We may well wonder how our greatest playwright took one of England’s most colourful monarchs and made one of his most colourless plays. This is not to say that Henry VIII is a bad play. It has many points of interest, and is certainly a vast improvement on the puerile Titus Andronicus, Shakespeare’s worst play.However, it is undeniably not a strong Shakespeare play, and perhaps a brief summary of the plot (such as it is) is required before we look at the reasons for the play’s low standing in the Shakespeare canon.The play does not purport to tell the entire life of Henry VIII and focuses on just a period of a few years. During this time, Thomas Wolsey is Lord Chancellor and Henry’s right-hand man, and uses his power unscrupulously to acquire wealth, plot the downfall of his enemies and engage in underhand deals without his king knowing. After Wolsey brings about the arrest and execution of Buckingham, he over-reaches and the King finally becomes aware of his treachery. The disgraced Wolsey dies before he can face sentence, however.Meanwhile, Henry falls in love with Anne Bullen and sets about divorcing his wife, Katherine, after convincing himself that the marriage is not legal due to her being married to his brother first. Katherine opposes the divorce, weakening her status further, and she dies still loving her king.In the final part of the play, Henry protects the Archbishop, Thomas Cranmer from charges of heresy. As Anne gives birth to a royal child, Cranmer prophesies that the child (the future Queen Elizabeth) will grow up to become a powerful and successful ruler.The obvious point that is clear from the plot summary is that story lacks a certain spine. While Shakespeare wisely avoids trying to cover all six wives, a difficult feat for a play, he does not concentrate the story on any particular focus. Wolsey seems to be the key character, but he falls from grace in Act 3. The Queen captures our interest, but she dies in Act 4. The final part of the play concerns Cranmer’s fortunate escape, but Cranmer has barely appeared in the play at all up until this point.So now it seems appropriate to look at why the play is so muted in its dramatic appeal. One reason often suggested is that the play is a collaboration with Fletcher, and Shakespeare wrote very little of it. This may or may not be true, but the notion was only suggested many years after Shakespeare’s death as a theory, and it is at least possible that Shakespeare wrote it all himself.The play does not fit easily into Shakespeare’s canon. It does not cover the same kind of themes as the other history plays – the role of the king, the leadership of the country etc. Some have suggested that it is closer to the romances that rounded off Shakespeare’s career.Certainly the play contains elements familiar to the romances, including dreams and prophesies, but it is not a romance in the way that the other plays are. It is held back by its need for historical accuracy. If it was a romance, the King and Queen would have been reconciled, but this is an impossibility. The most likely problem for the play is that it rests on historical events that are too recent. Whilst the play was written after the death of Elizabeth I, the daughter of Henry VIII, this does not give Shakespeare full artistic licence to treat the subject freely. After all, the new king, James I, was still related to the dead Queen.There is a little cynicism in Shakespeare’s treatment of the characters. Anne Bullen (Boleyn) protests a little too much in saying she would never be a queen, but quickly accepts favours from Henry and soon becomes his Queen. Shakespeare must also be one of the first writers to draw attention to the pliable ‘conscience’ of Henry that somehow always manages to guilt-trip him into doing what suits his desires, in this case marrying Anne.However, the portrayal of the previous Queen’s mother and father cannot be too hostile. Hence most of the characters praise Anne’s virtues, and we see Henry stepping in to protect his subjects from excessive taxation, and rescuing Cranmer from his enemies.This is one reason for the play’s limited focus historically. Shakespeare cannot continue without showing Anne’s failure to provide the king with a male heir and her subsequent execution for adultery. To portray this, he would have difficulty presenting it in a manner that did not make either the King or the Queen appear bad.In fact, the play’s limited focus casts many ironic shadows since we know that a number of figures who appear or who are mentioned in the play will later fall victim to the tyranny of Henry, including Thomas More and Thomas Cromwell.Thomas Cranmer would be executed by the Catholic Mary I for heresy, and his sympathetic portrayal does not sit well with those who would like to see Shakespeare as being a Catholic. He has the favour of the king and it is he who delivers the prophetic speech in praise of the future Elizabeth. Regrettably the speech also includes some toadying to the current James as well.Indeed since the play covers the events that allow the church to break away from the Pope, it could be said that this is the central focus of the play, even if it is not always so clearly expressed.The constant shifts in the play can be frustrating. The story of Wolsey and Katherine is the most interesting part, but this eventually gets lost and we are obliged to follow minor characters or displays of pageantry that probably look better on the stage than on the printed page.Overall the play, whilst weak by Shakespeare standards, is not without many interesting features. It is probably of more interest to Shakespeare completists however.
