Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    Richard II
    Richard II
    Richard II
    Audiobook2 hours

    Richard II

    Written by William Shakespeare

    Narrated by John Gielgud

    4/5

    ()

    Switch to ebook

    About this audiobook

    Sir John Gielgud, Sir Michael Hordern, Leon McKern and Edward Harwicke star in this unabridged performance of Shakespeare's Richard II
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherSaland Publishing
    Release dateJan 10, 2010
    ISBN9781907818585
    Author

    William Shakespeare

    William Shakespeare is the world's greatest ever playwright. Born in 1564, he split his time between Stratford-upon-Avon and London, where he worked as a playwright, poet and actor. In 1582 he married Anne Hathaway. Shakespeare died in 1616 at the age of fifty-two, leaving three children—Susanna, Hamnet and Judith. The rest is silence.

    More audiobooks from William Shakespeare

    Related to Richard II

    Related audiobooks

    Performing Arts For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    Related categories

    Reviews for Richard II

    4/5

    563 ratings29 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

    • 3/5
      While I think this history is very interesting, the recording is older. The actors are clearly knowledgeable in their craft and deliver the text in an understandable way, but, at times, it's very hard to hear them.
    • 4/5
      Much better than I expected. I usually dislike Shakespeare's historical plays. This was not dull or silly, but beautiful.
    • 1/5
      I'm not big into the history plays.
    • 5/5
      Thick as a brick, the Arden edition of "Richard II" is a sight to behold. It's my first Arden history, and I'm looking forward to more. A play entirely in prose needs a lot of textual analysis, but what makes this particularly wonderful is the depth of the notes on the historical context. To an audience watching this in 1600, the references were as familiar to us as an episode of "The Daily Show", replete with all of the tiny little nuances that we just cannot grasp.

      Forker's notes give us detailed quotes from Shakespeare's sources, and spend a lot of time examining the relationship of the text to history. Being of an older generation, many of his thoughts on individual words and grammar are particularly enlightening, although one could argue that readers uninitiated in the particularities of grammar (vocatives, absolutes, etc.) may need to consult a guidebook as they go. Forker commendably sometimes offers alternatives to phrases even when the obvious reading seems likely (or, at least, easy), but he has a frustrating grandfatherly habit of dismissing modern theatrical approaches to the plays when they aren't historically accurate. While I can appreciate his points sometimes, it seems churlish to expect directors of these plays - made, after all, for a populist audience - to prioritise historical veracity even when it would confuse audiences or obfuscate an already challenging text. But anyhow, I digress. That's a minor quibble for what is another sterling edition in this most wonderful of book series.

      As with all Ardens, this is for scholars and readers rather than families and actors. Genius work though. We live in an often-terrible world, and yet we near the completion of such an astonishing scholarly project as this. There is hope for us yet.
    • 1/5
      Terrible sound quality. The play itself was ok but listening was tough.
    • 3/5
      I'm still not a fan of reading plays, and yet as I started to read Richard II, I thought I might maybe revisit plays like Macbeth and Hamlet and read them properly, now I can appreciate them a bit more... so I suppose there's still hope for me yet. I still maintain that plays are understood and appreciated best when performed.

