亨利八世（新译莎士比亚全集）

1491年，亨利八世降生，作为都铎王朝开国君主亨利七世的次子，他的人生注定与英格兰的命运紧密相连。1509年，亨利七世离世，亨利八世顺利继位，同年便与西班牙公主凯瑟琳成婚，开启了以奢华著称的早期统治阶段。1515至1520年间，他与红衣主教沃尔西的权力博弈日益加剧，沃尔西曾一度掌控朝政，既是亨利八世政治上的核心盟友，也逐渐成为其潜在的权力对手。 1527年，因凯瑟琳未能为其诞下男性继承人，亨利八世正式提出离婚请求，却遭到罗马教廷的坚决拒绝，这一事件也为后续的宗教改革埋下了重要伏笔。1533年，亨利八世与安妮·博林秘密成婚，同年议会通过《禁止上诉法案》，彻底切断了英格兰教会与罗马教廷之间的法律联系。1534年，《王位继承法》正式颁布，宣布亨利八世与凯瑟琳的婚姻无效，明确确立安妮·博林所生子女的继承权；与此同时，《至尊法案》顺利通过，确立国王为英格兰教会的最高领袖，英国国教自此正式奠基。 1536年，安妮·博林以“通奸”罪被判处斩首之刑，同年亨利八世与简·西摩成婚。1537年，简·西摩成功生下爱德华王子（即未来的爱德华六世），然而产后不久便因产褥热不幸去世。1540年，亨利八世先后与克里维斯的安妮、凯瑟琳·霍华德缔结姻缘，这两段婚姻均以短暂收场，凯瑟琳·霍华德后续也被处死。1543年，他与第六任妻子凯瑟琳·帕尔成婚，凯瑟琳·帕尔不仅陪伴亨利八世走完人生最后阶段，更成为他晚年重要的政治与精神伴侣。 1547年，亨利八世与世长辞，年仅9岁的爱德华六世继承王位，英格兰的宗教改革也随之进入全新阶段。值得一提的是，莎士比亚于约1613年创作的历史剧《亨利八世》，将叙事焦点集中在其统治中后期，核心情节涵盖了亨利八世与凯瑟琳的离婚纠纷、安妮·博林的加冕盛典、沃尔西的失势与离世，以及伊丽莎白一世的出生与受洗等关键事件。剧中将亨利八世塑造为“推动宗教改革的君主”形象，既贴合基本历史框架，也暗含着对都铎王朝合法性的肯定。

《亨利八世》，是伟大的莎士比亚最后一部作品。 1613年的莎士比亚已近天命之年，在这部戏剧中，他讲述了一个国王追求荣耀与爱情的故事。 亨利八世一生有六位妻子，一首打油诗介绍了她们的命运，“离婚、砍头、病亡、离婚、砍头、存活。” 二十多年的历史，浓缩成为几个场次的戏剧，历史被打破、重组，那些无论光鲜还是丑陋的故事，都在剧作家的笔下流淌为诗一般的语言。 于是文学让读者得以透过历史的帷幔，看到活生生的人： 亨利八世，一个满口信仰与崇高的国王，一个雄心万丈的霸主，一个博学多才、热爱运动、饶有情趣的贵族，同时也是一个愿意为了爱情不惜被绝罚，与教皇决裂的无信之人，一个因为厌弃容貌而拒绝完婚的轻狂之徒，一个喜新厌旧、色令智昏的男人。 以及，那些优秀而无辜的女性。 由这个故事，想到中国王朝帝后之间的故事。皇后的废立，虽然是皇帝的家事，但又从来都是天下事。可见，东西方虽然种种不同，但在这一点上，并没有太大区别。 以下简单介绍一下这六位王后： 阿拉贡的凯瑟琳：西班牙公主，先是嫁给亨利八世的哥哥亚瑟，婚后五个月亚瑟病逝，以未曾圆房为理由，改嫁给亨利八世。6次生育，只有女儿玛丽没有早夭。她文武双全，受到英格兰国民爱戴。