My rating:

add to my books

read book

Richard II

by William Shakespeare, Paul Werstine

3.59 · rating details · 3,165 ratings · 136 reviews

<CENTER>Each edition includes:

• Freshly edited text based on the best early printed version of the play

• Full explanatory notes conveniently placed on pages facing the text of the play

• Scene-by-scene plot summaries

• A key to famous lines and phrases

• An introduction to reading Shakespeare's language

• An essay by an outstanding scholar providing a modern

...more

Mass Market Paperback, 352 pages

Published August 23rd 2011 by Washington Square Press (first published 1595)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

There is a good chance some of your friends read this book. Sign in to see!

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

One Name as a Title

36th out of 198 books — 58 voters

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince by J.K. Rowling

How the Grinch Stole Christmas by Dr. Seuss

Quidditch Through the Ages by J.K. Rowling

Yertle the Turtle and Other Stories by Dr. Seuss

Greenest Books Ever

89th out of 833 books — 211 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 4,586)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Jan 18, 2010

Elizabeth rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: in-by-of-england, in-theater, tam-lin, elizabethan-my-dear, reviewed

No one is called a strumpet, slattern, slut, trollop, or whore; so, Falstaff, go find yourself another play. There are lots of them, so no griping that this one isn't funny. You'll get your chance. This is not a play for comic moments. It is political angst on the highest level, and I love it because it is brilliantly devious and beautifully poetic at the same time.

I don't know how any ruling monarch could comfortably watch a performance. Either one would identify with Richard or He...moreNo one is called a strumpet, slattern, slut, trollop, or whore; so, Falstaff, go find yourself another play. There are lots of them, so no griping that this one isn't funny. You'll get your chance. This is not a play for comic moments. It is political angst on the highest level, and I love it because it is brilliantly devious and beautifully poetic at the same time.

I don't know how any ruling monarch could comfortably watch a performance. Either one would identify with Richard or Henry and neither would portray you in a flattering light. Would you rather be the ineffective king, whose arbitrary behavior alienates your loyal followers? Would you strip your land with crushing taxes to fight foreign wars, seizing the lands of subjects who had loved you? Would you consider yourself divinely placed upon the throne so you believe every thing you do must be right? Or, would you want to be a politician, one who manipulates, ruthlessly, mass appeal, and your allies, to protect yourself and aid your rise to power? Would you scapegoat your friends who do the dirtiest of your dirty work?

Have you read The Prince?

This play is a microcosm of the political theory of its day. Is the King divinely touched and therefore sacrosanct? Can the power of a king be claimed through strength of arms and political acts? King John should have taught a better lesson, no king can rule who makes his barons desperate, especially when one violates the law, real or perceived, by claiming the power of one of them. That makes them nervous. It suggests that they may also be at risk, and that, my young tea-partiers, is the first step to revolution.

But what makes this play really great (from the political perspective) is that neither Henry or Richard follows exactly one line or the other. Henry isn't strictly Machiavellian and Richard is more so than you'd expect. It is really only later that he really gets into a rant about divine rights. I love it. I loved the manipulation and justification and callousness without serious violence. There isn't a lot of the melodramatic on-stage violence that makes such a mess of some of Shakespeare's other plays. This is an intellectual exercise, and while some may be disappointed with the lack of action, the language is some of the best in all his plays. It's in their speeches that you grow to love the characters, despite their questionable morals. Is Richard to be reviled or pitied? I love that it leaves you uncomfortable. Like a small pebble under the seat cushion. It leaves you squirming with discomfort as you try to distinguish the good from the bad. Shakespeare won't let you. How he survived it I do not know. (less)

like 15 likes

· see review

May 19, 2008

Dave Russell rated it

Shelves: drama, classics

Richard's death at the end of act V is nothing short of dragoleon (for an explanation of that term see here:http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/22070504) Three badasses show up in Richard's cell to try and kill him but he's having none of it. He says:

"Villain, thy own hand yields thy death's instrument,"
["Yippy-ki-ay, motherfucker"--my paraphrase]

Richard then snatches an axe from one of the mofos' hand and kills him.

