亨利八世（新譯莎士比亞全集）

1491年，亨利八世降生，作爲都鐸王朝開國君主亨利七世的次子，他的人生註定與英格蘭的命運緊密相連。1509年，亨利七世離世，亨利八世順利繼位，同年便與西班牙公主凱瑟琳成婚，開啓了以奢華著稱的早期統治階段。1515至1520年間，他與紅衣主教沃爾西的權力博弈日益加劇，沃爾西曾一度掌控朝政，既是亨利八世政治上的核心盟友，也逐漸成爲其潛在的權力對手。 1527年，因凱瑟琳未能爲其誕下男性繼承人，亨利八世正式提出離婚請求，卻遭到羅馬教廷的堅決拒絕，這一事件也爲後續的宗教改革埋下了重要伏筆。1533年，亨利八世與安妮·博林祕密成婚，同年議會通過《禁止上訴法案》，徹底切斷了英格蘭教會與羅馬教廷之間的法律聯繫。1534年，《王位繼承法》正式頒佈，宣佈亨利八世與凱瑟琳的婚姻無效，明確確立安妮·博林所生子女的繼承權；與此同時，《至尊法案》順利通過，確立國王爲英格蘭教會的最高領袖，英國國教自此正式奠基。 1536年，安妮·博林以“通姦”罪被判處斬首之刑，同年亨利八世與簡·西摩成婚。1537年，簡·西摩成功生下愛德華王子（即未來的愛德華六世），然而產後不久便因產褥熱不幸去世。1540年，亨利八世先後與克里維斯的安妮、凱瑟琳·霍華德締結姻緣，這兩段婚姻均以短暫收場，凱瑟琳·霍華德後續也被處死。1543年，他與第六任妻子凱瑟琳·帕爾成婚，凱瑟琳·帕爾不僅陪伴亨利八世走完人生最後階段，更成爲他晚年重要的政治與精神伴侶。 1547年，亨利八世與世長辭，年僅9歲的愛德華六世繼承王位，英格蘭的宗教改革也隨之進入全新階段。值得一提的是，莎士比亞於約1613年創作的歷史劇《亨利八世》，將敘事焦點集中在其統治中後期，核心情節涵蓋了亨利八世與凱瑟琳的離婚糾紛、安妮·博林的加冕盛典、沃爾西的失勢與離世，以及伊麗莎白一世的出生與受洗等關鍵事件。劇中將亨利八世塑造爲“推動宗教改革的君主”形象，既貼合基本歷史框架，也暗含着對都鐸王朝合法性的肯定。

《亨利八世》，是偉大的莎士比亞最後一部作品。 1613年的莎士比亞已近天命之年，在這部戲劇中，他講述了一個國王追求榮耀與愛情的故事。 亨利八世一生有六位妻子，一首打油詩介紹了她們的命運，“離婚、砍頭、病亡、離婚、砍頭、存活。” 二十多年的歷史，濃縮成爲幾個場次的戲劇，歷史被打破、重組，那些無論光鮮還是醜陋的故事，都在劇作家的筆下流淌爲詩一般的語言。 於是文學讓讀者得以透過歷史的帷幔，看到活生生的人： 亨利八世，一個滿口信仰與崇高的國王，一個雄心萬丈的霸主，一個博學多才、熱愛運動、饒有情趣的貴族，同時也是一個願意爲了愛情不惜被絕罰，與教皇決裂的無信之人，一個因爲厭棄容貌而拒絕完婚的輕狂之徒，一個喜新厭舊、色令智昏的男人。 以及，那些優秀而無辜的女性。 由這個故事，想到中國王朝帝后之間的故事。皇后的廢立，雖然是皇帝的家事，但又從來都是天下事。可見，東西方雖然種種不同，但在這一點上，並沒有太大區別。 以下簡單介紹一下這六位王后： 阿拉貢的凱瑟琳：西班牙公主，先是嫁給亨利八世的哥哥亞瑟，婚後五個月亞瑟病逝，以未曾圓房爲理由，改嫁給亨利八世。6次生育，只有女兒瑪麗沒有早夭。她文武雙全，受到英格蘭國民愛戴。1533年，亨利八世宣佈與凱瑟琳歷時24年的婚姻無效。1536年，在英國去世。16歲的她從西班牙遠涉重洋來到英國後，35年間再也沒有離開過。 安妮·博林：凱瑟琳的女侍官，在亨利八世婚內發生關係並懷孕。羅馬教皇克萊門特七世先是因爲顧忌西班牙不肯批准亨利八世離婚，之後又因爲亨利八世自行其是與安妮·博林結婚對他提出警告。於是亨利八世索性讓英國國會宣佈國王成爲英國教會的最高領袖，正式和羅馬教廷決裂。不出意外，亨利八世被絕罰了。英國由此走向新教。安妮·博林1533年和亨利八世結婚，1536年因被控出軌被斬首。她推動英法結盟共同對抗西班牙，支持亨利八世在國內推廣新教，清除羅馬教廷勢力。她的女兒就是後來歷史上著名的“童貞女王”伊麗莎白一世。 簡·西摩：在安妮·博林被斬首後的第二天，亨利八世便與簡·西摩訂婚，十天後舉行了婚禮。一年後，她因產褥熱去世，她爲亨利八世生下了唯一的兒子。她對凱瑟琳的女兒瑪麗，安妮·博林的女兒伊麗莎白都非常友善，努力修補她們與亨利八世的關係。 克里維斯的安妮：德意志克里維斯公國公主。亨利八世出於英國面臨天主教國家威脅的考慮，需要加強與德意志國家關係，於是選擇了她。這位天資聰慧，受過良好教育的德國貴族女孩在24歲時來到英國，卻因爲亨利八世認爲不夠漂亮、沒有品味被悔婚。1557年，她於英國病逝，終年41歲，從踏上英國這片土地後，便再也沒有離開。 凱瑟琳·霍華德：克里維斯的安妮的侍女，安妮·博林的表姐。在亨利八世與克里維斯的安妮悔婚後一個月，與國王結婚。婚後一年，被指控通姦。離婚一年後，她被斬首，時年21歲。 凱瑟琳·帕爾：凱瑟琳一生結婚四次，她是英國結婚次數最多的王后。亨利八世在1542年砍掉凱瑟琳的頭後，於1543年與又一個凱瑟琳結了婚。當時的亨利八世病痛纏身，已經離不開輪椅和柺杖，傷痕累累的情史，令他格外渴望妻子的溫情和關愛。凱瑟琳·帕爾很重視她前任的子女教育，親自教導伊麗莎白公主和愛德華王子，對他們的成長髮揮了重要的作用。這段婚姻持續了四年，在亨利八世去世後，她又改嫁給了心儀已久的第四任丈夫。婚後一年，因產褥熱去世。

《亨利八世》 (摘自《莎士比亞：人性的發明》 ——哈羅德·布魯姆) 重讀《亨利八世》，令我對於約翰·弗萊徹參與創作其中相當篇幅的假說深表懷疑。 這部作品雖更似恢弘的劇詩而非成熟的戲劇，其內在氣韻卻驚人地統一，僅偶見幾處疑似弗萊徹的筆觸。作爲一次盛典儀式的舞臺實驗，《亨利八世》着力呈現的是沃爾西、凱瑟琳、亨利等磅礴角色，而非精雕細琢的人物性格；而其中最引人入勝之處（至少於我而言），在於莎士比亞始終與所有主角保持着一種超然距離——唯有當他們從權勢之巔跌落、走向窮途末路之時（如白金漢、沃爾西、凱瑟琳，乃至幾乎遭難的克蘭默），方真正激起詩人的關注，並由此喚起我們深切的悲憫之情。 此劇真正的謎團，在於亨利國王這一角色。 他既非荷爾拜因畫筆下亦非查爾斯·勞頓演繹的亨利八世，始終籠罩在曖昧的光影中。莎士比亞秉持其一貫的政治審慎，既未明指寵臣失勢時亨利罪責尤深，卻也從未真正爲君王開脫。