1533年，亨利八世宣布与凯瑟琳历时24年的婚姻无效。1536年，在英国去世。16岁的她从西班牙远涉重洋来到英国后，35年间再也没有离开过。 安妮·博林：凯瑟琳的女侍官，在亨利八世婚内发生关系并怀孕。罗马教皇克莱门特七世先是因为顾忌西班牙不肯批准亨利八世离婚，之后又因为亨利八世自行其是与安妮·博林结婚对他提出警告。于是亨利八世索性让英国国会宣布国王成为英国教会的最高领袖，正式和罗马教廷决裂。不出意外，亨利八世被绝罚了。英国由此走向新教。安妮·博林1533年和亨利八世结婚，1536年因被控出轨被斩首。她推动英法结盟共同对抗西班牙，支持亨利八世在国内推广新教，清除罗马教廷势力。她的女儿就是后来历史上著名的“童贞女王”伊丽莎白一世。 简·西摩：在安妮·博林被斩首后的第二天，亨利八世便与简·西摩订婚，十天后举行了婚礼。一年后，她因产褥热去世，她为亨利八世生下了唯一的儿子。她对凯瑟琳的女儿玛丽，安妮·博林的女儿伊丽莎白都非常友善，努力修补她们与亨利八世的关系。 克里维斯的安妮：德意志克里维斯公国公主。亨利八世出于英国面临天主教国家威胁的考虑，需要加强与德意志国家关系，于是选择了她。这位天资聪慧，受过良好教育的德国贵族女孩在24岁时来到英国，却因为亨利八世认为不够漂亮、没有品味被悔婚。1557年，她于英国病逝，终年41岁，从踏上英国这片土地后，便再也没有离开。 凯瑟琳·霍华德：克里维斯的安妮的侍女，安妮·博林的表姐。在亨利八世与克里维斯的安妮悔婚后一个月，与国王结婚。婚后一年，被指控通奸。离婚一年后，她被斩首，时年21岁。 凯瑟琳·帕尔：凯瑟琳一生结婚四次，她是英国结婚次数最多的王后。亨利八世在1542年砍掉凯瑟琳的头后，于1543年与又一个凯瑟琳结了婚。当时的亨利八世病痛缠身，已经离不开轮椅和拐杖，伤痕累累的情史，令他格外渴望妻子的温情和关爱。凯瑟琳·帕尔很重视她前任的子女教育，亲自教导伊丽莎白公主和爱德华王子，对他们的成长发挥了重要的作用。这段婚姻持续了四年，在亨利八世去世后，她又改嫁给了心仪已久的第四任丈夫。婚后一年，因产褥热去世。

《亨利八世》 (摘自《莎士比亚：人性的发明》 ——哈罗德·布鲁姆) 重读《亨利八世》，令我对于约翰·弗莱彻参与创作其中相当篇幅的假说深表怀疑。 这部作品虽更似恢弘的剧诗而非成熟的戏剧，其内在气韵却惊人地统一，仅偶见几处疑似弗莱彻的笔触。作为一次盛典仪式的舞台实验，《亨利八世》着力呈现的是沃尔西、凯瑟琳、亨利等磅礴角色，而非精雕细琢的人物性格；而其中最引人入胜之处（至少于我而言），在于莎士比亚始终与所有主角保持着一种超然距离——唯有当他们从权势之巅跌落、走向穷途末路之时（如白金汉、沃尔西、凯瑟琳，乃至几乎遭难的克兰默），方真正激起诗人的关注，并由此唤起我们深切的悲悯之情。 此剧真正的谜团，在于亨利国王这一角色。 他既非荷尔拜因画笔下亦非查尔斯·劳顿演绎的亨利八世，始终笼罩在暧昧的光影中。莎士比亚秉持其一贯的政治审慎，既未明指宠臣失势时亨利罪责尤深，却也从未真正为君王开脱。即便天主教与新教的对抗，也被处理得如此含蓄，几乎不见剧作家的立场倾向。