Shakespeare's Kings: The Great Plays and the History of England in the Middle Ages: 1337-1485

by John Julius Norwich

In a sparkling, fast-paced narrative, esteemed historian John Julius Norwich chronicles the turbulent events of fourteenth- and fifteenth-century England that inspired Shakespeare's history plays. It was a time of uncertainty and incessant warfare, a time during which the crown was constantly contested, alliances were made and broken, and peasants and townsmen alike arose in revolt. This was the raw material of Shakespeare's dramas, and Norwich holds up his work to the light of history to Who was the real Falstaff? How accurate a historian was the playwright? Shakespeare's Kings is a marvelous study of the Bard's method of spinning history into art, and a captivating portrait of the Middle Ages.

Genres: History, Shakespeare, Nonfiction, Medieval, British Literature, Biography, Literary Criticism

432 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1999

About the author

John Julius Norwich was an English historian, writer, and broadcaster known for his engaging books on European history and culture. The son of diplomat and politician Duff Cooper and socialite Lady Diana Manners, he received an elite education at Eton, Strasbourg, and Oxford, and served in the Foreign Service before dedicating himself to writing full-time.
He authored acclaimed works on Norman Sicily, Venice, Byzantium, the Mediterranean, and the Papacy, as well as popular anthologies like Christmas Crackers. He was also a familiar voice and face in British media, presenting numerous television documentaries and radio programs. A champion of cultural heritage, he supported causes such as the Venice in Peril Fund and the World Monuments Fund.
Norwich’s wide-ranging output, wit, and accessible style made him a beloved figure in historical writing.

Reviews

[Richard · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very useful, very straight-forward (and traditional) account of royal politics from the reign of Edward III through Richard III. Very much a historical complement to the plays, and not a literary analysis.

For the most part Norwich sticks to his area of expertise and concentrates on evaluating the plays for accuracy, at least as far as existing historical sources can take us (which is not always as far as we wish they would).

What makes the book especially worthwhile is that Norwich is very forgiving of dramatic license, and understands the value of compressing time or rearranging events for the sake of emotional or thematic impact on an audience. This spares the reader from a serious of tedious and useless diatribes about the plays' failure to be historical accounts--which, of course, they were never intended to be.

Instead we get a very useful guide for identifying those places where Shakespeare *does* make changes, and some reasonable guesses as to why he would have made them. Norwich will often note that by sacrificing accuracy in smaller ways, Shakespeare captures larger truths, and does so in ways more effective for the stage.

I'm not as current with this period as I used to be (grad school was some time ago), so I can't fully evaluate the book as a work of history by comparison with the latest scholarship, but at least as a valuable secondary source for fans of Shakespeare, I don't think you can go very wrong with this book. And I certainly don't know of another one quite like it.

[Michael Finocchiaro · Rating 4 out of 5]

My one issue with Norwich's book is that it is sort of mistitled, it should have been called "Shakespeare's Kings from Edward III to Richard III" because there is no mention of other Shakespeare kings such as Lear, Henry VIII, John...But as an accompaniment to reading the Henriad and War of the Roses cycle, it is truly a great guide. He does a great job of describing the incredibly complex history of England (and France) during this period and then noting how Shakespeare telescoped and modified certain events and their dates for dramatic effect. He does not do any literary criticism, so just know that going in. The plays themselves are incredibly rewarding and I have started reviewing them one by one here on Goodreads using the Oxford Complete Shakespeare as my text.