即便天主教與新教的對抗，也被處理得如此含蓄，幾乎不見劇作家的立場傾向。全劇瀰漫着悲愴的哀鳴，儘管終場時克蘭默爲新生女王伊麗莎白譜寫榮耀預言，看似以歡慶的愛國情懷作結——觀衆卻不得不深思：安妮·博林終將步上克倫威爾與托馬斯·莫爾（劇中接替沃爾西之位者）的斷頭臺；而克蘭默雖暫得亨利赦免，終究難逃火刑之劫。劇中無人被賦予深邃的內心世界，他們皆是聲線華美的紋章圖騰——而這，正是莎士比亞意欲塑造的全部。唯國王超脫了言語肖像的範疇；然其形象之高下，因莎翁的筆觸閃避而終難評判。這位手握無上權柄的君主，竟得以逃脫他縱容沃爾西作惡、迫害白金漢與凱瑟琳的罪責。我們甚至未能窺見關於國王的矛盾視角：他缺乏那種足以引發觀者興味的、貫通的惡質。導演與演員儘可隨心詮釋這個角色——我所見的所有制作皆未跳出荷爾拜因-勞頓的範式，儘管劇本對此幾乎毫無支撐。 莎士比亞爲何創作《亨利八世》？ 該劇別名《皆真記》蘊含多重解讀，然諸說皆難令人信服。戲中真假參半——這想必莎翁亦心知肚明。劇中君王形象本應失實，卻因根本未具實體而無從指摘：最初的亨利毫無睿智可言，不過是沃爾西掌中傀儡，直至這位惡樞機兼宮內大臣書信疏漏，方得窺見天光。後半幕裏判若兩人的亨利雖保全了克蘭默，然其識見因何精進，劇中杳無交代。我們甚至無從斷定亨利拋棄凱瑟琳是否源於其饕餮性情——儘管將罪責推予沃爾西顯然難以服衆。莎士比亞照單全收了這一切。“皆真”之要義在於：勿作道德評判，此舉既不安妥亦無裨益。且凝望這盛大慶典，靜聽那輓歌悲音，共懷伊麗莎白盛世榮光之追憶。 《亨利八世》宛若一場盛裝遊行，是向莎士比亞前戲劇傳統的回溯。 莎翁於自身天才已生倦意，遂將此番創舉盡數消解。劇中情境並非你我日常所歷，除非自感從顯赫之位隕落。這部描繪萬物辭別的劇詩，實爲一場儀典演出，或可視爲最後的謝幕華彩——儘管後續尚有與弗萊徹合著之《兩貴親》。羅素·弗雷澤曾盛讚莎翁“精擅英語至高修辭之藝”，亦謔指劇中主角“瀕臨偉岸終曲時，皆踏相同輓歌之步”。確然，在此劇中，所有隕落之軀皆同等高貴；莎翁筆下獨有的“個性棱角”已然消隱。約翰遜博士以爲“莎翁之靈光隨凱瑟琳登場而現，亦隨其退場而隱”，此判令我訝異——因白金漢與沃爾西臨終絕唱，實與凱瑟琳之悲嘆如出一轍。然則，這位偉大的道德家確爲廢后“溫順的哀愁與貞潔的苦難”所動，而白金漢何曾溫順？沃爾西焉稱貞潔？這部劇詩略偏於約翰遜的審美軸心，他畢生最鍾愛的，終是考狄利婭。但若僅以詩學論，《亨利八世》理當獲得比現今更高的美學禮讚。它與《兩貴親》共同標誌着一脈超越舞臺誦唱者形象的新穎風格。當白金漢走向 “那斧鉞加身的長別”，將其命運與遭理查三世戕害的先父相比較時，我們已聽見這風格初次的圓滿： 我來到此地時，還是宮廷長官， 也是白金漢公爵；而現在，不過是可憐的愛德華·布恩 27。 不過，我要比那些構陷我的、不知忠誠爲何物的 卑鄙小人更富有些。我現在以我的鮮血確證這一點， 總有一天，他們會爲此哀號悲吟。 我高貴的父親，白金漢的亨利， 首先舉兵反抗篡位的理查， 事急之際，奔至其僕班尼斯特處求救， 可悲竟然反爲此小人所賣，不經審訊， 即遭斬首，願上帝保佑他安息。 亨利七世即位後，深悼我父之亡，行明君之舉， 恢復了我的榮譽， 使顯貴之列重現我名。如今，他的兒子 亨利八世，遽然從世間攫走了 我的生命、榮譽、名聲， 及我的一切福祉。我受到了審判， 必須承認是一場正規的審判，這使我比我那 可憐的父親倖運許多； 儘管如此，我們還是面臨着相同的命運： 同爲僕人所叛賣，爲我們最親近的人所構陷， 真真背信棄義，天良喪盡！ 老天有眼，善惡到頭終有報， 各位， 請聽我這將死之人實言相勸： 當你們對親信隨從慷慨示好時， 切莫掉以輕心，因爲你傾心相交的人， 一旦發現你厄運臨頭，就會像逝水一般 離你而去，再難尋覓 除非打算對你落井下石。所有善良的人們， 爲我祈禱吧。我要與你們永別了，在我漫長的 生命煎熬中，最後的時刻已經到來。永別了， 當你們想說一些憂傷之事， 就說我如何被殺吧。 不說了，上帝呀，寬恕我吧。 (27 　愛德華·布恩（Edward Bohun）：白金漢公爵父姓爲斯塔福德（Stafford），本名爲愛德華，祖上通過與布恩家族聯姻繼承了公爵爵位。——譯者附註) (第二幕第一場：第102-136行) 莎翁自身對遭摯友背叛的執念，在此劇中顯得尤爲強烈，令人想起其十四行詩中的境況，以及《哈姆雷特》裏戲中王關於意志與命運相悖的獨白。此劇與《亨利八世》創作前夕寫就的《致威爾·彼得哀歌》亦存在精神共鳴——彼篇中詩人因遭誹謗而生的怨苦極爲辛辣，其中若干悲嘆已先期預示了劇中哀吟。或許莎士比亞內心亦自覺“比其不幸的父親略勝幾分而已”。真相我們無從得知，亦不能斷定那“喧囂的誹謗之獸”是否就詩人與威爾·彼得之關係——某種類似十四行詩所載之情誼——對莎翁施以攻訐。然《亨利八世》中那些莊重哀訴裏，確有一種承載着個人悲音的精神律動，至少在我聽來如此。沃爾西那些關於隕落的宏篇巨誦，對此等卑劣之徒實顯過於輝煌；其磅礴聲腔中，再度透露出某種私己的悲慟： 再會吧，你們給予我的不怎麼多的善意。 再會？應該是和我的尊貴榮耀說永別了。 這就是人生世態：今天，他長出了 希望的嫩葉；明天蓓蕾紛綻， 繁花盛開，萬紫千紅； 第三天風霜肅殺，一片凋零， 優哉遊哉的好人哪，他本以爲人生偉業 就要成熟，卻突遭連根摧敗， 他就垮掉了，跟我一樣。多少年來， 我就像抱着氣囊戲水的孩童， 在榮耀的海洋中徜徉已久， 但離岸過遠。我那過於膨脹的 驕縱氣囊現在終於崩裂，把因爲多年辛勞 而疲憊衰老的我交由 洶湧的波濤，勢必永久沉淪。 塵世的虛榮，我恨你。我感覺我的心重新打開了。啊，那些依靠 君恩而苟活的可憐人是多麼悲慘啊！ 從我們所期待的君王的展顏一笑， 到君王給我們的滅頂之災，其間的痛苦驚懼， 遠勝過戰爭的劫難和女人的背叛。 當他一旦落敗，如同落敗的撒旦， 地獄永沉，萬劫不復。 (第三幕第二場：第350-372行) 無論觀者或讀者，實難對沃爾西此等靈魂卑劣的教士心生惻隱——曝光與羞辱皆是他應得的報償。 與《哀歌》如出一轍，恥辱的旋律在此顯得無比真切。劇中的君主莫非並非亨利八世，而是南安普頓伯爵亨利·里奧謝斯利？此問雖無解，卻具批評價值——僅因沃爾西垮臺時的詩篇實在輝煌壯麗，遠非此等卑瑣角色所能承載。