Richard III

Wars of the Roses #8

by William Shakespeare, Stephen Orgel (Series Editor), A.R. Braunmuller (Series Editor)

"I feel that I have spent half my career with one or another Pelican Shakespeare in my back pocket. Convenience, however, is the least important aspect of the new Pelican Shakespeare series. Here is an elegant and clear text for either the study or the rehearsal room, notes where you need them and the distinguished scholarship of the general editors, Stephen Orgel and A. R. Braunmuller who understand that these are plays for performance as well as great texts for contemplation." (Patrick Stewart)The distinguished Pelican Shakespeare series, which has sold more than four million copies, is now completely revised and repackaged.

Each volume features:
* Authoritative, reliable texts
* High quality introductions and notes
* New, more readable trade trim size
* An essay on the theatrical world of Shakespeare and essays on Shakespeare's life and the selection of texts

Genres: Classics, Plays, Shakespeare, Drama, Fiction, Historical Fiction, Theatre

158 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1593

About the author

William Shakespeare was an English playwright, poet, and actor. He is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist. He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon" (or simply "the Bard"). His extant works, including collaborations, consist of some 39 plays, 154 sonnets, three long narrative poems, and a few other verses, some of uncertain authorship. His plays have been translated into every major living language and are performed more often than those of any other playwright. Shakespeare remains arguably the most influential writer in the English language, and his works continue to be studied and reinterpreted.
Shakespeare was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire. At the age of 18, he married Anne Hathaway, with whom he had three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith. Sometime between 1585 and 1592, he began a successful career in London as an actor, writer, and part-owner ("sharer") of a playing company called the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later known as the King's Men after the ascension of King James VI and I of Scotland to the English throne. At age 49 (around 1613), he appears to have retired to Stratford, where he died three years later. Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive; this has stimulated considerable speculation about such matters as his physical appearance, his sexuality, his religious beliefs, and even certain fringe theories as to whether the works attributed to him were written by others.
Shakespeare produced most of his known works between 1589 and 1613. His early plays were primarily comedies and histories and are regarded as some of the best works produced in these genres. He then wrote mainly tragedies until 1608, among them Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth, all considered to be among the finest works in the English language. In the last phase of his life, he wrote tragicomedies (also known as romances) and collaborated with other playwrights.
Many of Shakespeare's plays were published in editions of varying quality and accuracy during his lifetime. However, in 1623, John Heminge and Henry Condell, two fellow actors and friends of Shakespeare's, published a more definitive text known as the First Folio, a posthumous collected edition of Shakespeare's dramatic works that includes 36 of his plays. Its Preface was a prescient poem by Ben Jonson, a former rival of Shakespeare, that hailed Shakespeare with the now famous epithet: "not of an age, but for all time".

Reviews

[Emma · Rating 4 out of 5]

Anne
And thou unfit for any place but hell.
Richard
Yes, one place else, if you will hear me name it.
Anne
Some dungeon.
Richard
Your bedchamber.

!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bill Kerwin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I remembered this play as being nothing more than a superb melodrama organized around a charismatic, one-dimensional villain, but I now realize it is more complex than that.

Richard's deformity is not merely a physical sign of spiritual evil, but also a metaphor for the twisted era of internecine and intra-generational violence of which he himself is the inevitable conclusion. Richard claims that his disability disqualifies him for a peaceful age's love-making, but his effective wooing of Lady Anne--literally over her husband's dead body--belies this claim. No, Richard, who from infancy has known nothing but civil war and betrayal, can only be effective when he is either murdering his Plantagenet relatives or plotting to do so. (Thus, when he finally becomes king, he can neither enjoy the honor nor rise to the challenge, and therefore is soon plagued with nightmares and consigned to destruction.)

Richard fancies himself as the medieval Vice, commenting sardonically to the audience on the action he has devised, heedless of the fact that he is also part of a universal moral design. Richard, who embodies in concentrated form the worst deeds of his time, must be purged so that a new age can be established.

It is here that the women of the play become important, transforming it into Senecan if not Sophoclean tragedy. In periodic choruses, the queens Margaret, Elizabeth and Anne (plus the Duchess of York) mourn their children and others who have been snatched from them by civil war, and call down vengeance on Richard and other murderers. The interesting thing about this chorus, however, is that it is not composed of unified expressions of grief and vengeance, for the woman continually curse and blame each other, each proclaiming her own sorrow as somehow superior to that of the others. Ironically, the age's long history of crimes against mothers deprives even maternal grief of its unity.

I believe this is Shakespeare's first self-conscious attempt to create tragedy--in the classical sense--out of popular drama. The conception of the women's chorus--both a traditional tragic chorus and at the same time something more personal, more ironic--is particularly impressive in this regard. Unfortunately, however, Shakespeare overreached himself. In execution, the chorus of queens is often whiny and wearying, and slows down the action without illuminating it. Nevertheless, it is a great step toward the tragic resonances of the major plays.

