively to \u201cThe mutual conference that my mind hath had\u2014 \/ By day, by night, waking and in my dreams, \/ In courtly company or at my beads \u2026\u201d with her \u201calderliefest [most precious] sovereign \u2026\u201d (149, 1.1.25-28). This dependence by Margaret on her own imagination to deliver to her the king she wants is ominous in its own right since the king she has, Henry VI, will by no means live up to her bright imaginings. Still, the opening vignette is impressive, bordering as it does on ecstasy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This Henriadic or Lancastrian idyll does not, however, last a moment longer than the \u201carticles of contracted peace\u201d (149, 1.1.40) that Suffolk presents to the king\u2019s uncle Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester. [3]<\/a> What are those articles? Mainly, the young woman has been offered for the price of two of England\u2019s French possessions, Maine and Anjou. [4]<\/a> Oh, and there will be no proper dowry. These hardly seem like small matters, given that England and France have been gnawing at each other\u2019s territories since the Hundred Years\u2019 War began in 1337. [5]<\/a> Then, too, Anjou is the origin-point of the so-called Plantagenet dynasty, descending from Geoffrey d\u2019Anjou. [6]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The terms of the eighteen-month truce immediately shatter the brittle presentation of concord among Henry\u2019s great English officers. Gloucester actually drops <\/em>the paper he is reading to the ground, and professes, he says, that \u201cSome sudden qualm hath struck me at the heart \/ And dimmed mine eyes that I can read no further\u201d (149, 1.1.52-53). The Cardinal, for his part, [7]<\/a> sounds none too pleased with either of the treaty\u2019s provisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

King Henry VI, however, refuses to let these grave dignitaries ruin his happy mood. He promptly declares Suffolk marquess no more, but now a duke, which is above the rank of earl and marquess. [8]<\/a> Then, he utters a by-now delusional sentence to cap off the soured festivities: \u201cWe thank you all for this great favor done \/ In entertainment to my princely Queen\u201d (150, 1.1.68-69). The queen can hardly have failed to notice the insult implied towards her and her impoverished royal father, Ren\u00e9, but Henry VI remains oblivious to it or unwilling to acknowledge it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The king, queen, and Suffolk depart, leaving behind key members of his government. Gloucester, who was Henry V\u2019s brother and so is Henry VI\u2019s uncle, complains that the accomplishments of the late king, along with the diplomatic and military efforts of another of his brothers, John of Lancaster, 1st<\/sup> Duke of Bedford, [9]<\/a> and many others whom he names have evidently gone to waste since young Henry VI values his new queen Margaret above all that blood and toil: \u201cShall Henry\u2019s conquest, Bedford\u2019s vigilance, \/ Your deeds of war, and all our counsel die? \/ O peers of England, shameful is this league \u2026 (150, 1.1.93-95).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gloucester\u2019s uncle and frequent opponent, Cardinal Beaufort, tries to tamp down such negativity, but to no avail. Gloucester lays the blame on \u201cSuffolk, the new-made duke that rules the roost \u2026\u201d (150, 1.1.106) and he and Salisbury chime in with mentions of the loss of Anjou and Maine, which counties Salisbury (father of the 16th<\/sup> Earl of Warwick, in future aka \u201cthe kingmaker\u201d) [10]<\/a> calls ruefully \u201cthe keys of Normandy\u201d (150, 1.1.111). [11]<\/a> Warwick, Salisbury\u2019s son, also refers to Anjou and Maine as territories that he himself helped win for the English. [12]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Richard Plantagenet, 3rd<\/sup> Duke of York, [13]<\/a> then adds to the verbal complaint box his own hatred of Suffolk and his sense that England has been slighted. This match with Margaret, he says, \u201cbrings no vantages\u201d (151, 1.1.128).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next, Gloucester and the cardinal get into a word-scuffle, as they have long done over matters of war and peace, power and policy. [14]<\/a> Gloucester soon leaves in a huff, saying to the cardinal, \u201cIf I longer stay \/ We shall begin our ancient bickerings\u201d (151, 1.1.140-41). When he leaves, the cardinal simply continues his commentary against this nephew of his. The sole fact that Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester is Henry VI\u2019s heir presumptive (since the young king as yet, in 1445, has no children) is enough to bring him under suspicion. The cardinal fears what he supposes is Humphrey\u2019s ambition for the crown, and fears his charming way with a crowd, too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We should note here that the playwright reconstructs history very broadly. At the beginning of the play it is 1445, but he casts Duke Humphrey as still playing the role of \u201cprotector\u201d to Henry VI, who began to rule in his own right in 1437, at 15 years of age. Historically, Duke Humphrey held this office from 1422-29, and then he participated in the king\u2019s \u201cminority council\u201d up to 1437. This makes sense of Buckingham\u2019s question, \u201cWhy should he, then, protect our sovereign, \/ He being of age to govern of himself?\u201d (151-52, 1.1.162-63) The plan among Somerset, [15]<\/a> Suffolk, Buckingham, and the Cardinal is to oust the Duke of Gloucester from his powerful position.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When the cardinal leaves, Somerset  airs his conviction that the prelate\u2019s \u201cinsolence is more intolerable \/ Than all the princes\u2019 in the land beside\u201d (152, 1.1.172-73). Buckingham assures him that either he or Somerset himself will serve as Henry\u2019s protector, not the cardinal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Remaining to be heard from are Salisbury, Warwick, and York. Salisbury praises the influence of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester and the accomplishments of Warwick and York, and he lays out a cogent scheme to set the pride of Suffolk and the cardinal against the ambition of Somerset and Buckingham. Salisbury says that they three will thus \u201ccherish Duke Humphrey\u2019s deeds \/ While they [i.e., the deeds] do tend the profit of the land\u201d (152, 1.1.200-01).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

York remains alone to end this scene so full of the causes of England\u2019s impending factional woes. Sounding a good deal like his ultra-wily son \u201cRichard of Gloucester\u201d and subsequently \u201cKing Richard III\u201d that Shakespeare delivers to us in 3 Henry VI <\/em>and Richard III, <\/em>the 3rd<\/sup> Duke of York gives us his impressively sociopathic perspective on current political affairs. His understanding is that the king and many others are so nonchalant about giving up Maine and Anjou, and possibly losing Normandy altogether, because these places are his, <\/em>York\u2019s, not theirs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

York believes as he does because his double claim to the throne is clearly stronger than that of Henry VI and his Lancastrian predecessors, Henry IV and Henry V, who based their claim on being descended from John of Gaunt, Edward III\u2019s third surviving son. York can lay claim to the throne through two routes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first is through his mother, Anne de Mortimer, daughter of Roger Mortimer, 4th<\/sup> Earl of March, the grandson of Lionel of Antwerp, 1st<\/sup> Duke of Clarence, the second <\/em>surviving son of King Edward III. Second is his claim as a direct male descendant of Edward III\u2019s fourth <\/em>surviving son, Edmund of Langley, 1st<\/sup> Duke of York, father to Richard of York\u2019s ill-fated father, Richard of Conisbrough.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Still, York will need to take <\/em>the throne. So how is he going to do that? He says, \u201cI will take the Nevilles\u2019 parts \/ And make a show of love to proud Duke Humphrey, \/ And when I spy advantage, claim the crown \u2026\u201d (153, 1.1.237-39). He will insert himself into the confidence of these other great lords and bide his time, working actively where he can. Then he will, like the adder springing forth from under the rock, strike them to his own benefit. This play-version of York\u2014though this version of the man is almost certainly very different from the actual Duke\u2014would no doubt get on famously with Niccol\u00f2 Machiavelli. [16]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Just when \u201cchildish\u201d and \u201cchurch-like\u201d Henry VI begins to fall out of love with his new queen, and when the Duke of Gloucester (\u201cHumphrey\u201d) starts wrangling interminably again with other high officials, says clever, watchful York, he will take his opportunity: \u201cThen will I raise aloft the milk-white rose, \/ With whose sweet smell the air shall be perfumed, \/ And in my standard bear the arms of York \/ To grapple with the house of Lancaster\u201d (153, 1.1.242, 244, 251-54). [17]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Act 1, Scene 2 (154-56, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester reproaches his wife the Duchess for her ambition to become queen, but the treasonous clergyman John Hume encourages her in this hope.)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Act 1, Scene 2, we move from the maneuvering and posturing involved in affairs of state to a private, domestic scene\u2014a fairly common perspectival shift in Shakespeare\u2019s plays. Here, though, what we get is more politics, even if moderated by some genuine spousal affection on Gloucester\u2019s part. The Duke visits his wife, Eleanor, [18]<\/a> only to find that she is all on fire with the notion that she and her husband should be king and queen. Sounding like a London-based Lady Macbeth, she tells him, \u201cPut forth thy hand; reach at the glorious gold. \/ What, is\u2019t too short? I\u2019ll lengthen it with mine \u2026\u201d (154, 1.2.11-12).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If Eleanor, Duchess of Gloucester was hoping to find approval in the Duke\u2019s heart, she must be disappointed in his admonition to \u201cBanish the canker of ambitious thoughts\u201d (154, 1.2.18). Still, Humphrey recounts a strange dream, in which his ceremonial staff of office was broken in two, perhaps by Cardinal Beaufort, and, he says, \u201con the pieces of the broken wand \/ Were placed the heads of Edmund, Duke of Somerset, \/ And William de la Pole, first Duke of Suffolk\u201d (154, 1.2.28-30). The Duke has no idea, he insists, what this frightening dream portends.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duchess Eleanor tells him it\u2019s a warning to his enemies that they had better not try to harm him, and proceeds to expound her own more direct dream: she saw herself sitting on the throne in Westminster, and then came King Henry VI and Queen Margaret, who, she says, \u201ckneeled to me \/ And on my head did set the diadem\u201d (154, 1.2.39-40). The Duke can\u2019t restrain his annoyance at what he calls \u201ctreachery\u201d in the teeth of all the privilege both of them enjoy. Eleanor\u2019s unsublimated lust for power is flatly unacceptable to her diplomatic-spirited husband.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is the duchess really so determined, Duke Humphrey asks her, to send them both tumbling from near the height of fortune to its base, from \u201ctop of honor to disgrace\u2019s feet\u201d? (155, 1.2.49) Still, the duke can\u2019t stay mad at his beloved wife for long, so he soothes her hurt feelings with \u201cNay, be not angry; I am pleased again\u201d (155, 1.2.53-54). Just then, a messenger arrives with news that the king has invited the duke to ride to St. Albans to do some hawking\u2014that is, hunting with the aid of a trained hawk, which was a near-obsession among medieval aristocrats\u2014 [19]<\/a> so he invites his wife along, too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The duchess likes that plan just fine, but first, she must spend a few minutes tending to that other aristocratic obsession, the pursuit of power. She declares to herself that if she were a man, she <\/em>would be strong: \u201cWere I a man, a duke and next of blood, \/ I would remove these tedious stumbling blocks \/ And smooth my way upon their headless necks \u2026\u201d (155, 1.2.63-65). But as she is a woman, says the duchess, she will do what she can, which is to \u201cplay my part in Fortune\u2019s pageant\u201d (155, 1.2.67).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As the Norton editor writes in footnote 4 for pg. 155, line 67, the reference here is to directing a medieval pageant play, or to \u201cleading a ceremonial procession.\u201d The point seems to be, then, that as a real-life \u201cshowrunner,\u201d she will tend to the architectonics, the subtle and overarching structure, of the drama of power to be acted, and\/or that she will deal skillfully with the ceremonial, diplomatic aspects of the necessary approach towards the height of power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The duchess must even now tend to the pursuit of power by checking in with the priest John Hume, who as her confidant, startles her by addressing her as \u201cyour royal majesty\u201d (155, 1.2.70). That is an address proper only to kings and queens; dukes and duchesses are addressed, \u201cyour grace.\u201d He promises that, as apparently arranged some while since, he has spoken with the witch Margery Jordan and the conjurer Roger Bolingbroke, [20]<\/a> who, together, will raise a spirit that can answer all the questions she means to ask it. The spirit, we may want to note, is gendered as male (155, 1.2.81).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The duchess is pleased to hear such news, and gives Hume gold. What she doesn\u2019t know, however, is that this priest is playing a double game, acting as the agent of no lesser operatives than Cardinal Beaufort and the Duke of Suffolk, who are wise to Eleanor\u2019s ambitions and no doubt to her dabbling in witchcraft, too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hume is satisfied with Beaufort and Suffolk\u2019s gold, and he knows that, as he says, his scheming will likely prove the ruin of both Eleanor and Duke Humphrey: \u201cI fear at last \/ Hume\u2019s knavery will be the Duchess\u2019 wrack, \/ And her attainder will be Humphrey\u2019s fall\u201d (156, 1.2.104-06). But Hume doesn\u2019t care \u2013 \u201cSort how it will,\u201d he says, \u201cI shall have gold for all\u201d (156, 1.2.107). Listening to this knave who has taken holy orders, it\u2019s hard to disagree with Sir Francis Bacon when he writes in his 1625 essay \u201cOf Truth,\u201d echoing Jesus in Luke<\/em> 18:8, \u201cwhen \u2018Christ cometh,\u2019 he shall not \u2018find faith upon the earth\u2019.\u201d [21]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