Fino's Reviews of Shakespeare and Shakespearean Criticism
Comedies
The Comedy of Errors (1592-1593
The Taming of the Shrew (1593-1594)
The Two Gentlemen of Verona (1594-1595)
Love's Labour's Lost (1594-1595)
A Midsummer Night's Dream (1595-1596)
The Merchant of Venice (1596-1597)
Much Ado About Nothing (1598-1599)
As You Like It (1599-1600)
Twelfth Night (1599-1600)
The Merry Wives of Windsor (1600-1601)
All's Well That Ends Well (1602-1603)
Measure for Measure (1604-1605)
Cymbeline (1609-1610)
A Winter's Tale (1610-1611)
The Tempest (1611-1612)
Two Noble Kinsmen (1612-1613)

Histories
Henry VI Part I (1589-1590)
Henry VI Part II (1590-1591)
Henry VI Part III (1590-1591)
Richard III (1593-1594)
Richard II (1595-1596)
King John (1596-1597)
Edward III (1596-1597)
Henry IV Part I (1597-1598)
Henry IV Part II (1597-1598)
Henry V (1598-1599)
Henry VIII (1612-1612)

Tragedies
Titus Andronicus (1592-1593)
Romeo and Juliet (1594-1595)
Julius Caesar (1599-1600)
Hamlet (1600-1601)
Troilus and Cressida (1601-1602)
Othello (1604-1605)
King Lear (1605-1606)
Macbeth (1605-1606)
Anthony and Cleopatra (1606-1607)
Coriolanus (1607-1608)
Timon of Athens (1607-1608)
Pericles (1608-1609)

Shakespearean Criticism
The Wheel of Fire by Wilson Knight
A Natural Perspective by Northrop Frye
Shakespeare After All by Marjorie Garber
Shakespeare's Roman Plays and Their Background by M W MacCallum
Shakespearean Criticism 1919-1935 compiled by Anne Ridler
Shakespearean Tragedy by A.C. Bradley
Shakespeare's Sexual Comedy by Hugh M. Richmond
Shakespeare: The Comedies by R.P. Draper
Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics by Stephen Greenblatt
1599: A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare by James Shapiro

Collections of Shakespeare
Venus and Adonis, the Rape of Lucrece and Other Poems
Shakespeare's Sonnets and a Lover's Complaint
The Complete Oxford Shakespeare

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

It took me a little more than six months to read this in conjunction with the plays, but it was worthwhile, by which I mean, pace Adam Gopnik , the experience had great value but that value only manifested over time. I'm pretty sure I had read, at various points, all of the plays in the so-called major (Richard II, Henry IV, Parts One and Two, and Henry V) and minor (Henry VI, Parts One, Two, and Three and Richard III) tetralogies independently, but reading the saga of the Plantagenet decay sequentially and supplemented by this book and other reading and viewing on the Hundred Years War and the Wars of the Roses has been, as they say, a whole nuther ball of wax. Context is everything.
Norwich has confident judgment, a graceful prose style, and erudition that evokes the days when, as one of my professors used to say, college was college. The book is structured, naturally, chronologically according to the events portrayed and not in the order of composition. Norwich begins with Edward III, which may or may not be Shakespeare, but I'm really glad it's included because the events (in particular the commencement of the war with France and the births of his seven sons) of his reign comprise the roots of the entire tragic, 150-year-long decline. For each play, Norwich provides a chapter of straight narrative detailing the relevant history, then follows with a chapter examining the play act by act and comparing the dramatic sequence of events with the way the incidents portrayed actually played out in time and space. Shakespeare, in these plays, engages in considerable telescoping of events and combination of personalities and he is not averse to outright fabrication if it makes for better theater, but, as Norwich sees it, his presentation of the entire narrative arc is much more accurate than one might at first think. "Once again," he writes of Henry VI, Part Three, "one is left with the conviction that, whatever liberties Shakespeare might take with strict historical truth, in the essentials he was almost invariably right. For the non-scholar, seeking merely an overall view of Plantagenet history, there are many worse guides to follow."

[Josh Kemp · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really fun read! Norwich makes the case that Shakespeare’s Histories can be considered broadly accurate, though he is quick to point out scenes and chronologies that are the Bard’s inventions. The pattern of a historical account of each reign followed by evaluation of the corresponding play(s) is easy to follow and quite informative.