"...more

like 4 likes

· see review

Jan 24, 2009

Terence rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: audio-books, shakespeare-stuff, the-plays-the-thing

Listening to Richard II, I've swung between awarding 2, 3 or 4 stars to it. Initially, the play didn't impress, and the soliloquies seemed overwrought and overlong. However, the persevering soul will find some amazing, four-star-worthy passages, the most famous perhaps being Gaunt's paean to England in Act II, scene i. Another one is found in Act III, scene iv, where a gardener laments the sorry state of the "garden" of England since its caretaker has so neglected it.

It may...moreListening to Richard II, I've swung between awarding 2, 3 or 4 stars to it. Initially, the play didn't impress, and the soliloquies seemed overwrought and overlong. However, the persevering soul will find some amazing, four-star-worthy passages, the most famous perhaps being Gaunt's paean to England in Act II, scene i. Another one is found in Act III, scene iv, where a gardener laments the sorry state of the "garden" of England since its caretaker has so neglected it.

It may not be as "accessible" as Shakespeare's more popular plays. There're no grand villains like Iago or Richard III, nor are there any great heroes like Henry V. There're not even any angst-ridden Danes, though there's plenty of soul-searching and questions of identity and legitimacy. Richard II is the unhappy story of two essentially decent men who find themselves opposed, the weakness of the king precipitating a confrontation that results in his destruction. Richard's fundamental weakness is made manifest in the first scene of the first act. Henry Bolingbroke (the future Henry IV) and the Duke of Norfolk quarrel and Richard attempts to intervene:

We were not born to sue, but to command;
Which since we cannot do to make you friends,
Be ready as your lives shall answer it...

Despite his flaws, Richard rules as best he can but is handicapped by an inability to inspire love, trust or cooperation; and is utterly incompetent as a politician, driving Henry (whom he banishes and disinherits) into rebellion. Whether he wills it or no, Bolingbroke must depose Richard, who rules by divine right, and justify his usurpation. I don't think Shakespeare ever resolves the problem throughout the entire cycle of history plays (which include Henry IV, parts 1 and 2 and Henry V), and certainly not in this play. But it is interesting to see the struggle proceed.

A word about the audio: While the production values were quite good, one of the drawbacks of solely listening to the play is that it can be difficult to tell who's saying what, particularly in the beginning. A minor caveat. A prospective listener might want to read (or reread) the play before donning the headphones. Or watch a production (I've already added two filmed versions to my Netflix queue).(less)

like 5 likes

· see review

Jul 08, 2010

Alex rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: 2010

Richard II is one of my favorite histories, partly because the actual events surrounding Richard's fall offer plenty of drama, and partly because of its sheer beauty. Richard is eloquent to a fault - literally; he'd rather give flowery speeches than actually do anything. But what speeches! You almost forget what a moron he is.

But it's the gardener's soliloquy in III.iv that's actually the prettiest, an extended rant about why he should bother weeding the garden when Richard has le...more

like 2 likes

· see review

May 12, 2007

Bill Kerwin rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: 16th-17th-c-brit

For the first time, Shakespeare creates a compelling historical protagonist who speaks naturally in a poetic voice that is truly, distinctively his own. In his earlier works involving kings and emperors, Shakespeare imitated Marlowe's "mighty line" with some--if not complete--success, but in Richard II he at last found a king--a weak man but a considerable poet--whom he could animate from the inside, a king more comfortable with the rhetoric of royal pageantry than with governing his...more

like 2 likes

· see review

Dec 18, 2011

Esdaile rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: renaissance-drama, underrated-works

I had a small role in this play when I was at school (I was the faithful Earl of Salisbury. The lines "Thy sun sinks weeping in the lowly West witnessing stroms to come, woe and unrest." were the ones I recalled for years afterwards to remind me that the Sun sank in the West and not the East.

This quality of Richard the Second, it seems to me, is often downplayed. More than once I have read it described as "early work"-in the sense of having many faults of immatur...more

· see review

Nov 28, 2011

Emily Watkins rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: england, shakespeare, winter-classic

tread the stranger paths (842)

Then thus I turn me from my country's light,
To dwell in solemn shades of endless night. (843)

Then, England's ground, farewell; sweet soil, adieu;
My mother, and my nurse, that bears me yet!
Where'er I wander, boast of this I can,
Though banish'd, yet a trueborn Englishman. (845)