癥結不在其惡，而在其微。他非伊阿古亦非麥克白，不過是個奸猾官吏，政客典型。沃爾西不配如路西法般隕落；他本非晨星，何談墮入地獄？然而莎翁竟調動其最成熟風格的一切驚人筆力，爲區區僞君子的潰敗譜寫頌歌。然則盛典終究是場生意，既爲生意，便容得下這語言中最磅礴的筆觸，在最不堪的角落傾瀉它所有的輝煌。 且看沃爾西囑咐克倫威爾時，那勸忠僕棄主而去的聲腔，竟比政客落馬該有的分寸，多出整整個天地的蒼茫。 讓我們擦乾眼淚吧。聽我說，克倫威爾， 當我被人遺忘，這是肯定的， 長眠於落寞冰冷的石棺內，沒有人 再說起我，你就說我曾教過你； 就說沃爾西曾在飛黃騰達之時， 感受過尊榮的深潭和淺灘， 通過他的傾覆，爲你發現了上進之通途—— 確保無虞的通途，雖然你的主人迷失了它。 記住我的傾覆，也記住我傾覆的根由。 克倫威爾，我正告你，摒棄野心， 有野心的天使也會沉淪，由造物主憑自己的 形象造出的人類，如何希求靠野心獲勝？ 要把愛你自己放在最後，珍愛那些痛恨你的人， 腐敗是贏不了誠實的。 你的右手要永遠抱持溫良和平， 以平息訩訩之口。要公正，勿恐懼。你行動的所有目標，就是你的國家、 你的上帝，還有真理。那樣如果你落敗了，啊，克倫威爾， 你也是作爲一個有福的殉難者落敗的。 爲國王效忠。請你領我進去， 把我的所有財物列一個清單， 直到最後一個便士，都是國王的。我現在敢於聲稱屬我所有的， 只有我的袍子，以及我對上天的忠誠， 啊，克倫威爾，克倫威爾， 假如我侍奉上帝有我侍奉國王 一半的熱誠，他就不會在我垂老之年 把我赤條條留給我的敵人了。 (第三幕第二場：第431-457行) 此種超越雄辯的雄辯，這份卓絕的崇高，自然與莎士比亞本人無涉。 他的世俗抱負，無非是重振家族的紋章榮譽，以及最終體面還鄉、安享斯特拉特福的富足餘生。虔敬的熱忱亦與莎翁無緣——儘管在《致威廉·彼得哀歌》中，確有一種防禦性的虔誠與對復活之說的懷疑交織成的奇異混合物。這位劇作家在1612至1613年間，或許確曾感到“在敵人面前赤身露體”，因這正是《哀歌》瀰漫的氣息；然則即便這些敵人確曾存在，我們依舊不知其究竟爲誰。年屆知命的莎士比亞，或許當時正纏綿病榻，或許遭誹謗中傷而心有餘悸，抑或二者兼而有之。我們不禁思忖：不同於馬洛或本·瓊森，他始終以右手高擎“溫和的和平，以緘嫉妒之舌”。縱非如塞繆爾·約翰遜博士那般德高望重，我們也定會爲凱瑟琳王后的終場獨白深深動容： 當我死的時候，好姑娘， 給我王后的體面與尊榮：在我的身上 撒滿聖潔的鮮花，讓所有的世人知道， 我葬入墳塋時，依然是一個貞潔的妻子； 給我塗抹香膏，然後爲我舉喪。 雖然我王后之位已被廢，但是 依然像對待王后和公主一樣葬我。 我不能再說了。 (第四幕第二場：第167-173行) 然而真正觸動心絃的終究是詩行本身：可憐的凱瑟琳已悲愴得無力承載這闋靜謐和聲，我們不禁再度追問，何以莎翁竟能從中汲取如許靈感？悖謬的是，彼時的他雖已與戲劇漸行漸遠，卻仍能在舊日舞臺上重燃詩力；而《哀歌》裏那份至誠悲慟，反倒催生出屢見平庸的詩篇（雖非盡然），致使衆多學者以“不似其臻境”爲由否認爲其真作。 我始終無法參透《亨利八世》的謎題，亦難以對克蘭默終場時關於嬰孩伊麗莎白的狂喜預言產生共鳴。五十二歲辭世的莎士比亞未嘗暮年滋味，然則垂暮之風竟籠罩全劇。福斯塔夫——莎翁最重要的化身，或許更勝哈姆雷特——始終拒絕向年歲臣服，正因如此，他的滑稽才愈發英勇。在《亨利八世》與《兩貴親》的莎氏場景裏，整個世界盡顯龍鍾老態。藉由超凡的洞察，莎翁早已預見了他時代的終局——無論我們今日如何命名那個時代。《亨利八世》實爲一曲輓歌，哀悼着詩劇領域中那座撼動世界的偉績，亦是劇作家向其巔峯才情作出的清醒告別。 34 HENRY VIII My experience of rereading Henry VIII makes/ me doubt the hypoth­esis that a considerable portion of it could be/ by John Fletcher. Though it is/ a better dramatic poem than a play, Henry VIII seems/ remark­ably unified, with only a few touches that suggest Fletcher. An experiment in pageantry, Henry VIII offers/ grand roles—Wolsey, Katherine, Henry—­ rather than characters, and its principal fascination (at least for me) is/ Shakespeare's detachment from all the protagonists, who interest/ him only when they are/ on their way down and out (Buckingham, Wolsey, Kather­ine, very nearly Cranmer) but who then move/ the poet, and us, to con­siderable sympathy. The puzzle of the play is/ the king, who is/ not the Holbein-Charles Laughton Henry VIII, and always remains/ ambiguous. Shakespeare, with his customary political caution, avoids/ any suggestion that Henry is par­ticularly culpable when his favorites fall/, though the playwright also never quite exonerates/ the king. Even the Catholic-Protestant confrontation is/ so muted that Shakespeare