[Leonard Gaya · Rating 5 out of 5]

Shakespeare wrote two titanic tetralogies at the start of his career, spanning through the dynasties of 15th-century kings of England, from Edward III down to Henry VII. The second half of this gigantic saga (Henry VI, Parts 1, 2 and 3 + Richard III) has a general downward and inward movement.

Downward because it illustrates the collapse of a nation into political chaos. While Henry V was the apotheosis of a heroic king sent from heaven, all of Henry VI was a slow descent, and finally Richard III, the cursed king, last of the Plantagenets, is like a monster out of hell. In a way, it is urgent to re-read these plays today. They are like a cautionary tale, in a time when a general lack of purpose and justice would have us agree to let an impostor with despotic ambitions access political power.

Inward because it gradually shrinks down, from the width of two nations (England and France) under one king, down to one country (England alone), down again to two houses (Lancaster and Plantagenet), down still to one house (York), and now down to one single individual: Richard, the dog. As a result, while Henry V was an epic play spanning across Europe, Richard III feels like a constrained nightmare, an introspection into a deranged, sadistic mind. The periodic monologues addressed to the public actively contribute to this effect. The other characters are only there to be abused or killed. The people Richard rules over barely exists anymore, except for a couple of cutthroats and some gullible worthies. His kingdom even is worth less than a horse when his death draws near.

The tone in this play is quite different from the rest of Shakespeare’s “Histories”: very dark and with almost no comic relief throughout its four hours running time. Richard is evil in a fantastic, insane way. He is truly one of a kind, or as he says “I am myself alone” (HVI, V, 7, 83). From the beginning, cursed with a wretched body (a sort of “Hunchback of Westminster Abbey”), he vows to “prove a villain” (I, 1, 30) and become the king. There is only a dim spark of hope at the very end, the eve of the battle of Bosworth, when he meets the spectres of his victims, who urge him to “despair and die” (V, 3, 121 sqq.), and he finally admits “I fear, I fear” (V, 3, 215). Shakespeare’s tour de force in this play is to have probably one of the worst unredeemable supervillains in literary history be the protagonist of one of his longest — and possibly best — plays. So much for the convention to have a “likeable” hero. However, it is quite clear that Shakespeare’s Richard is a fabricated, excessive, almost mythical version of the eponymous king — possibly, by contrast, to show Henry Tudor (the grandfather of Elizabeth I, Shakespeare’s patroness) in the best possible light.

Never again did Shakespeare give the prominent role to such a shocking psychopath: Iago (Othello) and Edmund (King Lear) are supporting characters. Even Macbeth — for which Richard III is a sort of first draft — is, in a way more humane, sensible, torn inside by guilt and a sense of vanity. Richard is just a bloc of abyss. (Next to him, George R.R. Martin’s Joffrey Baratheon is just a punchable whippersnapper.)

Edit: Just watched the last part of The Hollow Crown TV series, which is an adaptation of Shakespeare's play. The reshaping of the text and plot is very cleverly done and brings more sense and clarity to the material. The film is also visually stunning. But the cast is what really stands out, especially Benedict Cumberbatch, who plays a particularly intense Richard. The four women, Judi Dench (Cecily), Sophie Okonedo (Margaret), Keeley Hawes (Elizabeth) and Phoebe Fox (Anne) are all amazing.

In a way, Al Pacino’s part in The Godfather or Kevin Spacey’s in House of Cards are distant descendents of Richard III.

> Previous play in The War of the Roses: King Henry VI, Part 3

[Henry Avila · Rating 5 out of 5]