ACT 1, PART B  [c. 2249 I have proofread this, down to end of Act 1]<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Act 1, Scene 3 (156-61, Queen Margaret and Suffolk wave off some common people who seek Gloucester\u2019s help, and then begin plotting against him; Somerset and York wrangle, and so do Suffolk and Gloucester; York comes under scrutiny for treason when it\u2019s claimed that his own armorer has said he is the true king.)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some ordinary people are in the king\u2019s palace at London, hoping to catch the Duke of Gloucester, whom they respect, so he can address their petitions for redress. The first petitioner embarrasses himself and Suffolk when, mistaking him for Gloucester, he hands him a paper complaining about the cardinal\u2019s man John Goodman regarding a personal and property matter. The second petitioner\u2019s complaint concerns Suffolk\u2019s own alleged injurious enclosing of \u201cthe commons of Mel- \/ ford\u201d (156, 1.3.21-22). [22]<\/a> Suffolk\u2019s tone indicates that he is not amused, now that he has been brought into the mix.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is the third petitioner, though, whose complaint strikes home in a way that will reverberate. His petition is \u201cAgainst my master Thomas Horner, \/ for saying that the Duke of York was rightful heir to the \/ crown\u201d (157, 1.3.25-27). Master Horner is sent for at once, and Queen Margaret haughtily tears up the people\u2019s petitions, telling them that if they want the \u201cprotector\u2019s\u201d protection, they will need to write up some new petitions and give them to him.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There\u2019s your medieval tax money at work, folks\u2014refusal of service with a haughty glance and a wave of dismissal. The English monarchy did develop a bureaucracy that some modern historians describe as rather impressive in its way, but in the main, medieval government was about collecting tax monies and asserting control, not about helping the commonfolk. [23]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaking alone among her peers, Queen Margaret is incredulous that the lower orders have developed such a tender regard for Duke Humphrey, a man she resents for the power he continues to exercise over and above her husband the king. A gaggle of commoners are allowed to bust into the palace in this manner and expect their favorite aristocrat to address their concerns personally? She asks, \u201cIs this the fashions, in the court of England?\u201d (157, 1.3.42)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Margaret tells Suffolk that when he participated in a joust for her in France, she naively thought that in Henry, she would be getting the same kind of man. She admits to him, \u201cI thought King Henry had resembled thee \/ In courage, courtship, and proportion, \/ But all his mind is bent to holiness \/ To number Ave-Maries on his beads\u201d (157, 1.3.52-55). It\u2019s obvious by now that the ambitious, wily Margaret is fundamentally mismatched with saintly, simple Henry VI, at least as our playwright casts him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Margaret ticks off a list of the kingdom\u2019s most talented, ambitious, and worrisome lords, all of whom are more powerful, she says, than the king: Cardinal Beaufort, Somerset, Buckingham, and \u201cgrumbling York\u201d (158, 1.3.69, see 67-70). To this list, Suffolk adds the indomitable Neville duo, Salisbury and Warwick, who are, he says, \u201cno simple peers\u201d (158, 1.3.73). All of these great lords aside, admits Margaret, the subject who gives her the most vexation is \u201cthat proud dame, the Lord Protector\u2019s wife\u201d (158, 1.3.75). This woman, huffs the queen, traipses through the palace in all her finery, \u201cMore like an empress than Duke Humphrey\u2019s wife \u2026\u201d (158, 1.3.77).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We can hardly miss the Frenchwoman Margaret\u2019s deep shame over her spendthrift father Ren\u00e9\u2019s poverty\u2014English Eleanor n\u00e9e Cobham\u2019s ostentatious display of wealth, she admits, reminds her of her comparatively humble beginnings in Europe, even though France was at the time far richer and more populous than England. The other day, she says of Eleanor, \u201cThe very train of her worst-wearing gown \/ Was better worth than all my father\u2019s lands \/ Till Suffolk gave two dukedoms for his daughter\u201d (158, 1.3.84-86). [24]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Suffolk calms Margaret\u2019s fit with respect to Eleanor, telling the queen that he has set a dandy trap for this presumptuous noblewoman. He also shares with her some strategic counsel: for now, they must combine with the cardinal and certain troublesome lords until they manage to topple Gloucester from his post. As for York, well, the petitioner\u2019s accusation against his master the fanatical York-promoter is bound to do some damage. If all goes well, says Suffolk, Margaret will truly be in charge. He tells her, \u201cyou yourself shall steer the happy helm\u201d (158, 1.3.99). We should note that Margaret<\/em> will steer, not the ineffectual Henry VI.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The king and several lords enter to deal with the subject of the regency of France, a key office given England\u2019s interest in its imperiled French possessions. Should it be Somerset or York? The king says he doesn\u2019t much care. Warwick speaks up for York, but is dressed down by the cardinal for daring to speak among his \u201cbetters\u201d (158, 1.3.108). That\u2019s a dangerous thing to say to a man who will one day pride himself on making and unmaking kings. Then\u2014inevitably\u2014everyone attacks Gloucester for his \u201cinsolence\u201d as lord protector, for French gains during his tenure, and for his alleged financial malfeasance and general corruption (159, 1.3.121, see 117-36).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Facing this revolt among the lords, Gloucester stomps off, and Margaret adds one final insult: she drops her fan near Duchess Eleanor, and boxes her on the ear when the duchess fails to pick it up for her. King Henry tries to calm Eleanor, but his words are disregarded, and Eleanor, who has already directly threatened the queen with physical violence, proceeds to insult her in turn. She lashes out to Henry, \u201cShe\u2019ll pamper thee and dandle thee like a baby\u201d (159, 1.3.144). It is Margaret, Eleanor suggests, who rules the royal roost, not the king. Poor Henry! For him, at least, no charitable deed goes unpunished.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Devious Buckingham says he\u2019ll go after the duchess in hopes of hearing her implicate herself and her husband in some treachery. Just then, Duke Humphrey of Gloucester reenters, saying that he has recovered from his anger at recent insults. He now suggests that York would be the best man for the French regentship, and immediately runs into opposition from Suffolk. York then brings up old wounds pertaining to previous French campaigns wherein Suffolk failed, as the Norton editor notes, to supply him with additional troops when they were needed. Says York further, \u201cLast time I danced attendance on his will \/ Till Paris was besieged, famished, and lost\u201d (161, 1.3.170-71). [25]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The wrangling among such great lords is settled in comic fashion when Peter the petitioner enters along with Horner, the master he has accused of treasonously promoting York for king. Peter repeats his accusation, and Horner vociferously denies he ever said that York was the rightful king or that the Lancastrian Henry VI usurped the throne. Still, the damage is done: Gloucester rules that since this matter has brought York under some suspicion, it would be best that Somerset should serve as regent in France.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As for the two commoners, they must undergo trial by single combat, which, as the hapless Peter indicates, is very unfair to a poor man like him. Horner is able to say, \u201cI accept the combat willingly\u201d (161, 1.3.211) since he most likely has some training as a fighter. Peter, however, has no means and no training, so all he can say is, \u201cO Lord, have \/ mercy upon me; I shall never be able to fight a blow\u201d (161, 212-24). Many poor conscripts in medieval and early modern England\u2019s wars must have felt this way! [26]<\/a> King Henry, unfortunately, seems perfectly willing that this parody of aristocratic honor-fighting should go forward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Act 1, Scene 4 (161-63, the Duchess of Gloucester listens to a spirit offering her a prophecy about her enemies\u2019 doom, but Buckingham and York surprise her as she does so.)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Act 1, Scene 4 marks the downfall of Eleanor, Duchess of York. The priest John Hume summons the witch Margery Jordan and the conjurer Roger Bolingbroke, who in turn summon a spirit named \u201cAsnath.\u201d In Genesis <\/em>41:50-52, this is the name of an Egyptian woman (a daughter of the priest or military captain Potiphera\/Potiphar) who marries Joseph and bears his sons Manasseh and Ephraim. The significance of naming the spirit after this woman may be that through her, Joseph gets fully accepted by the Egyptian ruling order. The Englishwoman Eleanor also seeks greater recognition and status for herself and her husband, though it would be within their own nation\u2019s royal order. [27]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The recognition Eleanor receives, however, is not of the accepting kind. Instead, York and Buckingham pounce after they have watched the whole sorry s\u00e9ance, arresting Eleanor and her little coven of summoners and prognosticators. York calls his and Buckingham\u2019s work \u201cA pretty plot, well chosen to build upon\u201d (162, 1.4.55). It\u2019s worth noting that the actual arrest and punishment of Eleanor, Duchess of Gloucester happened in the summer of 1441, some four years before the action of 2 Henry VI <\/em>begins. Compressing the date as the playwright does allows him to intensify the drama of Gloucester\u2019s fall as Henry VI\u2019s protector. [28]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The playwright\u2019s construction of this scene\u2019s supernatural dimension\u2014whether by \u201cplaywright\u201d we mean Shakespeare or one of his collaborators, since authorship is a lively issue for 2 Henry VI<\/em>\u2014is worth focusing on at least briefly. Should we, like many Elizabethan audience members, accept that a spirit has genuinely been raised, or should we put it all down to the cynical, adroit fakery of Eleanor\u2019s experienced crew of rogues?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Shakespeare often seems to represent the supernatural in a deliberately vague, nebulous manner\u2014is Macbeth\u2019s \u201cdagger\u201d genuinely a supernatural vision, or is it, as he says in Act 2, Scene 1, \u201ca false creation, \/ Proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain\u201d? [29]<\/a> What is the precise status of the wonderful sights and sounds that Prospero commands via the spirit Ariel in The Tempest<\/em>? [30]<\/a> Does it matter, so long as some material effect in the \u201creal world\u201d figured by the drama is thereby achieved? The dagger, as Macbeth says, \u201cmarshall\u2019st me the way that I was going.\u201d [31]<\/a> That\u2019s worth something, if we are discussing real-life consequences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But before we dismiss the question of genuineness vs. fraud, we should pick up on something that Bolingbroke the conjuror says. He refers to \u201cThe time of night when Troy was set on fire\u201d (161, 1.4.16). The Norton editor glosses this line in connection with to Virgil\u2019s Aeneid, <\/em>Book 2, which is of course accurate, but if we change the point of reference to Homer\u2019s Odyssey, <\/em>Book 4, where Menelaus fills in some downright spooky details about his straying queen\u2019s role in the affair of the so-called Trojan Horse, we may find our viewpoint shifting a little.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The semi-divine Helen of Sparta, who tells us that she had long since come to regret her flight from Sparta to Troy, circles the Horse in the dead of night, tapping on the planks and calling eerily in the exact tonalities of the Achaean men\u2019s wives, trying to get them discovered and destroyed. Menelaus describes Helen as a woman possessed, \u201croused \/ by some dark power\u201d favoring Troy. [32]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So while the explicit reference to this \u201cTrojan Horse\u201d affair may seem to refer merely to trickery and cynical, highly motivated fraud, what today we would call the full autonomy<\/em> of human agents is always in question in Homer, especially in a scene involving Troy\u2019s fall. Magic or the imperatives of the supernatural and the divine invade the field of human agency and intention. Whatever text Shakespeare and his contemporaries may have been working from, they would almost certainly have been familiar with this tendency in Homer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here in 2 Henry VI, <\/em>our witch and conjurer and company seem to have written down their \u201cprophecies\u201d in advance by way of responding to the questions prefabbed by Eleanor herself, if that is the right way to understand the action. This bespeaks fraud, but at the same time, as the prophecies are about to be uttered, the Folio\u2019s stage directions say grandly, \u201cIt Thunders and Lightens \/ terribly: then the Spirit riseth.<\/em>\u201d [33]<\/a> This scene could easily be played comically, with all concerned getting quite a surprise when Asnath actually shows up as bidden.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In any case, the key \u201canswer\u201d that she provides proves to be of almost Delphian nimbleness: with regard to Henry VI, Asnath says maddeningly, \u201cThe duke yet lives that Henry shall depose \/ But him outlive and die a violent death\u201d (162, 1.4.29-30). Will the duke (whichever one is meant) depose Henry, or will Henry depose the duke? \u201cThe duke yet lives\u201d doesn\u2019t narrow the field much because, after all, you can\u2019t depose a dead<\/em> duke, can you? Alright, Asnath, be <\/em>that way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, York suggests that all this prognosticating comes down to mind-numbing sentence construction, citing as his example a prophecy referenced by Cicero in his treatise On Divination,<\/em> \u201cAio [te], Aeacida, Romanos vincere posse.<\/em>\u201d This is what the Oracle at Delphi supposedly tells King Pyrrhus. But is Pyrrhus going to conquer the Romans, or they him? [34]<\/a> Oracle, can we please pose a follow-up question? Yes and No? What do you mean, \u201cYes and no\u201d? We want our donation back, thank you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Still, we may want to note that the other two prophecies have a spookiness all their own. Suffolk\u2019s fate is, \u201cBy water shall he die and take his end\u201d (162, 1.4.32), and as for Somerset, \u201cLet him shun castles \/ Safer shall he be upon the sandy plains \/ Than where castles mounted stand\u201d (162, 1.4.34-36). Stay tuned, folks!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ACT 2<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Act 2, Scene 1 (163-68, while Henry VI and his retinue are hawking, news comes of a common man\u2019s miraculous cure at St. Albans; Gloucester exposes the man and his wife, and mocks them; Buckingham then announces the Duchess of Gloucester\u2019s arrest.)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Act 2, Scene 1 opens with a somewhat comical slanging match among Gloucester and his opponents Cardinal Beaufort and the Duke of Suffolk, William de la Pole. Margaret and Henry are at least trying to enjoy their hunting excursion, but the cardinal and Suffolk are intent on baiting Gloucester with hawking terms, as in Suffolk\u2019s taunt that Humphrey \u201cbears his thoughts above his falcon\u2019s pitch [height]\u201d (163, 2.1.12). [35]<\/a> The cardinal, for his part, chimes in with \u201cThy heaven is on earth: thine eyes and thoughts \/ Beat on a crown, the treasure of thy heart \u2026\u201d (163-64, 2.1.19-20). King Henry\u2019s mild reproaches do nothing to still the rancor of the great lords surrounding him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Just then news comes of a miracle that has supposedly been accomplished in St. Albans. The claim is that \u201ca blind man at Saint Alban\u2019s shrine \/ Within this half hour hath received his sight\u2014 \/ A man that ne\u2019er saw in his life before\u201d (165, 2.1.60-62). Pious Henry\u2019s responds credulously, \u201cNow God be praised, that to believing souls \/ Gives light in darkness, comfort in despair!\u201d (165, 2.1.63-64)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The allegedly ex-blind fellow is named Simpcox, and he is being treated like the man of the hour, along with his triumphant wife. Henry\u2019s questions only enhance our sense that he is na\u00efve since he misses the bawdy implications of what is said by Simpcox, his wife, and Suffolk. Leave it to Duke Humphrey to unmask this husband-and-wife duo of fakers for what they are. He gets Simpcox to identify the color of his (Gloucester\u2019s) cloak as \u201cred as blood\u201d (166, 2.1.109). A man who had suffered from total blindness all his life would be unable to distinguish colors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gloucester has one last ordeal for Simpcox, and it\u2019s a harsh one, considering that these people are merely conniving beggars, not rich, corrupt lords of the type Gloucester himself must deal with constantly. In any event, he commands the apparently lame not-blind man to jump over a stool and run away, lest he be whipped. Simpcox protests, but at the moment of truth, he leaps and runs away, and the townspeople cry in mockery, \u201cA miracle!\u201d and go their ways. Hard-edged Queen Margaret is amused, but Henry still sounds like a royal sap, intoning, \u201cO God, seest thou this and bearest so long?\u201d (167, 2.1.149)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Buckingham now breaks in with news that Duchess Eleanor and her witchy confederates have been made safe, shut up in prison to await trial. Buckingham calls Eleanor \u201cThe ringleader and head of all this rout \u2026\u201d (167, 2.1.164). Cardinal Beaufort jeers at Gloucester the protector, reminding him that they had agreed to calendar a duel between themselves, but now that\u2019s probably a non-starter. Crestfallen, Gloucester agrees that he has no heart for such hijinks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Margaret warns Duke Humphrey, \u201clook thyself be faultless, thou wert best\u201d (168, 2.1.183), and he replies that if, indeed, his wife has done what she\u2019s accused of, so be it: \u201cI banish her my bed and company \/ And give her as a prey to law and shame \/ That hath dishonored Gloucester\u2019s honest name\u201d (168, 2.1.191-93). That is scarcely heroic, but it\u2019s understandable. As for King Henry, his assertion that justice will prevail sounds useless. As Shakespeare and his possible collaborators portray him, this king is the kind of man whom Machiavelli says can\u2019t win: surrounded by rogues, he still tries to be unfailingly good. [36]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Act 2, Scene 2 (168-70, the Duke of York convinces Salisbury and Warwick that his claim to the throne is strongest.)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s time for the Duke of York to justify his claim to the throne in the presence of the powerful noblemen Salisbury and his son Warwick, both of whom are members of the northern English Neville family that York long ago married into\u2014his wife since 1429 is Cecily Neville, daughter of Ralph Neville, 1st<\/sup> Earl of Westmorland and Joan Beaufort. York lists the seven sons of king Edward III, five of whom survived to adulthood. [37]<\/a> The latter are in order of seniority:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Edward the Black Prince (1330-1376).
2. Lionel, Duke of Clarence (1338-1368).
3. John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster (1340-1399).
4. Edmund Langley, Duke of York (1341-1402).
5. Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester (1355-1397).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