This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fort...more

· see review

Jan 29, 2011

Trevor rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: literature

As a bit of an Irishman I guess there is a part of me that quite likes the idea of a King of England brought low (at least in part) because of his all too keen singing of ‘yo ho and off we go’ to put those rebellious Irish in their place – and that this might then lead to two centuries of civil war we now refer to as the War of the Roses. As a child of the Enlightenment (now watching that particular sun set into an ocean of fear and superstition) there really ought to be a part of me that cheer...moreAs a bit of an Irishman I guess there is a part of me that quite likes the idea of a King of England brought low (at least in part) because of his all too keen singing of ‘yo ho and off we go’ to put those rebellious Irish in their place – and that this might then lead to two centuries of civil war we now refer to as the War of the Roses. As a child of the Enlightenment (now watching that particular sun set into an ocean of fear and superstition) there really ought to be a part of me that cheers at the defeat of a king who repeatedly lays claim to his divine right to rule as the main justification for his continued power.

That said, it is impossible not to feel for Richard II. There is something terribly human about this divine king. From the first moments of the play it is hard not to see that things are going to go incredibly badly. This is as close to a tragedy as any history play is ever likely to come. In fact, it fits much more closely to Aristotle’s definition of tragedy (great man brought low by his own fatal flaw) than most of Shakespeare’s actual ‘tragedies’ do.

I could watch the first act of this play a million times and never tire of it. Imagine the scene. You are the guy in charge and two of your underlings are really upset with each other (maybe even with good cause). One of them is even blaming the other one of killing his uncle (which, truth be told, you might have had something to do with yourself). They want to sort this out by duelling each other – not the most modern of ways of deciding the ‘justice’ of a case – but I think that is the point. You do everything in your power to convince them to leave it all alone, but everything you and others say falls on deaf ears. 'Right then, let them have their head', you think and set up an occasion where they can fight each other to the death. But then, just as they are about to run each other through you have a change of heart and decide to banish the pair of them (on the advice you’ve received from ‘trusted’ advisors - advisors who immediately regret their own advice to you given the real life consequences of their advice).

One is banished for 6 years, the other for life. Mowbray’s speech on being banished from his native land is one of the most moving imaginable. He doesn’t complain about never seeing England’s green and pleasant land again – but much more poignantly, of having his tongue imprisoned in his own mouth. As he makes all too clear, to banish him aged 40 never to live in England again is to banish him from his own native language. I think this is so devastating because it is also so true.

Now, some advice – for what it is worth. If you are thinking of writing a play I really think you should think twice before creating a character like Mowbray. I mean, to have someone have such a presence in the first act of the play and then for him to completely disappear never to be seen again at the end of that act for the rest of the play just about breaks all of the rules. You might think I'm saying that as some sort of challenge, but it is actually the opposite – those rules were made for a damn good reason and half killing off a major character who is virtually never mentioned again casts a shadow over this play that requires a hell of a lot of talent by the author to sustain.

This play reminds me a lot of King Lear – and not just because the scene between York and his son with the letter is virtually identical to the one between Gloucester and Edmond – with the breakdown of family relations reminding you that although there isn’t an antonym for nepotism, there probably should be. Any play that has a father on his knees pleading with his King to kill his own son is doing odd things with the concepts of loyalty and obligation – you can take my word for that.

This is a very poetical play – I mean, it rhymes more than other plays by Shakespeare tend to, particularly at the start. This is significant too, I think. It gives the world as presided over by King Richard an unreality that makes its overthrow seem almost inevitable.

All the same, inevitable or not the killing of a King risks much more than just one man’s life, but calls into question everything to do with the social structure as it existed at the time. Essentially, if Lords could decide to kill their King what was to stop the next rung down killing the Lords – and so on?

This is the first of a series of four plays Shakespeare wrote (from Richard II to Henry V stopping off at Henry IV parts one and two along the way). There is even some question about whether this play was ever really meant to stand on its own – but to me, it stands very well on its own. To me this is a play of both internecine rivalries and of unintended consequences. There are things that happen in life that are meant to be about one thing and that end up being about something completely different – some balls should never be allowed to start rolling, but once they do there’s little point trying to stop them again.

It is all too easy to see Richard as a coward – even his wife says he should strike out like a lion even if all he can do is lacerate the ground, advice he puts aside immediately – but even this is ironically played with at the end as he seeks to fill hell’s rooms in his last moments.

