What do you think?
Rate this book
Shakespeare's Histories
Shakespeare's Histories features all the scholarship and pedagogy of David Bevington's The Complete Works of Shakespeare in a genre-specific, paperback volume. Pulled from Bevington's popular and authoritative hardcover The Complete Works of Shakespeare , 5e, Shakespeare's Histories and three other genre volumes– Shakespeare's Tragedies, Shakespeare's Comedies, and Shakespeare's Romances and Poems– are also available for purchase on their own. Shakespeare's Histories provides the same balanced editorial approach and proven apparatus that combine to make Bevington’s Complete Works the most accessible collection available. A prestigious editorial board provides state-of-the-art scholarship and interpretative balance on each play. In-depth historical coverage helps readers understand the cultural context behind each play, without dictating their interpretation of it. Extensive notes and glosses give readers the support they need to understand Elizabethan language and idiomatic expressions. For those who want all of Shakespeare's Histories in one volume.
624 pages, Paperback
First published June 30, 2006
14 people want to read
About the author
David Bevington
120 books7 followersDavid Bevington was an American literary scholar.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
November 10, 2018
About Bevington's Shakespeare in general: I like Bevington's best of all the student editions of Shakespeare. The introductions to individual plays are extremely insightful and well-written, giving you a concise overview of the play's themes and motifs and ending with a brief stage history. The general introduction is great too, and I find the footnotes to be the most useful for general readers of any edition: they tell you exactly what you need to know without cluttering up the page with extraneous detail. But I'm mostly here to throw out some of my impressions of the bard's plays.
1 Henry VI
Shakespeare's Henry VI plays were probably his first in any genre, and it definitely shows. Part 1 in particular was likely a collarboration with several other playwrights and shows few of the hallmarks we associate with Shakespeare's style. It's a bombastic, action-oriented piece with little of the poetic brilliance or realistic psychological depth of his later plays. The treatment of Joan of Arc is especially egregious; if this were written later in the bard's career she certainly would have been a complex and at least somewhat symapthetic character like Lady Macbeth or Cleopatra, but here she's exactly what English propaganda made of her, even 2 centuries later: a promiscuous machiavel and a literal witch to boot. There's a strong case to be made that this is the worst play in the canon. But in my book, it's at least never boring, and that counts for quite a bit.
2 Henry VI
Jack Cade, the peasant rabble-rouser whose rebellion begins with the famous line, "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers," really elevates this otherwise convoluted and not quite coherent play. But maybe the incoherence is part of the point: England has been racked by so many years of intestine broils at this point that the very social fabric is coming apart (hence Cade's rebellion). It's at least an improvement over Part 1, but Part 2 is still no masterpiece in my opinion.
3 Henry VI
So far Shakespeare's trilogy of early history plays has gotten by largely on action spectacle and verbal exuberance (and maybe "gotten by" is an understatement--these plays were apparently very popular in their day, jumpstarting Will's career). But they've lacked a central figure interesting enough to make a lasting impact, and he arrives here in the Duke of York (soon-to-be Richard III), making this the most exciting play of the three in my book (Yes, Richard was in Part 2 as well, but he really comes into his own here). It's weird that the title character of this trilogy doesn't fill that role, but the weak boy-king is evidently a type Shakespeare wouldn't fully figure out how to portray effectively until Richard II--in these plays he's not particularly compelling.
Richard III
Shakespeare's first truly great English history play caps off the first tetralogy as we see Richard's rise and fall in all its demented glory. Richard is the first of many heroic (Prospero, Helena, Vincentio) and/or villainous (Iago) characters to visibly stage-manage the whole show, manipulating the other characters while sharing a perverse intimacy with the audience via asides and soliloquies throughout. The result is an extremely readable/watchable tragedy and one of the bard's better plays.
King John
Oh boy, King John. Now, I'm sure there are defenders of this one, and to be fair I've only read it once and seen it acted in a not-amazing production, but for me this is Shakespeare's weakest play. That's extra weird since it's sandwiched between his best history plays, Richard III and the second tetralogy; certainly by this point in his career he was a master of his craft. But nothing grabs me here: not the central character, not the supporting cast, not even any memorable speeches, lines, or action setpieces. I got nothin'.