A hero, in his own mind or a historical villain? King Richard the Third , grew up in the turbulent years of the War of the Roses, 1455-1485, the English crown fought between the House of York, symbolized by the White Rose, and the House of Lancaster, the Red Rose, Sovereigns on the throne, vanish rapidly, ironically, two branches of the same Plantagenet family. Richard's brother Edward IV, at 6 foot four inches, the tallest British monarch in history, is dying, over indulgences, so much food and drink, the warrior king has become very fat, I mean obese. His two sons, Edward and Richard, are too young to rule, with the demise of their father, Uncle Richard, the Duke of Gloucester, places the young , trusting princes, his nephews, in the legendary Tower of London, part castle and the other a prison, Queen Elizabeth, the mother, Edward the fourth's wife, flees to a sanctuary with her two remaining daughters. They the little princes, disappear without a trace from sight, a mystery that has never been solved. Wild rumors spread that they were executed, by the rather ambitious man. Through less than ethical maneuvering, ( treacherous, some say ) with the help of the greedy Duke of Buckingham , takes the throne, many rivals fall, Buckingham too, including even disloyal brother Clarence, the last one, he has, and the blood spills freely, but a new king is crowned, Richard 111, long live the king... Queen Anne dies, the new monarch's wife, he then wants to marry young Elizabeth, his brother Edward IV's, daughter... Uneasy lies the man on the throne, a new threat emerges from exile in France, the Earl of Richmond's navy, lands in England, his marching army sets off to challenge Richard, the Battle of Bosworth Field , will decide who becomes master of the unstable nation. But the eyes of the dead, will no longer see the beautiful blue skies above, the green grass under their feet, the sweet smelling roses, both white and red, growing on the land, the soothing sounds of water, as it goes over rocks, in a small brook, the singing of the happy birds, to each other, on a tree, the gentle winds touching the gentlemen's faces, the magic of the rainbow colors, after a refreshing rain, the warm Sun, drying the pastures ... The caressing and kisses , of loved ones, the untroubled, shouting children, playing outside ... riding a horse over a hill , looking at the gorgeous sunset, as it dips below the horizon, pets who are always glad to see you, without any reservations, the taste of newly baked bread, the wonder of the moon shining down, on them, as they walk under the rays, trying to guess, what it really is, the steep, powerful sea waves rushing the shore, bringing unknown objects and quickly going back... no the winners or losers, that can not rise again, will miss all these things.... as their lives ebb slowly, into nothingness ...

[Barry Pierce · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ah good old Dick III. Killing yer husbands, killing yer children. An all-round family guy.

[G.R. Reader · Rating 5 out of 5]

I played Anne in my school's production of Richard III when I was 15. In the seduction scene from Act 1, the guy playing Richard, who was a complete asshole, decided to put his hand on my left breast somewhere towards the end. I turned round and punched him in the face, knocking out one of his teeth.

They had to end the play there and then and I got expelled, but it was worth it.

[Sean Barrs · Rating 3 out of 5]

"A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!

Poor old Richard. I think you needed more than that horse to save your kingdom…..

[Sawsan · Rating 4 out of 5]

مسرحية تاريخية عن وصول ريتشارد الثالث لعرش انجلترا
ريتشارد الثالث يُجيد لعبة الشر والخداع, يلعبها بقوة وتمكُن
يقتل بدم بارد ويحتال ويدبر المكائد لتحقيق رغباته
للوصول للحكم الذي استمر لمدة عامين فقط
لم يهتم بالعداوات واللعنات لكنه لم يسلم منها في النهاية
المسرحية تتناول الإنسان بين الخير والشر
الغاية التي تبرر كل الوسائل للوصول إليها
أجاد شكسبير في تصوير طبائع البشر المختلفة والدوافع التي تحكم الأفعال
وأبدع في الحوار الخاص بريتشارد بين تمويه الأحاديث بحسب غرضه منها
وبين الحقيقة التي لا يذكرها إلا في أثناء مناجاته لنفسه

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

4 out of 5 stars to William Shakespeare's famous play, Richard III, one of his "War of the Roses" tragedies produced in the 16th century in England. People have generally heard of this King, and know more about him than they realize, but he is not one of the more famously read plays in high school or college, falling behind the more popular comedies and tragedies of Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, Hamlet, Othello, King Lear and A Mid-Summer Night's Dream.

Why This Book
Although I read this play in high school, I had a more in depth read in a Shakespeare course where we compared each play to a painting (of our choosing) and a TV or Film adaption (instructor choice). We watched the 1995 film version starring Ian McKellen, Annette Bening, Kristin Scott Thomas, Maggie Smith and Robert Downey, Jr., a modern re-appropriation of the film using themes from the play and fairly current politics.



Overview of Story
Richard III wants to be king, but he's third in line behind his brothers. He's also angry over a physical deformity, carrying a rather huge chip on his shoulder. He goes on a small killing spree, then forces one of the widows into marrying him. He has his brother (the king) executed and makes it look like his other brother committed the crime. All that stands in his way are his 2 young nephews, and while Richard is ruling the country until his nephew is older, it's just not enough for him. He manipulates others into asking for him to become the permanent king, and then secretly locks the princes in a tower or kills them. The world may never know. Over a short period of time, he becomes mocked and disliked, as the people know he is a horrible man. When his wife is no longer valuable to him, he has her killed and attempts to marry the daughter of the former Queen (young enough to be his granddaughter supposedly), to strengthen his claim to the throne. The battle begins for the throne, and Richard has a dream he will die. The next day, he is killed by his rival, who then marries the daughter of the former Queen and becomes the new King.



Approach & Style
1. It's written in the late 16th century, so some of the language requires some interpretation.
2. It was a play, so not a typical book read with a specific point of view.
3. It's based on reality; most of the plot actually happened to the kings and queens of that time.



Strengths
Shakespeare knew how to write. His language was beautiful. His words created vibrant and memorable images. He included themes and motifs across the scenes. He took as much from reality as he could, interjecting only enough balance of humor to offend some, but not those who would imprison him.