全剧弥漫着悲怆的哀鸣，尽管终场时克兰默为新生女王伊丽莎白谱写荣耀预言，看似以欢庆的爱国情怀作结——观众却不得不深思：安妮·博林终将步上克伦威尔与托马斯·莫尔（剧中接替沃尔西之位者）的断头台；而克兰默虽暂得亨利赦免，终究难逃火刑之劫。剧中无人被赋予深邃的内心世界，他们皆是声线华美的纹章图腾——而这，正是莎士比亚意欲塑造的全部。唯国王超脱了言语肖像的范畴；然其形象之高下，因莎翁的笔触闪避而终难评判。这位手握无上权柄的君主，竟得以逃脱他纵容沃尔西作恶、迫害白金汉与凯瑟琳的罪责。我们甚至未能窥见关于国王的矛盾视角：他缺乏那种足以引发观者兴味的、贯通的恶质。导演与演员尽可随心诠释这个角色——我所见的所有制作皆未跳出荷尔拜因-劳顿的范式，尽管剧本对此几乎毫无支撑。 莎士比亚为何创作《亨利八世》？ 该剧别名《皆真记》蕴含多重解读，然诸说皆难令人信服。戏中真假参半——这想必莎翁亦心知肚明。剧中君王形象本应失实，却因根本未具实体而无从指摘：最初的亨利毫无睿智可言，不过是沃尔西掌中傀儡，直至这位恶枢机兼宫内大臣书信疏漏，方得窥见天光。后半幕里判若两人的亨利虽保全了克兰默，然其识见因何精进，剧中杳无交代。我们甚至无从断定亨利抛弃凯瑟琳是否源于其饕餮性情——尽管将罪责推予沃尔西显然难以服众。莎士比亚照单全收了这一切。“皆真”之要义在于：勿作道德评判，此举既不安妥亦无裨益。且凝望这盛大庆典，静听那挽歌悲音，共怀伊丽莎白盛世荣光之追忆。 《亨利八世》宛若一场盛装游行，是向莎士比亚前戏剧传统的回溯。 莎翁于自身天才已生倦意，遂将此番创举尽数消解。剧中情境并非你我日常所历，除非自感从显赫之位陨落。这部描绘万物辞别的剧诗，实为一场仪典演出，或可视为最后的谢幕华彩——尽管后续尚有与弗莱彻合著之《两贵亲》。罗素·弗雷泽曾盛赞莎翁“精擅英语至高修辞之艺”，亦谑指剧中主角“濒临伟岸终曲时，皆踏相同挽歌之步”。确然，在此剧中，所有陨落之躯皆同等高贵；莎翁笔下独有的“个性棱角”已然消隐。约翰逊博士以为“莎翁之灵光随凯瑟琳登场而现，亦随其退场而隐”，此判令我讶异——因白金汉与沃尔西临终绝唱，实与凯瑟琳之悲叹如出一辙。然则，这位伟大的道德家确为废后“温顺的哀愁与贞洁的苦难”所动，而白金汉何曾温顺？沃尔西焉称贞洁？这部剧诗略偏于约翰逊的审美轴心，他毕生最钟爱的，终是考狄利娅。但若仅以诗学论，《亨利八世》理当获得比现今更高的美学礼赞。它与《两贵亲》共同标志着一脉超越舞台诵唱者形象的新颖风格。当白金汉走向 “那斧钺加身的长别”，将其命运与遭理查三世戕害的先父相比较时，我们已听见这风格初次的圆满： 我来到此地时，还是宫廷长官， 也是白金汉公爵；而现在，不过是可怜的爱德华·布恩 27。 不过，我要比那些构陷我的、不知忠诚为何物的 卑鄙小人更富有些。我现在以我的鲜血确证这一点， 总有一天，他们会为此哀号悲吟。 我高贵的父亲，白金汉的亨利， 首先举兵反抗篡位的理查， 事急之际，奔至其仆班尼斯特处求救， 可悲竟然反为此小人所卖，不经审讯， 即遭斩首，愿上帝保佑他安息。 亨利七世即位后，深悼我父之亡，行明君之举， 恢复了我的荣誉， 使显贵之列重现我名。如今，他的儿子 亨利八世，遽然从世间攫走了 我的生命、荣誉、名声， 及我的一切福祉。