York reminds his hearers of recent royal history: Richard II inherited the right to the crown from his father the Black Prince, who predeceased him; Bolingbroke, John of Gaunt\u2019s son and heir to the title \u201cDuke of Lancaster,\u201d deposed and murdered Richard II to rule as Henry IV.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As York explains, when Richard II died, the throne should <\/em>have gone to the issue of Edward III\u2019s next surviving son, Lionel, Duke of Clarence. Lionel\u2019s daughter Philippa of Clarence (1355-82) married Edmund Mortimer, 3rd<\/sup> Earl of March (1352-81). He, in turn, had a son, Roger Mortimer, 4th<\/sup> Earl of March (1374-98), who in his turn had three children: Edmund (5th<\/sup> Earl of March, 1391-1425), Anne (1388-1411), and Eleanor (1395-1422). Anne Mortimer was York\u2019s mother, and her husband was Richard, Earl of Cambridge, son of Edmund Langley, Duke of York. It is mainly through his mother Anne (n\u00e9e Mortimer), then, that York claims the throne. [38]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This history lesson is sufficient for York\u2019s kinsmen by marriage to accept his claim to power. In an act that constitutes de facto<\/em> treason since Henry VI is still on the throne, Salisbury and Warwick kneel down and say in unison, \u201cLong live our sovereign \/ Richard, England\u2019s king\u201d (169, 2.2.63-64).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

York, however, reminds them that while he appreciates their fervor, becoming king is not so easy as to declare oneself such: \u201cI am not your king \/ Till I be crowned and that my sword be stained \/ With heart-blood of the house of Lancaster\u201d (169, 2.2.64-66). He knows that this treason must come to violence, and he knows, too, that it must be preceded by \u201cadvice and silent secrecy\u201d (169, 2.2.68). The supposedly righteous conspirators must, he says, pretend not to bristle at Suffolk\u2019s \u201cinsolence,\u201d Beaufort\u2019s \u201cpride,\u201d Somerset\u2019s \u201cambition,\u201d and Buckingham generally. At least, they must not betray their fury at these men until they have served their purpose as useful idiots and \u201csnared the shepherd of the flock,\u201d who is \u201cthe good Duke Humphrey\u201d (169, 2.2.70-71, 73-74).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

York\u2019s parting from Salisbury and Warwick sounds tight, but in truth it is ominous: Warwick says he is sure that he will \u201cone day make the Duke of York a king,\u201d and York says he <\/em>is sure that he will \u201clive to make the Earl of Warwick \/ The greatest man in England but the King\u201d (170, 2.2.78-79, 81-82). In a sense, Warwick is correct\u2014not Richard himself, but his son, Edward, will <\/em>be \u201cDuke of York\u201d for a couple of months before he assumes power as King Edward IV.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In turn, if we interpret the expression \u201cRichard shall live to make\u201d in the sense of \u201cHowever brief or long Richard\u2019s life may be, he will live only<\/em> for the purpose of making<\/em>\u201d [Warwick extremely important], that, too, is arguably true, though not in a happy way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One last comment on this second scene in Act 2: Warwick\u2019s psyche as a future \u201ckingmaker,\u201d we may assume\u2014if, for interest\u2019s sake\u2014we are amenable to putting a medieval aristocrat on the analyst\u2019s couch, must be as twisted as that of the anti-Yorkist playwright\u2019s York or his son, the future Richard III. To hail oneself, as Warwick does repeatedly and with fulsome pride, as the power behind another\u2019s throne would seem to flow from a sense of inadequacy that can never be made whole, but only furiously worse, by the sole action available, which is to remove a king one has installed and place yet another one in power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By the way, if Warwick thinks that making a man king establishes a relationship of mutual obligation, he is mistaken. Competing for a fully operational crown is one of those areas of life wherein, truly, \u201cNo good deed goes unpunished,\u201d and some degree of the inevitable sociopathy of power wards off kings, queens, and other key players in the royal game from upholding such otherwise common and beneficial traits as loyalty and good faith. [39]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Act 2, Scene 3 (170-72, King Henry VI sentences Duchess Eleanor to do public penance in the streets of London and then live in castle-exile; he removes her husband, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, from the protectorship; York\u2019s armorer is killed by his servant-accuser Peter Thump in a trial by single combat, so everyone considers the armorer guilty.)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Act 2, Scene 3 is a time of reckoning for people not otherwise connected: Duchess Eleanor and her co-conspirators and Thomas Horner the Duke of York\u2019s armorer. As for the duchess, she receives a sentence of three days of public penance and then permanent exile to a series of castles, one of them on the Isle of Man in the Irish Sea. [40]<\/a> Thus, she will be exposed to the cruel jeering of the crowd in London\u2019s streets, and then removed from the life she had known to live in unfamiliar (if not exactly impoverished) surroundings. Gloucester is disconsolate, but realizes he can do nothing to mitigate his wife\u2019s punishment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Neither can Gloucester hang on to the protector\u2019s position that the playwright has somewhat ahistorically kept going for him many years after, historically speaking, he yielded it. But now, Henry demands Gloucester\u2019s resignation as protector, and receives it on the spot, along with the relevant staff of office. Margaret can\u2019t restrain herself from rubbing some salt in the wound, saying, \u201cI see no reason why a king of years \/ Should be to be protected like a child. \/ God and King Henry govern England\u2019s realm!\u201d (170-71, 2.3.28-30) Or perhaps, \u201cGod and Queen Margaret.\u201d That sounds more plausible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As soon as the royals and the nobility have settled their matter, it\u2019s time for the parodic yet still lethal death-match between Thomas Horner, the Duke of York\u2019s armorer, and Horner\u2019s accuser and servant Peter Thump. The two men\u2019s respective supporters ply them with liquid courage, and in what sounds like a devastating first-round knockout, Peter Thump strikes down his master, Horner, which he never seems to have believed he could actually do. Honest in death, Horner blurts out, \u201cHold, Peter, hold! I confess, I confess treason\u201d (172, 2.3.89). As usual, Henry VI\u2019s pious references to God\u2019s will and justice come across as awkward and unflattering (172, 2.3.93-98).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Act 2, Scene 4 (172-75, Gloucester beholds Duchess Eleanor\u2019s public shaming in London\u2019s streets as she reproaches him and makes her way towards permanent exile; then, to his surprise, he is ordered to appear in Parliament.)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gloucester is deeply saddened at the sight of Duchess Eleanor, who continues on the journey of public penance laid upon her by King Henry VI. The class dimension involved here makes everything much worse since many low-born people have come out to enjoy the duchess\u2019s humiliation. This is basically the London public of Shakespeare\u2019s own time, which was never known for tender sensibilities. It\u2019s hard to imagine that the medieval public would have been any more refined or benevolent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Eleanor\u2019s words at times seem reproachful of her husband, as when she observes, \u201cNow thou dost penance too. Look how they gaze!\u201d (173, 2.4.21) and complains bitterly that with all his power and influence, he does nothing to help her: \u201che stood by whilst I, his forlorn duchess, \/ Was made a wonder and a pointing stock \/ To every idle rascal follower\u201d (173, 2.4.46-48).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The duchess warns Gloucester, too, that the enemies who brought her down will bring him down as well. His response to this admonition is worrisome in its naivet\u00e9: \u201cI must offend before I be attainted; \/ And had I twenty times so many foes, \/ \u2026 All these could not procure me any scathe \/ So long as I am loyal, true, and crimeless\u201d (173-74, 2.4.60-64).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What the duke says simply isn\u2019t true. In the environment within which he is trying to survive, an empty accusation, if sufficiently vituperative and repeated often enough, will do as well as one that\u2019s full of truth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the England of medieval and early modern times\u2014and in truth in practically any <\/em>time or place (such is human nature)\u2014it is a terrible and potentially lethal idea to assume that there\u2019s anything your enemy will not <\/em>do, or that there is any law or bond of faith he or she will not break, if the reward is significant enough. So Duke Humphrey is failing the lamentably required course titled, \u201cMachiavelli 101.\u201d Laws will not protect you if liars and knaves are in charge of upholding them\u2014that\u2019s as true today as it was in the Middle Ages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No sooner does Gloucester try to reassure his humiliated wife that he will be fine than a herald shows up and speaks the words, \u201cI summon your grace to his majesty\u2019s parliament, \/ holden at Bury the first of this next month\u201d (174, 2.4.71-72). When her husband departs, the duchess accuses herself of materialism, saying, \u201cI wished this world\u2019s eternity\u201d (174, 2.4.91). In other words, she has lived her life impiously as a hedonist, and sought to live on earth as in a paradise. But her keeper, Sir John Stanley, offers her some comfort when he tells he that in her exile, she will be treated \u201cLike to a duchess and Duke Humphrey\u2019s lady\u201d (174, 2.4.99).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The duchess\u2019s final thoughts in this scene are penitential, as she says to Stanley, \u201cGo, lead the way; I long to see my prison\u201d (175, 2.4.111). In taking this attitude, the duchess seems characteristic of many of Shakespeare\u2019s most humiliated or defeated characters. There are some who\u2014to borrow a line from Dylan Thomas\u2014\u201crage against the dying of the light\u201d [41]<\/a> \u2014but many seem to be trying to make their thoughts and, as we would say, their \u201cegos,\u201d sort with their newly straitened existences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This project of acclimation and penitence sometimes calls for embracing material pain and discomfort as well as the psychological injury of humiliation. The memento mori<\/em> images and the monkish flagellants of the Religion of Sorrow, it seems, were never far from medieval and early modern consciousness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ACT 3<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Act 3, Scene 1 (175-83, in Parliament, Margaret, Suffolk, and others accuse Gloucester of harboring designs on the throne; King Henry doesn\u2019t believe the charge, but still lets Suffolk and Cardinal Beaufort detain Gloucester for trial; Margaret, the Cardinal, Suffolk, and York plot to kill Gloucester, and Suffolk and the Cardinal say they will do the deed; news arrives concerning an Irish uprising, and York, happy with the troops granted to him, agrees to take care of the Irish problem.)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Act 3, Scene 1, King Henry, Margaret, the Cardinal, Suffolk, York, Buckingham, Salisbury, and Warwick arrive at parliament, and the queen immediately claims that Gloucester has grown distant of late. No doubt, she suggests, he harbors dark designs on the crown: she reminds Henry, \u201cshould you fall, he is the next will mount\u201d (175, 3.1.22). Suffolk professes to believe that Humphrey himself set on his \u201cbedlam brain-sick Duchess\u201d to her treasonous witchcraft (176, 3.1.51). What\u2019s more, he says implausibly, Gloucester\u2019s very silence damns him: \u201cin his simple show he harbors treason. \/ The fox barks not when he would steal the lamb\u201d (176, 3.1.54-55).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

King Henry is as mild and trusting as ever, but he appears to see through this flimflammery on the part of his supposed well-wishers, and declares, \u201cOur kinsman Gloucester is as innocent \/ From meaning treason to our royal person \/ As is the sucking lamb or harmless dove\u201d (176, 3.1.69-71).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Soon, Somerset arrives with terrible news: England has lost all of its possessions in France. In an aside, York feels this loss as his own, for he considers the French crown, like the English, his own. It\u2019s well and good if Henry says only, \u201cGod\u2019s will be \/ done\u201d (176, 3.1.86), but that is not York\u2019s reaction, and he is determined to recover French lands that he considers his own.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gloucester finally enters, and professes to be nonplussed by the charge of \u201chigh treason\u201d that Suffolk hurls at him (177, 3.1.97). \u201cWho can accuse me? Wherein am I guilty?\u201d he asks, as if confident that no one will dare try to make good on Suffolk\u2019s accusation (177, 3.1.103).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This conviction seems na\u00efve of Humphrey, a man envied and surrounded by those who hate him. York, who must be aware of the lamentable truth that when it comes to charges of serious wrongdoing, to be accused is almost as bad as to be already found guilty, fills in the two-fold charges: the first is that Gloucester \u201ctook bribes of France\u201d and then failed to pay his own troops (177, 3.1.104), thereby causing England\u2019s military losses. The second claim has to do with the Duke\u2019s administration of justice: York says that he \u201cdid devise \/ Strange tortures for offenders, never heard of, \/ That England was defamed by tyranny\u201d (177, 3.1.121-23). [42]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gloucester brushes both of these charges aside, claiming he never stole the smallest denomination coin, or visited undeserved and excessive punishments on anyone, even if he admits to being quite harsh with those whom he considers guilty enough to deserve such treatment. [43]<\/a> Suffolk sidesteps these attempts at self-defense, insisting that Humphrey is guilty of \u201cmightier crimes\u201d still that he cannot hope to get free from (177, 3.1.134). Henry apparently considers it requisite to detain Gloucester on the demand of Suffolk, even though he still considers his uncle innocent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Human evil always seems to strike Shakespeare\u2019s Henry VI with amazement, as here, where he apparently feels powerless to do anything to help Gloucester. Henry marvels to his now-absent kinsman \u201cThat these great lords and Margaret our queen \/ Do seek subversion of thy harmless life\u201d (179, 3.1.207-08). If there\u2019s one quality that any leader can\u2019t afford, it\u2019s naivet\u00e9, and Henry possesses a most un-proto-Machiavellian abundance of it. You can\u2019t manage human nature if you\u2019re constantly shocked by the evil things that human beings are capable of doing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Margaret, Cardinal Beaufort, Suffolk, and York remain behind to hash out how to bring about the death of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester. They soon abandon all thoughts of deep policy, and light upon the course first announced by Suffolk: \u201cBe it by gins, by snares, by subtlety, \/ Sleeping or waking, \u2018tis no matter how, \/ So he be dead \u2026\u201d (180, 3.1.262-64). Cardinal Beaufort agrees, and says he will \u201cprovide his executioner\u201d (180, 3.1.276). To this offer, Suffolk, Margaret, and York add their voices, though the latter omits the cardinal when he counts the conspirators, saying, \u201cAnd now we three have spoke it, \/ It skills not greatly who impugns our doom\u201d (180, 3.1.280-81).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

