Dusty:

I have never read this play before, though I have read about some of the well-known set pieces in it. I gather that according to the current consensus, Shakespeare collaborated with Fletcher, some of the scenes assumed to be by one and some by the other, and that it is still regarded as having been written in 1613. I don’t yet know whether scholars continue to think, as G. Wilson Knight did, that the play has some similarities with the late romances. I don’t see anything in Act 1 that seems like The Tempest or The Winter’s Tale, unless the presence of spectacular stage effects — as in Wolsey’s banquet in 1.4.

It’s striking that Shakespeare wrote and produced a play about events that were only 75 years in the past. (The first event in the play — the Field of Cloth of Gold) — is from 1520 and the last about 1540.) It’s interesting that the play claims to be about “the life” of Henry VIII, but it truncates that life, only deals with two of his wives, and gives us the fall of Wolsey and rise of Cranmer, but not the rise of Cromwell. If the play is designed to celebrate and affirm a Protestant England, maybe Henry’s actions after 1540 don’t make for as pretty a tale.

Scholars note there is more distortion of chronology than in Shakespeare’s history plays of the 1590s. But the play also takes over huge chunks of Holinshed/Hall.

The Prologue sound utterly unlike the prologue to Henry V. It’s in couplets, not blank verse. It’s language is colloquial. There are lots of run-on lines and mid-line caesurae. Apparently some critics thought it sounded like Ben Jonson. To my ear it sounds like Donne’s satires. But I gather that many now attribute it to Fletcher. (There are a lot of mid-line caesurae in 1.1 too). The prologue seems to assume that the audience might have been expecting a comic play, and needs to be re-oriented. This play is going to be about how “mightiness” meets “misery” — and Wolsey was even into the 18th century a famous exemplar of the vanity of human wishes. It also seems to hint that we are going to see a lot of spectacle: “nobles scenes. . . a show.” But it also insists repeatedly that the events depicted are true: “”truth . . . chose truth . . . true.” In the First Folio the play was subtitled All is True. Why this emphasis on truth? Does the Prologue imagine that the audience had gathered to hear a fictional account of Elizabeth’s father?

In 1.1 we get not spectacle but a narrative of the spectacle in the Field of Cloth of Gold. (A cinematic version of the play would perhaps give us the full spectacle of the ceremonious meeting of the two kings.) At first I was puzzled by the shift from presenting the event as glorious to describing it as wasteful. But as the play unfolded it seemed clear that Buckingham had already decided, by the time the play opens, that it was a waste of money, and probably indicates his disapproval by his tone of voice in asking the unsuspecting Norfolk (who does not share Buckingham’s cynicism). It quickly appears that Buckingham is a sharp critic of the low-born jumped-up Wolsey, who has in effect taken over power from the nobility (such as Buckingham himself). Buckingham continues to report that Wolsey’s show in the French field was just a show, and that he had already made arrangements to undercut the French alliance. (How does Buckingham know that? Maybe, as 1.2 suggests, everybody knows that Henry is now preparing for war against France.) Buckingham is soon arrested for treason, and seems to be resigned rather than outraged as he leaves the stage. Is he in fact guilty of “treason,” as has been charged?

1.2 has two parts. In the first Katherine reports the rebellion of weavers, and the resistance to war taxes. And for some reason she protests the taxes. (Are the weavers Catholics?) Henry seems not to have heard about the taxes, and instructs Wolsey to pardon any tax-resisters. Wolsey, in an aside, tells his aide to spread the word that it was Wolsey’s intercession that brought the pardon. So the audience has good evidence already to support Buckingham’s charges. In the second part Henry examines Buckingham’s surveyor, brought in by Wolsey to testify against Buckingham. Katherine seems dubious, but she pretty much falls silent while the king conducts the investigation. (Henry thinks he is in charge, but he is in effect playing out a part written for him by Wolsey.) There is a link back to Richard III, where Buckingham’s father, once a supporter of the king, falls into disgrace and death.