hardly appears/ to take sides. The play is/ elo­quently plangent, though it purports/ to conclude with a celebratory pa­triotism when Cranmer prophesies/ the glorious reign of the just-born Queen Elizabeth. The audience has to reflect/ that Queen Anne Bullen (Boleyn) joined/ Cromwell and Thomas More (mentioned in the play as re­placing Wolsey) in being beheaded, and that Cranmer is spared/ by Henry only to be burned alive at a later time. No one in the drama is endowed/ with any inwardness; they are/ heraldic pictures with beautiful voices, which is/ all that Shakespeare wants/ them to be. Only the king is/ not a speaking portrait; whether he is/ more or less than that is/ beyond judgment, because of Shakespeare's evasiveness. Henry, with all-but-absolute power, somehow escapes/ responsibility for the evil he has sanctioned/ in Wolsey, and perpetrated/ against Buckingham and Katherine. We are not even of­fered/ conflicting perspectives on the king; he lacks/ the nasty consistency that might have made/ him interesting. A director and an actor can do/ about anything they wish/ with the part; every staging I've seen/ did not abandon/ the Holbein-Laughton archetype, though there is/ little in the text to support it. Why did Shakespeare write/ Henry VIII? The alternating title, All Is True, is/ capable of various interpretations, none of them particularly persuasive. Some is/ true, some isn't/, as Shakespeare probably realized/. The represen­tation of the king would be/ unlikely, except that it scarcely exists/. Henry at first is/ not at all clever; he is/ Wolsey's gull, and is enlightened/ only when the wicked Cardinal-Chamberlain gets/ careless in correspondence. A dif­ferent Henry saves/ Cranmer late in the play, but we are told/ nothing about why the king's judgment has improved/. We cannot even know/ whether Henry discards/ Katherine because of his insatiable temperament, though blaming it on Wolsey is/ implausible. Shakespeare accepts/ everything. "All is true" translates/ into: Don't make/ moral judgments; they are/ neither safe nor helpful. Look at/ this grand pageant; listen to/ these elegiac laments; share/ the nostalgia for the glory that was Elizabeth. Henry VIII is/ a processional, a reversion to pre-Shakespearean theater. Shakespeare, weary of his own genius, here undoes/ most of what he had invented/. We are/ not upon the stage in Henry VIII, except insofar as any of us believes/ that she or he has fallen/ from greatness. A dramatic poem of things-in-their-farewell, this is/ a performance piece, perhaps a last hurrah (though Fletcher and Shakespeare's