The story is simply fantastic. So many things people talk about today come from Richard III, including a few lines from this play. "My Kingdom for a horse" is a very famous line. Most everyone who knows a thing or two about British kings and queens are familiar with the young boys imprisoned in the tower. And when Richard III's body was dug up in 2012 in a parking lot in Leicester, the world waited to find out if it was actually him or just some other skeleton. (It WAS him).



Brothers fighting brothers. Power-hungry man with either a hunchback, curled hand or limp leg -- many different versions / interpretations. It's a bloody story, but helps teach a lot of history to kids in school.



Open Questions & Concerns
For one thing, it's Shakespeare, so there's little wrong with it. But it's not for everyone. And not an easy read.



Questions and concerns are more about:

1. Did Shakespeare really write it, or was it a ghost writer?
2. Did Richard III really kill the boys, or did they die somehow else?
3. What was his deformity?
4. Was he really all that bad, or did Shakespeare mock him and for 450 years, we've all played a game of telephone. (If you don't know that one, email me)
5. Which TV or Film was the best adaption? You must see the one I noted above. It's brilliant. A masterpiece in acting, plot re-creation and scenery.



Final Thoughts
If you're going to read it, invest the time in reading all the plays tied together for the War of Roses. Get to know the characters, look up their realities, understand their relationships, and jump in with eyes wide open. Don't just read it because it sounds like a good story. There's more to it, and you won't enjoy the style of the play without having the affinity for 450 year old words and a love of British royalty.



About Me
For those new to me or my reviews... here's the scoop: I read A LOT. I write A LOT. And now I blog A LOT. First the book review goes on Goodreads, and then I send it on over to my WordPress blog at https://thisismytruthnow.com, where you'll also find TV & Film reviews, the revealing and introspective 365 Daily Challenge and lots of blogging about places I've visited all over the world. And you can find all my social media profiles to get the details on the who/what/when/where and my pictures. Leave a comment and let me know what you think. Vote in the poll and ratings. Thanks for stopping by.

[Lyn · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that lour'd upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.”

A powerful study of evil.

Richard, though, is made to be more complex than the medieval personification of Vice, more human and thus, more terrible.

“No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.”

[Michael Finocchiaro · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was an exceptionally amazing play. Richard III is a bad guy on par with Iago from Othello and DC's Joker. He is brilliant and absolutely, totally ruthless. The play is action-packed and such a fitting fantastic end to the long series of plays that started way back with Edward III.

The play is so well-structured and the character of Richard III so evil that this makes for an incredibly intense and enjoyable read. We see Richard seize the throne in a moment of chaos (mostly fomented by him) and then lose everything when he dies at Boswell.

I thought that the BBC Hollow Crown S02E03 version with Benedict Cumberbatch as Richard was truly excellent. I also watched the classic 1955 Laurence Olivier version which feels dated but is still worth it in particular for the opening soliloquy, "In the winter of our discontent" which is sublime. I am also enamored with Ian McKellan's fascistic Richard III from 1995. The wooing of the widow in this one was so evil. So much material here, I think there is still a good case to make that Richard III is one of the most evil literary characters ever created.

Fino's Reviews of Shakespeare and Shakespearean Criticism
Comedies
The Comedy of Errors (1592-1593
The Taming of the Shrew (1593-1594)
The Two Gentlemen of Verona (1594-1595)
Love's Labour's Lost (1594-1595)
A Midsummer Night's Dream (1595-1596)
The Merchant of Venice (1596-1597)
Much Ado About Nothing (1598-1599)
As You Like It (1599-1600)
Twelfth Night (1599-1600)
The Merry Wives of Windsor (1600-1601)
All's Well That Ends Well (1602-1603)
Measure for Measure (1604-1605)
Cymbeline (1609-1610)
A Winter's Tale (1610-1611)
The Tempest (1611-1612)
Two Noble Kinsmen (1612-1613)

Histories
Henry VI Part I (1589-1590)
Henry VI Part II (1590-1591)
Henry VI Part III (1590-1591)
Richard III (1593-1594)
Richard II (1595-1596)
King John (1596-1597)
Edward III (1596-1597)
Henry IV Part I (1597-1598)
Henry IV Part II (1597-1598)
Henry V (1598-1599)
Henry VIII (1612-1612)

Tragedies
Titus Andronicus (1592-1593)
Romeo and Juliet (1594-1595)
Julius Caesar (1599-1600)
Hamlet (1600-1601)
Troilus and Cressida (1601-1602)
Othello (1604-1605)
King Lear (1605-1606)
Macbeth (1605-1606)
Anthony and Cleopatra (1606-1607)
Coriolanus (1607-1608)
Timon of Athens (1607-1608)
Pericles (1608-1609)