I was puzzled by 1.3,  in which two minor courtiers seem to joke about French fashion. Why do we need such idle chat? Maybe the purpose of the scene is to establish the lascivious character of Lord Sands, who makes a move on Lady Anne in the next scene. Wolsey makes a grand entrance in the banquet scene in 1.4 — his second entrance in the play  —  which probably allows for some big stage effects. By comparison, Anne gets quietly introduced as one of the ladies. I found it hard to read her in this scene. I am guessing that an actress would probably choose to play her as ready and willing to flirt, and more. The banquet scene is quickly broken up by the entrance of a band of masquers. Another opportunity for stage spectacle. It’s Henry and his pals disguised as shepherds. (Sounds like a Jonsonian masque.) It’s not clear at first whether Wolsey knows that the chief masquer is Henry. Maybe he does know all along, and deliberately points to another masquer as the king. On the whole, however, I think that this is all a charade and a joke — designed to make Wolsey look mistaken — that clever Wolsey knows the unsuspecting king will enjoy.

Michael: 

I saw a production of Henry VIII, but it was long enough ago that I don’t remember much about it. I do recall that it wasn’t a dramatic tour de force, but rather episodic and devoted finally to the celebration of the infant Elizabeth. Wolsey was also a prominent figure, tragic or almost tragic.

The discussion of the Field of the Cloth of Gold leads right into Buckingham’s abuse of Wolsey, and Wolsey is clearly a target of the play. There’s much that’s not clear from the historical record. Was the Field of the Cloth of Gold really wasteful, or had it served a purpose? We never get a sense of whether Buckingham is correct in his estimation of it, or whether he’s right about Wolsey’s wasteful extravagance in it. But we are given a sense of Wolsey’s pomp and self-importance. By this time Wolsey must have come to stand for popish excess. And as a cardinal he must be a negative figure in the early 17th century. But Buckingham remains something of a puzzle, both whether he is guilty of treason and Wolsey’s role in his downfall.

Queen Katherine’s role is interesting in that it seems dignified and cautionary, opposing Wolsey in the matter of Buckingham.

1.3 does seem superfluous, but the satire of English excess seems to echo other criticism of travelers on the Continent. Perhaps the suggestion is that such apish imitation is a fault that goes back to the 1520s.

The introduction of Anne Boleyn is low key, and Sands’ kissing her is curious. Sands himself seems flirty and doesn’t cast a dignified light on Anne. Wolsey’s grand entrance and his banquet seems to implicate him in Henry’s infatuation with Anne. There’s no intention involved, but none of the revelry seem consistent with the dignity of a churchman. Anne has no speaking part in the scene, but Henry’s singling her out and flirting with her presage her role in what will follow.

Michael:

In 2.1 First and Second Gentlemen provide narrative about the fall of Buckingham, which is mainly established as Wolsey’s doing. Then the detail guarding Buckingham comes on. He gives a dignified response to his condemnation, forgives Lovell and the king, then takes his farewell in a poignant speech. I think we’re to assume his innocence and see Wolsey as the cause of his condemnation. Then 1st and 2nd Gents continue the plot-advancing narrative about the separation of Henry and Katherine. They blame Wolsey for this, and his thwarted ambition. When in 2.2 the Lord Chamberlain mentions that the marriage to Katherine “crept too near [Henry’s] conscience,” Suffolk suggests his conscience had crept too near “another lady,” Anne.  And Norfolk blames the cardinal. The three of them are fairly bold and clear about the dynastic reasons for the divorce — and Wolsey’s role in it. So the actual reasons, such as they are, form the backdrop for what follows in the ensuing scene with Wolsey and Campeius. So the pole among the princes and churchmen of Europe assumes an almost ironic status in their discussion, and Henry’s concluding lines of the scene, that Katherine has been a “sweet bedfellow” but that “conscience” intervenes, seem simple hypocrisy.

And in the following scene, 2.3, Anne’s expressed pity for Katherine also skirts hypocrisy. And her insistence to the cunning old lady that she would not want to be queen seems something of the same. The Lord Chamberlain’s words that from “this lady”, i.e., Anne, “may proceed a gem/ To lighten all this isle” becomes a prophecy of the Elizabethan world.