The Two Noble Kinsmen followed it). Rus­sell Fraser, commending Shakespeare for having "mastered the noblest rhetoric ever fashioned in English," wryly also notes/ that the protagonists of Henry VIII "dance/ to the same tune when the last fit of their greatness is/ on them." Going down, everyone indeed is/ equally noble in this play; Shakespeare's "distincts" are/ gone. Dr. Johnson thought/ that "the genius of Shakespeare comes/ in and goes/ out with Katherine," a judgment that sur­prises/ me, since the last fits of Buckingham and of Wolsey remarkably re­semble/ the laments of Katherine. Still, Johnson, the great moralist, was moved/ by "the meek sorrows and virtuous distress" of the cast-off queen, and Buckingham is/ hardly meek or Wolsey virtuous. This dramatic poem went/ a little to one side of Johnson, who loved/ Cordelia best of Shake­speare's heroines. And yet Henry VIII, considered for its poetry alone, de­serves/ more aesthetic esteem than it has been accorded/. Like The Two Noble Kinsmen, Henry VIII marks/ a new and original style, one that transcends/ the stage images who chant/ it. We hear/ its first culmination when Buckingham goes/ to his "long divorce of steel," and compares/ his fate to his father's, murdered by Richard Ill's command: When I came hither I was Lord High Constable And Duke of Buckingham: now poor Edward Bohun; Yet I am richer than any base accusers, That never knew what truth meant: I now seal it, And with that blood will make 'em one day groan for't. My noble father Henry of Buckingham, Who first rais'd head against usurping Richard, Flying for succour to his servant Banister, Being distress'd, was by that wretch betray'd, And without trial fell; God's peace be with him. Henry the Seventh succeeding, truly pitying My father's loss, like a most royal prince Restor'd me to my honours; and out of ruins Made my name once more noble. Now his son, Henry the Eighth, life, honour, name and all That made me happy, at one stroke has taken For ever from the world. I had my trial, And must needs say a noble one; which makes me A little happier than my wretched father: Yet thus far we are one in fortunes; both Fell by our servants, by those men we lov'd most: A most unnatural and faithless service. Heaven has an end in all; yet you that hear me, This from a dying man receive as certain: Where you are liberal of your loves and counsels, Be sure you be not loose; for those you make friends And give your hearts to, when they once perceive The least rub in your fortunes, fall away Like water from ye, never found again But where they mean to sink