Shakespearean Criticism
The Wheel of Fire by Wilson Knight
A Natural Perspective by Northrop Frye
Shakespeare After All by Marjorie Garber
Shakespeare's Roman Plays and Their Background by M W MacCallum
Shakespearean Criticism 1919-1935 compiled by Anne Ridler
Shakespearean Tragedy by A.C. Bradley
Shakespeare's Sexual Comedy by Hugh M. Richmond
Shakespeare: The Comedies by R.P. Draper
Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics by Stephen Greenblatt
1599: A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare by James Shapiro

Collections of Shakespeare
Venus and Adonis, the Rape of Lucrece and Other Poems
Shakespeare's Sonnets and a Lover's Complaint
The Complete Oxford Shakespeare

[Paul Bryant · Rating 4 out of 5]

Here is an excellent and fun archaelogical story. They just found Richard III. He was under a municipal car park. People had been parking their Renault Clios and Ford Fiestas on top of him for years.
Now, we last saw Richard being killed in Shakespeare at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485 :

SCENE V. Another part of the field.
Alarum. Enter KING RICHARD III and RICHMOND; they fight. KING RICHARD III is slain.

After that, allegedly, the body was dragged into Leicester (25 miles south of Nottingham), hung up for the amusement of passers-by for a few days, then buried in the choir of Greyfriars Abbey. 51 years later, the abbey was destroyed by Henry VIII. Richard's grave vanished. No one gave a monkey's about it. They couldn't care less. People forgot where the Greyfriars Abbey even was. They mystery of the King's whereabouts remained – until today!

Enter stage left PHILIPPA LANGLEY, member of the Richard III Society and archaeologist at Leicester University.



She was the one who got a bee in her bonnet about it. She identified the car park as the area where the choir used to be. She did the convincing. Last August they started digging, this was all funded by the harmless cranks of the Richard III Society.




A couple of weeks later they had uncovered the foundations of the abbey and two human skeletons, one of which was complete. The skull showed a major head wound. The spine was crooked. There was an arrowhead in the spine.

DNA tests were done, radio carbon tests were done, and today they announced it's him.








Give me a bowl of wine:
I have not that alacrity of spirit,
Nor cheer of mind, that I was wont to have.

Act V scene ii.

[E. G. · Rating 5 out of 5]

General Introduction
The Chronology of Shakespeare's Works
Introduction, by Michael Taylor
The Play in Performance
Further Reading

--The Tragedy of King Richard the Third

An Account of the Text
Genealogical Tables
Commentary

[Darwin8u · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Bloody thou art, bloody will be thy end;
Shame serves thy life and doth thy death attend.”
― William Shakespeare, Richard III, Act IV.4



Shakespeare's first Masterpiece. I find it hard to not think of this as the beginning of Shakespeare's real reign. His characters are amazing. His images are haunting. His monologues are beautiful. Yes, certainly I still think his best is yet to come, but if he died only producing this, we would still sing his name for the next 1000 years. King Richard is a beast, but one you can't take your eyes off of. Many of Shakespeare's best characters are fools and murderers. I also think this is the play where William Shakespeare has grown up and thrown off many of this earlier, more childish crutches. Most of the action in this play takes place off stage. We are left transfixed not by swords and blood, but by sharper and scarier things -- words and mother's curses.

There were also several nice lines, specifically:

- “Now is the winter of our discontent.”
- “Dispute not with her: she is lunatic.”
- "All springs reduces their currents to mine eyes,
That I, being governed by the watery moon,
May send forth plenteous tears to drown the World."
- “So wise so young, they say, do never live long.”
- “Shine out fair sun, till I have bought a glass,
That I may see my shadow as I pass.”
- "Come, lead me to the block; bear him my head.
They smile at me who shortly shall be dead."
- "Be the attorney of my love to her:
Plead what I will be, not what I have been -"
- “I have set my life upon a cast,
And I will stand the hazard of the die.”

I could go on and on, for there are multitudes.

[Bradley · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm nearly speechless.

I'm certain that most of my inability to form words is because I read so much history, even a few days ago, about the War of the Roses, and then, having plowed through Shakespeare's line of kings from Richard II through Richard III, having history be retold in oft-pleasing shape (inaccuracies aside), the whole shape of that history has built up into such a crescendo of howling misery in my mind that I can't except get horribly emotional about all the players in these plays.

I can't recommend total immersion enough. Truly. This is the only way to do the histories.

When I first read them, I missed so much because names and houses really didn't *mean* that much except where Shakespeare could draw them out warmly on the stage, and then when I first read Richard III I was just shocked by how damn evil and machiavellian he was, not because I really cared a whit about the people.

But now? After getting to know the history of the time AND even setting every play upon the next, giving me an unbroken line of successions, strifes, sources of woes, and, finally, a final scene of such resolution and utter endless horror, with Margaret laughing insanely atop a mountain of corpses?

Speechless. Absolutely and utterly speechless.