The major court scene of 2.4 must be one of the centers of the play, Henry’s formal dismissal of Katherine. The queen’s self-presentation and expression of her devotion are movingly expressed in her long speech, finally pleading that she be spared the divorce until she has been allowed advice from her family in Spain. But Wolsey and Campeius will not agree to this. She then speaks clearly and powerfully to Wolsey, rejecting him as her judge. Against his protestations she repeats her accusation of his position and appeals to the Pope. When she leaves with her attendants, Henry attempts to call her back, but then delivers a praise of her as wife and queen. Wolsey, stung by her accusation of his role in the divorce, asks to be absolved of suggesting Henry’s scruple. Henry’s long speech in response sums up the history of the marriage and the failure to have a male heir. The speech seems an historical justification for the divorce and dismissal of Katherine; it concludes with an appeal to the bishop of Lincoln and to the archbishop of Canterbury ( who is not yet Cranmer) for a ratification of the genuine character of his conscience-based scruple.

But the appeal to the Pope seems to hang over the conclusion of the court scene. What seems to take place in the act is a full expression of the historical reasons for the royal divorce.

Dusty:

Yes, there’s lot of “history” in this history play, most of it taken directly from Holinshed. But Shakespeare again has compressed historical events in order to work them into effective drama. 2.1 is set in 1521, when Buckingham was executed. Buckingham (1455-1521) is only thirteen years older than Henry, but I think the play suggests that he is a lot older. He refers to  his “long weary life” but in fact died at 43. He warns that others may suffer the same fate. We don’t yet know — and he cannot know — that Wolsey will fall.

Later in the same scene a reference to Henry’s scruples of conscience suggests that we are getting close to 1525, when Henry tried to get  his marriage annulled. (Divorce proceedings took place in 1529 and the actual divorce did not come until 1533.)

2.1 also suggests that the King is already interested in Anne Boleyn. So far, there is no reference to her plans to marry the Earl of Ormonde in 1522 or her secret marriage to Henry Percy in 1523. Maybe Shakespeare omits these details. The King apparently began pursuing her about 1525 and married her in 1533. Back-dating Henry’s pursuit of Anne tends to discredit him.

In 2.2 Anne  is clearly a pious hypocrite, but in 2.3 her fortunes are rising.

2.4 has very elaborate and detailed stage directions. Now it’s the Queen who, like Buckingham in 2.1, gets a dignified speech. We get our first reference to Princess Mary and to the death of the King’s several sons. Henry says that the lack of a male heir is  heaven’s “judgment on me.” We also get the beginnings of a split between the King and Wolsey. Wolsey would like to arrange for an annulment so that he can stage-manage a French marriage. But the King, as he is presented in the play, is apparently already interested in marrying Anne Boleyn. Does Henry really have scruples, or is he just trying to find legal justification for what he wants?

In this scene Henry is the pious hypocrite, publicly declaring that he wants the marriage with Katherine to be declared lawful, but in an aside making clear that he wants a divorce, and is looking to Cranmer for help.

Dusty:

Act 3 belongs to the Queen and to Wolsey, both of whom fall out of favor with the king, and prepare for the worst. The two cardinals advise the Queen not to undergo “trial of the law” and not to oppose the king. I guess they are asking her to agree to an annulment. She refuses. But at the end of 3.1 she seems to be prepared to listen to futher advice from the cardinals. Has she capitulated, or has she just given up? Either way, she knows she is defeated.

Why does the play fudge the difference between annulment (a ruling that the marriage was never legal) and divorce (the ending of a legal union)? The word “divorce” appears eight times in the play — several times in other metaphorical contexts — but not the word “annulment.” In 3.2 Suffolk, Norfolk, and Surrey talk about Wolsey’s attempt to get the Pope to “stay the judgment o’ the divorce.” But in fact it was an attempt to get the Pope to annul it.

3.2 is the biggest and longest scene so far — 459 ll. It is set in 1529, the year of Wolsey’s fall, though at the end of the scene Cromwell reports news of events (Cranmer made Archbishop of Canterbury and plans made for Anne’s coronation) that did not take place until 1533. The scene begins with Wolsey’s noble enemies functioning as 1st and 2nd Gentlemen, conversing about the latest news. Suffolk reports that Henry and Anne are secretly married — that in fact did not take place until 1533 — and suspects that she is pregnant. Although an enemy to Henry, he looks forward to “some blessing on this land.” He cannot know  — but the audience knows — that this “blessing” will be a daughter and a Protestant. and a future queen.They do know that Wolsey has worked his own fall by inadvertently sending to Henry an “inventory” of his property and account books showing what he has paid to Rome to win favor. It has already been made clear that these nobles are motivated by resentment on behalf of their fellow nobles, whom they say Wolsey disregards and despises, and for familial reasons, i.e., Wolsey’s role in Buckingham’s fall.