True, they three have spoken, but so did the cardinal. But no matter\u2014a messenger arrives with news that the Irish rebels have slaughtered a good number of Englishmen, and pleads for help. York snidely says they should send Somerset since he has (not) been so successful in defending France. He directly blames Somerset for all the English losses there. [44]<\/a> Cardinal Beaufort settles the bickering over France by ordering York to take the Irish mess upon himself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No one is worried about consulting the king about such an important policy decision since, as Suffolk says, \u201cour authority is his consent, \/ And what we do establish he confirms\u201d (181, 3.1.316-17). There is no question who is really in charge here, and it isn\u2019t King Henry VI. So it\u2019s settled, then: York will go put down the Irish rebellion, and Cardinal Beaufort will do for Gloucester, once and for all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

York, alone, now provides us with wonderful insight into his true nature, and at least with regard to Shakespeare\u2019s or his collaborators\u2019 representation of him and (in the present play and in Richard III<\/em>) his youngest son, it\u2019s easy to see from whence the latter gets both his wiliness and his audacity. York begins, \u201cNow, York, or never, steel thy fearful thoughts, \/ And change misdoubt to resolution. \/ Be that thou hop\u2019st to be, or what thou art \/ Resign to death \u2026\u201d (182, 3.1.331-34).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is the kind of ambition that the Victorian poet Robert Browning hints at when he makes the title character in \u201cAndrea del Sarto,\u201d his poem about a sociopathic, murderous artist, say about his too-perfect paintings, \u201cAh, but a man\u2019s reach should exceed his grasp, \/ Or what\u2019s a heaven for?\u201d Unlike, Andrea, York (even though he\u2019s ultimately a failure at the business of \u201cgrasping\u201d the crown) is hardly deficient in his desire to reach for it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

York is capable of strategic thought, too\u2014what others might see as a trap, he receives as a blessing. So he\u2019s to be sent to Ireland? Good! As he says, \u201c\u2019Twas men I lacked, and you will give them me \u2026\u201d (182, 3.1.345). To enhance his power, he will encourage one John Cade of Ashford in Kent [45]<\/a> \u2014we know him as the infamous \u201cJack Cade\u201d who purports to be a Mortimer heir to the throne\u2014as a touchstone by which he may delineate his own chances of taking the crown. [46]<\/a>  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

If Jack Cade is captured and tortured, says York, the rebel still won\u2019t be able to blame him <\/em>for any uprising, but, York continues, \u201cSay that he thrive, as \u2018tis great like he will, \/ Why, then, from Ireland come I with my strength \/ And reap the harvest which that rascal sowed\u201d (183, 3.1.379-81). Whatever the real York was like, our playwright\u2019s \u201cYork\u201d is a supremely opportunistic, wily predator when it comes to seeking royal status.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Act 3, Scene 2 (183-92, King Henry, informed that Gloucester has been murdered, passes out, and the commonfolk call for Suffolk\u2019s exile; Henry is constrained to give them what they want; word comes that Cardinal Beaufort is near death.)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Suffolk checks in with the men he has hired to murder Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, and they assure him that they have done the deed. The deceitful lord returns to King Henry\u2019s presence, just as the duke\u2019s trial is about to begin, and feigns shock at the news he must report: namely, that the great man is \u201cDead in his bed \u2026\u201d (183, 3.2.29). Henry faints, and when he comes to, he berates Suffolk, the bearer of this terrible news. Without missing a beat, Queen Margaret, like a true sociopath, manages to turn herself into the victim rather than Gloucester.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It seems that Margaret is offended by Henry\u2019s blubbering about his dead uncle, even as he fails to show any regard for her plight. She reproaches the king with the pathetic complaint that everyone will blame her<\/em> for Gloucester\u2019s suspiciously convenient death: \u201cSo shall my name with slander\u2019s tongue be wounded, \/ And prince\u2019s courts be filled with my reproach\u201d (184, 3.2.68-69). This is followed by an excruciatingly long piece of self-adulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Soon, Warwick bursts into the room, followed by Salisbury and a number of common people, all of whom believe that Suffolk and Cardinal Beaufort are responsible for Gloucester\u2019s death. Warwick displays the body of the duke, and points out several marks of strangulation: the man\u2019s face is \u201cblack and full of blood,\u201d his eyes bulge unnaturally, and so forth (187, 3.2.168ff). Warwick works up the nerve to accuse Suffolk, and asserts that they are, indeed, the likeliest suspects since Gloucester was in their care, and they were his enemies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This accusation on Warwick\u2019s part earns him a quarrel with Suffolk and an argument with Queen Margaret, and just when it seems as if things will come to violence between the two men, Salisbury arrives and reports that the common people, uttering menacing words against Suffolk, insist on separating that lord from the King, whom they profess to hold blameless for Gloucester\u2019s murder. Whether Henry likes it or not, they say, they will protect him from this devious and violent man. The king promises the people through Salisbury that he will, in fact, banish Suffolk after three days\u2014he declares that he has come to distrust him greatly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Margaret is inconsolable at this turn of events, but the queen being who she is, her despair only makes her tongue sharper in her pronouncements to Suffolk. She accuses him of effeminacy and of cowardice in not cursing his enemies as strongly as she would, but then when he curses them, she reproaches him for that, too. Still, the two speak as a true romantic couple, with asseverations of faith and expressions of deep love. Suffolk is no John Donne, but he does not disappoint, saying, \u201cwhere thou art, \/ there is the world itself, \/ With every several pleasure in the world, \/ And where thou art not, desolation\u201d (191, 3.2.364-66).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vaux [47]<\/a> steps in and tells Margaret that Cardinal Beaufort is dying, and raving as he does so: he is \u201cBlaspheming God and cursing men on earth\u201d (191, 3.2.374). He is also afflicted with visions of Duke Humphrey\u2019s ghost, and Vaux is tasked with informing the king of this latest event.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At their parting, Suffolk begs Queen Margaret to let him stay with her and fall victim to Henry\u2019s sentence for violating his terms of banishment, but she refuses, and promises to maintain contact with him through messengers. Since Margaret as yet has no children by Henry VI, [48]<\/a> her reference to a messenger as an \u201cIris\u201d may be of interest (192, 3.2.409). As the Norton editor points out in a footnote, Iris was one of the Greek gods\u2019 messengers, and she was associated with Hera, goddess of childbirth and female interests more generally. Might Margaret\u2019s reference be a way of envisioning her future not with Henry VI, but rather with Suffolk?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Act 3, Scene 3 (192-93, to King Henry\u2019s distress, Cardinal Beaufort dies in guilt-ridden agony and great physical pain.)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cardinal Beaufort lies in his bed, in the full agony of his illness and of the guilt he bears for Gloucester\u2019s death, calling out, \u201cOh, torture me no more: I will confess\u201d (192, 3.3.11). King Henry prays for the soul of the wretched sinner, but realizes that his prayers are probably in vain: when the king tells the cardinal, \u201cHold up thy hand; make signal of thy hope\u201d (193, 3.3.28), the cardinal merely expires, making no sign. [49]<\/a> Even the charitable Henry can\u2019t work up much of a defense of the now dead man, and the third scene is concluded with the king\u2019s call to prayer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ACT 4<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Act 4, Scene 1 (193-96, as he tries to set sail across the Channel towards exile in France, Suffolk is captured by the crew of a ship called the Nicholas of the Tower, denounced for his alleged crimes, and beheaded.)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Banished Suffolk must now make his way from England into French exile, but it is not to be. As he begins his journey, he is captured by a ship belonging to the Constable of the Tower. The ship itself is named the Nicholas of the Tower, [50]<\/a> and its lieutenant speaks in a Marlovian style, with such audacious phrasing as, \u201cThe gaudy, blabbing, and remorseful day \/ Is crept into the bosom of the sea, \/ And now loud-howling wolves arouse the jades \/ That drag the tragic melancholy night \u2026\u201d (193, 4.1.1-4).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Norton editor explains that by \u201cjades,\u201d the playwright refers to \u201cthe dragons of Hecate that \u2026 drew Night\u2019s chariot.\u201d [51]<\/a> Who but Marlowe (or a fellow playwright trying out his style) would import such an offbeat classical frame of reference into a scene like the present one? A couple of gentlemen captured along with Suffolk are induced to pledge their ransoms to the master and mate, a course that Walter Whitmore begrudges but does not counteract.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, Whitmore, whose first name, as the Norton editor informs us, would have been pronounced \u201cWater\u201d rather than the modern \u201cWalter,\u201d is even less tractable when it comes to his own prisoner, the Duke of Suffolk. Walter says that he lost an eye in capturing the ship, and for that, Suffolk must pay with his life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The banished duke admits that Water\/Walter\u2019s name frightens him due to a prophecy about the manner of his death. We may recall that in Act 1, Scene 4 of the present play, the spirit raised by the Duchess of Gloucester\u2019s confederates, when asked about Suffolk\u2019s end, had uttered the words, \u201cBy water shall he die and take his end.\u201d [52]<\/a> This admission does nothing to slake Whitmore\u2019s desire for revenge, and the lieutenant joins in and sasses the now-doomed Suffolk, which elicits from the condemned man a stream of insults and curses against this officer who, says the duke, once served as his lowly groom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Suffolk\u2019s angry words accomplish nothing, and the lieutenant orders that he be conveyed into the ship\u2019s \u201clongboat\u201d (a large lifeboat or utility boat) and there beheaded. Suffolk is given a quick trial of sorts, [53]<\/a> which in the present play simply amounts to being slapped with all of his supposed offenses against the realm: his corruption; his adultery with Margaret; his murder of Duke Humphrey; his arrangement of Margaret\u2019s marriage to Henry; and his vending of Anjou and Maine to the French (195, 4.1.73-90 inclusive). The lieutenant praises Warrick\u2019s rebellious actions and the Yorkists\u2019 desire to take the throne from the usurping Lancastrians. He also praises Jack Cade\u2019s rebellion, which he rightly sees as connected to York\u2019s intentions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After this recitation, the duke continues railing in the most class-saturated way against the lieutenant and his crewmen, and ends by calling the lot of them \u201cpirates\u201d (196, 4.1.139). Suffolk is led away to his execution, and the lieutenant decides to let one of the nameless \u201cgentlemen\u201d depart, whereupon, presumably, he will faithfully tender his ransom when he obtains the funds. The other gentleman is to remain with the ship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When Suffolk\u2019s trunk and detached head are brought back, Whitmore says callously, \u201cThere let his head and lifeless body lie \/ Until the Queen his mistress bury it\u201d (196, 4.2.143-44). The first gentleman, who is to be set free, declares to himself and us that he will take up the head and body of the executed duke and bring it to King Henry for burial. He expects that revenge will be taken against the men who have killed the duke.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Act 4, Scene 2 (196-200, Jack Cade\u2019s rebels trade humorous comments and then join up with their leader, <\/strong>who stresses his alleged standing as a Mortimer and promises that his reign will establish an English utopia; Cade and his subordinates condemn a clerk to hang for being literate; Sir Humphrey Stafford and his brother challenge Cade\u2019s invented genealogy and invite his men to reverse course and fight for King Henry; the Stafford brothers depart.<\/strong>)<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jack Cade\u2019s blend of fanciful genealogy and military menace now come to the fore. He is ready\u2014or so he thinks\u2014to take the crown from Henry VI in the name of the Mortimer line. [54]<\/a> The relevant scene opens with a couple of his rebels exchanging funny observations about their leader and the English conception of class status. The first rebel refers to their need for swords, even if \u201cmade of a \/ lath\u201d (196, 4.2.1-2). The word \u201clath\u201d refers to a mock-weapon made of plaster and bandied around by the \u201cVice\u201d character in morality plays, as the Norton editor informs us, so there\u2019s a hint of parody here at the expense of Jack Cade\u2019s rag-tag soldiers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Playing with a sartorial metaphor, both rebels air their hopes for a genuine reformation of English life and politics. The first rebel says that \u201cJack Cade the clothier means to dress the commonwealth, and turn it, and set a new nap upon it\u201d (197, 4.2.4-6). In other words, as the Norton footnote suggests, he will retailor the social and political fabric and bring about a renewal of English life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More bantering follows, and then Jack Cade arrives, no doubt hoping to overawe his supporters with a regal entrance. If so, Jack\u2019s hopes are quickly dashed since his arrival is undercut by his subordinates\u2019 sarcastic comments, even if they\u2019re tendered as asides. When Cade insists, \u201cMy father was a Mortimer\u2026,\u201d Dick the Butcher snickers to himself, \u201cHe was an honest man and a good brick- \/ layer\u201d (197, 4.2.37-38). On it goes, just like that. As William Blake says in The Marriage of Heaven and Hell,<\/em> \u201cHe who has suffered you to impose on him knows you.\u201d [55]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Still, Jack manages to convey to his rather jaded supporters his utopian vision, which contains plenty of particulars but boils down to a few statements such as, \u201cthere shall be no money; all \/ shall eat and drink on my score \u2026\u201d (198, 4.2.67-68). Dick the Butcher and the Weaver have some practical suggestions to enhance this utopia. Dick\u2019s is the famous notion, \u201cThe first thing we do, let\u2019s kill all the lawyers\u201d (198, 4.2.71). He opposes lawyers because, of course, as Jack Cade points out, their \u201cparchment\u201d-based antics have ruined many poor men, including (so he says) Jack himself. Sign a contract and your property\u2014nay your very life\u2014is never yours again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As for the Weaver, his contribution is that they ought to hang \u201cthe clerk of Chartham\u201d because \u201che can write and read and \/ cast account\u201d (198, 4.2.78-79). Jack Cade agrees that those are grave offenses, and after a thorough two-minute-or-so trial, the guilty clerk is marched off to be hanged \u201cwith his pen and ink-horn about his neck\u201d (199, 4.2.98-99). Well, we can\u2019t say he didn\u2019t have it coming, no? But seriously, the clerk\u2019s command of literacy makes him seem dangerous to poor workingmen who fear this skill as a corollary of the propertied, moneyed, and titled classes who oppress them throughout their lives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The irony is that Jack Cade is almost certainly nowhere near as na\u00efve and ignorant as he makes himself out to be in front of his followers. We may recall that even here in the present play, he makes a pun on the Latin derivation of his own name, \u201cCade.\u201d As the Norton editor points out, Jack\u2019s line, \u201cFor our enemies shall fall before us\u201d (197, 4.2.32) puts Jack in mind of the Latin verb cado\/cad\u0113re,<\/em> to fall. [56]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