我受到了审判， 必须承认是一场正规的审判，这使我比我那 可怜的父亲幸运许多； 尽管如此，我们还是面临着相同的命运： 同为仆人所叛卖，为我们最亲近的人所构陷， 真真背信弃义，天良丧尽！ 老天有眼，善恶到头终有报， 各位， 请听我这将死之人实言相劝： 当你们对亲信随从慷慨示好时， 切莫掉以轻心，因为你倾心相交的人， 一旦发现你厄运临头，就会像逝水一般 离你而去，再难寻觅 除非打算对你落井下石。所有善良的人们， 为我祈祷吧。我要与你们永别了，在我漫长的 生命煎熬中，最后的时刻已经到来。永别了， 当你们想说一些忧伤之事， 就说我如何被杀吧。 不说了，上帝呀，宽恕我吧。 (27 　爱德华·布恩（Edward Bohun）：白金汉公爵父姓为斯塔福德（Stafford），本名为爱德华，祖上通过与布恩家族联姻继承了公爵爵位。——译者附注) (第二幕第一场：第102-136行) 莎翁自身对遭挚友背叛的执念，在此剧中显得尤为强烈，令人想起其十四行诗中的境况，以及《哈姆雷特》里戏中王关于意志与命运相悖的独白。此剧与《亨利八世》创作前夕写就的《致威尔·彼得哀歌》亦存在精神共鸣——彼篇中诗人因遭诽谤而生的怨苦极为辛辣，其中若干悲叹已先期预示了剧中哀吟。或许莎士比亚内心亦自觉“比其不幸的父亲略胜几分而已”。真相我们无从得知，亦不能断定那“喧嚣的诽谤之兽”是否就诗人与威尔·彼得之关系——某种类似十四行诗所载之情谊——对莎翁施以攻讦。然《亨利八世》中那些庄重哀诉里，确有一种承载着个人悲音的精神律动，至少在我听来如此。沃尔西那些关于陨落的宏篇巨诵，对此等卑劣之徒实显过于辉煌；其磅礴声腔中，再度透露出某种私己的悲恸： 再会吧，你们给予我的不怎么多的善意。 再会？应该是和我的尊贵荣耀说永别了。 这就是人生世态：今天，他长出了 希望的嫩叶；明天蓓蕾纷绽， 繁花盛开，万紫千红； 第三天风霜肃杀，一片凋零， 优哉游哉的好人哪，他本以为人生伟业 就要成熟，却突遭连根摧败， 他就垮掉了，跟我一样。多少年来， 我就像抱着气囊戏水的孩童， 在荣耀的海洋中徜徉已久， 但离岸过远。我那过于膨胀的 骄纵气囊现在终于崩裂，把因为多年辛劳 而疲惫衰老的我交由 汹涌的波涛，势必永久沉沦。 尘世的虚荣，我恨你。我感觉我的心重新打开了。啊，那些依靠 君恩而苟活的可怜人是多么悲惨啊！ 从我们所期待的君王的展颜一笑， 到君王给我们的灭顶之灾，其间的痛苦惊惧， 远胜过战争的劫难和女人的背叛。 当他一旦落败，如同落败的撒旦， 地狱永沉，万劫不复。 (第三幕第二场：第350-372行) 无论观者或读者，实难对沃尔西此等灵魂卑劣的教士心生恻隐——曝光与羞辱皆是他应得的报偿。 与《哀歌》如出一辙，耻辱的旋律在此显得无比真切。剧中的君主莫非并非亨利八世，而是南安普顿伯爵亨利·里奥谢斯利？此问虽无解，却具批评价值——仅因沃尔西垮台时的诗篇实在辉煌壮丽，远非此等卑琐角色所能承载。症结不在其恶，而在其微。他非伊阿古亦非麦克白，不过是个奸猾官吏，政客典型。沃尔西不配如路西法般陨落；他本非晨星，何谈堕入地狱？然而莎翁竟调动其最成熟风格的一切惊人笔力，为区区伪君子的溃败谱写颂歌。