I think this is a fascinating play – even if some of the speeches seem a little over-wrought. All the same the idea of taking everything from someone piecemeal is agony to watch and I think it is this which wins the audience to Richard - even as it becomes increasingly clear he is a lost cause.
(less)

like 2 likes

· see review

Oct 01, 2010

Austin Ratner rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: literature, shakespeare, drama

My favorite of the histories. Richard III seems to be performed much more often, but it's in Richard II that Shakespeare makes a trial run at the inward-looking soliloquies that characterize his great tragedies. Here is the beginning of Shakespearean "self-overhearing" as a method of dramatizing inner life, self-insight, and the evolution of character. The seeds of Hamlet are planted in Richard II (a wise man told me) and I also think you can see the seeds of King Lear as Richard mu...more

like 1 like

· see review

Aug 26, 2010

Henry added it · review of another edition

Shelves: shakespeare

DUCHESS OF LANCASTER (I.ii):
Finds brotherhood in thee no sharper spur?
Hath love in thy old blood no living fire?
Edward's seven sons, whereof thyself art one,
Were as seven vials of his sacred blood,
Or seven fair branches springing from one root:
Some of those seven are dried by nature's course,
Some of those branches by the Destinies cut;
But Thomas, my dear lord, my life, my Gloucester,
One vial full of Edward's sacred blood,
One flourishing...more

· see review

Jul 11, 2010

James rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: plays

Without a doubt Shakespeare is the grandmaster of the English language. I checked the dates of composition for this play and realized that Shakespeare was around my own age when he wrote it. For some reason this had a strong effect on me. That someone could have gained such mastery of their art form and spun such an interesting historical and political yarn, and to have done so in some of the most mellifluous blank verse ever composed, is humbling beyond compare. I sit in awe of the man!

...more

· see review

Jan 18, 2010

Chris rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: plays-scripts, british-ren-lit

Shakespeare’s Richard II is more famous (or perhaps simply better known) play than Marlowe’s Edward II. The two plays are markedly similar in plot, both deal with the deposing of an anointed monarch, though Marlowe is far more upfront about the homosexual aspect of the plot. The fame of Shakespeare’s play might simply be due to Elizabeth I’s famous reaction when Essex and his supporters tried a Richard II Revival. Lately, I come to believe that Richard II is simply an echo of the superior Edw...more

like 2 likes

· see review

Jan 06, 2010

Brins added it · review of another edition

Full title: "The Tragedy of King Richard the Second"

If you're a king, you'd better watch what dukes you exile... because they might end up coming back to seize your throne!!!!

King Richard II has been corrupted by deceitful "flatterers", it seems, and has gotten his ego inflated to the point where it raises taxes unreasonably and seizes property that isn't rightfully his. When he places a 10-year exile on the Duke of Hereford (2x5 as the king puts it - wha...more

· see review

Mar 04, 2011

Brian rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: shakespeare

I intended to read this play over the course of a week. I read it in two days. Nevermind the stacks of papers to grade and lessons to be planned! The plot was too damn intriguing; I just couldn't put the thing down.

Shakespeare's Richard II (and it is fully his, as are all of his "historical" characters) is a complicated figure. In true Shakespearean fashion, one doesn't know whether to root for his downfall (which I found myself doing early on) or to feel sorry for him late...more

· see review

Jul 28, 2011

Phil rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: drama

This is actually the second time I've read this play, and it is quite good. It has one of my favorite speeches from any Shakespeare play--in III.2, the "death of kings" speech is really tremendous. That being said, there are a couple of things that bother me about this play. First, the plot is really similar to Marlowe's Edward II, which I feel is (in many ways) a better play. Edward is more interesting a character than Richard, and some of the writing in Marlowe's play is really top n...more

· see review

Feb 08, 2010

Kelly rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: shakespeare, theatre, brit-lit, 1500-1700, great-and-terrible-men, grand-opera

This is pretty racy stuff for 1595, you guys. I would've expected as much outrage as over that Janet Jackson boob thing, but you know, for intellectual reasons. I really don't know how Shakespeare got away with performing this- this play is such stuff as justifications for censorship and treason are made on.