      Richard II was, for me, definitely not as compelling as Richard III. The language is still astounding, and I enjoyed reading about the political situation and then applying it while I read the play -- it's interesting in that sense -- but neither Richard II nor Bolingbroke are as compelling as Richard III with his confident villainy.
    • 4/5
      While the performances themselves were fantastic, the audio quality left something to be desired. There is a low buzz throughout the whole track, though it isn't too awful, and the volume sometimes becomes inaudibly quiet. I listened to this while reading the play which made for an enjoyable experience, but I wouldn't recommend listening to it one its own unless you are already familiar with the play
    • 5/5
      I find it exciting to pick up a Shakespeare play that I have not read before and Richard II proved to be a straightforward read. Let me explain: my modus operandi with Shakespeare is to read through the play in one sitting if possible and then note down any thoughts. I will then read the introduction and any notes or commentaries before reading through the play again at a slower pace. I finish off by watching a video performance of the play (usually a BBC production). On my first reading I was surprised how easy it was to follow the story. It is a history play and Shakespeare although reorganising and adapting the historical facts still tells a recognisable story of the latter part of Richard's reign and Bolingbroke's seizing of the crown. Other first impressions were that the heightened language that Richard and others use reminded me of Christopher Marlowe's Edward II or even Tamburlaine. It is a political play, perhaps the most political play I have read so far and its major theme is the divine right of kings. There is only a little light relief from the tragedy of the unfolding story. There are no prose passages and plenty of poetry in the iambic pentameter. The play is usually dated at 1595 and would seem to be a thoroughly professional job, by a playwright who had learnt his craft.On to the commentaries and notes of which there were plenty, being from the Arden Collection of plays. There is certainly enough here to explain and enhance the enjoyment. I also had in my library a copy of MAXnotes from the Research & Education Association's collection of study guides, I had previously not read any of these and found it concise and easy to read. It summarises the play scene by scene and provides a good analysis of the themes and story as it goes along. It stars with a very useful introduction on Shakespeares language and was a useful back-up to the Introduction and notes in the Arden publication. I usually spend some time researching on the internet for different aspects or views, but found much of this to be superfluous for this play. I felt I really did not need to know anymore to the information to hand.The editors of the Arden Shakespeare of course talk up the play that they have been asked to edit, but I have to agree with Charles R Forker who says:"Its unusual formality of structure and tone as well as the impressive eloquence of its style seems to have been crafted to express the mystique of kingship more emphatically than any of the earlier histories, without neglecting a subtle handling of its major action........................In the character of Richard, Shakespeare achieved a higher degree of psychological complexity than he had yet managed in tragedy"Forker goes on to say that Richard II is now regarded as one of the greatest of Shakespeares histories, with over 3000 books/commentaries written about it, which means that you could spend any amount of time reading about other peoples research or views if you wished. Shakespeare starts the play with the confrontation between Thomas Mowbray Duke of Norfolk and Henry Bolingbroke in front of King Richard II. They accuse each other of being traitors to the king. Richard cannot settle the dispute and so they agree to a trial by combat. At the very last moment before the lethal joust Richard stops the contest and exiles them both. Mowbray for life and Bolingbroke who has family connections to the king for six years. Richard lives a dissolute lifestyle spending much money on his friends and hangers on, he decides to lead an army to quell a revolt in Ireland, but the treasury is nearly empty. He raises money by enforced loans on the English nobility and by the sequestration of land and property from Bolingbroke who has inherited his fathers estates, the wealthy John of Gaunt. While Richard is in Ireland Henry Bolingbroke with a host of titled followers lands in the North of England and soon attracts more support including eventually the Duke of York who Richard has entrusted with guarding his kingdom whilst he is in