Funny coincidence i was at a small party of a Uni friend few days ago and he had Henry play in one of those Pelican complete WS paperback. I was thinking about loaning it because i have only read one complete WS play. I was wondering which of his Richard II, different Henry plays was seen as stronger. I find that historical period fascinating and wondering what Shakespeare did with it.
Conn, I'd recommend starting with* the four-play sequence of
Richard II, Henry IV Parts 1 and 2, and
Henry V. You get the story of how Bolingbroke was responsible for the murder of King Richard, and assumed the English throne as Henry IV but was uneasy about his own claim to it. Allies (the Percys) turn against him, and he wishes their young Hotspur was his son rather than Hal; who, however, clears himself of the cloud over him, and becomes King Henry V, victor at Agincourt. The second play in the sequence,
1 Henry IV, gives us one of Shakespeare's greatest comic creations, Falstaff.
Shakespeare wrote the above tetralogy after that of
Henry VI Parts 1-3 and
Richard III. This second (written earlier, but chronologically later) sequence deals with the Wars of the Roses (York and Lancaster) and the villainous Richard Crookback, whose remains were dug up some weeks ago. My present reading of the
Henry VI trilogy will be my first reading of it.
My sense is that E. M. W. Tillyard's
Shakespeare's History Plays is an excellent companion for reading these works, and I think inexpensive paperback copies are easy to get hold of. For more on the background, I'd certainly turn to T. McAlindon's
Shakespeare's Tudor History on
Henry IV.
*If you want to start with just one play, go with
Henry IV Part One.