Richard II seems like he was a very unfashionable king in 1595. He was certainly not the notion of a good king at the time- and I wouldn't assume that that was entirely a bad thin...moreThis is pretty racy stuff for 1595, you guys. I would've expected as much outrage as over that Janet Jackson boob thing, but you know, for intellectual reasons. I really don't know how Shakespeare got away with performing this- this play is such stuff as justifications for censorship and treason are made on.

Richard II seems like he was a very unfashionable king in 1595. He was certainly not the notion of a good king at the time- and I wouldn't assume that that was entirely a bad thing. Oh sure, there are some things that our modern standards would agree with as being terrible traits for a leader- He shows himself to be selfish, fickle, opportunistically greedy (he has his uncle's house and lands looted to fund a war after he dies! OMG, WTF?), wasteful, imprudent and rash. He also seems to give up in adverse situations incredibly easily. I almost wonder if this character had undiagnosed clinical depression. He certainly behaves that way.

However... he also has a few other traits that the dudes of the era weren't so fond of that maybe weren't so bad at all. He's repeatedly taken to task for not avenging his uncle Glocester's death, for instance. They even trot out his widow to beat her breast about it to the sainted Gaunt for a scene. He's just generally seen as not... martial enough, not violent enough. We see him stop a combat at the last second between two powerful lords and tell them:

"For that our kingdom's each should not be soil'd
With that dear blood which it hath fostered
And for our eyes do hate the dire aspect
Of civil wounds plough'd up with neighbours' sword;
And for we think the eagle-winged pride
Of sky-aspiring and ambitious thoughts
With rival-hating envy, set on you
To wake our peace, which in our country's cradle
Draws the sweet infant breath of gentle peace..."

Okay, yeah, he probably should've made this decision before he told them it was okay to fight it out (hence the fickle part), but he does seem to repeatedly try to avoid violence and dealing out death wherever possible, even when it's made clear he KNOWS he should probably just kill people rather than banish them- like when he sends Norfolk and Bolingbroke into exile and immediately says "But swear you won't make up and team up to kill me later!" So I don't know... I saw Richard as possibly kind of a peacenik. Yeah, I know he goes off to make war in Ireland for awhile, but its made clear that its supposed to be to suppress rebels (which ya know, with my Irish background, I have my own feelings about of course... but I'll try to keep them out of this review) and maintain order within his kingdom so there was no civil unrest. Ireland was part of Great Britain at the time and there was no reason to see it as a foreign country, so the same logic as above applies (even if he was a total unbelievable asshole about the financing of it).

I guess that's the problem with Richard- he can't do anything right without doing something incredibly wrong. But oh man, he does have all these amazing speeches about what it means to be a king and to govern (not that he does anything about it), and there are what I think were probably some pretty uncomfortable discussions about divine right going on here, with the end conclusion basically being that there seems to be no such thing. Anyone who argues for it ends up dead, and the new king wins his throne by just lying to everyone around him and insisting that everyone keep up his subterfuge by lying themselves and then eventually there are enough lies to make it come true. Hardly a model way for a king to become the king. I was surprised that the play gave me these two kings with so many shades of grey- I expected one or the other of them to come out smelling like roses and one to be shown as a total villain in order to play to the sensibilities of the monarch, but no such thing. I appreciated that that was not the case. I think the closest thing we can get here to a good guy is John of Gaunt, and even he spends most of his time lecturing and moaning and preaching and you don't /like/ him even if he gets fantastic deathbed monologues- "This England" and the "O, but they say tongues of dying men...". (I should also probably mention that the language here is so amazingly wonderful that almost every major character gets some good lines, though.)

You know how Vanity Fair is a novel without a hero? This is a play without a hero- it's just whoever is left standing at the very abrupt end. (My boyfriend thought the ending was similiar to The Godfather's baptism scene, only much less badass and with very unsexy repentance afterwards.)