The only one of the plays discussed here that I have seen to this point is Henry V, but this book has certainly encouraged me to make my way through them. Given my love for Henry V, I did feel that the section on Agincourt was all too brief. Nevertheless, I highly recommend!

[Susan · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was a lot of work getting from beginning to end but I felt it was worth it. Lots of interesting nuggets of information to think over. I found myself at parties referring to it frequently, which tells you what I'm like at a party.

[Webcowgirl · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Shakespearean nerd's Hollywood Babylon.

[Jon Stout · Rating 3 out of 5]

Knowing next to nothing about the Hundred Years War or the War of the Roses, and not having read any of the nine historical plays of Shakespeare, I was strangely fascinated by this account of English history and of how closely Shakespeare stuck to that history in his plays. I had heard of Falstaff, of Prince Hal, and of Hotspur, but I did not know their story. And I was not at all clear on the relationships among the Lancastrians, the Yorkists and the Tudors. Yet this account fascinated me because it was an unending saga, very hard to follow, of battles, intrigues, betrayals, beheadings and political marriages.

I now have a rough idea of the chronology. Everyone was descended from Edward III (1337-77) who had at least five sons, considerably complicating the matter. After his grandson in one line of descent, Richard II, was deposed by a grandson in another line of descent, Henry IV, the Lancastrian kings, Henry IV, V and VI, came into play. After the last of these was overthrown by another line of descent in Edward IV, the Yorkist kings, Edward IV, V and Richard III, came into power. Finally peace was achieved when Henry VII took power in 1485, representing a hybrid line of descent, the Tudors.

I found it extremely difficult to keep track of what was going on, because there were so many names. One person could have more than one name (e.g. Henry IV is Bolingbroke), or one person could have several titles (Earl of this, Duke of that), or a given title of nobility could apply to different people at different times. And there were many subsidiary dukes and earls and lords, as well as clergy titles. While I could not follow the players very well, I was mesmerized by the endless plot, of royalty plotting against each other, of waging foreign wars to gain advantage, of marrying to gain advantage, of medieval battles, with beheadings afterwards, and of incarcerations in the Tower of London. It was an endless, bloody, fairy tail, but that was the history.

This book held my attention and distracted me from several other books I was trying to read at the same time. It made me realize how routinely bloody much of human history is. I now will try to read or see productions of Shakespeare’s nine historical plays. I expect to have the bare bones of history fleshed out by Shakespeare’s genius at describing human character.

[Kris · Rating 2 out of 5]

Always nice when a historian doesn't allow their personal feeling to color their perspective and obviously Norwich does NOT like Richard II. Frankly his description of Richard in the Wilton Diptych borders on libelous... or he found a different diptych than I did....

It was pleasant to read a sympathetic account of Henry IV Bolingbroke but fanboying on Prince Hal was a bit nauseating. Also blantantly obvious that Norwich wants to believe Richard III poisoned Anne Nevill but he can't quite find the cojones to say so, so he waffles about her cause of death being "probably natural causes" (most likely TB from what I've read)

My last thought was that being a canonized saint does NOT make one even more of a reliable historian, in my opinion, and Moree WAS writing after the fact. Memory is vicarious and truly unreliable and who knows how many people told him what he wanted to hear?

Over all the books was unevenly pace and tended to be a bit of a slog in the chapters of Kings Norwich doesn't like, except Richard III, that moved quite well.

[Moosey Mcmaster · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was enjoying this, and taking copious notes, until I stumbled on the bizarre statement in Henry V that Nym had 'been imported from the Merry Wives of Windsor', which displayed such a stunning lack of knowledge about the background of the plays and dates that it quite knocked me sideways. Then noticed another weirdo-potato statement that in Richard II, that Wiltshire 'appears nowhere in Shakespeare's play'... apart from being a character, of course. At this point I stopped reading because I couldn't trust the book any more and didn't want to perpetuate any inaccuracies by taking them as fact. A shame, because it had some humour.