ye. All good people Pray for me; I must now forsake ye; that last hour Of my long weary life is come upon me: Farewell; And when you would say something that is sad, Speak how I fell. I have done, and God forgive me. [ll.i.,102-36] Shakespeare's own obsession with betrayal by a friend seems/ very strong in this, reminding us of the situation of the Sonnets, and of the Player King's speech on the contrariness of wills and fates in Hamlet. There is/ also an affinity with the Funeral Elegy for Will Peter, composed just be­fore Henry VIII, where the poet's bitterness at having been slandered is pungently conveyed/, with several anticipations of the play's laments. Per­haps Shakespeare himself felt/ that he was/ only "a little happier than his wretched father." We do not know/, nor are/ we at all certain whether the Blatant Beast of gossip had impugned/ the poet with regard to Will Peter, perhaps for a relationship like that conveyed by the Sonnets. There is/ a spiritual music in the formal complaints of Henry VIII that carries/ an un­dersong of personal sorrow, at least to my ear. Wolsey's great orations of loss are/ almost too magnificent for so venal a person; their sonority again hints/ at a private grief: So farewell, to the little good you bear me. Farewell? a long farewell to all my greatness. This is the state of man; to-day he puts forth The tender leaves of hopes, to-morrow blossoms, And bears his blushing honours thick upon him: The third day comes a frost, a killing frost, And when he thinks, good easy man, full surely His greatness is a-ripening, nips his root, And then he falls as I do. I have ventur'd Like little wanton boys that swim on bladders, This many summers in a sea of glory, But far beyond my depth: my high-blown pride At length broke under me, and now has left me, Weary and old with service, to the mercy Of a rude stream that must for ever hide me. Vain pomp and glory of this world, I hate ye! I feel my heart new open'd. O how wretched Is that poor man that hangs on princes' favours! There is betwixt that smile we would aspire to, That sweet aspect of princes, and their ruin, More pangs and fears than wars or women have; And when he falls, he falls like Lucifer, Never to hope again. [lll.ii.350-72] It is/ not possible for the auditor or reader to care about Wolsey, a mean­ souled cleric who deserves/ anything that exposure and humiliation bring/ to him. Again like the Funeral Elegy, the melody of disgrace seems/ intensely close. Is/ the prince here truly not Henry VIII but Henry Wriothesley, third Earl of Southampton? The question, though