Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I very much enjoyed Norwich's three-volume history of Byzantium, and his two-volume history of the Normans in Sicily is also on my bookshelf awaiting my attention. But this book disappointed me. I had a sense as I read it that it had been written in haste. At first I wondered whether Norwich's house needed an expensive renovation, or whether the "Venice in Peril" fund that he did so much to sponsor was in immediate need of cash. Then I learned that a well-regarded English professor at Dartmouth College named Peter Saccio also brought out a similarly-themed -- indeed, similarly-titled -- book ("Shakespeare's English Kings") in the spring of this year. I'm left with the suspicion that Norwich's publishers may have gotten wind of the competitor volume and rushed him to get his into print.

Some evidence of haste can be seen if you compare the early chapters with the later ones. Up through Chapter 7, Norwich tries to integrate his discussion of the plays and the history. Commencing with Chapter 8, the history chapters are separate, and are then followed by chapters that summarize the action of each play, but with comments on their fidelity to history. Still, in reading the "play" chapters -- 10, 12, 14, 16, 19 -- I got really tired of the relentless (and sometimes unnecessary) synopsizing: "Next, in Act II, Scene III, this happens. Then, in Act II, Scene IV, this occurs." I had visions of Norwich sitting there with a copy of the play, summarizing the action scene-by-scene, and probably heaving a sigh of relief at how much easier these chapters were to write than the history ones were. However, I found them tedious going from the reader's perspective.

Moreover, the chapters on the Hundred Years' War verge at times on the incomprehensible. For example: "In April 1436, Bedford had been succeeded by Richard, Duke of York, now twenty-four, who was accompanied by his brother-in-law, Richard Nevill, Earl of Salisbury since the death of his father-in-law, killed before Orleans. Barely fourteen months later York had been replaced by Warwick, but had been reappointed after the latter's death in 1439. Meanwhile Charles VII had made his triumphal entry into Paris in November 1437, and a somewhat half-hearted peace conference near Calais in 1439 had come to nothing. The following year saw the release of Charles of Orleans . . . ." Reading passages like this, you have a sense that a chronology is simply being collapsed into the text, without much effort being invested in making it comprehensible or focusing on the main events.

Elsewhere, the text just needs pruning. For example, at page 231, is it really necessary to know the exact chronology of Margaret of Anjou's movements in March, April, and May 1445 as she travelled from Nancy in France to England for her marriage and coronation? Do we need to know that she traveled "by easy stages" from Nancy to Paris to Rouen? Should we care that she was sick for two weeks after her arrival in England, forcing a brief postponement of her wedding to Henry VI? And does it matter that history does not tell us exactly where she and her husband were between their marriage on April 23 and their entry into London on May 28? I can't imagine it does, but Norwich literally tells you that "Their movements over the next few weeks are unknown . . . ."

In addition to this extraneous, unpruned detail, there is another problem for which it is not fair to fully blame Norwich. In the course of the text, the reader is inundated with Somersets (four of them), Suffolks (no fewer than 7 earls, dukes, and countesses), Gloucesters (only three!), Norfolks, and Nevills. Of course, these were the family names of England's most powerful families during the period, so Norwich can't entirely help these recurrences -- but I did have a sense that he could have done a little more to distinguish them and help the reader keep them straight. Or perhaps a few of the more minor ones could just have been left out?

I was also disappointed that Norwich's reading of sources didn't seem to go much beyond those Shakespeare himself relied on. That may have been part and parcel of Norwich's objective -- to see how faithful Shakespeare was to his own sources -- but if you bought this book hoping to get, in the bargain, a good history of the years 1337-1483 in English history, it means that you'll be disappointed.

I would suggest getting your hands on copies of both this book and Peter Saccio's and comparing before you buy. Having seen how Norwich wrestled with the problem he set out to address in this volume, I'm actually pretty interested in seeing how Peter Saccio -- one of America's best interpreters of Shakespeare -- addressed the same task.