This is a play meant for discussion, meant to put characters in situations where they can expound upon what they feel to be truly important and bring out assumptions about how life is run that maybe were not spoken of in that day. And I think that's truly the most important thing to be got out of any "History" anyways.(less)

like 14 likes

· see review

Jul 31, 2009

Libby rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: plays, year-of-dead-white-male-european-au, summerreading09

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. As a middle child, I feel some sympathy for Richard II. Richard "Lionheart" I was the hero of the crusades and has been notably played by Sean Connery and Peter Ustinov. Richard III was a dazzlingly brilliant Shakespearean villain, who's been played by everybody from Peter Dinklage to Al Pacino. And then there's Richard II, most notable for being a king so mediocre that nobody, save his wife, was really that upset when he was strong-armed into abdicating in favor of Henry Bolingbroke (...more

· see review

Sep 18, 2011

David Sarkies rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: tragedy

It is difficult to determine whether Richard II is a tragedy or not. It appears that when Shakespeare first drafted the play he drafted it as a tragedy (and it is one of his earlier plays) however as his folio of plays increased, it became to fall among his history plays. It should be considered that not all of Shakespeare's plays fall neatly into the categories of tragedy or comedy, and this is particularly the case with his history plays (in particular Henry V).
Richard II is the first p...more It is difficult to determine whether Richard II is a tragedy or not. It appears that when Shakespeare first drafted the play he drafted it as a tragedy (and it is one of his earlier plays) however as his folio of plays increased, it became to fall among his history plays. It should be considered that not all of Shakespeare's plays fall neatly into the categories of tragedy or comedy, and this is particularly the case with his history plays (in particular Henry V).
Richard II is the first play in Shakespeare's history cycle (which begins with Richard II and ends with Richard III, with the King Henry plays coming in the middle). In a sense this history cycle chronicles the fall of the Plantagenat dynasty and the rise of the Tudor dynasty. It should also be noted that the history plays all occur during the period known as the Hundred Years War (which was between England and France), though by the time of Richard III, England had been pretty much kicked out of France, and thus it is interesting to noted that upon losing the Hundred Years War, civil war breaks out in England (a war known as the War of the Roses, between the House of Lancaster and the House of York). The losing side in war seems to, in many cases, either collapse into civil war, or undergo a revolution (actually, that is not really the case, but it was in this particular incident).
However, enough of history, and on with the play, or the character of Richard II. Richard was the grand son of Edward III (the one who is considered to be the instigator of the Hundred Years War), and was the son of the Black Prince. The Black Prince, being heir to the throne, never actually took the throne as he died before his father (of the black plague, which was ravaging Europe at the time). So, when Edward died, Richard took the throne. However, Richard did not last long as he continued his father's and grand father's wars, but to fight wars, one needs money, so he raised money by confiscating lands and raising taxes. However, his wars never went all that well, and as is the case in such situations, was deposed by the man who would become Henry IV.
The question is whether this play falls into a tragedy. As argued elsewhere I do not see any concept of a tragic flaw in Shakespeare's tragedies, and once again I do not see any tragic flaw in Richard. Yes, he raised taxes, and upset the wrong people, but that is going to happen when one is king. I guess if there was a fatal flaw in Richard is that he wasn't a particularly strong king. I say that because not only did he get deposed, but because his rival, Henry Bolingbrooke was able to rally support against him. I guess he also wasn't a particularly bright king either as he went to Ireland to fight a war there, and pretty much left the kingdom open to Bolingbrooke to take it from him. However, I guess that may be the purpose of the history plays, as here we see the end of the Plantagenat dynasty, however the mess that begins with Bolingbrooke's usurption will end with the mess that becomes the War of the Roses.
A few other points I wish to raise, and that is that Bolingbrooke, when he captures Richard, locks him up. However this isn't in a dungeon or such, but rather in a castle. This is a very luxurious prison, but a prison nonetheless. Further, Richard's death is strangely reminiscent of the death of Thomas Becket. Henry II is said to have cried out 'who will rid me of this troublesome priest' at which point some knights took it on themselves to kill him, against Henry's wishes. The similar thing occurs here (and it is interesting to note that both incidents involve a Henry). Henry, exacerbated, makes a statement that he does not mean, and assassins that go to Pomfret Castle and slay Richard (though Richard does actually put up a fight, never accuse Shakespeare of being light on the action). However, it appears that this event occurred according to his source, Holingshed. It is also interesting that Richard's assassin is exiled, and that Henry mourns over his death. It seems that even though he took his throne, he could not bring himself to kill him, for even though he may no longer king in actuality, he is still the king, and to kill him is regicide. Whatever happens to Henry I guess we will see unfold in Henry IV.
(less)

· see review

Jul 26, 2011

Rachel M. rated it

*Note: This book really has a 4.5 star rating!!!