unanswerable, has/ its critical use, if only because the poetry of Wolsey's fall is/ so grandly in excess of what so mean a role merits/. The problem is/ not Wolsey's wickedness but his littleness. This is/ no lago or Macbeth, just a crooked administrator, an archetypal politician. Wolsey cannot fall/ like Lucifer; he is/ no morning star gone down to perdition. And yet the astonishing resources of Shake-­ speare's most mature style are summoned up/ to hymn a mere hypocrite's discomfiture. A pageant is/ a pageant, however, commercially speaking, and the strongest style in the language might lavish/ its exuberance where it would/. Wolsey, addressing his aide, Cromwell, urges/ this loyal servant to abandon him, in accents enormously beyond the decorum of a politi­cian's fall: Let's dry our eyes; and thus far hear me Cromwell, And when I am forgotten, as I shall be, And sleep in dull cold marble, where no mention Of me more must be heard of, say I taught thee; Say Wolsey, that once trod the ways of glory, And sounded all the depths and shoals of honour, Found thee a way (out of his wrack) to rise in, A sure and safe one, though thy master miss'd it. Mark but my fall, and that that ruin'd me: 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 all I dare now call mine own. O Cromwell, Cromwell, Had I but serv'd my God with half the zeal I serv'd my king, he would not in mine age Have left me naked to mine enemies. [III.ii.431-57] Eloquent beyond eloquence, this sublimity certainly is/ not applicable to Shakespeare himself, whose worldly ambitions did not exceed/ the re­newal of a gentleman's coat of arms and the comfortable affluence of his final return to Stratford. Nor does the godly zeal suit/ Shakespeare, though there is/ a curious medley of defensive piety and skeptical doubt of resur­rection in the Funeral Elegy for William Peter. The playwright perhaps felt "naked to mine enemies" in 1612-13, since that is/ the aura of the Funeral Elegy, but if those enemies existed/ at all, we again do not know/ who they were/. Shakespeare, nearing his fiftieth birthday, may have been/ physically ill, or somewhat traumatized/ by slander, or both. We reflect/ that, unlike Marlowe or Ben Jonson, he always in his right hand had carried/ "gentle peace / To silence envious tongues." One need not be/ the great and good Dr. Samuel Johnson to be immensely moved by Queen Katherine's final lines: When I am dead, good wench, Let me be us'd with honour; strew me over With maiden flowers, that all the world may know I was a chaste wife to my grave: embalm me, Then lay me forth; although