The Henriad

Upon perusing Richard II, I found myself wondering about the historical context of the play. After reading a bit about the play, I found that it was based greatly on a few historical texts of the time, and that it was likely written as a part of a whole; by that I mean that Richard II was written in a series of plays known as The Henriad, containing Henry IV parts 1 and 2, and Henry V. I'm sure many of you already know this fact, so instead of expanding on those details, I'd like to raise a question: is it beneficial to the reader to experience only one of the parts of the whole? Without reading all of them, how can a Shakespeare lover get the entire scope of work in one single text? More to the point, would reading Richard II along with all of the other supposed works included in that series make the single play of Richard II more meaningful?

Another thought that I had, pertaining particularly to history plays, is whether or not the writing of a historical work can properly enlighten a viewer. Throughout the entire play of Richard II, the king displays many behaviors that lead to his being overthrown. However, when looking into the life of Richard before the events of the play, there are many aspects of his ruling that were beneficial to his kingdom. In writing a play about a real historical figure, Shakespeare takes on the responsibility of portraying that person; however he chooses to do that is his decision and thus the responsibility is his burden. When undertaking that task, one must draw material from a source, be it original or otherwise. In this case, Shakespeare used an immense volume that chronicled the history of England, as well as other sources. However, the play is not simple fact. Although it is written based on events, the words used, the nuances, even the character traits had to come from somewhere, and despite the extensive historical records that may have existed, Shakespeare did not get all of his material from those texts. He embellished, for the sake of the story. Therefore, the reader can only draw conclusions based on what they themselves are exposed to--in this case, a play where the characters are not facts and figures, but have personalities. Again, I end in a question. How can a reader distinguish between fact and story, and how great is the bias that we inevitably glean from the works that read?