I really enjoyed reading this play. It is filled with majestic speeches and a thorough examination of court politics. One of my favorite speeches is the one in which John of Gaunt describes the glory of England...it begins with the words "This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle..." I also like examining the political philosophies, tactics, characters, and strengths and weaknesses of the 2 kings, the deposed King Richa...more

· see review

Aug 03, 2011

Aaryn rated it

· review of another edition

I liked this play a lot more than I thought I would. The story was a tad slow, and I must admit most of the references and history were a little beyond me (needed to do a little research as I read), but I thought the character of Richard was fascinating. The monologue when he is in jail, reflecting on his current status and the loss of his crown, was incredibly moving and heartbreaking. Up to that point, I don't know that I cared much for any of characters personally, but that one moment allo...more

· see review

Oct 14, 2010

Nikki rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: plays, for-class, classics

I'm still not a fan of reading plays, and yet as I started to read Richard II, I thought I might maybe revisit plays like Macbeth and Hamlet and read them properly, now I can appreciate them a bit more... so I suppose there's still hope for me yet. I still maintain that plays are understood and appreciated best when performed.

Richard II was, for me, definitely not as compelling as Richard III. The language is still astounding, and I enjoyed reading about the political situation and the...more

· see review

Mar 06, 2008

Monica added it · review of another edition

Shelves: theatre-plays, shakespeare

Absolutely love RII's last soliloquy "I have been studying how I may compare this prison where I live unto the world..." (Richard II, v.v.)-

like 2 likes

· see review

Jan 17, 2008

Matt rated it

The rating of four is almost entirely because of Richard's long speech near the end of the play, in which he contemplates his fall from grace.

like 2 likes

· see review

Feb 02, 2010

Susan added it · review of another edition

Shelves: shakespeare

No stars because although in the past I have rated some of the Shakespeare that I've read, I don't really feel I have the qualifications to rate his works. I enjoy some of his plays more than others, but am reading them for pleasure and not in any formal or especially educated way.

I was a bit intimidated to undertake Will's histories. I should not have been, at least not so far. With my ever-helpful Sparknotes 101 Shakespeare firmly in hand, understanding Richard II was not at all...more

· see review

Jun 23, 2011

Cornelio rated it

· review of another edition

Part of my ongoing project of re-reading all the Shakespeare plays in theoretical written/produced order. Regardless of plot, every Shakespeare play has a passages could just thrive by their lonesome, and in this play some of Richard II's moment, particularly his words while imprisoned in Act 5, are just extraordinary. Another thing that happens, with so many plays and characters, it's inevitable when re-reading plays to see how characters and human moments compare from play to play. Part of the...more

· see review

Mar 01, 2010

Andrea Ciecierski rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: drama

I read this in preparation for seeing the play this week. At first I was astonished at how condensed the action was: there is no way all of this could have happened in the time frame. Then I realized that I was reading a different animal and it is hard to make the switch from books to plays: of course everything works in a different way. And here, the focus is really on the character of Richard--the events just serve to point to him. I think I will enjoy the performance more than the reading of ...more

· see review

Jun 24, 2009

Lindsay rated it

· review of another edition

Back in my high school Shakespeare craze, I skipped a few tragedies and all of the histories. I picked this book up for $1.75 at a used book store in New Orleans, because I know that I eventually want to have read ALL of Shakespeare's plays. I waffle between 2 and 3 stars here - I had difficulty telling all of the dukes and earls and whatnot apart, but there were some wonderful passages in there, too. I have a feeling that this is one like Julius Caesar - kind of boring when read to oneself o...more

like 2 likes

· see review

Dec 08, 2010

James Mcgann rated it

· review of another edition

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

· see review

Sep 01, 2011

Jay Szpirs rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: plays

Certainly the most poetic of Shakespeare's histories that I have the read. The possibilities for an actor are extremely interesting as any performance would hinge completely on the performance of Richard. There is a palpable danger of Richard coming off unsympathetic in the first half, rendering the tragedy in the second half moot. Likewise, there is similar contradiction built into the character of Henry Hereford. Although these complications may make for a challenging performance, they certain...more

· see review

Feb 02, 2011

Shadazz rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: 2011, letras, plays

Ok this is when I get to recognize that some things DO influence what I read and what I'm interested in. I saw the theater students of the CUT at my univesity perform fragments and monologues from the History plays by SHakespeare, most of them where from Henry IV and Henry V. I really liked the costumes, they consisted of soccer jerseys with a big red cross in the center and their names on the back (Bolingbroke, Henry IV, Henry V, Falstaff). I was fascinated by this t-shirts, and of course very ...more

· see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 152 153 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend it | Stats | Recent status updates

combine
Other Editions (145)

More editions...