Ireland. Richard arrives back in England after a successful campaign to find that his army has been let go and his court favourites have fled or been executed by Bolingbroke. He is powerless and Bolingbroke looks for a way to seize power by persuading Richard to abdicate in his favour. Richard is forced to agree and becomes Bolingbroke's (now Henry IV) prisoner. Richard is murdered in Pontefract castle.In Plantagenet England kingly succession was more often than not a tricky business, because of disputes over birthrights, however in this instance Shakespeare's focus is on a direct usurpation which brings starkly into question the divine right of kings. Richard claimed amid popular contention that he was appointed by God to rule England, still a feudal state at this time (mid 14th century) and so Richard supported by the clergy has an indisputable right to govern as he sees fit and he makes this case throughout the play. For political reasons Bolingbroke is able to lead a successful revolt, but cannot rule in security until the old king is dead. Shakespeare's skill here is in leading his audience firstly to admire Richards kingly qualities in settling a difficult dispute and then to turn them against the king when they see his unjust behaviour, to the noble families and particularly Bolingbrook. Unjust, vindictive behaviour or a politician indulging in realpolitik it's difficult to decide. However sympathies are swayed back to Richard when he is devastated by the loss of his kingship. Watching the BBC production I thought that Richard got what was coming to him, despite his tragic circumstances, but in Elizabethan England where the idea of the divine right of kings was almost sacrosanct, Shakespeares arguments brilliantly portrayed by Richard would have swayed many people to feel the tragedy of his final months.The play is notable for its poetry and word play. There are some impressive speeches, for example John of Gaunt's patriotic 'sceptered Isle' speech or Richards 'hollow crown' speech. There are many such as these, even the assistant gardener can get in on the act:"Why should we in the compass of a paleKeep law and form and due proportion,Showing, as in a model, our firm estate,When our sea walled garden, the whole landIs full of weeds, her fairest flowers choked up,Her fruit trees all unpruned, her hedges ruinedHer knots disordered and her wholesome herbs Swarming with caterpillars."He is talking about the state of England under Richard's kingship and the caterpillars are the kings flattering supporters. We know this about the caterpillars because one of Bolingbroke's followers has already referred to Richards' flatterers as caterpillars. This is an example of the unity of Shakespeares vision and poetry in this play, which has patterns and themes interweaved throughout, for example: the idea of blood which stands for family and murder, the tears and weeping which show emotion, images of blots stains and poison, the powerful image of the mirror where Richard examines his dual identity of man and divine monarch, the idea of people and things which can be sweet or sour according to the wheel of fortune. A Shakespeare play then that can hardly be faulted and one that has a unity of vision making it a delight to follow to the end. The character development of both Ricard II and Bolingbroke adds real depth and so 5 stars.
    • 2/5
      Useful only for the chapter on the John Barton 1973/4 production. Some really odd omissions, most strikingly nothing at all on Terry Hands in 1981 for the RSC. Overall little original insight. Disappointing.
    • 4/5
      “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” might sum up this drama as well as anything. Shakespeare’s play tells the story of Richard II’s deposition by his cousin, Henry Bolingbroke, who became Henry IV. There’s a lot of musing on the divine right of kings, as well as on the consent of the governed.Henry Bolingbroke’s rise begins with a dispute with Thomas Mowbray over the death of Thomas of Woodstock, the king’s uncle (and also Bolingbroke’s uncle), apparently at the king’s behest. The play ends as it began, with Exton’s murder of the deposed Richard because he inferred it was Henry IV’s wish.
    • 3/5
      While I was glad to read/listen to this historical play (I read the text in my Kindle omnibus "The Works of Shakespeare" while listening to this LibriVox full cast recording), I was annoyed by Richard II. I appreciated that the way that Shakespeare made his character seem more likeable in the final few acts and his speeches about 'woe to those who depose a king' were most likely written with an eye to pleasing Queen Elizabeth I, but to my modern (and American) sensibilities, it struck me as outrageous that Richard II never acknowledged that he had done anything wrong!