[Keith Taylor · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a book I've wanted to read for several years, and it did not disappoint. It is a wonderful survey of that 150 plus years from Edward III to Henry VII -- a period that includes the 9 Shakespeare history plays. I admit that I only had vague ideas about The Hundred Years War and the War of the Roses, and Norwich helped me sort that out.

I did enjoy the straight historical summaries more than the chapters on the specific plays. The latter chapters spent most of the time detailing what Shakespeare got wrong, what he chose to alter, or which chronologies he chose to scramble. Of course, he almost always chose to do that to make the work more dramatic, and Norwich beats that fairly simple explanation into the ground.

Still it all brought the plays back to mind. It introduced me to "Edward III" which was not a play that was even mentioned back when I was having my Shakespeare education. I enjoyed reading it. It also reminded me that I didn't really remember the Henry VI plays, particularly the first, so I am rereading that.

Since Shakespeare wrote most of these plays when he was in his 20s, it is also a lovely lesson in his education. He clearly wanted to educate and he wanted to flatter Elizabeth I -- but he also wanted to make enjoyable drama. He got pretty good at toward the end, and then, clearly, wanted to try other things.

[John Isles · Rating 5 out of 5]

In parallel with a rereading (and re-viewing on videos) of Shakespeare's cycle of English history plays I've been reading several relevant books, including this one by John Julius Norwich, which starts out before Shakespeare's cycle begins, with the reign of Richard II's grandfather Edward III, his father the Black Prince, and the early phases of the 100 Years War between England and France. After chapters giving an account of the historical events, Norwich inserts briefer discussions of each play and how it deviates from history. It's interesting to contrast his treatment with that of Isaac Asimov in "Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare". Asimov gives shorter accounts of the historical background, and much more detailed notes on the texts of the plays. His treatment of the cycle extends to 489 pages, some 100 pages longer than Norwich's book. I can heartily recommend both volumes.

[Jen · Rating 4 out of 5]

We recently rewatched Shakespeare's historical plays. And just like every other time, we had so many questions about accuracy and political motivations. This book thoroughly addressed all of that, so thoroughly that I have already probably forgotten half of it. But it was so interesting and fun to read.

[CJ Dawn · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a great resource for reading through the history plays. I read it alongside the plays each month. Each play covered has at least two chapters - one that gives an overview of the actual history, and one that looks at the play itself. I really enjoyed having this to read with the plays this year.

[Alison · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very interesting book. I liked the juxtaposition of historical fact and Shakespeare’s dramatic licence. The history was not evaluative and mostly subscribed to popular narrative but as that is what Shakespeare used I suppose that was fair enough. It only really bothered me when we got to Richard 111 and as I’m used to hearing the Shakespeare villain version rubbished it was a surprise to hear it solemnly upheld.
I listened to this on Audible - wish I’d read it to myself as the narration was dreadful.

[Geoff · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have read several of John Julius Norwich’s popular histories, and while reading a history of Sicily in preparation for a trip there in May, I came across this volume, my 3rd book this year – a British history that tracks and compares Shakespeare’s history plays.

The histories can be difficult – at least for this modern reader. Shakespeare invokes his audience’s familiarity with the story as he crafts his scenes, giving them great emotional impact. But for a layman with no background of the players or events it can seem bewildering. Why is Clarence being prosecuted by Edward IV but evidently at the instigation of Richard the Third? Who the hell is this Glendower? How to tell apart all the Perceys, Buckinghams, Exeters, Gloucesters, Essexesmixed up between generations and shifting dukedoms. And what exactly is the difference between Plantagenet, Lancaster, York and Tudor?

Well Norwich seems to enjoy such a challenge, (his Sicilian history seemed to confront an equal set of difficulties). But he does get through it all, from Edward III (only recently added to the canon) to Henry VI. It does not include Henry VIII, which Shakespeare wrote with John Fletcher – perhaps left out as there is no Henry VII? And while I must admit to still getting confused – it is edifying to see all the detail behind the history and to compare it to Shakespeare’s own modifications.