然则盛典终究是场生意，既为生意，便容得下这语言中最磅礴的笔触，在最不堪的角落倾泻它所有的辉煌。 且看沃尔西嘱咐克伦威尔时，那劝忠仆弃主而去的声腔，竟比政客落马该有的分寸，多出整整个天地的苍茫。 让我们擦干眼泪吧。听我说，克伦威尔， 当我被人遗忘，这是肯定的， 长眠于落寞冰冷的石棺内，没有人 再说起我，你就说我曾教过你； 就说沃尔西曾在飞黄腾达之时， 感受过尊荣的深潭和浅滩， 通过他的倾覆，为你发现了上进之通途—— 确保无虞的通途，虽然你的主人迷失了它。 记住我的倾覆，也记住我倾覆的根由。 克伦威尔，我正告你，摒弃野心， 有野心的天使也会沉沦，由造物主凭自己的 形象造出的人类，如何希求靠野心获胜？ 要把爱你自己放在最后，珍爱那些痛恨你的人， 腐败是赢不了诚实的。 你的右手要永远抱持温良和平， 以平息讻讻之口。要公正，勿恐惧。你行动的所有目标，就是你的国家、 你的上帝，还有真理。那样如果你落败了，啊，克伦威尔， 你也是作为一个有福的殉难者落败的。 为国王效忠。请你领我进去， 把我的所有财物列一个清单， 直到最后一个便士，都是国王的。我现在敢于声称属我所有的， 只有我的袍子，以及我对上天的忠诚， 啊，克伦威尔，克伦威尔， 假如我侍奉上帝有我侍奉国王 一半的热诚，他就不会在我垂老之年 把我赤条条留给我的敌人了。 (第三幕第二场：第431-457行) 此种超越雄辩的雄辩，这份卓绝的崇高，自然与莎士比亚本人无涉。 他的世俗抱负，无非是重振家族的纹章荣誉，以及最终体面还乡、安享斯特拉特福的富足余生。虔敬的热忱亦与莎翁无缘——尽管在《致威廉·彼得哀歌》中，确有一种防御性的虔诚与对复活之说的怀疑交织成的奇异混合物。这位剧作家在1612至1613年间，或许确曾感到“在敌人面前赤身露体”，因这正是《哀歌》弥漫的气息；然则即便这些敌人确曾存在，我们依旧不知其究竟为谁。年届知命的莎士比亚，或许当时正缠绵病榻，或许遭诽谤中伤而心有余悸，抑或二者兼而有之。我们不禁思忖：不同于马洛或本·琼森，他始终以右手高擎“温和的和平，以缄嫉妒之舌”。纵非如塞缪尔·约翰逊博士那般德高望重，我们也定会为凯瑟琳王后的终场独白深深动容： 当我死的时候，好姑娘， 给我王后的体面与尊荣：在我的身上 撒满圣洁的鲜花，让所有的世人知道， 我葬入坟茔时，依然是一个贞洁的妻子； 给我涂抹香膏，然后为我举丧。 虽然我王后之位已被废，但是 依然像对待王后和公主一样葬我。 我不能再说了。 (第四幕第二场：第167-173行) 然而真正触动心弦的终究是诗行本身：可怜的凯瑟琳已悲怆得无力承载这阕静谧和声，我们不禁再度追问，何以莎翁竟能从中汲取如许灵感？悖谬的是，彼时的他虽已与戏剧渐行渐远，却仍能在旧日舞台上重燃诗力；而《哀歌》里那份至诚悲恸，反倒催生出屡见平庸的诗篇（虽非尽然），致使众多学者以“不似其臻境”为由否认为其真作。 我始终无法参透《亨利八世》的谜题，亦难以对克兰默终场时关于婴孩伊丽莎白的狂喜预言产生共鸣。五十二岁辞世的莎士比亚未尝暮年滋味，然则垂暮之风竟笼罩全剧。福斯塔夫——莎翁最重要的化身，或许更胜哈姆雷特——始终拒绝向年岁臣服，正因如此，他的滑稽才愈发英勇。在《亨利八世》与《两贵亲》的莎氏场景里，整个世界尽显龙钟老态。藉由超凡的洞察，莎翁早已预见了他时代的终局——无论我们今日如何命名那个时代。《亨利八世》实为一曲挽歌，哀悼着诗剧领域中那座撼动世界的伟绩，亦是剧作家向其巅峰才情作出的清醒告别。 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

