Shakespeare Fans discussion
Question on Reading the Histories
date
newest »
newest »
Hi David. :) Hard to say personally because I'm just on the verge of doing the same - reading the histories I mean. I'm opting for the chronological path (at least for the first time through) just so I understand any potential references, though I'm lead to understand that will make Henry VIII quite a let down quality wise. If you take that approach, the order is:
King John
Richard II
Henry IV, Part I
Henry IV, Part II
Henry V AD 1414-1420
Henry VI, Part I
Henry VI, Part II
Henry VI, Part III
Richard III (this happened instead of a play on Henry VII, who is a character in the play, because Richard III as a villain was a far more interesting character than Henry VII as a hero.)
Henry VIII
As to taking a break, I tend to read lots of things simultaneously so nothing heavy ever gets to be too much. I'd recommend picking up a different major playwright - Schiller, Ibsen, Moliere? - and reading in a channel switching type method (I have these on Kindle, so it's not expensive to approach all of them.) That's based on what I do of course, I have no idea if that method of reading is enjoyable to others.
Thanks. I guess I was mostly wondering if the histories tell one overarching story (like a ten book fantasy saga) or if each stands alone. In other words, and I assume this is the case, you could read any one of them out of chronological order and get it. The stories don’t build on each other...or do they?
The stories do build on each other, in two or three different ways. If you put them in HISTORICAL order eight of them make a continuous (but of course highly selective) story leading up to the Tudors: Richard II, Henry IV 1 and 2, Henry V, Henry VI 1,2 and 3, Richard III. They also cross-refer - Richard II is seen as having started a rot leading to the others, not put right till the accession of Henry VII at the end of Richard III. You could also add the quasi-Shakespeare Edward III at the beginning of the series, and even Marlowe's Edward II before that to get 10 successive reigns. On the other hand if you look at them in the order of WRITING (adding in King John for good measure) you get a pattern of Shakespeare's maturing view of kingship, leading on also to the great tragedies and Roman plays which, to oversimplify, moves broadly from the failure of hereditary medieval kings through the deceptions of machiavellian kings to the question of how kings (and occasionally queens) can be held accountable - roughly a journey towards democracy (with many deviations and a final u-turn in the sycophantic Henry VIII). Dramatically of course each play stands on its own, but you lose much of the political content if they are viewed only in isolation. Julius Caesar is within the group dealing with questions of accountability, and being situated at the end-point of Roman democracy should be paired with Coriolanus, which is set at the beginning point of it - where the common people win.
Mod
good to see some action!
I always avoided them because I thought they'd be heavy going. But I listen to an amazing podcast called Chop Bard ("The cure for boring Shakespeare"), and he covered Richard II - Henry V. It was kind of glorious. (The Hollow Crown coming out during the run didn't hurt.) http://www.inyourearshakespeare.com/Z...
I think in-general that histories are less document and more entertainment/propaganda. Any history play that involves the English monarchy is Lancaster-Tudor propaganda. As you'll learn in Richard III, the Tudors displaced the House of York and the Tudors (which Queen Elizabeth I was a member of) aligned themselves to the House of Lancaster. The Greek and Roman histories were just adaptations of Plutarch's Parallel Lives.
Hi Ken, that's broadly true but oversimplified. The Tudors claimed to unite the country after the York-Lancaster wars by re-unifying the York and Lancaster lines. True they (and Shakespeare) depict the Yorkists as the worst villains, but the Lancaster monarchs are not seen as saints either, except for Henry VI, who is seen as good but incompetent. In any case King John and Richard II are situated before that rift. In general nearly all Shakespeare's rulers have major flaws, but so do most of his other characters - so do most people! There's lots of human interest in the detail which can't be explained by ideology or his sources.
I here your point, but stand by what I said more or less #JustMyOpinion
I tend to with Ken on this. Like he says: More or less entertainment/propaganda. When studying the editors of the some of the major anthologies of the plays, the editors sometimes write how this play or that play verges on treason. Just indicating that the monarch is close by family relation to ethical wrongdoing is to toe the line on treason.The play Richard II. Enough lords and vassals sided with Richard III to support his claim to the throne, both in the play and in the record. When Shakes describes a vainglorious Richard and his descent into madness and chaos, he steps on the queen's regal history. Richard is her family member a cousin. How oh how did Shakespeare escape without being drawn and quartered, I don't know, Thank you Elizabeth for ignoring.
I can wrap my pretty US brain around the nuts and bolts of the 100 Years' War. When I read BBC articles aboit the War, I do understand enough to follow. Yet the plays do not follow. Monarch's characters are altered for dramatic effect. And to largely promkte propaganda. However with Richard III. . . .
i feel like the ambassador from england in hamlet- the ears are senseless that should give us hearing.so, i guess i'm just tossing two cents into the digital void.
read Richard II. this is a beautiful play. one day i read this strait through, ( in Kittredge's Complete etc.), and when i was done i was looking for a power switch to turn the book off. Richard is character that has God's grace, (literally- he is King!), at the beginning of the play and loses it by the end. And Bullingbroke lives the question what is it to be a usurper, to challenge and undo God's will- what justification can you call upon in a Christian land?
read the HenryIV plays. These were written after Richard II and after the Henry VI plays. Prince Hal is the chief fascination. He is beautiful and ambitious. But he's a prince and people are tools to him even someone so gloriously alive as Falstaff. Maybe you've been in a relationship where you thought you were important to someone..., but attractive people are attractive to everyone.
Henry the sixth part one is interesting. But it's barely Shakespeare. It is a play from repertory that Shakespeare "fixed up"; and much of the fun is guessing which lines are wrfitten by Shakespeare. It's got Joan of Arc in it. but reading time is valuable so it's skippable along with the other Henry sixes.
Richard III is a great villain who gets it in the end! It is too long- I mean there are scenes that don't need to be there. This is the only play that i don't care when scenes get cut from it.
Henry the Fifth has some really great language in it. Chris Hedges considered this play English propaganda. And yeah, probably. It's good though but a patriotic pageant. It may have carried a bitter sweetness for Shakespeare's audience because Henry the Fifth would not live long after his success in France. And the child Henry the sixth and his protectors would not be able to hold it against Joan of Arc.
I didn't read King John with much attention, so I don't know.
Shakespeare Fans
Books mentioned in this topic
Richard II (other topics)Richard III (other topics)
Plutarch's Lives (other topics)
What are your thoughts on reading the Histories? Tips?
I think my reticence is because part of me sees them as one big thing - like I have to read all the Histories together to get them as one whole story (like some sort of fantasy saga). Yet I can read the other plays individually. Can the Histories work read alone, like reading a few of them then taking a break and going back to a comedy or tragedy?
Thanks.