The staging is complicated. The nobles remain on stage, and Wolsey and Cromwell enter. Presumably the nobles stand on one side of the stage, observing and overhearing what Wolsey and Cromwell say and do. (This is the first ime we see Cromwell.) Then Henry enters, standing with Lovell, and reading an incriminating  paper: they form a third grouping on the stage. The king then speaks to Wolsey, while the nobles stand aside and observe, the king challenging Wolsey and ultimately “frowning” on  him as he exits with the nobles. Wolsey, alone, knows now that he is in trouble (“This paper has undone me.”) He still thinks he may escape, until he sees his letter “To th’ Pope,” and then knows that “I shall fall.” Then the nobles return to the stage, this time as the king’s agents, and speak to Wolsey. He denies their demands and bitterly replies to them, proclaiming his innocence.

Is the “brown wench” (295) in Wolsey’s arms literal or metaphorical? Quite apart from her, and from their personal motives, the nobles formally charge Wolsey with various counts of praemunire — in one way or other infringing on the rights of bishops and on the authority of the king, and in secretly dealing with Rome and Ferrara. These charges are all taken directly from Holinshed. (What does it signify that in some instances Shakespeare seems almost to be versifying Holinshed’s very language? Is this a failure of imagination or a determination to follow through on the claim in the prologue to present the historical “truth”?)

Why is there no further reference to Wolsey’s plans for the French marriage? Is it perhaps because a case could in fact be made that Wolsey was not trying to promote his own interests but was trying to advance the interests of his king and country by arranging a political marriage to cement a French alliance? Or is it because Wolsey’s plan came to nought, since the French king’s sister married somebody else? Is Henry the first king in the history plays to marry for love (lust) rather than politics?

By  the time they finish presenting the charges, Wolsey knows his goose is cooked. He has been silent for nearly 50 lines while the charges are presented, and then speaks in soliloquy at 350. It’s a great speech, maybe the highlight of the play so far. But in what tone is it delivered? It would appear that Wolsey, who had been defiant at 308, is now resigned, philosophical, even repentant (“My high-flown pride”). How has he managed to make this transition so abruptly? He now says he is finally truly happy, at last “knows himself,” and has a “still and quiet conscience.” How can he have a quiet conscience if he has just admitted to high-flown pride and later will say that he served the king more zealously than he served God?

It’s striking that Wolsey does not revile the enemies who gloated over his fall and has only kind words for Henry himself. He generously advises Cromwell, and turns his thoughts toward heaven. Do we think he has truly repented, or do we still remember the Wolsey of Acts 1 and 2?

Michael:

Act 3 centers deftly on the beginning of the tragedy of Queen Katherine, which becomes implicated with the tragedy of Wolsey. It appears that the play does not appear to make a distinction between annulment and divorce, perhaps because the lengthy marriage and the number of pregnancies, all but that of Mary leading to miscarriage and infant death, makes its ending more like divorce. And of course it adds poignancy to the situation of Katherine. The tragedies differ of course in their cause: Katherine’s comes of her failure to produce a male heir, but as much from the alienation of Henry’s affection. Wolsey’s comes of his own arrogance and finally of his dealings with the papacy, but is precipitated by his enmity with the aristocracy. All through the act he maintains his loyalty to Henry and insists on his service to him.

As early as 3.2 the Lord Chamberlain mentions that Henry has already married, so this must put the events here at late 1531 or 1532. But Wolsey’s fall was earlier, as he was charged with praemunire in late 1529, mentioned by Suffolk at 3.2. But rather than just praemunire, Wolsey’s offense is here centered on the corruption of his having accumulated wealth at the expense of the court. Praemunire may also be meant by the letter to the Pope discovered amid the other papers. Wolsey’s soliloquy at 3.2.351 admits his complicity in his fall. I wonder if we’re to see an unelaborated prophecy in “Enter Cromwell” after Wolsey’s lines on reversal of fortune and the fall of Lucifer. Cromwell’s own fall about a decade later is beyond the play, but his own entry here seems eerie. He tells Wolsey that More has replaced him as Lord Chancellor, so this would put the time as 1529; Wolsey refers to Anne as the “weight that pulled  me down,” and Cromwell says the king in secrecy has long married her. This would put the time late in 1632. Much compression of time.