Decent. Not much of a plot, as "what it's about" jumps around from (1) Wolsey's conflict with the nobility, especially Buckingham; to (2) Henry's desire of annulling his marriage to Katherine so that he can marry Anne; to (3) Cranmer's loyalty and Elizabeth's baptism. There's not really one thread that ties it all together; it's kind of like a highlight reel of Henry's life, with much of the sensitive stuff (i.e. Thomas More) left out. Worse is that most of the juicy stuff doesn't happen onstage. Instead, we have to hear from "First Gentleman" and "Second Gentleman" or "Chamberlain" about (1) Buckingham's trial; (2) Anne's coronation; (3) Anne's giving birth; and (4) Wolsey's death. I'd like to see any of those (except Anne giving birth, maybe--gross). The best stuff that happens onstage, however, is about Katherine--who isn't moved by her walkout of the divorce hearings? She has the best lines (Except maybe Wolsey, a fascinating characterization). For the first half of the play, she is the real heroine, not Henry.I just want to show off that I got this joke: "Ye have angels' faces, but heaven knows your hearts." (The Angle/angel pun had already been made by the Pope.)At no point do we get to see Anne confront Katherine or vice-versa. That would have been great.CARDINAL WOLSEY [Aside] The late queen's gentlewoman, a knight's daughter, To be her mistress' mistress! the queen's queen! This candle burns not clear: 'tis I must snuff it; Then out it goes. What though I know her virtuous And well deserving? yet I know her for A spleeny Lutheran; and not wholesome to Our cause, that she should lie i' the bosom of Our hard-ruled king. Again, there is sprung up An heretic, an arch one, Cranmer; one Hath crawl'd into the favour of the king, And is his oracle.Come on! Who wouldn't want to see that?Wolsey's apotheosis of a downfall is great: CROMWELL I have no power to speak, sir.CARDINAL WOLSEY What, amazed At my misfortunes? can thy spirit wonder A great man should decline? Nay, an you weep, I am fall'n indeed.CROMWELL How does your grace?CARDINAL WOLSEY Why, well; Never so truly happy, my good Cromwell. I know myself now; and I feel within me A peace above all earthly dignities, A still and quiet conscience. The king has cured me, I humbly thank his grace; and from these shoulders, These ruin'd pillars, out of pity, taken A load would sink a navy, too much honour: O, 'tis a burthen, Cromwell, 'tis a burthen Too heavy for a man that hopes for heaven!Continued: Cromwell, I charge thee, fling away ambition:By that sin fell the angels; how can man, then,The image of his Maker, hope to win by it?Love thyself last: cherish those hearts that hate thee;Corruption wins not more than honesty.Still in thy right hand carry gentle peace,To silence envious tongues. Be just, and fear not:Let all the ends thou aim'st at be thy country's,Thy God's, and truth's; then if thou fall'st,O Cromwell,Thou fall'st a blessed martyr! Serve the king;And,--prithee, lead me in:There take an inventory of all I have,To the last penny; 'tis the king's: my robe,And my integrity to heaven, is allI dare now call mine own. O Cromwell, Cromwell!Had I but served my God with half the zealI served my king, he would not in mine ageHave left me naked to mine enemies.Shakespeare was always preaching against ambition; it's a wonder he achieved so much.Katherine's death, on the other hand, is kind of weird: "personages" in white, spirits, jump out on stage and do a dance in a dream sequence.It's mildly entertaining; but compared to most of Shakespeare, it's inadequate. It's better than Pericles, at least.
What do You think about Henry VIII (2007)?