And I loved her from the start, too. I was amazed at how strong she became, how she took over the kingdom from her pansy husband, how warlike and valorous in battle in part 3, and then, the skulking prophetess of curses, curses, and curses in Richard III... just... WOW.

And I thought I was knocked flat on my back with Richard's performance and setup for his o'erweaning ambition and bloody nightmare that had become his "performance" in his titular play! Indeed, he was brilliant and amazing, too, but it is Margaret that brought me to tears.

I always knew that this one was one was one of the most beloved of Shakespeare's histories and so much quoted, too, but I wasn't blown away by it the first time I read it. I enjoyed it, yes, but I cannot stress just how completely amazing it is as a capstone to the War of the Roses.

Hell, those Henry the VI's that are somewhat or actually very weak in comparison, having been written before Shakespeare's powers of writing were really in full bloom, now feel as if they're required reading for me. Weak, yes, but so necessary for the full bloom of horror and tragedy that finally snuffs out the lines of both York and Lancaster.

One thing that readers might really enjoy is all the nearly-formed themes and ideas that become some of the most memorable features of so many of his other works, all put into the single basket of VI, not quite ripe yet, but sitting like a cutpurse at the crossroads. :) Anyone who loves Shakespeare really should do themselves the great justice of going through all the histories in a row. :)

I will never forget this. :)

Think about your favorite epic fantasy, all the effort you put into getting to know all the characters and their cares, and turn it into a long-drawn-out Hamlet-like affair, and weep. That's what this is, filled with poetry, brilliant conflict, and fearless manipulation of us dear readers. :) And that's just his weaker works...

Richard III is *not* a weak work. It is the knife in your back. :)

[Rachel · Rating 4 out of 5]

GUESS WHAT I’VE FINALLY READ THE COMPLETE WORKS OF WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE

[Theo Logos · Rating 5 out of 5]

With Richard III, Shakespeare created a monumental villain, and with him his first great play. Richard is a glorious psychopath, a pure antihero, and the throbbing heart of the play. He would be cartoonish but for Shakespeare’s soaring language on his tongue and for the gleeful relish with which he contemplates his deceptions, schemes, and murders. He is the greatest, great granddaddy of all modern antiheroes, from House of Cards’ Frank Underwood to Family Guy’s Stewie.

Richard owns this play. He strides alone onto the stage, opening the action by breaking the fourth wall, speaking his powerful, famous monologue directly to the audience. Here he lays bare his wicked intent, his cunning plans. He makes the audience his unwitting accomplices. Again and again, he tells us his planned deceptions, we watch his execution of them, then he turns to us again to gloat at his own cunning —

”And thus I clothe my naked villany
With old odd ends stolen out of holy
writ;
And seem a saint, when most I play the
devil.”

Though this play is thick with murders and violence, most of the bloodletting (before the final battle) happens off stage. Instead, Shakespeare presents us with a war of words, language used to fence, wheedle, bludgeon, words converted to weapons. Richard is the primary combatant in this war that many others don’t even understand is happening until too late, but the sorrowing women of the play give as good as they get. Dowager Queen Margaret, in particular, is mighty in her words as she enters the arena against Richard, swapping insults and turning her words into powerful curses —

Queen Margaret: ”Hear me, You wrangling pirates”

Richard: ”Foul wrinkled witch, what makes thou in my sight?”
“Have done thy charm, thou hateful, withered hag!”

Queen Margaret: ”Thou elvish-mark’d, abortive, rooting hog!
Thou that wast seal’d in thy nativity
The slave of nature and the son of hell!
Thou slander of thy mother’s heavy
womb!
Thou loathed issue of thy father’s loins!”

Shakespeare proved himself wise in the ways of statecraft. His creation of Richard as unredeemable villain was itself an act of historical propaganda — a gift to his patroness, Queen Elizabeth, to blacken the name of the king her grandfather usurped. But within the play itself he displayed a keen knowledge of deceit and bullying in cajoling toadies and cronies, sycophants and even untrusting enemies into doing one’s will. He understands well the utter lack of conscience of such tyrants, as displayed in Richard’s words:

”Conscience is but a word that cowards
use,
Devised at first to keep the strong in
awe”

His play proves timeless, as these lessons in tyranny prove to be as current as yesterday’s newspapers. One line in particular, advice from Buckingham to Richard on how to pose to gain advantage toward the throne vividly recalled a modern tyrant’s photo op by a Washington church:

”And look you get a prayer-book in your
hand,
And stand betwixt two churchmen”

One final note: The Arkangel Shakespeare Collection’s audiobook of this play is an outstanding production. It’s a great way to experience this powerful play.