      The LibriVox audiobook was OK but not one of their better efforts. The voice of John of Gaunt in particular was difficult for me to listen to. I probably should have just read the text...
    • 3/5
      Like all real literature this is about death. While Dick is not necessarily the greatest king around he is at least smart enough to realize that the collapse of his reign is a chain of events that can only inevitably lead to his murder, as the continued existence of a "rightful heir" is a loose end no usurper can afford to leave lying around. So the play is mostly about him alternating trying to grapple with this fact with constructing daydreams of some "possible escape" (there is no escape). A solid tragedy but does not reach the same heights Shakespeare managed with more sympathetic characters than this guy who is portrayed as moostly the cause of his own problems.
    • 5/5
      I love this one. Not sure if this is my second or third reading -- GR says I read it last in Nov. 2014, but I feel like I read it last more recently -- but, again, this is a five star play for me. This time I started with Marjorie Garber's chapter on Richard, from her marvelous Shakespeare After All. Her analysis didn't provide any startling insights, but it added to my appreciation of the way Shakespeare's artistry works in this play. Anyway, I just find Richard fascinating. Sure, he's a dreadful king and a lousy nephew, but he's a wonderful character. So invested in his own performance as flamboyant monarch that when the "script" of events seems to suggest that a tragic fall is imminent, he seizes the role of doomed lord (or, as he often suggests, "Lord") and plays it to the hilt. He reminds me of Hamlet, though not so complex -- self-dramatizing even to the point of his own destruction, self-pitying, and introspective, and he is such a great contrast with Henry. Poet vs. pragmatist. And their uncle, the Duke of York, switching his loyalties from Richard to Henry as it seems expedient, throwing his son over in a red hot minute, acting the "sage counselor" but always putting his own interests first, is marvelous fun! This is one of my favorite plays.The Arden edition of this has excellent notes, and the performances of the actors in the Archangel audio recording are marvelous. I can't recommend Marjorie Garber's Shakespeare After All highly enough, and also, because, of course, plays are meant for watching, the "King Richard II" in the BBC's "The Hollow Crown" and The Royal Shakespeare Company's "King Richard II" with David Tennant, are well worth seeing.
    • 3/5
      This is the first proper History I've read, and I'm not really sure I get it. There's probably a lot I'm missing by not having the cultural knowledge Shakespeare's audience had. The fourth act is really great, though - enough so that I like the play.
    • 4/5
      The first of the Henriad plays, 'The Tragedy of Richard II' covers Richard II's "Jesus Year": The eponymous king was only 32- and 33-years old as the tragedy of his life played out, setting the stage for The War of the Roses. During his 22-year reign, he was spoiled, and he abused the royal prerogative, so his fate should be no surprise; but The Bard paints a portrait of a man who found his humanity before paying the ultimate price.
    • 4/5
      Richard spends so much of this play depressed that you'd think he was in The Bell Jar. This play had three stars until "Go thou and fill another room in hell" made me change my pants.
    • 4/5
      Richard II is the first play in the Henriad (second tetralogy). It is followed by the three plays, Henry IV, Part 1; Henry IV, Part 2; and Henry V. Shakespeare’s histories have always been his most intimidating works for me. Richard III and Henry V are obviously incredible, but some of the others, like this one, ramble on with so many different names that it can be hard to follow. I decided it was time to just dive in and start at the chronological beginning. The Wars of the Roses play out in eight different works beginning with Richard II; then Henry IV, Part 1 and Part 2, Henry V, Henry VI Part 1, 2, and 3, and Richard III. This play introduces many of the major players that have a role throughout the rest of those plays. It's about the fall of a king, the shifting of power, unhappy subjects and the plotting that leads to the king’s downfall. There's a beautiful scene between Richard II and his wife in act five. She’s watching he husband lose his power and is heartbroken for him…“But soft, but see, or rather do not see, My fair rose wither: yet look up, behold, That you in pity may dissolve to dew, And wash him fresh again with true-love tears.” I recently saw a film version of this one and it was fantastic. It was such a wonderful portrayal and those individuals will stick in my mind as those characters. Also I saw it at the Old Vic in London and Kevin Spacey played Richard II a few years ago. It was a wonderful performance. I’ve found that Shakespeare works so much better for me in book form if I’ve had a chance to see it performed live first. BOTTOM LINE: A beautiful portrait of the tenuous nature of power and the bittersweet nature of victory. It can be hard to follow because of the sheer number of characters and shifting alliances. If possible I'd recommend seeing a play or movie version before reading it because it's easier to follow the text when you can put a face with the name.“I wasted time, and now doth time waste me;For now hath time made me his numb'ring clock;My thoughts are minutes, and with sighs they jarTheir watches on unto mine eyes, the outward watch,Whereto my finger, like a dial's point,Is pointing still, in cleansing them from tears.”
    • 2/5
      The tragedy of this is that Shakespeare devoted a whole play to this milquetoast whiner. It would have been more effective, to me, had his story been included as a small part of the Henry IV plays. Neither a great hero or a great anti-hero, I just found the guy to be annoying as hell.
    • 4/5
      I really enjoyed Shakespeare's "Richard II." The play has a great plot that is paced well and the language is really accessible in this one. Richard II has quite a few great monologues that made this one a fun read.The play follows the final years of Richard II's reign before he was deposed and eventually killed. Richard makes a series of mistakes, that seem somewhat minor in nature, but together lead to his eventual downfall.
    • 4/5
      Of most interest as a hint of what is to come in King Henry IV Parts I and II, although still an interest in its own terms, especially for characters like the Duke of York. Richard II begins with the King arbitrating a quarrel by two younger courtiers and ends with one of those younger courtiers, Henry IV, usurping as King. One flaw, at least to my eyes, it jumps from Henry IV returning to claim his lands, and pledging loyalty to King Richard II, to him usurping the throne without ever explaining if his initial attitude was disingenuous, if something changed, or what happened to bring about this transformation.
    • 4/5
      Tough one to rate: without knowing the historical background completely, most things that happen are a little opaque - which makes this particular edition a god-send. Richard's speeches, particularly in the second half, are brilliant.
    • 4/5
      I am reading Shakespeare's plays in chronological order.A cruel and childish king robs his nobles to engage in foreign wars. They rebel and depose him easily. He whines about it until he is assassinated. This doesn't sound promising, but it has Shakespeare's most moving poetry yet, and his first serious and largely successful attempt at creating a character with psychological depth. I found it a treat to read, and, like several of the plays I've read, I look forward to reading it again
    • 4/5
      After Bullingbrooke, Duke of Hereford and cousin to King Richard, publicly accuses Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, of treason, the two Dukes decide to settle their quarrel with a duel. But Richard steps in and banishes them instead, giving his cousin a much shorter sentence, which some would think was done out of love. The truth is that Richard doesn't love Bullingbrooke, and may even be jealous that his cousin is so favored by the people. He just might be plotting to ensure that his cousin never returns to England. When news comes that Bullingbrooke has returned to fight Richard it divides the aristocracy, including the King's own family.This is one of the histories, and it's a mix of accuracy and fiction. There's very little action but constant threats of fighting and the stakes are high: first banishment, then deaths, then a fight for the throne. I don't know about you but I found it enthralling.
    • 5/5
      Richard II is one of my favorite histories, partly because the actual events surrounding Richard's fall offer plenty of drama, and partly because of its sheer beauty. Richard is eloquent to a fault - literally; he'd rather give flowery speeches than actually do anything. But what speeches! You almost forget what a moron he is.