When the Stafford brothers arrive to parley, Jack seems quite ready to make a \u201cfalling\u201d example of them, as being no better than he. Making a mockery of the ceremony establishing knighthood, he kneels and bestows upon himself the title \u201cSir John Mortimer,\u201d then rises, newly knighted (199, 4.2.108-10). As such, he\u2019s ready to confront the Stafford brothers, come what may. These two men make quick work, however, of Cade\u2019s false genealogy as a Mortimer heir to the throne, and the snarky asides uttered by his followers help the Staffords even more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One exchange with Stafford\u2019s brother makes it obvious that Jack Cade\u2019s claims about his ancestry are shameless fabrications. When the brother says, \u201cthe Duke of York hath taught you this\u201d (200, 4.2.141), Jack\u2019s aside is, \u201cHe lies, for I invented it myself\u201d (200, 4.2.142).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the whole, some of this conscious knavery appears to be attributed by the playwright to Cade\u2019s followers as well. It\u2019s clear that they know many of the claims he makes are whole-cloth nonsense, but they don\u2019t care so long as he leads them in a direction that appeals to them and that seems likely to better their lot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s hard to miss the sadistic and jaded energy in this mob. Like Cade, they are not as na\u00efve as they pretend to be. This need not completely undercut the justice of their demands, but Shakespeare (if the author of the current scene is Shakespeare, that is) never seems to have encountered a mob or mob leader whom he really liked, and Jack Cade is no exception. The playwright seems more comfortable suggesting by the often vicious traits and actions of his aristocrats what the suffering members of the medieval or early-modern mob were up against.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Act 4, Scene 3 (200-01, Jack Cade defeats and kills his Stafford opponents, and undertakes a march to London.)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jack Cade praises Dick the Butcher with the apt exclamation, \u201cThey fell before thee like sheep and oxen \u2026\u201d (200, 4.3.3), and promises him perks in the way of slaughtering animals during Lent. Jack himself picks up Stafford\u2019s sword as a \u201cmonument of the victory,\u201d and declares that he will, like Achilles did to the slain Hector thrice around Troy\u2019s walls, drag the Stafford brothers\u2019 bodies behind his horse until he reaches London, to which city he now heads.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Act 4, Scene 4 (201-02, King Henry flees London and Queen Margaret grieves for Suffolk; Lord Saye\u2014a man hated by Jack Cade\u2019s rebels\u2014plans to hide in London)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The scene opens with Queen Margaret, almost mad with grief, carrying around Suffolk\u2019s severed head, and talking to herself. \u201cBut who can cease to weep and look on this?\u201d she asks herself (201, 4.4.4). Meanwhile, King Henry is determined to meet with Jack Cade and try to end his rebellion in a peaceable way. He says, \u201cGod forbid so many simple souls \/ Should perish by the sword\u201d (201, 4.4.9-10).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Henry notices Margaret\u2019s strange behavior and says to her, \u201cI fear me, love, if that I had been dead, \/ Thou wouldst not have mourned so much for me\u201d (201, 4.4.22-23). But from this strange sight, the king does not draw quite the admonitory lesson that a wise ruler would.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When a messenger arrives to inform the party that Jack Cade\u2019s rebels have reached the London suburb of Southwark, a moment of decision is reached. Lord Saye, whom the people hate, declines the king\u2019s offer to accompany him since he fears that he will only endanger him. Saye will remain in London and try to hide from the rebel forces. Henry and his party will take Buckingham\u2019s advice and go to the castle at Kenilworth. A second messenger arrives to announce that \u201cJack Cade hath gotten London Bridge\u201d (202, 4.4.48). Margaret, sidelined in her extreme grief, can only say to herself, \u201cMy hope is gone, now Suffolk is deceased\u201d (202, 4.4.55).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The high treasurer Lord Saye, of the dead Suffolk\u2019s faction and hated by the people, ends the scene on a jarring note, professing  that \u201cThe trust I have is in mine innocence, \/ And therefore am I bold and resolute\u201d (202, 4.5.58). As we will see in Act 4, Scene 7, Cade will give Lord Saye a kangaroo-court trial and put him to death. [57]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Act 4, Scene 5 (202-03, London\u2019s citizens beg Lord Scales, commander of troops at the Tower, for assistance; he sends them the experienced soldier Matthew Gough.)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The citizens of London are terrified at the successes of Jack Cade, and they beseech Lord Scales, commander of troops at the Tower, to come down and save them. But alas, Scales is hard pressed where he is, and can advise the people only, \u201cget you to Smithfield and gather head, \/ And thither I will send you Matthew Gough\u201d (203, 4.5.9-10). Gough, a valiant Welshman, was killed while trying to defend London Bridge from Cade\u2019s rebels. [58]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Act 4, Scene 6 (203, Jack Cade and his rebels enter London.)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jack Cade sounds positively delusional by now, flush with his progress into London, and declares grandly, \u201cNow is Mortimer lord of this city,\u201d and, even more absurdly, \u201cI charge and command that \u2026 the Pissing Conduit run nothing but claret wine \/ this first year of our reign\u201d (203, 4.6.1-4). When a soldier inadvertently calls him merely \u201cJack Cade,\u201d the man is knocked down and killed on the spot. This messenger\u2019s burden was that the foe had fielded an army in Smithfield\u2014useful information, that. Cade now orders that London Bridge and, if possible, the Tower, should be burnt. He will go and fight the king\u2019s forces.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Act 4, Scene 7 (203-06, Jack Cade defeats Matthew Gough and kills him; Lord Saye is also captured and put to death.)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In short order, brave Matthew Gough is killed by the rebel forces, and Lord Saye is hustled into an audience with Jack Cade. Just before this reckoning with Saye, Cade makes a couple of astonishingly radical declarations. The first is, \u201cBurn all \/ the records of the realm; my mouth shall be the Parliament of England\u201d (203, 4.7.11-13). The second is, \u201chenceforward all things shall be in common\u201d (203, 4.7.16). Jack would, then, combine the authoritarian strongman\u2019s insistence on taking sole and supreme power to himself with the communist utopian injunction of property-in-common. All in all, he is suggesting (seriously or otherwise) that his goal is the total transformation of English society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cade continues his wild discourse as the scene develops, saying like a medieval Travis Bickle [59]<\/a> to the hapless Lord Saye, \u201cI am the besom that must sweep the court \/ clean of such filth as thou art\u201d (204, 4.7.27-28). What does he think this aristocratic nemesis has done to deserve the appellation of \u201cfilth\u201d? Well, for one thing, says Jack, Saye has put up a grammar school, and for another, he has (anachronistically) caused a paper mill to be built for the ghastly purpose of printing books.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cade also accuses Saye of condemning suspected criminals because they are illiterate\u2014in truth, that\u2019s a fair point since \u201cbenefit of clergy\u201d was indeed a ridiculous loophole allowing learned men to get away with murder and any number of offenses, while the poor and illiterate would be open to the full savagery of medieval English law. We should mention that while Lord Saye, as an establishment figure, probably supported this injustice, he certainly didn\u2019t establish it\u2014that happened under Henry II, in 1176. [60]<\/a> But let\u2019s not get too logical around Jack Cade\u2014like a certain modern would-be absolutist, he professes to \u201clove the poorly educated.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lord Saye\u2019s putdown of Kentish citizens is more than enough to condemn him. He appeals to Julius Caesar\u2019s portrait of ancient Kent as \u201cthe civil\u2019st place of all this isle \u2026\u201d (204, 4.7.54). Clearly, however, Jack Cade and his eminently non-ancient followers are not acting in \u201cgood governance\u201d mode. They\u2019re out for riot and blood. Well, Lord Saye soon falls to mere pleading for his life, and it even has some effect on Jack, who, as he says, feels \u201cremorse\u201d thanks to Saye\u2019s words. All the same, he decides inwardly, \u201cHe shall die, an it be but for pleading so well for his \/ life\u201d (205, 4.7.96-98).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As the scene ends, Jack Cade\u2019s depravity and delusions of grandeur are on full display. The despotic nature of his imagination is manifest when he declares, \u201cThe proudest peer in the realm shall not wear a head on his \/ shoulders unless he pay me tribute; there shall not a maid \/ be married but she shall pay to me her maidenhead ere they \/ have it \u2026\u201d (205-06, 4.7.109-12). Ironically, this modern medieval rebel\u2019s imagination is not at all geared towards innovations in government\u2014he looks back to absolute monarchism and lusts to enjoy the supposed aristocratic sexual tradition called \u201cthe ancient right of lords.\u201d [61]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

When the heads of Lord Saye and Sir James Cromer are brought back, Jack Cade vulgarly commands that they be made to appear to kiss. This obscene gesture should be repeated, he says, as the rebels make their way into London, presumably to terrify and titillate the population.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Act 4, Scene 8 (206-07, Lord Clifford and Buckingham convince Jack Cade\u2019s rebels to again show allegiance to King Henry, and Cade, realizing his time is up, flees.)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Buckingham shows up in Smithfield and tells Jack Cade that he will offer \u201cfree pardon to them all \/ That will forsake thee and go home in peace\u201d (206, 4.8.8-9). There follows a struggle between Clifford and Cade as orators in the service of their respective causes, with the people\u2019s emotions being whipsawed back and forth between them. First it\u2019s \u201cGod save the King!\u201d and then it\u2019s \u201cWe\u2019ll follow Cade!\u201d and finally, \u201cWe\u2019ll follow the King and Clifford!\u201d (206-07, 4.8.18, 31, and 51-52). In Shakespeare\u2019s plays, where there\u2019s a mob, it usually manages to embarrass itself (or us, at any rate) by its inconsistency and riotousness, and 2 Henry VI<\/em> is no exception.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bad as Jack Cade is, we may sympathize with him when he says about his disloyal ex-followers, \u201cWas ever feather so lightly blown to and fro as \/ this multitude?\u201d (207, 4.8.53-54) Not unwisely, he decides to hightail it away from Smithfield and leave his onetime army to the tender mercies of aristocratic promises. The behavior of the mob makes it clear that they do not seek justice so much as pleasure and plunder.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Act 4, Scene 9 (207-08, King Henry is elated at the destruction of Jack Cade\u2019s rebellion; a messenger brings news of York\u2019s approach with his Irish forces, supposedly demanding the arrest of Somerset on charges of treason; Buckingham is dispatched to inform York that Somerset will be confined in the Tower of London; Henry, sounding like a defeated man, resolves to \u201clearn to govern better.\u201d)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

At Kenilworth Castle, King Henry, lamenting that \u201cnever subject longed to be a king \/ As I do long and wish to be a subject\u201d (208, 4.9.5-6), is brought news that Jack Cade\u2019s rabble of soldiers have sworn they will all follow the king now. Henry is joyful at this development, and tells the soldiers who come to him penitently \u201cwith halters on their necks<\/em>\u201d (stage direction, pg. 208) that he will show them all kindness and send them home in peace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But then a messenger informs Henry that York is back from Ireland with his Irish army, claiming to Henry that \u201cHis arms are only to remove from thee \/ The Duke of Somerset, whom he terms a traitor\u201d (208, 4.9.29-30). Henry at last gets the idea that Jack Cade\u2019s rebellion and York\u2019s maneuverings are linked\u2014a bit of dramatic irony being let go since, of course, that\u2019s something we in the audience already understood. Henry agrees to send Somerset to the Tower of London for now, until York disbands his army.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As usual, Henry\u2019s humility is not only impolitic but unsettling. He says to Queen Margaret and Buckingham, \u201cCome, wife, let\u2019s in, and learn to govern better; \/ For yet may England curse my wretched reign\u201d (208, 4.9.47-48). The capacity for such honest, humble self-criticism ought to be a strength, but in a corrupt and violent system like the one in which Henry finds himself trapped, it obviously isn\u2019t. Alas! A double-scoop of \u201cDunning-Kruger\u201d [62]<\/a> would be more beneficial than good Henry\u2019s searing self-examinations, which only paralyze his will to do what\u2019s necessary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Act 4, Scene 10 (209-10, Jack Cade, now starving and foraging for food in a private garden, is killed in a fight with the property\u2019s owner, Alexander Iden of Kent; Iden says that he will bring Cade\u2019s severed head to King Henry.)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jack Cade has stumbled into the Kentish garden of one Alexander Iden, and things do not go well for him in his attempt to find something to eat. [63]<\/a> When the two meet, Cade can\u2019t get over his need to be treated with deference, and Iden is insulted that this trespasser speaks to him so disrespectfully: he demands of Alexander and his several companions, \u201cthou wilt brave me with these saucy terms?\u201d (209, 4.10.33)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The two men finally come to blows, and soon Jack Cade is no more. Iden only learns who he has killed at the very end of the battle, and asks, \u201cIs\u2019t Cade that I have slain, that monstrous traitor?\u201d (210, 5.1.61) Henceforth, says this gentleman, his bloodied sword will be a monument for this special deed. Cade says with his dying breath that he has been \u201cvanquished \/ by famine, not by valor\u201d (210, 4.10.69-70). He does not, that is, see himself as having failed by any faults or misdeeds of his own. Iden plans to cut Jack\u2019s head off and bring it to the king.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is some irony in \u201cIden\u201d being the name of Jack Cade\u2019s killer\u2014the word would probably have sounded very similar to \u201cEden,\u201d so that this utopian dreamer and rascal wandered into \u201cthe Garden of Iden\u201d and there met his death. As the saying runs, \u201cYou can\u2019t go home.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ACT 5<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Act 5, Scene 1 (210-15, Buckingham satisfies York, or so it seems; King Henry rewards Alexander Iden for the killing of Jack Cade; York, when he sees that Somerset has been set free, stakes his claim to the throne, and his forces openly oppose King Henry\u2019s.)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As the scene opens, we hear a brief soliloquy in which York, full of himself, exclaims, \u201cThis hand was made to handle naught but gold\u201d (210, 5.1.7). In comes Humphrey Stafford, 1st<\/sup> Duke of Buckingham, to demand on the king\u2019s behalf why York has come so near to Henry\u2019s court in peacetime. York\u2019s dissembling answer is, \u201cto remove proud Somerset from the King \u2026\u201d (211, 5.1.36). Buckingham implies rather deviously that \u201cThe Duke of Somerset is in the Tower\u201d (211, 5.1.41).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