[Brian · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Bloody thou art, bloody will be thy end”

"Richard III" boasts one of Shakespeare's most gleeful and charismatic creations in the character of the deformed Duke of Gloucester. The greatest success of this long play is the interaction between the reader/viewer and the title character. Richard is a horrid human being, but we are reading or watching the play because we are entranced by him and his villainy. It is a sobering thought, one that should horrify us, but we can't help ourselves. We are drawn to the bastard! I imagine Shakespeare loved his version of Richard because he endows him with such gleeful wit and debauched enjoyment in creating pain for others, that you are seduced by this worst of human beings. It almost borders on melodrama, but it never quite sinks to that level. The role of Richard III is Shakespeare's second longest, after Hamlet, and yet Richard is very rarely dull. Reading Act III where he and his henchman the Duke of Buckingham manipulate other into supporting Richard's claim to the crown will bring a rueful smile to your face.
I also enjoy the trio of queens in the play: Margaret the Lancastrian widow of Henry VI (who Richard killed), the Duchess of York (Richard's mom), and his brother's widow Queen Elizabeth. All three hate Richard with an intense passion, and all have blistering scenes of rage towards Richard at various times in the text. Detracting from the play is that these scenes and curses do get redundant, but there is no denying the ferocity and bile Shakespeare gave these women, and in the hands of talented actresses they would be a joy to watch.
Many academics criticize "Richard III", for various reasons. I find most of them foolish. This play is not meant to be a historical recreation of the actual events (it isn't) nor is it some great lofty text. It is a glimpse into evil and ambition. Really it is just a more modern version of a morality play. Richard represents Vice and Ambition, and like most who let those traits govern their lives, he suffers the consequences.
The new RSC Modern Library editions of the plays of Shakespeare are a quality trade paperback edition of the works of the Bard. “Richard III” contains an Introduction by Jonathan Bate. It has a nice focus on Ricard as an influence on the work of Marlowe, and also as an actor, creating his own role.
This edition includes an essay on the performance history of the piece, and interviews with a director and designer as well as an interview with actor Simon Russell Beale who gives some awesome perspective and insight into the character of Richard.
The Modern Library edition also includes a scene-by-scene analysis, which can help point out an image or symbol you might have missed. The edition also includes a nice “Further Readings” list specifically for this play.
Frankly, all of the extra essays allow you to dive into the world of the play, and it is all included in one text.
The RSC Modern Library editions are a good addition to the editions of Shakespeare out there.

[Simona B · Rating 3 out of 5]

I had to wait until the second-to-last page to hear him say "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!"
Not fair, Willy.

I will probably write something coherent sooner or later. For the time being, suffice it to say that it's clearly not a Hamlet.

The day after

I'm always like this. When I don't know what to write about something I read, I go all "Hey, girl, do not despair. You'll think of something. You have all this profound blabber inside your head and you just have to find a not too embarassing way to put it down. You can do that."
Surprise surprise! Turns out I can't.

It's Shakespeare. Aestehtically speaking, when you read it aloud it tastes like your favorite food. Emotionally speaking, you itch to kick Richard in the gut, you want the Duchess, Margaret and Elizabeth to quit arguing about which of them is more entitled to cry their guts out (so you can kick them too -ew), you roll your eyes when Richmond comes up with that final celebratory speech of his.
It's Shakespeare. It's good.
It's just not the best.

"What do I fear? Myself? There’s none else by.
Richard loves Richard; that is, I and I."

PS. I already knew, but I was overjoyed nonetheless when I came across the lines "Now is the winter of our discontent" (it's the incipit; you can't miss it) and "Tomorrow in the battle think on me" (act V, scene 3), because those are the lines from which two authors I hold dear took the titles of two of their novels, which I recommend. So, people, please go read The Winter of Our Discontent by John Steinbeck God of Everything, and Mañana en la batalla piensa en mí ( Tomorrow in the Battle Think on Me ) by Javier Marías. You can thank me later.

(And that's how Simona transformed her Richard III review in a new episode of "What You Should Read Next". Fabulous.)

[Manny · Rating 5 out of 5]

Richard is ugly, and the girls aren't interested. This really sours his attitude. He decides to plunge the country into another ruinous civil war; that'll show the bitches.

But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
I, that am rudely stamp'd, and want love's majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
I, that am curtail'd of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinish'd, sent before my time
Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them;
Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my shadow in the sun
And descant on mine own deformity:
And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days.
Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous,
By drunken prophecies, libels and dreams,
To set my brother Clarence and the king
In deadly hate the one against the other

Interestingly, once Richard has gained some serious political clout, he becomes a lot more attractive. Anne is fascinated, despite the fact that she has publicly cursed him and any woman stupid enough to fall for him. She ends up marrying the person she hates most in the whole world, and, as she bitterly says, her own curse is turned against her.

It would be nice to think Shakespeare was making it all up. In Fischer's Nazi Germany, I read that, as far as historians know, Hitler had sexual relationships with seven women during the course of his life. Every single one of them either committed suicide, or unsuccessfully tried to do so. Hitler wasn't exactly a looker either, though, as Diana Mosley never tired of pointing out, he was a very charming man.