      But it's the gardener's soliloquy in III.iv that's actually the prettiest, an extended rant about why he should bother weeding the garden when Richard has let pests overrun England.

      It's surprising to me that Richard II doesn't get more attention these days. I understand how Richard III's hilarious villainy and Henry V's blustering violence overshadow it, but this is a rewarding play.
    • 5/5
      Of most interest as a hint of what is to come in King Henry IV Parts I and II, although still an interest in its own terms, especially for characters like the Duke of York. Richard II begins with the King arbitrating a quarrel by two younger courtiers and ends with one of those younger courtiers, Henry IV, usurping as King. One flaw, at least to my eyes, it jumps from Henry IV returning to claim his lands, and pledging loyalty to King Richard II, to him usurping the throne without ever explaining if his initial attitude was disingenuous, if something changed, or what happened to bring about this transformation.
    • 3/5
      I don’t have much to say about this play, mostly because I did not really care for it. Of the dozen or so Shakespeare plays that I’ve actually sat down and read (as opposed to those I’ve seen in performance), this and Twelfth Night are the only two in which I’ve had a difficult time connecting to the characters. In the case of Richard, I’m sure it didn't help that I was coming to it straight off the comedies. While Richard II is one of the English history plays, it is certainly in the tragic mode. Moreover, it is entirely in verse, places great stress on political ceremony, and is virtually devoid of humor. The result is rather solemn and detached. Richard’s wife was a wonderfully pitiable character, and he himself gained in tragic stature during the final acts, but by then it was almost too late for me to care.As an antidote to my indifference, I tried watching the 1978 BBC adaptation starring Sir Derek Jacobi, but I had an even harder time getting into that—and I usually love Jacobi. I suppose this play just isn’t for me, at least not at this stage in my life.
    • 4/5
      When I was in high school, I always thought Shakespeare was over-hyped. I read and reread, without understanding WHY someone could be so popular for so long; how could he have changed the world with simple, short plays? But in college, I had a professor who opened my eyes to how truly amazing Shakespeare was as an artist. He basically invented a metaphorical language that captured irony, pun, tragedy, and comedy in almost-flawless storytelling. Richard II, though not my favorite of his plays, is still amazing in the way it captures both political and social fears of the time. I suggest that anyone who is reading Shakespeare for the first time should look up as much history as they can. It is amazing the things you will learn about figurative language and the political force of Shakespeare's plays. Genius.
    • 4/5
      As usual, Shakespeare plays fast and loose with historical detail, relying on several sources for his play. Superficially, the play is about the struggle between Richard II and Henry Bolingbroke. Ultimately, though, I found this a complex and involving character study of a young, inexperienced king, that foreshadows elements of Henry V and many other of his plays.
    • 3/5
      This is one of Shakespeare's lesser known tragedies but it also became the first in the series that led to Henry V, et al. It is the tale of a king whose kingdom falls apart and who is eventually dethroned, imprisoned, and killed. It had political significance in its time, such that Elizabeth II compared herself to King Richard. For me, it was not an overwhelming work compared to his other plays.