John Julius Norwich has been writing popular histories of the Middle Ages and Renaissance for about 50 years. What we have here sounds like a great idea, a comparison of the "history" in Shakespeare's history plays beginning with EDWARD III (only recently added to the canon) and ending with RICHARD III, with history itself. However, there is almost immediately a big problem. Is the comparison to be made with Shakespeare's contemporary sources, or is it to be made with findings of modern scholarship on the period? Norwich never seems to make up his mind, and the result is an often maddeningly uneven book.

In fact, much of the book reads as if it were a first draft. If I had read the excellent review elsewhere on these pages by "jeffergray," I probably wouldn't have purchased the book to begin with. Parts of the narrative would have to be greatly expanded for clarity, while other parts need to be compressed or eliminated altogether. It is particularly hopeless to try to keep track of the important historical characters that appear and reappear in the action. There are Nevills and Mortimers everywhere, not to mention Salisburys, Earls of Oxford, etc., etc. Norwich continually chides Shakespeare for getting his Mortimers confused, but he leaves the reader in an even worse confusion.

The book has a strange prissy note that will jar most readers. For example, Norwich seems so offended by Shakespeare's portrayal of Joan of Arc that he can scarcely bear to comment, but Shakespeare's cartoon of Joan is hardly more unhistorical--- indeed, perhaps more historical--- than the absurd warrior maid who has appeared in countless plays, novels and films during the past century. Norwich also continually winces at Shakespeare's word-play, for example in the dialogue between Princess Katherine and Henry V, although both to Elizabethan and modern ears it rings quite harmless. The real Henry V, a genocidal war criminal and insanely pious maniac, may have had no sense of humor at all, but Shakespeare's heroic Harry needs one, and it needs no apology.

There's a lot of interesting, even fascinating information here about a little-known period, but this is nowhere near the book it could and should have been. Recommended with grave reservations.

If you enjoy reading Shakespeare and are a history buff, prepare for sleepless nights, distracted work, and hunger pains. For your Book of Books is at hand and although you will be forced to ignore it for such trifling matters as sleep, work, or feeding, you will rush back to its pages "as schoolboys from their books." If history distracts you with countless dates and minute details, or if Shakespeare is not your cup of tea, the Amazon search engine is at the top of the page.

Norwich's work begins with an excellent introduction to the most fascinating of the English royal lineages, the Plantagenet Kings. It sets the context of the historical plays of Shakespeare, from the death of Edward II to the anticipated ascendancy of Henry VII. The author includes Edward III, a work recently attributed to Shakespeare, which in itself is a treasure. The ensuing chapters cover the events, politics, everyday life, and perspectives of each King's reign. In chronological order, each reign is examined in the context of the play(s) and the author notes when Shakespearian license has been used to prefect a play, albeit at the expense of historical accuracy. The writing is crisp, novel-like in its presentation, and certainly assertive in stating a position, pointing out an anachronism, or dissecting a motive of the monarch or the Bard. It is also not without controversy.

For example, Norwich too casually dismisses the claims of contemporary scholars that Richard III was personally vilified for political gain by the Tudors who usurped the throne upon his death. Shakespeare wrote his plays for an Elizabethan (Tudor) audience, so a bias should come as no surprise, and in fact is acknowledged by the author in his epilogue. But to discount the historical claims purely because the sainted Thomas More made them, and that More's work was substantiated by contemporary (Tudor) historians, is a slip in scholarship. People 500 years hence might well view the US Presidency at the close of the 20th Century as a period of moral turpitude and disgrace if only Republican historians were read, or of economic prosperity and compassion if Democratic treatises alone existed. The parallel is striking, and as with that Presidency, the reign of Richard III is probably best described as being somewhere between the emotional extremes. Indeed, "uneasy lies the head that wears a crown."

But this minor point should not deter you from devouring this book, especially if you like to "sit upon the ground and tell sad stories of the death of kings." Its sad, and exhilarating, stories will become as familiar to you "as household words."

John Julius Norwich recounts the stories of the English monarchs through the Middle Ages alongside Shakespeare's dramatizations, noting the liberties taken by the Bard with an appreciation for his dramatic art.

There are gaps in Shakespeare's histories, some of which may soon be filled. EDWARD III has found acceptance as being at least partially Shakespeare's work, and a defense is being prepared for a more recent find which, if it holds up as being some or all of Shakespeare's work, amounts to a RICHARD II PART 1 (whereas the RICHARD II already in the canon starts so late in his reign).