Richard II
The opening play in Shakespeare's second (though diegetically first) tetralogy is also its weakest, in my opinion. The poetry here is magnificent, and Richard himself is a fully realized, fascinating character. The problem is that he's kind of holding up the whole show by himself, as Bolingbroke here is kind of a cipher. Still, this could be justly included among Shakespeare's great tragedies.
1 Henry IV
The Henry IV plays are my favorite of Shakespeare's histories, and Part 1 is definitely the more carefully crafted of the two. Its two central figures, Hal and Falstaff, are among Shakespeare's best creations, and the idea of alternating between scenes of political intrigue between scheming nobles and scenes with Hal's low-born boon companions carousing in the tavern or playing tricks on each other is one of the finest Will ever had, in this humble reviewer's opinion of course.
2 Henry IV
History repeats itself in Part 2, but instead of farce following tragedy here tragedy follows farce. Where Part 1 was predominantly light-hearted (though with moments of real pathos like Hal's lament for Hotspur), Part 2 moves tiredly towards the heartbreaking scene in which Hal must renounce Falstaff. Not read or staged nearly as often as Part 1, for my money this one is every bit as essential a part of the tetralogy's dramatic structure and shouldn't be skipped.
Henry V
After so many plays devoted to civil discord and divided loyalties, Shakespeare returns to the subject of international conflict in what many consider his definitive English history play. But where he (or rather the various playwrights responsible, of which Will made one) produced unreflectively patriotic entertainment in 1 Henry VI, he here balances Hal's inspirational speeches ("Once more unto the breach," "We few, we happy few...") with a "low" plot that continues the cynicism of the earlier plays and never lets us forget the costs of Hal's ambition.
Henry VIII
As with King John, this is one that just didn't grab me at all. Henry VIII is such an interesting figure, but unfortunately the portion of his reign dramatized here just didn't make for one of Shakespeare's more memorable plays--perhaps because, as one of his last plays, it was co-written by John Fletcher as the King's Men's lead playwright passed the torch and headed off to Stratford-upon-Avon and an all-too-brief retirement.
Reading recommendations:
I think everybody even somewhat interested in Shakespeare should read through the whole second tetralogy (Richard II, 1 Henry IV, 2 Henry IV, Henry V). It's the bard's only attempt at an epic sequence of plays; all four are masterworks considered singly but even better together. Then, depending on how much you enjoyed those, decide whether you want to read just 1 more history play or 4. If 1, make it Richard III of course. If you're excited to hear what happened next after Henry V, I think the whole first tetralogy (1 Henry VI, 2 Henry VI, 3 Henry VI, Richard III) is worth checking out. The Henry VI plays are among Shakespeare's weaker efforts, but the sequence is greater than the sum of its parts. Lastly, if you just can't get enough history plays, go for Henry VIII and King John; I'm not gonna stop you.
1 Henry VI
Shakespeare's Henry VI plays were probably his first in any genre, and it definitely shows. Part 1 in particular was likely a collarboration with several other playwrights and shows few of the hallmarks we associate with Shakespeare's style. It's a bombastic, action-oriented piece with little of the poetic brilliance or realistic psychological depth of his later plays. The treatment of Joan of Arc is especially egregious; if this were written later in the bard's career she certainly would have been a complex and at least somewhat symapthetic character like Lady Macbeth or Cleopatra, but here she's exactly what English propaganda made of her, even 2 centuries later: a promiscuous machiavel and a literal witch to boot. There's a strong case to be made that this is the worst play in the canon. But in my book, it's at least never boring, and that counts for quite a bit.
2 Henry VI
Jack Cade, the peasant rabble-rouser whose rebellion begins with the famous line, "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers," really elevates this otherwise convoluted and not quite coherent play. But maybe the incoherence is part of the point: England has been racked by so many years of intestine broils at this point that the very social fabric is coming apart (hence Cade's rebellion). It's at least an improvement over Part 1, but Part 2 is still no masterpiece in my opinion.