York is satisfied that Somerset is about to be executed, but we notice that is not <\/em>what Buckingham has promised. His statement was simply declarative. At the moment, Somerset is in the Tower, but tomorrow, perhaps he won\u2019t be there. York, gullibly, dismisses his troops, and even offers his sons as pledges of his own good faith. For all his proto-Machiavellian airs, the Duke of York has allowed himself to be played.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Just then, in walks Alexander Iden with the head of Jack Cade, and King Henry is delighted to find that his enemy is dead. He at once knights Iden and orders that he be paid the substantial reward of a thousand marks. Iden will also attend upon the king from now on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then comes another surprise entrance, this time by Queen Margaret and Somerset. Things turn ugly, as York is astonished to see the duke walking about freely, and promptly insults King Henry, saying that he is \u201cNot fit to govern and rule multitudes \u2026\u201d (213, 5.1.94). Somerset declares the arrest of York for treason, and demands that he kneel in obeisance. York calls in his sons to serve as his bail, and of course Edward and Richard offer to do so. But York is disappointed in old Clifford, from whom he had expected support, only to have him deny provision of bail and say, \u201cHe is a traitor; let him to the Tower \u2026\u201d (213, 5.1.134).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More revelations of loyalty follow, when Warwick and his father Salisbury declare their fealty to York, to Henry\u2019s discomfiture. He asks Salisbury, \u201cWilt thou go dig a grave to find out war, \/ And shame thine honorable age with blood?\u201d (214, 5.1.169-70) Salisbury has indeed sworn to serve the king, but now he insists, \u201cIt is great sin to swear unto a sin, \/ But greater sin to keep a sinful oath\u201d (214, 5.1.182-83).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The king tells Buckingham to arm for battle, and Warwick and Clifford promise to square off against each other. Young Clifford is eager to get into the fighting, and so is Richard, who tells Clifford, \u201cyou shall sup with Jesu Christ tonight,\u201d only to be insulted as a \u201cFoul stigmatic\u201d (215, 5.1.214-15). As the Norton editor explains, the word \u201cstigmatic\u201d refers to one\u2019s being branded as a criminal: Richard\u2019s \u201cbrand\u201d is his deformed body.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Act 5, Scene 2 (215-17, York slays Clifford, and York\u2019s son Richard\u2014the future Richard III\u2014kills Somerset; once he has lost the battle, King Henry sets out for safety in London.)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Warwick and York have both been trying to kill the elder Clifford, and when the man shows up in both their presences, York tells Warwick to \u201cseek thee out some other chase \u2026\u201d (215, 5.2.14). Clifford is his to vanquish, not Warwick\u2019s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Norton editor points out that our present text, that of the 1623 Folio, represents a respectful fight scene between York and the elder Clifford. Contrasting this edition was the 1594 Quarto, which was reprinted in 1600 and 1619, with the last-mentioned comprising a two-play volume along with what we now call 3 Henry 6. <\/em>The 1594 Quarto is titled The First part of the Contention betwixt the two Famous Houses of York and Lancaster, with the Death of the good Duke Humphrey. <\/em>(Intro 144).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 1594 Quarto, then, gives us an even more ominous version of events, with York saying to Clifford, \u201cnow my heart hath sworne immortall hate \/ To thee and all the house of Lancaster,\u201d and Clifford returning, \u201cneuer shall my heart be safe at rest, \/ Till I haue spoyld the hatefull house of Yorke\u201d (3242.1ff). [64]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 1623 Folio presentation has York admitting to Clifford, \u201cWith thy brave bearing should I be in love, \/ But that thou art so fast mine enemy\u201d (216, 5.2.20-21), and Clifford saying to York, \u201cNor should thy prowess want praise and esteem, \/ But that \u2018tis shown ignobly and in treason\u201d (216, 5.2.22-23). Whichever text we parse, York kills Clifford, and there\u2019s an end of words between them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The sight of the elder Clifford\u2019s body now becomes for his son the foundation stone for Young Clifford\u2019s monstrous slaying of the unarmed Yorkist youth Rutland in 3 Henry VI. <\/em>Here in the second play, he says, \u201cYork not our old men spares; \/ No more will I their babes. Tears virginal \/ Shall be to me even as the dew to fire \u2026\u201d (216, 5.2.51-53). Perhaps it shouldn\u2019t astonish us when the young man declares, \u201cIn cruelty will I seek out my fame\u201d (217, 5.2.60). Somehow, though, even among so many jaded and violent scenes and gestures in the Henry VI and Richard III \u201cminor\u201d tetralogy, it does.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Young Clifford turns to Greek and Roman mythology to deepen our sense of his hatred for the House of York, saying that if he encounters a Yorkist child, he will chop it up \u201cAs wild Medea young Absyrtus did,\u201d and when he picks up the body of his dead father, he does so \u201cAs did Aeneas old Anchises bear \u2026\u201d (216-17, 5.2.57-59 and 62-63). Medea, the legend goes (as noted by the Norton editor), murdered her brother and tossed parts of him overboard so that she might escape from her father\u2019s pursuing ship when he stopped to gather up the pieces.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is worth noting that in both classical allusions, there is a kind of irony or doom when we apply them to Young Clifford\u2019s career: even though Medea\u2019s death remains mysterious in the legendary accounts, the cost of her revenge and survival is tragic in its intensity and magnitude. As Young Clifford himself points out with respect to the Aeneas-Anchises reference, the prince\u2019s father was still alive when he bore him away from the ruins of Troy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Richard, York\u2019s son, fights with Somerset, and kills him. Part of his triumph consists in recalling that a spirit summoned by the Duchess of Gloucester\u2019s associates had (as the Norton editor reminds us, referring to 162, 1.4.34-36) warned him to stay away from castles. Who could have known that the spirit was pointing to a spot \u201cunderneath an alehouse\u2019 paltry sign,\u201d that alehouse being called \u201cThe Castle in St. Albans\u201d (217, 5.2.67-68)?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As it becomes clear that what we call the First Battle of St. Albans in late May 1455 has been won by the Yorkist faction, Queen Margaret lashes out at King Henry for his fatalist question, \u201cCan we outrun the heavens?\u201d (217, 5.2.73) She asks him in return, \u201cWhat are you made of? You\u2019ll nor fight nor fly. \/ Now is it manhood, wisdom, and defense \/ To give the enemy way and to secure us \/ By what we can, which can no more but fly\u201d (217, 5.2.74-77). Henry says nothing in response, and to end the scene, Young Clifford steps in to second Margaret\u2019s counsel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Act 5, Scene 3 (218, York and his victorious army head for London, where King Henry has gone.)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

To everyone\u2019s surprise, old Salisbury, aka Richard Neville, 5th<\/sup> Earl of Salisbury, who once had supported the Lancastrian king but now is a strong Yorkist, has survived. Richard has just finished telling York that he assisted the frail Salisbury three times, no doubt preserving his life during the battle they have just won, when the old man shows up in the flesh. [65]<\/a> Salisbury points out the problem with just about all ancient and medieval warfare victories: they are subject to quick reversal when, as the Norton editor says, the enemy resupplies and regroups, soon to hurl yet another army at yesterday\u2019s, or last month\u2019s, victors. [66]<\/a>   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

York advises that his forces\u2019 \u201csafety\u201d (218, 5.3.) is to pursue Henry VI\u2019s defeated army to London, where, as he supposes, the king will call a \u201ccourt of parliament\u201d into session. [67]<\/a> That eventuality, York is sure, must be prevented, lest the battlefield victory be turned by policy into a defeat. Warwick is in a celebratory mood, declaring, \u201cSt. Albans\u2019 battle, won by famous York, \/ Shall be eternized in all age to come\u201d (218, 5.3.30-31). Thanks in part to Shakespeare and to his collaborators in the writing of 2 Henry VI, <\/em>Warwick\u2019s prophecy turned out to be true: we still remember \u201cFirst St. Albans.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With that battle, what we know as the Wars of the Roses have begun in earnest. First St. Albans wasn\u2019t the bloodiest of battles\u2014in fact it was a small affair in purely military terms\u2014but it was momentous in that King Henry VI was captured and York, who had been dismissed as lord protector a few months after the king recovered his wits late in 1454, would soon be at least briefly reinstalled as protector. The next full battle between the Yorkist and Lancastrian houses would take place at Blore Heath in late September 1459. [68]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Edition.<\/strong>\u00a0Greenblatt, Stephen et al., editors.\u00a0The Norton Shakespeare: Histories + Digital Edition.<\/em>\u00a03rd ed. W. W. Norton, 2016. ISBN-13: 978-0-393-93859-3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Copyright \u00a9 2026 Alfred J. Drake<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Document Timestamp: 2\/27\/2026 5:36 PM<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