Norwich fills in those gaps with a history that, while immensely readable and briskly-paced, suffers from such a density of information. We are given helpful maps of England and France and charts showing us the descent of the various houses, but the general reader may still be overwhelmed by the concentration of the middle ages into such a neat paperback.

"...To a dramatist," Norwich writes, "accuracy is at most of secondary importance...The average playgoer...will have come away with a mental picture which, for all its bold lines and high color, will not be so very far wrong." This idea and the potential for controversy (especially with respect to the much-maligned Richard III) might be within the scope of the book, but are not fully examined here. What is the merit of theatre as a historical medium? Given the necessity of combining, omitting, or even fabricating events, how does a play convey an accurate experience of history, and how does it fail?

I was recently fortunate enough to attend the Stratford Festival of Canada where I saw, among other Shakespearean plays, the two parts of Henry IV and Henry V. It was a wonderful experience but I began thinking about the events depicted in these plays; namely, how historically accurate was what I saw? This theme of historical accuracy in plays and movies has become rather popular lately, inspiring a number of books and documentaries. In an attempt to answer this question for Shakespeare's history plays, I read this book, Shakespeare's Kings, by John Julius Norwich and I'm glad I did.

This is a very well-written and informative book. In chapters alternating between history and the corresponding Shakespearean play, Norwich covers the period from Edward III through Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI, Edward IV, Edward V to Richard III. The history chapters are clear and concise considering the large number of people that populate them, and how they are often executed, banished and losing and gaining lands and titles. Norwich is also quite good at offering different views on the period before settling on the view he feels is most substantiated. He then follows the history with an examination of the appropriate play, explaining how events are telescoped and rearranged, how characters are sometimes mistaken and invented and how even history must suffer if drama is to be maintained. I am particularly fond of the fact that Norwich doesn't let historical inaccuracies interfere with his appreciation of what a dramatist like Shakespeare needs to accomplish for a successful play. History and drama are not the same.

I was also interested to see a discussion of the play Edward III which, according to some scholars, is a recent addition to the Shakespearean canon. I had not heard of this play before nor its attribution of authorship to Shakespeare but it is listed as part new edition of the New Cambridge Shakespeare, for one. I was very glad to discover this so I could look into the matter. It is nice to see an author comment on the most current scholarship, however we might ultimately feel about the conclusions.

A final note worth mentioning to the interested reader: this book only deals with the history of the two major tetralogies. It does not cover the "fictional" histories (like King Lear, Macbeth, etc.) nor with the English histories out of sequence (King John, King Henry VIII). For what it does cover, however, it is an invaluable tool. Particularly for those who, like myself, enjoy these Shakespearean histories.

Most surveys of Shakespeare focus on his literary writing and talents: this provides a focus on his history, examining the events and characters in his plays and the realities which inspired them. This is recommended reading for any avid Shakespeare fan as well as college-level students: it examines the nine works which sum England's history of the times and analyzes each in the light of historical questions and background.

An interesting book on some of the Bard's less widely-covered plays. However, a caveat regarding one of Amazon's reviews: Jerry Brotton probably reviewed the British edition of the book - the American edition does not include the text of Edward III. For this play (recently accepted as at least partially authored by Shakespeare), see Sams' "Shakespeare's Edward III" or the New Cambridge edition.

Make no mistake, JJ Norwich wields a wicked pen. He is a first class writer and historian, and if anyone can make history readable for a general audience he can.

History is complex, however. Nothing is ever as it seems and following the thread as it weaves through the lives of the English royalty from Edward II through Henry VII, is difficult at best and confounding at worst. This is largely owing to five major factors--1) The royal families are large, interrelated, and keep marrying their cousins from abroad; 2) People change sides faster than you can swear an oath of fealty; 3) Titles are gained, lost, and assumed with every death. Just who the heck is York anyway; 4) Most of the kings are lazy, crazy, or have exceedingly ambitious wives; 5) Most of the nobles and clergy are crazy, lazy, or have ambitious wives. In the end, the only folks you really care about are the villeins and thank goodness, they eventually prevail. (Anyone who thinks Africans were the only people ever enslaved needs to read a little European history.) I am sure I have been able to read and understand most of this book because of my prior exposure to Allison Weir--whom Norwich cites in his bibliography, particularly the "Wars of the Roses" and "The Children in the Tower." I also read an entertaining work of fiction entitled "Katherine" by Anya Seton which covers the years 1340-1399. The book is about Katherine Swynford, mistress and then wife of John of Gaunt, mother of all those little Beaufords, and ancestor of Elizabeth I.