3 Henry VI
So far Shakespeare's trilogy of early history plays has gotten by largely on action spectacle and verbal exuberance (and maybe "gotten by" is an understatement--these plays were apparently very popular in their day, jumpstarting Will's career). But they've lacked a central figure interesting enough to make a lasting impact, and he arrives here in the Duke of York (soon-to-be Richard III), making this the most exciting play of the three in my book (Yes, Richard was in Part 2 as well, but he really comes into his own here). It's weird that the title character of this trilogy doesn't fill that role, but the weak boy-king is evidently a type Shakespeare wouldn't fully figure out how to portray effectively until Richard II--in these plays he's not particularly compelling.
Richard III
Shakespeare's first truly great English history play caps off the first tetralogy as we see Richard's rise and fall in all its demented glory. Richard is the first of many heroic (Prospero, Helena, Vincentio) and/or villainous (Iago) characters to visibly stage-manage the whole show, manipulating the other characters while sharing a perverse intimacy with the audience via asides and soliloquies throughout. The result is an extremely readable/watchable tragedy and one of the bard's better plays.
King John
Oh boy, King John. Now, I'm sure there are defenders of this one, and to be fair I've only read it once and seen it acted in a not-amazing production, but for me this is Shakespeare's weakest play. That's extra weird since it's sandwiched between his best history plays, Richard III and the second tetralogy; certainly by this point in his career he was a master of his craft. But nothing grabs me here: not the central character, not the supporting cast, not even any memorable speeches, lines, or action setpieces. I got nothin'.
Richard II
The opening play in Shakespeare's second (though diegetically first) tetralogy is also its weakest, in my opinion. The poetry here is magnificent, and Richard himself is a fully realized, fascinating character. The problem is that he's kind of holding up the whole show by himself, as Bolingbroke here is kind of a cipher. Still, this could be justly included among Shakespeare's great tragedies.
1 Henry IV
The Henry IV plays are my favorite of Shakespeare's histories, and Part 1 is definitely the more carefully crafted of the two. Its two central figures, Hal and Falstaff, are among Shakespeare's best creations, and the idea of alternating between scenes of political intrigue between scheming nobles and scenes with Hal's low-born boon companions carousing in the tavern or playing tricks on each other is one of the finest Will ever had, in this humble reviewer's opinion of course.
2 Henry IV
History repeats itself in Part 2, but instead of farce following tragedy here tragedy follows farce. Where Part 1 was predominantly light-hearted (though with moments of real pathos like Hal's lament for Hotspur), Part 2 moves tiredly towards the heartbreaking scene in which Hal must renounce Falstaff. Not read or staged nearly as often as Part 1, for my money this one is every bit as essential a part of the tetralogy's dramatic structure and shouldn't be skipped.
Henry V
After so many plays devoted to civil discord and divided loyalties, Shakespeare returns to the subject of international conflict in what many consider his definitive English history play. But where he (or rather the various playwrights responsible, of which Will made one) produced unreflectively patriotic entertainment in 1 Henry VI, he here balances Hal's inspirational speeches ("Once more unto the breach," "We few, we happy few...") with a "low" plot that continues the cynicism of the earlier plays and never lets us forget the costs of Hal's ambition.
Henry VIII
As with King John, this is one that just didn't grab me at all. Henry VIII is such an interesting figure, but unfortunately the portion of his reign dramatized here just didn't make for one of Shakespeare's more memorable plays--perhaps because, as one of his last plays, it was co-written by John Fletcher as the King's Men's lead playwright passed the torch and headed off to Stratford-upon-Avon and an all-too-brief retirement.
Reading recommendations:
I think everybody even somewhat interested in Shakespeare should read through the whole second tetralogy (Richard II, 1 Henry IV, 2 Henry IV, Henry V). It's the bard's only attempt at an epic sequence of plays; all four are masterworks considered singly but even better together. Then, depending on how much you enjoyed those, decide whether you want to read just 1 more history play or 4. If 1, make it Richard III of course. If you're excited to hear what happened next after Henry V, I think the whole first tetralogy (1 Henry VI, 2 Henry VI, 3 Henry VI, Richard III) is worth checking out. The Henry VI plays are among Shakespeare's weaker efforts, but the sequence is greater than the sum of its parts. Lastly, if you just can't get enough history plays, go for Henry VIII and King John; I'm not gonna stop you.
Displaying 1 of 1 review