Some highlights for this reader:
• Henry IV: Hal and Hotspur – Hotspur was 25 years Hal’s senior. They fought extensively in Wales together, Hotspur very likely being an important mentor to Hal during that time.
• The death of Clarence in Richard III – Shakespeare implies that the misshapen usurper was instrumental in the murder and audiences typically feel great sympathy for Clarence. But Norwich makes it clear that while there was no love lost between these 2 overly ambitious men, Clarence was in fact his own work enemy, had threatened Edward IV many time and seemed to work actively for his own demise.
• Again in Richard III: Shakespeare leaves out Richard’s first coup against the Woodvilles (who were aligned with Edward IV through his wife). Norwich points out, and I agree, that it would have been a wonderful scene. Gloucester welcomes the Woodvilles to his castle, dines them, send them to bed and then imprisons them the next morning!
• Shakespeare’s comic rendering of the Welshman Owen Glendower with Hotspur are tempered when one sees the real history, and how for decades Glendower had been a threat to the English crown.
• I found it surprising to see how long England had ruled France and how long France has been split between Burgundy and Orleans. Being more familiar with later French history, it had always seemed to me to be the very model of the centrist state.

Norwich shows how Shakespeare bended and contracted history to fit his themes and create dramatic imact. His epilogue is particularly valuable, giving perspective over the whole period. He brings up salient points about the risks Shakespeare took writing about this history. Elizabeth I was devoted to the idea of divine monarchical succession and plays celebrating (or even just mentioning) the unseating of Richard II and Henry VI would be very perilous. (Norwich also notes that the histories are all written early in Shakespeare’s career, and are Elizabethan rather than Jacobean).

To further make this point, Norwich ends the book with the actual history of the Earl of Essex, Robert Devereux. On the sixth of February, 1601 Essex commissioned a performance of Richard II by the Lord Chamberlain’s Men (Shakespeare’s company). He guarantees them a 40 shillings bonus and indemnifies the company against any loss. Two days later he attempts an uprising, urging Londoners to rebel – presumably against Elizabeth’s counselors and not against the queen. Despite the theatrical preparation – his plot fails. At his trail some of the Lord Chamerblain’s Men acted as witnesses. 2 weeks later, he was beheaded!
3rd book - 401 pages - 831 pages cumulative in 2016

[William · Rating 5 out of 5]

To be clear, I'm rating this five stars not because I have any idea how correct it is historically, but because it's an entertaining and opinionated read that engages good-humoredly with Shakespeare's somewhat loose representation of the actual historical facts. Always fun to come to after seeing a Shakespeare history play to get more context, and fun to read cold for, you know, fun.

[Daniel Kukwa · Rating 3 out of 5]

For a book that wants to show the influence of real history on the historical plays of Shakespeare, it's remarkably light and perfunctory on the Shakespearean analysis side of the equation. On the other hand, it offers a remarkably concise overview of how the Plantagenet dynasty self-destructed during the Hundred Years War and the War of the Roses. It's definitely more of a history student's pix-and-mix than choice reading for an english student.

[zverek_alyona · Rating 5 out of 5]

Как почти любая книга, посвященная истории средневековой Англии, показанной через историю ее правителей, книга Норвича снабжена схемами, проясняющими родственные связи различных аристократических домов, давших стране тех или иных королей и королев. Без такого визуального подспорья разобраться в событиях периода войны Алой и Белой роз почти нереально - настолько там всё запутанно. Не облегчает дело и многочисленные герцоги Йоркские, Кларенсы, принцы Уэльские, архиепископы Кентерберрийские и т.д. и т.д. - люди меняются, а титулы-��о остаются.

