My Kingdom for a Horse!

Books read this week: Shakespeare's Kings 8/10 (John Julius Norwich)

The first Shakespeare play I can remember seeing is Olivier's Richard III. It's a very 1950s performance, extremely static and nothing like as good as McKellan's version, but I still remember it fondly; Richard III is still one of my favourite (if not my favourite) plays. Norwich's Shakespeare's Kings is a brilliant combination of literary criticism and history, following English history from about 1300 up until 1485 viewed through the lens of Shakespeare's two tetralogies (Richard II, Henry IV Parts I & II, Henry V, Henry VI Parts I, II and III and Richard III) as well as a very early play, Edward III, which has only recently been attributed to the Bard.

I often think it is strange that we spend so much time at school on Shakespeare's comedies; the underlying themes are far more complex, and the social structures they critique and parody are quite alien to us. Also, to properly appreciate them one needs an understanding of sixteenth century dirty jokes, a knowledge which is sadly lacking in today's youth. By contrast, the themes of the tragedies and the history plays are more universal; ambition, jealousy, revenge. Also, you don't have to get the jokes to enjoy the play (but it helps!). The lessons learnt from the tragedies in particular have general applications: Mark Antony's speech at Caesar's funeral is one of the best pieces of political manipulation ever written, and (on a more prosaic note) I guessed the twist in the Usual Suspects because I have a deep affection for Richard III (which lead to a knowledge of the figure of Vice in the medieval morality plays, which lead to Keyser Sose).

More generally, reading this book also led me to reflect on the abysmally low standard of king- (and queen-) ship this country has endured since the Norman conquest; of the 40 odd monarchs we've had since 1066, only 10 have really been halfway competent and most of those had distinctly shaky claims to the throne (Henry VII, I'm looking at you....). Mostly, Shakespeare's Kings, much like the Song of Ice and Fire (which draws a huge amount of inspiration from both the real Wars of the Roses and Shakespeare's version of them), is a gigantic argument against the concept of hereditary monarchy. Which is, incidentally, why I tend to support the Yorkists (their argument being that of the two candidates for the throne, the more competent one should be king; it's not quite accepting democracy, but it's edging closer than the pseudo divine right of kings endorsed by the Lancastrians). So, in conclusion: Shakespeare's Kings is a good book for anyone interested in Shakespeare or kings (or both). It's also recommended reading for anyone who's started the Song of Ice and Fire, and is having trouble understanding why it is people don't act like characters out of the Lord of the Rings, and why it turns out the living in the middle ages was shite, even if you were the king.