Make no mistake, Henry VIII is not a "bad" play. It rates 2 stars only because it doesn't hold up against the 3- and 4-star ratings I've given other Shakespeare plays here on my shelves.The biggest problem Henry VIII has is a lack of focus and/or a central character.In terms of focus, we go from Katherine's divorce to Wolsey's downfall to Cranmer's rise to Elizabeth's baptism. All in five acts. There's too much here to adequately develop in the scope of a single play; even in the hands of a master like the Bard.In terms of characters, there a several good potentials here, Katherine and Wolsey standing out above all others. Both get some good scenes and some good monologues like their confrontation in Act 3, scene 1: Katherine protests that she is a "mere woman" and Wolsey pretends to be her friend with only her best interests at heart: Wolsey: Noble lady,/ I am sorry my integrity should breed,/ and service to his majesty and you,/ so deep suspicion, where all faith was meant./ We come not by the way of accusation,/ to taint that honour every good tongue blesses,/ nor to betray you any way to sorrow - / you have too much, good lady - / but to know/ how you stand minded in the weighty difference/ between the king and you, and to deliver,/ like free and honest men, our just opinions/ and comforts to your cause....Katherine: (aside) To betray me. - / My lords, I thank you both for your good wills;/ ye speak like honest men: pray God, ye prove so!/ But how to make ye suddenly an answer,/ in such a point of weight, so near mine honour,/ more near my life, I fear, with my weak wit,/ and to such men of gravity and learning,/ in truth, I know not..../ Alas, I am a woman, friendless, hopeless!And there's Wolsey's leave-taking of Cromwell in scene 2 of that act.The overall effect of the play, though, is diluted and weak even if there are good parts to be found.
—Terence
Among Shakespeare's histories, this was one of the weakest--which is to say that it was good rather than great. The most compelling characters--Katherine, Wolsey, Buckingham--suffered a fall from grace rather early, leaving the plot somewhat flat towards the end.I liked how much of the action is seen through the eyes of characters with (relatively) lower social status--nobility, gentry, and commoners--rather than the royals and top clerics who call the shots. Unfortunately, none of the "lower" characters develops a unique and interesting voice of their own.It is believed that Shakespeare and John Fletcher collaborated on this play, with each penning several entire scenes. There are some stylistic differences, but overall the scenes flow together well.With the historical basis of the play only decades (rather than centuries) removed from its first performance, it seems to me that political concerns might have limited Shakespeare's and Fletcher's ability to take full advantage of the material. Still, I found it interesting and enjoyable, on the whole.
—Scott
If you read the Histories straight through in narrative order starting from King John (which is not, by all accounts, the order in which they were written), you read an epic story of the British monarchy from the middle of the 12th century through the middle of the 16th century. It's a gripping story of war and peace, sometimes (but not often) romance, deceit, birth, death, triumph and tragedy. You can clearly trace some George RR Martin source material back to various contests of lines of succession in Shakespeare. It's unfortunate that the story should end with Henry VIII.Critical consensus is that Henry VIII is a work of co-authorship between Shakespeare and John Fletcher (which is always a red flag). After all of the stories of war and contested succession that have anti-heroes and moral dilemmas, this play is mostly a love letter to the Tudors, the Anglican church and by extension James I, who was quite a good patron to Shakespeare. Had you been aware that there was a Henry VIII play in Shakespeare (it was a surprise to me), you'd expect to see six wives dispatched and a lot of feasting. Instead we get the undoing of Cardinal Woolsey, Katherine of Aragon and Ann Boyelen (Bullen in Shakespeare). So many of the histories are tragedies, ending with the death of the King, sometimes by murder. This is more like a comedy, except instead of a marriage, we end with the birth of Queen Elizabeth. As a narrative it doesn't feel like one story, or even several different stories intertwined (a Shakespearean comedy convention), but rather a lot of short episodes that don't add up to much, aside from the contention that Queen Elizabeth is pretty great and isn't it wonderful that whatever happened right before her birth that led to said birth happened. If you were to read the histories as one long epic, which I do recommend, I suggest leaving off with our old friend Hunchback Richard III and then maybe watching old episodes of the Tudors if you feel the need for closure.
—Dan