Genres

Plays

165 users

Drama

124 users

Classics

124 users

Plays > Theatre

25 users

Literature

24 users

Historical Fiction

16 users

European Literature > British Literature

12 users

Academic > Read For School

9 users

Poetry

9 users

Academic > College

8 users

See top shelves...

Readers Also Enjoyed

The Duchess of Malfi
by John Webster
Volpone
by Ben Jonson
Edward II
by Christopher Marlowe
'Tis Pity She's a Whore and Other Plays
by John Ford
The Changeling
by Thomas Middleton

About William Shakespeare

William Shakespeare (baptised 26 April 1564) was an English poet and playwright, widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist. He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon" (or simply "The Bard"). His surviving works consist of 38 plays, 154 sonnets, two long narrative poems, and several other poems. Hi...moreWilliam Shakespeare (baptised 26 April 1564) was an English poet and playwright, widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist. He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon" (or simply "The Bard"). His surviving works consist of 38 plays, 154 sonnets, two long narrative poems, and several other poems. His plays have been translated into every major living language, and are performed more often than those of any other playwright.

Shakespeare was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon. At the age of 18 he married Anne Hathaway, who bore him three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith. Between 1585 and 1592 he began a successful career in London as an actor, writer, and part owner of the playing company the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later known as the King's Men. He appears to have retired to Stratford around 1613, where he died three years later. Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive, and there has been considerable speculation about such matters as his sexuality, religious beliefs, and whether the works attributed to him were written by others.

Shakespeare produced most of his known work between 1590 and 1613. His early plays were mainly comedies and histories, genres he raised to the peak of sophistication and artistry by the end of the sixteenth century. Next he wrote mainly tragedies until about 1608, including Hamlet, King Lear, and Macbeth, considered some of the finest examples in the English language. In his last phase, he wrote tragicomedies, also known as romances, and collaborated with other playwrights. Many of his plays were published in editions of varying quality and accuracy during his lifetime, and in 1623, two of his former theatrical colleagues published the First Folio, a collected edition of his dramatic works that included all but two of the plays now recognised as Shakespeare's.

Shakespeare was a respected poet and playwright in his own day, but his reputation did not rise to its present heights until the nineteenth century. The Romantics, in particular, acclaimed Shakespeare's genius, and the Victorians hero-worshipped Shakespeare with a reverence that George Bernard Shaw called "bardolatry". In the twentieth century, his work was repeatedly adopted and rediscovered by new movements in scholarship and performance. His plays remain highly popular today and are consistently performed and reinterpreted in diverse cultural and political contexts throughout the world.
(less)

More about William Shakespeare...

Books by William Shakespeare

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Pin It

Trivia About Richard II

9 trivia questions
1 quiz

More quizzes & trivia...

Quotes from Richard II

“No matter where; of comfort no man speak:
Let's talk of graves, of worms, and epitaphs;
Make dust our paper and with rainy eyes
Write sorrow on the bosom of the earth” — 12 people liked it

“I wasted time, and now doth time waste me;
For now hath time made me his numbering clock:
My thoughts are minutes; and with sighs they jar
Their watches on unto mine eyes, the outward watch,
Whereto my finger, like a dial's point,
Is pointing still, in cleansing them from tears.” — 3 people liked it

More quotes…

Groups That Shelved Richard II

Tudor History Lovers

1347 members

last activity 8 hours, 55 min ago

shelf: read

Classics and the Western ...

921 members

last activity 17 minutes ago

shelf: read

A History of Royals

676 members

last activity 4 hours, 30 min ago

shelf: read

title link	preview: Richard II
avg rating	preview: Richard II Goodreads rating: 3.59 (3165 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/82398.Richard_II?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1327876584m/82398.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/82398.Richard_II?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Richard II by William Shakespeare[/url]

Richard II

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Readers Also Enjoyed

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website