Norwich skillfully weaves factual history with excerpts of Shakespeare's dialogue from the history plays Edward III to Richard II. He fills in the blanks, puts the pieces together, and corrects the historical errors or at least notes them. In the end, we have a beautiful work.

The reader must read other works on Shakespeare to understand the plays, as this is primarily a history.

At first it was amusing to see a book, that attempted to "prove" Shakespeare's historical accuracy, that used only Shakespeare's sources as the basis of its scholarship. Then it caused me throw this book away in disgust. original research in this book is nonexistent, repeating ideas rejected by most English historians. Richard III's alleged physical deformity is faithfully repeated here for instance. The only problem is that any objective historian has rejected that part of the legend as simply being Tudor propaganda (how a person with a lame leg, withered arm and huge humpback became a renowned warrior is just not something that can be explained). I have not read the writer's work on Byzantium, but I would suggest the author sticks to something he knows a little bit about. Medieval English history most certainly doesn't fall into that category

This book tells the story - long, confusing, but connected - of the English kings of the late Middle Ages, from the downfall and death of Edward II in 1327 and the accession of his son Edward III. His successor Richard II was deposed and killed by the Lancastrian Henry IV. Then followed his son Henry V and a great time for England against France in their ongoing Hundred-Years War. His son Henry VI was so ineffectual he set off the long bizarre dynastic scuffle called the Wars of the Roses, from which the Yorkist Edward IV finally emerged. He had his own middle brother, George, killed, but his youngest brother, the infamous Richard of Gloucester, slaughtered his way to the throne, holding it for a tenuous two years as Richard III, until the resurgent Lancastrians finally got rid of him and the whole bloody Middle Ages, and put Henry VII (the first Tudor) on the throne in 1485 - the first decent ruler poor England had seen in a century and a half.

This was the period that Shakespeare chose for his history plays. To the Elizabethans these events were still reasonably current (as our Civil War is to us), and yet enough removed - and of a different dynasty - to be safe in the playing. (Not quite: Elizabeth's (former) favorite Essex paid for a special performance of Richard II, which concerns the deposing of a legitimate monarch, and soon after he was proclaimed a traitor.) The politically savvy playwright wanted to walk the fine line between telling the ripping good yarn of these brutal yet colorful fellows, while somehow not tarnishing the gloss of the monarchy itself.

But Shakespeare was no historian. He has modified the story to suit political and dramatic exigencies, and often, it appears, by mistake. The dynastic interweavings are confusing, and his sources had gaps and contradictions, so sometimes he misplaces characters and events. More often, though, he has to tell a long story in a short time, and give it some push. Thus the compression and conflation of events, the exaggeration of character.

Ok, so maybe watching the plays is not the best way to learn English history. Certainly, Norwich brings this home. He gently but relentlessly documents Will's departures from the actual history, and they are legion. Every once in a while, in this book, he devotes a chapter to the particular play that "covers" the material he has discussed to that point. Basically, each of these chapters goes through the play at hand - I Henry IV, say - and shows how it deviates from or hews to the truth. After a few of these chapters, I just skipped them: the tale Norwich tells in his history sections is great fun, but the Shakespeare chapters simply drive home the point that the plays are at best approximations to the actual. Fair enough: I'm convinced. I still want to watch the plays: they contain cultural and emotional truth after all, besides being, many of them, great plays.

So, read this book for the history, rather than the Shakespeare criticism. And though the plays are not good history, reading a good popular history is not irrelevant to enjoying them: after all, they were written for a public that already had a better than nodding acquaintance with the events they portray. And so should you.