施莱格尔：“自塔西陀以来，对暴君的性格从没有像莎士比亚的亨利八世那样深刻的描写。”但此剧的亨八，除了让人感慨天下暴君一般黑外，便无特别之处了。其它莎剧里的国王都是不止是国王，更是人，是可以从国王身份中分离出来的：无论是李尔，还是理查二世理查三世，亨四亨五，都是非常动人而独一无二的形象。而此剧不仅亨八，甚至全剧都没有一个真实自然有力的角色，显得此剧像是部拍马屁之作。连约翰逊称赞的凯瑟琳王后，也不过是基督教理想的逆来顺受妻子的刻板印象罢了。正如后记中总结的部分评论家观点，“该剧结构松散，既缺乏核心主题，又没有戏剧高潮，如此不成熟的剧作，不可能出自莎翁之手。”

最近对都铎王朝有点感兴趣，恰好发现了这本书，不长正好打发时间，还是第一次看戏剧呢。 好像微信读书上只有这一个版本的亨八，没得选择，但是很lucky，整体阅读体验很不错。翻译流畅，注释也很详细，还附有译者的导读介绍，对亨利八世最著名的六段婚姻看个热闹。 至于故事内容，可能是我第一次看戏剧，总体来说有点失望，这个故事缺少主题，是重大历史事件的重要片段的零散集合，另外顺便对女王和她的母后拍拍马屁。 国王身边的宠臣接连倒台，所谓的挚爱王后换个不停，地位与财富，荣耀与盛名，一切都是过眼云烟。最让人感兴趣的反倒是亨利八世，他当然是一个讨厌的专制暴君，好色又虚荣，但同时，仅仅对他自己而言，这辈子也算是享受了一回人间富贵，任性恣意。 都铎王朝确实很适合作为文学素材，狗血与八卦齐飞，血腥与冲突兼具，明主与专制并存。

刚读完时觉得微妙，翻阅书后的各家评点认为梁实秋说得相对到位：由于要把24年的历史压缩到六七天内，两名作者分工的区域又很零散，故事结构难免松弛，亨利八世能作为重要的串场角色但缺少一个舞台总体上更有力的核心，情节转换会显突兀；王后与教团的正面冲突保证戏剧性也有提供一些金句，但辩论的格式与动作偏单一，凯瑟琳和安妮·博林两位王后抛给观众的双重氛围没有平衡好悲喜，多视点白描叙述的沃尔西更立体些；加注了演出数据以表现场面盛大的几场典礼、凯瑟琳的幻梦还有历史上结了六次婚的亨利八世，比较有趣。

亨利八世时期真正Drama的事情又不敢写，牢莎你就为了这点鸡毛蒜皮把我们喊出来啊？全文写了那么多废话，只是为了最后一幕最后一场跪舔你的女王伊丽莎白是吧！又把大伙给逗乐了。

看过纪录片之后重新来看h8，看书虽没有影像的直接感染力，但最大的好处就在于不受弹幕的干扰不易被无端带一些毫无意义的评论节奏。从h8的思想来看，很显然h8还是极左了，对子嗣的极端看重和权力的极度贪婪导致不懂得“贫之交不可忘，糟糠之妻不下堂”的古训，为了一己私欲抛弃了凯瑟琳，也干掉了身边第一权臣克伦威尔，确实是英国历史上最声名狼藉的君王。 事实证明，良好的医疗条件对人口增长也有极大的推动作用。 总体推荐，也是时候补一下整个都铎王朝了。