The earlier soliloquy seems to connect with the speech at 3.2.429 that ends with the well-known “Had I but served my God with half the zeal . . .” This valedictory moment does seem to redeem Wolsey and make him a genuinely tragic presence in the play.

Much exposition between the two gentlemen that leads to elaborate pageantry in which Anne stars. And Third Gentleman continues the exposition and description.

The dialogue between Katherine and Griffiths sorts Wolsey’s vices and virtues and leads to the vision, which appears masque-like. It celebrates Katherine in her apparent dream that seems to presage her saintly ascent. Clearly we’re to understand her movement toward death. I’m not sure what we’re to make of Caputius, a royal nephew and ambassador from the emperor. Is he a link with her Spanish heritage?

Her speech of farewell seems a kind of parallel to that of Wolsey speaking to Cromwell, though she does not speak of regret. Her commendation of Mary to Henry’s care is a significant preliminary to the celebration of the infant Elizabeth.

Is there, in its dealing with royal marriages and succession, a certain delicacy in the play? Henry’s own faults and responsibility appear to be minimized or ignored, or only occasionally glanced at, e.g., his infatuation with Anne.

Dusty:

The text of Act 4 is quite short, perhaps because Shakespeare needs to leave time for two major episodes of stage spectacle. Before we see the first one, we get a report from the two expository gentlemen that the King’s marriage with Katherine is officially annulled, not by a ruling from Rome but from Cranmer. I suppose Shakespeare could have dramatized this scene, but chose not to, perhaps because it would throw even more sympathy toward Katherine than Shakespeare wants. You’re right that the play seems to blur the difference between divorce and annulment: the words of the report are that the Queen is “divorced” and her “marriage made of none effect.” Then we get a grand procession over the stage on the way to Anne’s coronation in Westminster, and a commentary on it by the Gents, who point out and identify the major figures.

The third Gent enters to give a report of the ceremony itself. Shakespeare is really compressing time here: no time has elapsed between the exit from the stage of the procession and the entrance of 3rd Gent, who tells us that the ceremony is already over. Anne is described as both beautiful and saint-like. We hear nothing about her flirtatiousness in the early part of the play. For that matter, we get no hint that she will be executed in three years. You’ve got to leave out a lot in order to make the succession of Tudor monarchs orderly.

In 4.2 it’s not surprising that Katherine severely judges Wolsey — after all, he wanted to get rid of her so that the King could make a French marriage. Griffith balances her censure with praise, so Wolsey comes out a mixed figure. Katherine dozes off, and we hear “solemn music” and see her “vision” of “spirits of peace.” As  you suggest, it’s masque-like. And it’s similar to some of the “visions” and music in the late romances. When she wakes, she wishes the king well, and commends Mary to his care. (Everybody in the play wishes the king well — he gets off easy.) This is the last we hear of Mary, who is completely overshadowed by the birth of Elizabeth in the next act. Katherine dies well: “unqueen’d, yet like/ A queen.” The play treats her well — better than the king does.

Dusty:

Act 5 begins, like Act 4, with two expository gents, although this time they are Bishop Gardiner and Sir Thomas Lovell. We get a report that Anne is in dangerous labor, that Cromwell and Cranmer are advanced, and that Cranmer has been accused of being a heretic. This is the first hint of the coming English “Reformation.” The King tells Cranmer that he has been accused by his enemies, and that he must appear before the Council. The King also assures Cranmer of his support. Why then does the King permit Cranmer to be tried before the Council? (Is this a set-up, so that the King can discredit his councillors?) We also get news that Anne has safely delivered. The king wants a boy, but it’s a girl.

5.2 is a big scene in which Cranmer defends himself before the Council. (Shakespeare has moved this scene from 1544 back to 1533). Gardiner is the accuser, and explicitly declares that Cranmer is a “sectary” and a schismatic. Cromwell notably defends Cranmer, and the King, who has been eavesdropping and in effect overseeing the proceedings, enters and declares that Cranmer is indeed his man, and thus settles it. The councillors scurry to walk back what they had previously said. Despite the hints of Cranmer’s unorthodox teaching and preaching of new opinions and heresies, we’re still in a Catholic world.  It’s interesting that the play completely omits the prominent figure of More, who for a short time succeeded Wolsey. We get nothing about his appointment, his resignation in 1532, or his refusal to attend Anne’s coronation. It would probably have been difficult to include him without diverting some sympathy to the Catholic cause, and despite the fact that this play ends in 1533, when England is still a Catholic country, it’s a very Protestant play.