unqueen'd, yet like A queen, and daughter to a king inter me. I can no more. [IV.ii. 167-73] And yet it is/ the lines that touch/ us; poor Katherine is/ too pathetic to sustain this hushed harmony, and we can wonder/ again why Shakespeare should be so inspired/. Paradoxically, he had attained/ a condition in which drama, from which he had become/ estranged, still kindled/ his powers, while the sincere grief of the Funeral Elegy provoked/ a poem so frequently banal (though not always) that many scholars reject/ the authorship as not being good enough for him. I cannot solve/ the puzzle of Henry VIII, and I have/ trouble responding to the rapture and exultation of Cranmer's concluding prophecy concern­ing the infant Elizabeth. Dead at fifty-two, Shakespeare never experienced/ old age, and yet the style of old age dominates/ Henry VIII. Falstaff, one of Shakespeare's prime surrogates—more so, perhaps, than Hamlet—refused/ to acknowledge his years and is/ all the more heroically funny for it. The world seems/ very old in Henry VIII, and in the scenes Shakespeare wrote for The Two Noble Kinsmen. Through his uncanniness, Shakespeare knew/ the end of his era, whatever we now choose/ to call that time. Henry VIII is/ an elegy for Shakespeare's world-altering achievement in poetic drama, and consciously bids/ farewell to the playwright's highest powers. from Shakespeare the Invention of the Human Harold Bloom

施萊格爾：“自塔西陀以來，對暴君的性格從沒有像莎士比亞的亨利八世那樣深刻的描寫。”但此劇的亨八，除了讓人感慨天下暴君一般黑外，便無特別之處了。其它莎劇裏的國王都是不止是國王，更是人，是可以從國王身份中分離出來的：無論是李爾，還是理查二世理查三世，亨四亨五，都是非常動人而獨一無二的形象。而此劇不僅亨八，甚至全劇都沒有一個真實自然有力的角色，顯得此劇像是部拍馬屁之作。連約翰遜稱讚的凱瑟琳王后，也不過是基督教理想的逆來順受妻子的刻板印象罷了。正如後記中總結的部分評論家觀點，“該劇結構鬆散，既缺乏核心主題，又沒有戲劇高潮，如此不成熟的劇作，不可能出自莎翁之手。”

最近對都鐸王朝有點感興趣，恰好發現了這本書，不長正好打發時間，還是第一次看戲劇呢。 好像微信讀書上只有這一個版本的亨八，沒得選擇，但是很lucky，整體閱讀體驗很不錯。翻譯流暢，註釋也很詳細，還附有譯者的導讀介紹，對亨利八世最著名的六段婚姻看個熱鬧。 至於故事內容，可能是我第一次看戲劇，總體來說有點失望，這個故事缺少主題，是重大歷史事件的重要片段的零散集合，另外順便對女王和她的母后拍拍馬屁。 國王身邊的寵臣接連倒臺，所謂的摯愛王后換個不停，地位與財富，榮耀與盛名，一切都是過眼雲煙。最讓人感興趣的反倒是亨利八世，他當然是一個討厭的專制暴君，好色又虛榮，但同時，僅僅對他自己而言，這輩子也算是享受了一回人間富貴，任性恣意。 都鐸王朝確實很適合作爲文學素材，狗血與八卦齊飛，血腥與衝突兼具，明主與專制並存。

剛讀完時覺得微妙，翻閱書後的各家評點認爲梁實秋說得相對到位：由於要把24年的歷史壓縮到六七天內，兩名作者分工的區域又很零散，故事結構難免鬆弛，亨利八世能作爲重要的串場角色但缺少一個舞臺總體上更有力的核心，情節轉換會顯突兀；王后與教團的正面衝突保證戲劇性也有提供一些金句，但辯論的格式與動作偏單一，凱瑟琳和安妮·博林兩位王后拋給觀衆的雙重氛圍沒有平衡好悲喜，多視點白描敘述的沃爾西更立體些；加註了演出數據以表現場面盛大的幾場典禮、凱瑟琳的幻夢還有歷史上結了六次婚的亨利八世，比較有趣。

亨利八世時期真正Drama的事情又不敢寫，牢莎你就爲了這點雞毛蒜皮把我們喊出來啊？全文寫了那麼多廢話，只是爲了最後一幕最後一場跪舔你的女王伊麗莎白是吧！又把大夥給逗樂了。

看過紀錄片之後重新來看h8，看書雖沒有影像的直接感染力，但最大的好處就在於不受彈幕的干擾不易被無端帶一些毫無意義的評論節奏。從h8的思想來看，很顯然h8還是極左了，對子嗣的極端看重和權力的極度貪婪導致不懂得“貧之交不可忘，糟糠之妻不下堂”的古訓，爲了一己私慾拋棄了凱瑟琳，也幹掉了身邊第一權臣克倫威爾，確實是英國曆史上最聲名狼藉的君王。 事實證明，良好的醫療條件對人口增長也有極大的推動作用。 總體推薦，也是時候補一下整個都鐸王朝了。