ENDNOTES<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

*To return to exact part of the text referenced by the endnotes below, left-click on the endnote’s numbered link. By contrast, the blue scroll-up button at the bottom right of the page returns to the top of the document.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a> Historically, that would be William de la Pole, 1st<\/sup> Marquess and then, in 1448, 1st<\/sup> Duke of Suffolk (1396-1450). See. Britannica.com\u2019s article \u201cWilliam de la Pole, 1st<\/sup> Duke of Suffolk<\/a>.\u201d See also Matt Lewis\u2019s blog Jan. 23, 2014 entry \u201cWilliam de la Pole: the Most Despised Man in England<\/a>\u201d in Matt\u2019s History Blog, and see Susan Abernathy\u2019s essay, \u201cThe Death of William de la Pole<\/a>.\u201d The Freelance History Writer. Dec. 9, 2016. Articles accessed 2\/21\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/a> The proxy wedding took place on May 24, 1444. See \u201cMargaret of Anjou<\/a>\u201d in warsoftheroses.com. See also the April 22, 2010 entry \u201cA Happy Anniversary to Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou<\/a>\u201d by Susan Higginbotham of \u201cHistory Refreshed.\u201d Accessed 2\/21\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/a> Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester (1390-1447). Fourth and youngest son of Henry Bolingbroke and Mary de Bohun. He took part in the regency government of Henry VI, and feuded with his brother John, Duke of Bedford, with Cardinal Henry Beaufort, and with the Duke of Burgundy, an important but tenuous ally in France. His downward slide in royal influence began with an accusation of witchcraft against his second wife, Eleanor Cobham, in 1441. By 1447, Humphrey himself was accused of treason by powerful enemies such as the 1st<\/sup> Duke of Suffolk, Cardinal Beaufort, and Queen Margaret. He died in custody not long after his arrest. See \u201cHumphrey, Duke of Gloucester<\/a>\u201d at warsoftheroses.com and the 1907 biography Humphrey Duke of Gloucester<\/em><\/a> <\/em>by K. H. Vickers, M.A. at Gutenberg.org. Both texts accessed 2\/22\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/a> Maine is in northwestern France, bordered by Brittany to the west, Normandy to the north, and Anjou, the Plantagenet dynasty\u2019s homeland, to the south.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/a> On the details of the Hundred Years\u2019 War, see Medievalists.net<\/a>, 100 Years\u2019 War (Britannica)<\/a>, 100 Years\u2019 War (World History Encyclopedia)<\/a>, and the 100 Years\u2019 War Timeline<\/a>. Accessed 2\/22\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/a> For the origins and significance of the House of Plantagenet, which began in France with Geoffrey V, Count of Anjou (1113-51) and Empress Matilda (1102-67, m. 1128-51), daughter of England\u2019s King Henry I (1068-1135, r. 1100-35), see Britannica.com\u2019s \u201cHouse of Plantagenet<\/a>\u201d and World History Encyclopedia\u2019s \u201cThe Plantagenets<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/a>[7] Historically, \u201cthe Cardinal\u201d was Henry Beaufort (c. 1375-1447), a legitimized son of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford.  He was Bishop of Lincoln from 1398, Bishop of Winchester from 1404, and Cardinal from 1426. He also served three times as Lord Chancellor (first in 1403, thanks to Henry IV, then from 1413-17 and finally from 1424-26), and was part of the Regency government surrounding the young king Henry VI. The cardinal was an enemy of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester. See Britannica.com\u2019s \u201cHenry Beaufort<\/a>.\u201d Accessed 2\/22\/2026. See also Matt Lewis\u2019s 1\/5\/2016 entry, \u201cThe Fall of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester<\/a>\u201d on Matt\u2019s History Blog. Accessed 2\/25\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/a> The order of English nobility proceeds as follows, starting with the highest ranking title below that of prince: duke\/duchess, marquess\/marchioness, earl\/countess, viscount\/viscountess, and baron\/baroness. Hereditary peers are addressed as \u201cYour Grace\u201d (for dukes and duchesses) or \u201cMy Lord\/Lady\u201d (for those ranks aside from duke\/duchess). Kings and queens are addressed as \u201cYour Majesty,\u201d while other senior royals are addressed as \u201cYour Royal Highness.\u201d After the initial addresses, the royals may be addressed as \u201cMa\u2019am\/Sir.\u201d \u201cExcellency\u201d is a term applied to high-level officials, ministers, and others of importance. It is not used to address the nobility. See Debretts London 1769<\/a> and Candace Hern\u2019s \u201cTitles and Forms of Address<\/a>\u201d at Regency World. Accessed 2\/22\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/a> John of Lancaster, Duke of Bedford (1389-1435). King Henry V\u2019s younger brother, third son of Henry Bolingbroke and Mary de Bohun. He later became Regent of France for the young Henry VI. During his tenure, England began to lose its French territories. See warsoftheroses.com\u2019s entry \u201cJohn, Duke of Bedford<\/a>.\u201d Accessed 2\/22\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10]<\/a> The Earl of Salisbury (1400-60) was the father of Richard Neville, 16th<\/sup> Earl of Warwick (1428-71), aka \u201cthe kingmaker.\u201d On Salisbury, see warsoftheroses.com\u2019s entry \u201cRichard Neville, Earl of Salisbury<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[11]<\/a> Normandy was, of course, vital as a connecting point between England and France at least from the time of William the Conqueror\u2019s invasion of England in 1066. See thehistoryofengland.co.uk\u2019s entry \u201cThe Normans\u2014a Race Unbridled<\/a>.\u201d Accessed 2\/22\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12]<\/a> See Asimov, Isaac. Asimov\u2019s Guide to Shakespeare: a Guide to Understanding and Enjoying the Works of Shakespeare. <\/em>Vols. 1-2 combined. New York: Wings Books, 1970. ISBN-10: 0517268256. The playwright may be conflating the present earl, Richard Neville the 16th<\/sup> Earl of Warwick, with Richard Beauchamp, 13th<\/sup> Earl of Warwick (1382-1439), who was instrumental in England\u2019s fighting with France. Vol. 2, 579-80. As Asimov points out, Anjou was never actually in England\u2019s possession. Vol 2, 577. On Beauchamp, see Britannica\u2019s \u201cRichard Beauchamp, 13th<\/sup> Earl of Warwick<\/a>,\u201d and regarding Beauchamp and his wife Elizabeth Berkeley, see Jo Romero\u2019s \u201cMedieval Power Couple \u2026<\/a>\u201d in lovebritishhistory.co.uk. On the 16th<\/sup> Earl, see \u201cRichard Neville, Earl of Warwick (The \u2018Kingmaker\u2019)<\/a>\u201d in warsoftheroses.com. All accessed 2\/25\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[13]<\/a> Richard Plantagenet (1411-1460), son of Richard of Conisburgh, 3rd<\/sup> Earl of Cambridge (1385-1413, executed by Henry V for a treasonous plot) and grandson of Edmund Langley, 1st<\/sup> Duke of York and Edward III\u2019s fourth surviving son. He claimed the English throne through the male<\/em> line as a descendant of Edmund Langley, and through the female<\/em> line from his mother Anne Mortimer (1388-1411), daughter of Roger Mortimer, 4th<\/sup> Earl of March (1374-98). Anne was the granddaughter of Edmund Mortimer, 3rd<\/sup> Earl of March (1352-81) and Philippa, 5th<\/sup> Countess of Ulster (1355-88). See warsoftheroses.com\u2019s Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York<\/a>. Accessed 2\/22\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[14]<\/a> Gloucester took a more aggressive stance than the Cardinal regarding the Hundred Years\u2019 War, and they also fought with each other over power and policy during the years of Henry VI\u2019s Regency Council. Again, see Matt Lewis\u2019s 1\/5\/2016 entry, \u201cThe Fall of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester<\/a>\u201d on Matt\u2019s History Blog. Accessed 2\/25\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[15]<\/a> The \u201cDuke of Somerset\u201d in 2 Henry VI is Edmund Beaufort, 2nd<\/sup> Duke of Somerset (c. 1406-55). Edmund, who inherited the title from his older brother John (Jr. 1404-44), was the fourth surviving son of John Beaufort, 1st<\/sup> Earl of Somerset (1373-1410) and Margaret Holland (1385-1439). John, Edmund\u2019s father, was the eldest legitimized <\/em>son of Edward III\u2019s third surviving son, John of Gaunt (1340-99), and thus he had a viable claim to the English throne, which put him in contention with Richard Plantagenet, 3rd<\/sup> Duke of York, who through his mother Anne Mortimer was a descendant of Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence, Edward III\u2019s second <\/em>surviving son. Edmund was also the cousin of Richard Plantagenet and of King Henry VI. During the Hundred Years\u2019 War, in 1449-50 Edmund surrendered Rouen, and the war ended only a few years later with England having lost nearly all of its French holdings. See \u201cDuke of Somerset<\/a>\u201d at shakespeareandhistory.com. Accessed 2\/27\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[16]<\/a> In Act 1, Scene 5 of Macbeth, <\/em>Lady Macbeth offers the clever but wicked counsel to her husband, \u201cLook like th\u2019innocent flower, \/ But be the serpent under\u2019t.\u201d See Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Macbeth.<\/em> In The Norton Shakespeare: Tragedies,<\/em> 3rd ed. 917-69. (926, 1.5.63-64). See also Asimov, Isaac. Asimov\u2019s Guide to Shakespeare: a Guide to Understanding and Enjoying the Works of Shakespeare. <\/em>Vols. 1-2 combined. New York: Wings Books, 1970. ISBN-10: 0517268256. In Vol. 2, 615-16, Asimov eloquently summarizes the case for York\u2019s longtime loyalty towards Henry VI\u2014he was popular and had a number of opportunities to seize the throne, but he did not seize it. Asimov rightly points out that Richard Plantagenet only asserted his claim when he had no other choice, if he meant to save England from chaos. Queen Margaret\u2019s hatred of him was implacable\u2014she saw him as an existential threat to her continuance as queen, and her little son\u2019s path to throne.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[17]<\/a> On the legend of the white rose of York and the red rose of Lancaster, see warsoftheroses.com\u2019s entry \u201cWhite and Red Roses<\/a>.\u201d The playwright\u2019s fictional scene in which Richard of York challenges Somerset has been aptly represented in Henry Payne\u2019s painting \u201cPlucking the Red and White Roses in the Old Temple Gardens<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[18]<\/a> As in previous notes, see Asimov, Isaac. Asimov\u2019s Guide to Shakespeare: a Guide to Understanding and Enjoying the Works of Shakespeare. <\/em>Vols. 1-2 combined. New York: Wings Books, 1970. ISBN-10: 0517268256. Asimov points out that while the playwright\u2019s representation of the feud between Eleanor, Duchess of Gloucester and Queen Margaret makes sense dramatically, it is completely in error historically. The Duchess died four years before Margaret married King Henry. The two women never met, much less quarreled. Vol. 2, 586. See also Susan Higginbotham\u2019s entry \u201cEleanor Cobham: The Duchess and Her Downfall<\/a>\u201d in her blog History Refreshed: New Perspectives on Old Times. Accessed 2\/25\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[19]<\/a> Hawking was an important part of medieval and early-modern aristocratic life and status. Shakespeare incorporates references to this activity in many of his plays. See George Turberville\u2019s 1611 Booke of Falconrie<\/em><\/a>, at EEBO\/U-Mich, \u201cFalconry and Hawking<\/a>\u201d at internetshakespeare.uvic.ca, and \u201cElizabethan Hunting<\/a>\u201d at elizabethan-era.org.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[20]<\/a> On Roger Bolingbroke, see partial copy of Robert Ralley\u2019s article, \u201cStars, demons, and the body in fifteenth-century England<\/a>.\u201d  Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences.\u201d Sciencedirect.com. Accessed 2\/26\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[21]<\/a> See Bacon, Sir Francis. \u201cOf Truth\u201d in \u201cThe Essays or Counsels, Civil and Moral, of Francis Ld. Verulam, Viscount of St. Albans<\/em><\/a>. G<\/em>utenberg e-text. For the bible passage, see Luke <\/em>18:8<\/a>:  \u201cI tell you he will avenge them quickly: but when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?\u201d Geneva Bible, 1599. biblegateway.com. Both accessed 2\/25\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[22]<\/a> Enclosure began to occur in Britain as early as the twelfth century. See Britannica.com\u2019s \u201cEnclosure<\/a>.\u201d See also \u201dA Short History of Enclosure in Britain<\/a>\u201d in thelandmagazine.org.uk and Simon Fairlie\u2019s article \u201cA Short History of Enclosure \u2026<\/a>\u201d in hamptonthink.org. These two articles come at the topic from a progressive viewpoint. Accessed 2\/22\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[23]<\/a> On the development of an English \u201cbureaucracy,\u201d see Peter Ackroyd\u2019s Foundation: The History of England from Its Earliest Beginnings to the Tudors<\/em><\/a>.<\/em> St. Martin\u2019s Griffin, 2013 (repr.). ISBN-13: 978-1250037558. 117, 126, 201. See also \u201cBureaucrats: the Heroes of the Medieval Church<\/a>.\u201d July 2, 2021, Ecclesiastical History Society. Accessed 2\/26\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[24]<\/a> See Asimov, Isaac. Asimov\u2019s Guide to Shakespeare: a Guide to Understanding and Enjoying the Works of Shakespeare. <\/em>Vols. 1-2 combined. New York: Wings Books, 1970. ISBN-10: 0517268256. Asimov writes, \u201cAnjou and Maine made up the hereditary dominions of Margaret\u2019s father, Ren\u00e9 of Anjou, so he was only asking for his own\u201d (576).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[25]<\/a> York was appointed Lieutenant of France in May 1436, replacing Henry V\u2019s brother John, Duke of Bedford. See \u201cRichard Plantagenet, 3rd<\/sup> Duke of York<\/a>\u201d at unofficialroyalty.com. Accessed 2\/27\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[26]<\/a> On the matter of medieval military recruitment and conscription, see Sandra Alvarez\u2019s essay, \u201cThe recruitment of armies in the early middle ages: what can we know?<\/a>\u201d De Re Militari<\/em> Blog, June 30, 2014. Accessed 2\/26\/2026. Shakespeare offers an unsparing view of Sir John Falstaff\u2019s lethally corrupt practices in this regard. Falstaff himself says, \u201cI have misused the King\u2019s press damnably. I have \/ got in exchange of a hundred and fifty soldiers, three hundred \/ and odd pounds\u201d (679, 4.2.11-13). Shakespeare, William. The History of Henry the Fourth. <\/em>Aka The First Part of Henry the Fourth.<\/em> In The Norton Shakespeare: Histories,<\/em> 3rd ed. 629-95.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[27]<\/a> See, for example, \u201cAsnath<\/a>.\u201d Biblehub.com. Accessed 2\/26\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[28]<\/a> Historically, Gloucester was only Henry\u2019s official Lord Protector up to November 6, 1429. Moreover, Richard, Duke of York was in Ireland in 1441, so he was not actually present for the arrest of Eleanor, Duchess of Gloucester. See Asimov, Isaac. Asimov\u2019s Guide to Shakespeare: a Guide to Understanding and Enjoying the Works of Shakespeare. <\/em>Vols. 1-2 combined. New York: Wings Books, 1970. ISBN-10: 0517268256. 589.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[29]<\/a> See Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Macbeth.<\/em> In The Norton Shakespeare: Tragedies,<\/em> 3rd ed. 917-69. 930, 2.1.33-35.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[30]<\/a> Shakespeare, William. The Tempest.<\/em> In The Norton Shakespeare: Romances and Poems,<\/em> 3rd ed. 397-448. Mainly, Ariel whips up St. Elmo\u2019s fire to speed a feigned shipwreck; creates a banquet borrowed from The Aeneid <\/em>and then makes it vanish before the aristocratic conspirator-guests can eat it; stages a masque of celestial spirits for the enjoyment of Miranda and Ferdinand; and generates hell-hounds to terrify and harass the base conspirators Caliban, Trinculo, and Stefano.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[31]<\/a> See Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Macbeth.<\/em> In The Norton Shakespeare: Tragedies,<\/em> 3rd ed. 917-69. 930, 2.1.42.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[32]<\/a> See Homer. The Odyssey. <\/em>Trans. Robert Fagles. Penguin Books, 1997. ISBN-13: 978-0140268867. The Greek phrasing of the lines in question run, \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03c2\u00a0\u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u00a0\u03c3\u1f7a\u00a0\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b5:\u00a0\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u00a0\u03b4\u03ad\u00a0\u03c3\u1fbd\u00a0\u1f14\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5 \/ \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd,\u00a0\u1f43\u03c2\u00a0\u03a4\u03c1\u03ce\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u00a0\u1f10\u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u00a0\u03ba\u1fe6\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2\u00a0\u1f40\u03c1\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 \u2026\u201d (4.274-75). A plain translation would be, \u201cThen you came to that place, and it must be that you were commanded by some god who planned to bestow glory on the Trojans \u2026.\u201d This is an eerie moment in Homer\u2019s narrative since Helen tells us that even before this, she had already come to regret her stay in Troy. See the Perseus Project\u2019s Greek edition of Homer\u2019s Odyssey. <\/em>Book 4.274-75<\/a>. Accessed 2\/26\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[33]<\/a>  See Henry VI, Part 2. <\/em>(Folio 1, 1623)<\/a>. Internet Shakespeare editions. Accessed 2\/26\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[34]<\/a> See Cicero\u2019s \u201cOn Divination<\/a>.\u201d The vagueness in the prophecy is that the address called for by the word \u201cAio<\/em>\u201d (I say) could refer to the accusative singular pronoun te <\/em>(which is omitted from the Norton text but should be understood; Aeacida is the vocative singular of Aeacides, as in \u201cO Pyrrhus of Epirus, descendant of Aeacus\u201d) or to the accusative plural of the proper noun Romanos. <\/em>Literally, \u201cI say you\u201d or \u201cI say the Romans,\u201d with the rest of the construction, vincere posse, <\/em>meaning \u201cto be able to conquer.\u201d Vincere <\/em>would also be followed by a noun in the accusative case: to conquer you <\/em>or the Romans.<\/em> In De Divinatione <\/em>(2.116), <\/em>Cicero uses this verse from Ennius as an example of a vague prophecy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[35]<\/a> Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Macbeth.<\/em> In The Norton Shakespeare: Tragedies,<\/em> 3rd ed. 917-69. Macbeth\u2019s hawking metaphor is striking: \u201cCome, seeling night, \/ Scarf up the tender eye of pitiful day, \/ And with thy bloody and invisible hand \/ Cancel and tear to pieces that great bond \/ Which keeps me pale!\u201d (942, 3.2.45-49).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[36]<\/a> Machiavelli writes in The Prince <\/em>(Il principe<\/em>) Ch. XV (wr. 1513\/pub. 1532) that a prince who tries to do only good when he or she is surrounded by wickedness will come to ruin. The original Italian text runs, \u201c… uno uomo, che voglia fare in tutte le parte li professione di buono, conviene rovini infra tanti che non sono buoni. Onde \u00e8 necessario a uno principe, volendosi mantenere, imparare a potere essere non buono, et usarlo e non usare secondo la necessit\u00e0.\u201d In colloquial English (commenter\u2019s translation), the text reads, \u201ca man who wants to act always in a way that matches his declarations of virtue must come to ruin among so many people who are not good. Therefore, it is necessary that a prince who wants to remain in power should learn to be capable of not <\/em>being good, and to use that capability (or not use it) as needed.\u201d In Il principe, <\/em>G. C. Sansoni, Firense 1913<\/a>. Internet Archive. Accessed 2\/26\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[37]<\/a> Some confusion may arise here if one counts the sons who did not survive to adulthood. If that is done, Lionel becomes the \u201cthird\u201d son, Gaunt becomes the \u201cfourth\u201d son, Langley the \u201cfifth,\u201d and Gloucester the \u201csixth.\u201d That is indeed how Warwick counts Edward III\u2019s sons, as he sums up York\u2019s argument by saying, \u201cHenry doth claim the crown from John of Gaunt, \/ The fourth son; York claims it from the third [Lionel]\u201d (169, 2.2.54-55).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[38]<\/a> As the Norton editor points out in footnote 2 to 169, 2.2.36, Shakespeare conflates Edmund Mortimer \u201cwith his uncle of the same name who was captured by Glynd\u0175r \u2026.\u201d That Mortimer was Sir Edmund Mortimer IV (1376-1409), who died at the siege of Harlech. He did not become Earl of March because his elder brother Roger, the 4th<\/sup> Earl, had a son also\u2014confusingly\u2014named Edmund, who became 5th<\/sup> Earl of March and inherited his father\u2019s claim to the throne. But for our purposes, the point is that York claims the title of King of England mainly through his mother, Anne Mortimer, a direct descendant of Lionel, Duke of Clarence, Edward III\u2019s second <\/em>surviving son, whereas the Lancastrians staked their claim on their descendance from John of Gaunt, the third <\/em>surviving son.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[39]<\/a> To put the case in terms that a modern student of abnormal psychology would understand, to be a fully empowered monarch or authoritarian leader of any kind, one must be to some extent a sociopath.<\/em> This is a counterbalancing phenomenon to the feudal era\u2019s traditional emphasis on reciprocal obligations between lord and serf, or lord and sovereign.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Those who think that a king or queen owes them a debt or favor for their loyalty are likely to be dangerously disappointed. A full-blown monarch or authoritarian ruler of any kind (not a constitutional monarch who merely \u201cpresides\u201d rather than rules in earnest) is generally averse to acknowledging obligation. To express obligation or loyalty too fulsomely is to acknowledge weakness, or vulnerability, <\/em>and an authoritarian cannot allow him- or herself to do that: it\u2019s risky for a \u201cstrongman\u201d not to look strong.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[40]<\/a> See \u201cThe Isle of Man<\/a>\u201d at historic-uk.com. Accessed 2\/26\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[41]<\/a> See Dylan Thomas\u2019s \u201cDo not go gentle into that good night<\/a>\u201d at poets.org.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[42]<\/a> See Boswell-Stone, Walter G. Shakespeare’s Holinshed: The Chronicle and the Historical Plays Compared<\/em>. Wentworth Press, 2019 [repr. of London: Chatto & Windus 1907 ed.]. ISBN-13: <\/strong>978-0530892863. The Duke of Gloucester was arrested for high treason either on February 11 or 18. Holinshed<\/em> iii. 627\/1\/15 offers this gloss: \u201cBut, to auoid danger of tumult that might be raised, if a prince so well beloued of the people should be openlie executed, his enimies determined to worke their feats in his destruction, yer he should haue anie warning. For effecting whereof, a parlement was summoned to be kept at Berrie; whither resorted all the peeres of the realme \u2026\u201d (Boswell-Stone 263).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