5.3, with spectators to the procession leading to Elizabeth’s christening, is a parallel to 4.1, with spectators at the procession leading to Anne’s coronation. And as in 4.1, we get a grand procession across the stage. I’m not sure what Shakespeare does to sustain audience interest in another procession. Then comes Cranmer’s long speech, pronounced, as it were, over the newly christened infant. It’s part blessing and part prophecy: Elizabeth shall be “a pattern to all princes.” And “in her days every man shall eat . . . etc.” And yet — as the audience knows but how can he know this? — Elizabeth will live and die a virgin.

It’s perhaps not surprising that Cranmer says nothing about Elizabeth’s older sister, Mary, seventeen years old when Elizabeth was born. Shakespeare and Cranmer want to keep the focus on Elizabeth. And in his prophecy Cranmer says nothing about Prince Edward, born four years later (to a different queen) in 1537, and crowned king in 1547. Never mind Lady Jane Grey, Queen for a day or so in 1553, between Edward VI and Mary. Nothing about Mary’s persecution of Protestant martyrs. Best to keep things simple, and imply that Henry will somehow be succeeded directly by his resolutely Protestant daughter.

On the whole, this seems a divided play — divided between the official celebration of the pre-history of the English Reformation and the future reign of Elizabeth on the one hand, with nods to Cranmer and Cromwell, and sympathy and praise for Buckingham, Wolsey, and Katherine, whom Henry has to get rid of in order to bring about a Protestant future. And divided between big scenes of gaudy spectacle  and small scenes of dramatic interest.

The epilogue is surprisingly saucy. Is there a pun on “clap”?

Michael:

I suspect an implicit comparison between the archbishops, Cranmer and Wolsey, the dialogue with Henry in 5.1 showing Cranmer’s humility and his willingness to abase himself before the king suggesting the contrast. Does Cranmer’s accusation of heresy in 5.2 look forward to his fate in Mary’s reign, when he would again be accused of Protestant views and finally burned as a heretic? Maybe not. But here Cranmer’s showing of the ring he had from Henry not only saves him from imprisonment in the Tower but gives him the authority at the Council and Henry’s commendation. Historically it’s still a Catholic world, but it seems to be moving inexorably toward a world where Cranmer would lead in a Protestant direction. Including More would throw off the balance and direction altogether.

Yes, there’s much that remains unsaid about Henry’s reign after his marriage to Anne and the birth of Elizabeth, necessarily so, as it would run counter to the end of the play and Cranmer’s prophecy of Elizabeth’s reign. To me it doesn’t seem divided in its sympathies, except perhaps with Wolsey and its favor toward Katherine, but decided in its proto-Protestant direction. Yes, a very Protestant play. There are no hints of what would happen to Anne or to Cromwell and of course no reference to later queens or to Edward. It seems we leap over the history from the christening of Elizabeth to the Elizabethan age, now itself just a memory.

The dialogue between the Porter and Man puzzles me. It leads to the procession toward the christening, but it doesn’t appear necessary or easy to make out. Is it in your text? The following scene, 5.4 in my text, begins with the christening procession and prophecy by Cranmer. I guess we’re to understand that Cranmer is indeed possessed of prophetic power, as there is no way otherwise for him to know the glory of Elizabeth’s reign or that she would remain the virgin queen. As you note, Cranmer’s prophetic powers are curtailed about not only subsequent queens, but also the reign of Edward as well as of Mary. His prophetic role is confined to a Protestant groove, not surprisingly.

The epilogue is surprising, as if it’s half dismissing the play. Does the admission that it can never please all of the audience admit that there are some who would have different opinions about the reign of Henry? Is he referring to Ben Jonson’s comedies in mentioning “the city”? And is the good woman the play showed Katherine or Anne; more likely perhaps it’s the prophesied Elizabeth. I resist a pun in the final word. Did Shakespeare write this? Somehow it doesn’t sound like him. He’s far more likely to engage the audience in the imaginative work of conceiving a past their grandfathers knew.