Выбранный Джоном Норвичем подход к рассказу о почти полуторавековом периоде в истории Англии - сравнение реальных исторических документов с текстами пьес Уильяма Шекспира - имеет интересный побочный эффект. Сначала он рассказывает о том или ином короле с точки зрения сухой науки (но все же не очень сухо, стоит отметить), а потом те же самые события пересказывает еще раз, можно сказать конспективно, но уже через призму шекспировской драматургии. Получается примерно как в школе: "А теперь, ребята, коротко вспомним, о чем мы говорили на прошлом уроке". Но тут стоит учитывать (а Норвич это учитывает), что Шекспир не очень-то заботился о том, чтобы придерживаться хронологии реальных событий, его больше интересовала драма, чем история. Поэтому такой "повторение пройденного" может кому-то показаться удачным, а кого-то еще больше запутать. Лично я узнала для себя достаточно много нового.

Интересно, что помимо тех пьес, которые к настоящему времени однозначно относятся к произведениям Шекспира, Норвич включил в свой интересный труд еще и пьесу "Эдуард III", по поводу автора которой специалисты до сих пор не пришли к единому мнению (версий больше, чем две). При этом за рамками книги осталась пьеса "Генрих VIII", относительно которой исследователи пришли к заключению, что она хоть и написана не одним автором, но Шекспир точно приложил к ней свою руку (и перо). Думаю, такой выбор Норвича объясняется достаточно просто: "Эдуард III" дал ему возможность рассказать предысторию Ричарда II, на что не понадобилось слишком уж много слов. А вот для того, чтобы таким же образом, как и про все остальные пьесы-хроники, рассказать о "Генрихе VIII", автору пришлось бы увеличить объем книги в полтора раза, с учетом того, что про правление Генриха VII он написал очень мало, ограничившись только историей перехода к нему короны от Ричарда III.

Понравился перевод И. Лобанова - хороший литературный русский плюс полезные комментарии переводчика по поводу расхождения оригинального текста шекспировских пьес с существующими переводами на русский язык.

[Kathleen · Rating 2 out of 5]

Shakespeare’s Kings, by John Julius Norwich, purports to be a historical account of Shaky Bill’s eight core history plays: Richard II, the Henrys and their various parts, and Richard III, with the addition of Edward III.* The author purposefully ditched King John and Henry VIII, mostly because he wants to talk about the Hundred Years’ War and the Wars of the Roses (and also because Henry VIII is just bad). For the most part, it does exactly what it says it’s going to: it looks at the historical events covered by the plays and then evaluates the plays based on those events, coming to the conclusion that Shakespeare had a loose relation to timelines but generally nailed the import of the events, except where dramatic needs dictate otherwise.

Here’s where I get annoyed. First, Norwich pretty obviously hates Humphrey Duke of Gloucester and is not shy about it. Second, he also feels Shakespeare got Richard III’s personality right, which… um, we’re all aware it’s not, my dude. Finally, he refers to Henry VI frequently as “an idiot” which is for sure a choice… basically, for the stuff I’m really familiar with, it’s a lot of outdated scholarship (not surprising, the book is 20 years old), combined with scholarship that was outdated at the time. It makes me doubt the things I’m not familiar with. I’m not sorry I read the book- on the dates Norwich is solid and I find his occasional forays into literary criticism funny, if not mine- but I wouldn’t really recommend it.


*Shakespeare is at least partly responsible for a play titled Edward III, but it’s a fairly recent addition to the Shakespeare canon, so not a lot of people are really aware of it as a Shakespeare play.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well written, useful book. I think the history fan will find more value than the Elizabethan fan will, but both will be rewarded. Norwich is more historian than theatre enthusiast but his thoroughness of the history behind the history plays acknowledges how Shakespeare used the historical sources to dramatic effect. He points out where he "telescoped" historical events and often rearranged their sequence, he did so for dramatic effect and avoided distorting the historical overview in the process. As the Chorus charges the audience in the prologue to "Henry V" it is the nature of theatre that the players beg the viewers' "...imaginary forces.../For 'tis your thoughts that now we must deck our kings/ Carry them here and there, jumping over times/ Turning the accomplishment of many years into an hourglass. ' If Norwich has an argument, it is with "revisionist" historians who he believes make too much of Shakespeare's and his sources' fawning over the Tudors in their rendering of history. This is where perhaps he can be faulted, as scholarship and just as important, archeology, since the book's 1999 publication has made the traditionalists view more suspect. In sum, the book does an admirable and immensely readable job of filling in the times, sequences and characters of the men and women that lived the history, all the while crediting that the essence of that history is never lost in Shakespeare's dramatic rearrangements.