     Incidentally, in 1723, playwright Ambrose Philips published a tragedy centered on Humphrey\u2019s life, titled Humfrey, Duke of Gloucester<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>to be acted at London\u2019s Drury Lane.  <\/em>Internet Archive. Accessed 2\/27\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[43]<\/a> Whatever the truth status of the accusations leveled against Gloucester, suggests Holinshed\u2019s source, Edward Halle (209), so soon as Gloucester was shut out from power in 1446, he was effectively living under a death sentence. (Boswell-Stone 263). See Boswell-Stone, Walter G. Shakespeare’s Holinshed: The Chronicle and the Historical Plays Compared<\/em>. Wentworth Press, 2019 [repr. of London: Chatto & Windus 1907 ed.]. ISBN-13: 978-0530892863.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[44]<\/a> \u201cSomerset\u201d here is Edmund Beaufort, 2nd<\/sup> Duke of Somerset (c. 1406-55). See \u201cDuke of Somerset<\/a>\u201d at shakespeareandhistory.com. Accessed 2\/27\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[45]<\/a> On Jack Cade, see note immediately below. See also \u201cJack Cade\u2019s Rebellion\u20141450<\/a>\u201d at britainexpress.com and Cade\u2019s charter \u201cThe Complaint of the Poor Commons of Kent<\/a>\u201d at wikisource.org. See also Holinshed\u2019s copy, \u201cThe complaint of the commons of Kent, and causes of their assemblie at the Blackheath<\/a>\u201d at The Holinshed Project. Both accessed 2\/27\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[46]<\/a> On York, see Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York<\/a>, at warsoftheroses.com. As an antidote to the oft-repeated claims that York was the instigator of Jack Cade\u2019s 1450 rebellion, see Asimov, Isaac. Asimov\u2019s Guide to Shakespeare: a Guide to Understanding and Enjoying the Works of Shakespeare. <\/em>Vols. 1-2 combined. New York: Wings Books, 1970. ISBN-10: 0517268256. Vol. 2, 611-13. Asimov covers Cade\u2019s rebellion itself from 603-09.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[47]<\/a> Vaux is a fictional character in 2 Henry VI,<\/em> who appears in Act 3, Scene 2 to inform Henry that Cardinal Beaufort is gravely ill. The name may have had some real-life resonance, if we connect it to young Sir William Vaux, on whom see the 10\/11\/2023 entry \u201cSir William Vaux and his wife Katherine<\/a>\u201d at murreyandblue.wordpress.com. Accessed 2\/27\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[48]<\/a> Queen Margaret\u2019s only child, Edward of Westminster, was born in 1453, three years after Suffolk\u2019s death in 1450.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[49]<\/a> Shakespeare did not take the account of Cardinal Beaufort\u2019s death from Holinshed, but seems to have intensified the sense of loathing that generally accompanies his representation of the grasping prelate. The chronicler writes of Beaufort, \u201chis insatiable couetousnesse and hope of long life made him both to forget God, his prince, and himselfe.\u201d In sum, the idea goes, he was a worldly man, more of a politician than a true churchman, and his death elicits little sympathy. See Henry VI\u2019s regnal year 1447-48<\/a> at the Holinshed Project. Accessed 2\/27\/2026. See also Sir Joshua Reynolds\u2019s painting \u201cThe Death of Cardinal Beaufort (1377-1447)<\/a>\u201d (1789) at commons.wikimedia.org and John Henry Fuseli\u2019s drawing \u201cThe Death of Cardinal Beaufort<\/a>\u201d (1772) at liverpoolmuseums.org.uk. Accessed 2\/27\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[50]<\/a> See the Dec. 9, 2016 entry \u201cThe Death of William de la Pole, 1st<\/sup> Duke of Suffolk: Murder at Sea<\/a>\u201d at thefreelancehistorywriter.com. Accessed 2\/27\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[51]<\/a> On the matter of attribution, which was glossed at the outset of this document, see Professor Hugh Craig\u2019s \u201cIgnore the doubters: here\u2019s why Christopher Marlowe co-wrote Shakespeare\u2019s Henry VI<\/a>\u201d at theconversation.com. Accessed 2\/27\/2026. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[52]<\/a> 2 Henry VI <\/em>162, 1.4.32.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[53]<\/a> Holinshed has Suffolk\u2019s execution taking place at \u201cDover Road\u201d the next day. He does not mention a mock trial of the sort that Shakespeare introduces into the event. See Boswell-Stone, Walter G. Shakespeare’s Holinshed: The Chronicle and the Historical Plays Compared<\/em>. Wentworth Press, 2019 [repr. of London: Chatto & Windus 1907 ed.]. ISBN-13: 978-0530892863. 270. See also \u201cHenry VI Regnal Year 1450-51<\/a>\u201d at The Holinshed Project. Accessed 2\/27\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[54]<\/a> See Asimov, Isaac. Asimov\u2019s Guide to Shakespeare: a Guide to Understanding and Enjoying the Works of Shakespeare. <\/em>Vols. 1-2 combined. New York: Wings Books, 1970. ISBN-10: 0517268256. Vol. 2, 604. The genealogy that Cade gives, Asimov points out, \u201cwould make Cade a first cousin of Edmund, the 5th<\/sup> Earl of March \u2026, and prior to him in his claim to the throne. It would also make Cade first cousin, once removed, of Richard of York, and prior to him in his claim to the throne too\u201d (2.604).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[55]<\/a> See William Blake\u2019s \u201cProverbs of Hell<\/a>\u201d in The Marriage of Heaven and Hell <\/em>atAllpoetry.com.Accessed 2\/27\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[56]<\/a> See Cade\u2019s charter \u201cThe Complaint of the Poor Commons of Kent<\/a>\u201d at wikisource.org. Accessed 2\/27\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[57]<\/a> See Holinshed\u2019s account of Lord Saye\u2019s death in \u201cHenry VI, regnal year 1450-51<\/a>\u201d at the Holinshed Project. Accessed 2\/27\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[58]<\/a> See the entry \u201cMatthew Gough<\/a>\u201d at shakespeareandhistory.com. Accessed 2\/27\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[59]<\/a> One of taxi driver Travis Bickle\u2019s most powerful statements is the wish, \u201cSomeday a real rain will come and wash all the scum off the streets.\u201d See Martin Scorsese\u2019s 1976 film Taxi Driver<\/em><\/a> at IMDB. Accessed 2\/27\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[60]<\/a> On the legal doctrine of \u201cbenefit of clergy,\u201d see Britannica\u2019s entry \u201cbenefit of clergy<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[61]<\/a> Jack may or may not know that this so-called tradition of le droit du seigneur or jus primae noctis was more fiction than established fact. There was, however, such a thing as the \u201cformariage\u201d or \u201cmerchet\u201d act in some nations, requiring serfs who married outside their proper jurisdiction or manor to pay a fee to their lord for the privilege of so marrying. See Britannica\u2019s entry \u201cdroit du seigneur<\/a>.\u201d See also the entry \u201cDroit du Seigneur<\/a>\u201d at aprilmunday.wordpress.com, A Writer\u2019s Perspective. Accessed 2\/27\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[62]<\/a> The \u201cDunning-Kruger effect\u201d is shorthand for the troublesome cognitive bias that social scientists David Dunning and Justin Kruger identify, whereby someone with quite limited knowledge of a given field or domain remains oblivious to his or her own knowledge deficit, and may therefore act with great self-confidence. In essence, you don\u2019t know what you don\u2019t know\u2014so you assume you\u2019re doing a wonderful job when, in fact and as many others can see, you aren\u2019t. See Britannica\u2019s entry \u201cDunning-Kruger effect<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

     Some of Shakespeare\u2019s lower-class comic characters would probably be a good example of \u201cDunning-Kruger,\u201d as the effect is colloquially called: they try to impress by reproducing the language and manners of their social superiors or \u201cbetters,\u201d but since they don\u2019t really understand what they\u2019re saying or doing, they fail with hilarious results. Recall the antics of Constable Dogberry in Much Ado about Nothing, <\/em>for example, or Launcelot Gobbo in The Merchant of Venice. <\/em>It\u2019s worth noting, however, that the effect covered here is by no means limited to totally ignorant, uneducated people. Fairly often, highly educated people assume that because they are experts in one field, they can easily function as experts in almost any other field. They may also assume that other highly educated colleagues can do the same.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[63]<\/a> On Alexander Iden (1427-57), the squire who killed Jack Cade, see the appropriate sections of \u201cResearches and Discoveries<\/a>\u201d (2021) at the Kentish Archaeological Society.\u00a0Accessed 2\/27\/2026. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[64]<\/a> For the 1594 Quarto 1 text of 2 Henry VI,<\/em> see Internet Shakespeare Editions, lines 3242.1ff<\/a>. Accessed 2\/27\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[65]<\/a> Salisbury will live on to 1460, when he will be executed by the Lancastrians after the Battle of Wakefield.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[66]<\/a> With regard to the pace of medieval battles, see \u201cIntensity and Duration of Fighting in Ancient Medieval Battles<\/a>.\u201d Historum.com. Accessed 2\/27\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[67]<\/a> The First Battle of St. Albans was precipitated by King Henry\u2019s call for a Great Council at Leicester on May 21, 1455. The battle took place the next day, May 22. The Yorkists knew that the purpose of this council would be to act against them. See Britannica.com\u2019s entry \u201cThe Battles of St. Albans<\/a>.\u201d See also \u201cFirst Battle of St. Albans<\/a>\u201d at britishbattles.com. Both accessed 2\/27\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[68]<\/a> See \u201cBattle of Blore Heath<\/a>\u201d at britishbattles.com. See also \u201cThe Battle of Blore Heath<\/a>\u201d at the Richard III Society\u2019s richardiii.net. Accessed 2\/27\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n

<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Shakespeare, William [and possibly Christopher Marlowe]. The Second Part of Henry the Sixth. Folio. (The Norton Shakespeare: Histories, 3rd ed. 147-218.) *Norton […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_eb_attr":"","_uag_custom_page_level_css":"","_lmt_disableupdate":"no","_lmt_disable":"","site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"iawp_total_views":5,"footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[36,37,57,55,39,56,33,54,53],"wf_page_folders":[7],"class_list":["post-187","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry","category-history-plays","tag-elizabethan-drama","tag-english-political-theory","tag-king-edward-iv","tag-margaret-of-anjou","tag-raphael-holinsheds-chronicles","tag-richard-of-york","tag-shakespeares-history-plays","tag-the-talbot","tag-tigers-heart-wrapped-in-a-womans-hide"],"uagb_featured_image_src":{"full":false,"thumbnail":false,"medium":false,"medium_large":false,"large":false,"1536x1536":false,"2048x2048":false},"uagb_author_info":{"display_name":"ajd_shxpr","author_link":"https:\/\/www.ajdrake.com\/shakespeare\/author\/ajd_shxpr\/"},"uagb_comment_info":0,"uagb_excerpt":"Shakespeare, William [and possibly Christopher Marlowe]. The Second Part of Henry the Sixth. Folio. (The Norton Shakespeare: Histories, 3rd ed. 147-218.) *Norton […]","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ajdrake.com\/shakespeare\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/187","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ajdrake.com\/shakespeare\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ajdrake.com\/shakespeare\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ajdrake.com\/shakespeare\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ajdrake.com\/shakespeare\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=187"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.ajdrake.com\/shakespeare\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/187\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11274,"href":"https:\/\/www.ajdrake.com\/shakespeare\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/187\/revisions\/11274"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ajdrake.com\/shakespeare\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=187"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ajdrake.com\/shakespeare\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=187"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ajdrake.com\/shakespeare\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=187"},{"taxonomy":"wf_page_folders","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ajdrake.com\/shakespeare\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/wf_page_folders?post=187"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}