[Brittany Petruzzi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Though I [pssessed am abnormal love for Shakespeare even then, when I was a kid I avoided Shakespeares history plays as hopelessly confusing. After all, it's the very impenitrable nature of England's succession laws that leads to all the drama. This book gives, king by king and would-be king, a succint outlay of events as they happened and history as Shakespeare and his contemporaries understood it. This leave the reader with the more delighful work of seeing how Shakespeare's choices to depart from fact or telescope time and events serves dramatic fuction, whether it be to highlight his themes, to keep the play going at a nice clip, or to simplify fpr the sake of company size. Highly recommended.

[Maryann · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book because I enjoy the history plays and have been learning more about British history (Why does anyone want to be king? A deathwish maybe?) I think seeing the play action side by side with the historical timeline is useful. Knowing how Shakespeare conflated events and characters for the drama while having in the back of your mind the more plausible real timeline frees you to relax and enjoy the play without questioning it’s connection to reality. That said, sparkling and fast paced are not adjectives I’d ever use in connection with it. I think didactic but very informative would be a better way to view it.

[Joanna · Rating 4 out of 5]

I wouldn't say John Julius Norwich is a great historian (minor errors and sweeping judgements abound in my edition), but he is an entertaining writer and knows enough to get us through the complexity of the time period. I turned constantly to the family trees at the front of the book - a welcome and essential component. The Wars of the Roses are absolutely fascinating, and I certainly knew more about them by the end of this. I like the separation of the 'historical' chapters from the 'Shakespearian' ones, which gives the reader the choice to focus on the plays or the context as they wish. It is a good introduction to further study of the period.

[Lindsay · Rating 3 out of 5]

I mean, it got me through the series of plays shown in The Hollow Crown. I understood much more history than I would have done otherwise. But often I would get lost in the sea of events and have to flip back and see what year we were in, and who was that again?

Part of that was due no doubt to cramming a lot of history AND comparing the actual events of the plays; it was a lot.

If I were to dive into this topic again I would like to have the book at hand as a reference, but also maybe have some other sources to hand.

[Gregory Ashe · Rating 5 out of 5]

Having read of all of Shakespeare's plays and finding the history plays among my favorites (King Henry V being my personal favorite), I found this volume extremely interesting laying out the real history of England and how Shakespeare deviated from it. Moreover, my very first college essay (for the class The Birth of Europe) was an examination of the Battle of Agincourt and a comparison of Shakespeare's accounts of the battle with more contemporary accounts (like Holinshed and Gesta Henrici Quinti).

[Dru · Rating 3 out of 5]

Norwich evaluates Shakespeare's historic kings of England against the real history. I would have appreciated this more if I had read the history plays under discussion more recently. And I would have appreciated even more detailed family trees with each king (all those earls and dukes get confusing). But a very interesting well-written book.

[Gladys · Rating 5 out of 5]

A clear and concise depiction of the Historical background to Shakespeare's History Plays. My favorite was the background of Henry V which really surprised me to learn some meaningful truths about not only the play but Henry V's character.

If you are into Shakespeare as I am I highly recommend this book. I'm looking forward to reading more from this author.

[Paul Jenkins · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting overview of the history behind Shakespeare's History Plays and how Shakespeare uses his sources in constructing some of his most significant dramatic productions. Like all John Julius Norwich's work very well written.

[Sifa Poulton · Rating 3 out of 5]

Does what it says, though narrative gets doubled up so repetitive

[Sean · Rating 4 out of 5]

The always informative and entertaining J.J Norwich