[Sepehr · Rating 5 out of 5]

تاج شاهی بر سر گراز :

ریچارد سوم، برادرِ شاه، که نشان‌‌ش گراز است، قصد به چنگ آوردن تخت پادشاهی را دارد. شکسپیر این واقعه تاریخی که بخشی از جنگ مشهور گل‌ها در تاریخ بریتانیا است را می‌گیرد و با نثرش آن را در تاریخ ادبیات جاودان می‌کند. ریچارد سوم، شهرت اتللو، هملت، مکبث و شاه لیر را ندارد و از کارهای اولیه‌ی اوست منتها در تگ‌گویی بی‌نظیر است و از این جنبه که مبتنی بر وقایعی حقیقی است، ارزش بالایی دارد. دیگر شکی نیست که «خیانت»، کلمه‌ی کلیدی دنیای شکسپیر است، همان چیزی که نمایشنامه ‌های عظیمش را بر مبنای آن بنیان نهاده است. خواندن شکسپیر برای من یعنی دو چیز: تماشای تَرَک‌های آدمی و حیرت از قدرت کلمات عالیجناب انگلیسی.

شکسپیرِ فارسی‌نویس:

حتی اگر این کار، زیر سایه‌ی دیگر آثار شکسپیر باشد، با این همه من مو به تنم سیخ شد و با دیالوگ‌هایش نفسم در سینه حبس. اگر قرار بود جمله‌ی ماندگاری از آن مینوشتم، باید تمام کتاب را دوباره بازنویسی می‌کردم. تمامی این حس را مدیون ترجمه‌ی درخشان استاد کوثری هستم. هیچ ترجمه‌ای از شکسپیر تاکنون، انقدر وفادار و همه‌چی تمام نبوده که ریچارد سوم بود. امید که استاد کماکان با ترجمه‌هایشان، هواداران ادبیات جدی را مستفیض کنند.


در نهایت :

چپاندن این واقعه تاریخی، در این تعداد صفحه، کمی شتابزده می‌نماید ولی فکر نمی‌کنم این دغدغه اصلی شکسپیر باشد. شروع ریچارد سوم، یکی از مهم‌ترین و غنی‌ترین تک گویی‌های شکسپیر است :

حالیا زمستان ناخشنودی ما
در پرتو این خورشید یورک به تابستانی بشکوه بدل شده‌ست.
و ابرهای تیره غران فراز سر خاندان ما
به ژرفای اقیانوس فرورفته‌اند.
و حربه‌های فرسوده‌مان به یادگار به دیوار آويخته.

فراز و فرود‌های متن و کیفیت نثر شکسپیر حداقل از دید من، برای حظ تمام و کمال از ادبیات کافی‌‌ست حتی اگر با معیار امروزمان کمی بلنگد.

بهمن هزار و چهارصد

[Paul Haspel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Richard the Third, in real life, may not have been quite so bad a fellow as William Shakespeare makes him out to be. The Yorkist Plantagenet king who ruled over England from 1483 to 1485 seems to have been a hard-working monarch and a capable administrator; indeed, some historians of his time praised him as a compassionate monarch with a concern for the problems of ordinary people throughout his realm. But Shakespeare had his own reasons for maligning Richard’s character; and in the process of doing so, Shakespeare wrote the very first of his truly great plays.

The Tragedy of Richard the Third (the play’s official title) draws its power from the sheer gusto with which Shakespeare sets forth this study in villainy for its own sake. As the man who deposed and killed Richard III was the future King Henry VII – founder of the Tudor dynasty, and grandfather of Queen Elizabeth I, the English monarch of Shakespeare’s time – Shakespeare knew that a play that presented Richard as a villain and his Tudor nemesis as a hero would be warmly received, both in England’s royal court and among the ordinary people of the realm.

“Yea, verily, our Will doth surely know
The side on which his bread is butteréd.”

Part of what makes Richard the Third a great play is that Richard’s villainy is at once so over-the-top and so believable. His motivation is clear – he wants absolute power, to rule as King of England – and therefore he will do whatever he finds necessary to achieve that goal. How many people like that are currently walking the proverbial corridors of power, in London and Washington and every other capital?

Richard makes the audience complicit in his wicked plans, regularly revealing his intentions through asides shared with the playgoer or reader. As the play begins, for example, he considers the accession to power of his brother, the newly crowned King Edward IV, and ironically reflects that “Now is the winter of our discontent/Made glorious summer by this sun of York”, adding that he intends to set King Edward and their other brother Clarence “In deadly hate the one against the other”.

Richard, in Shakespeare’s portrayal, has physical deformities that reinforce his twisted moral nature (though portraits of Richard painted during his lifetime de-emphasize said disabilities). Consequently, in a manner that looks forward to the way Milton’s Satan says “Evil, be thou my good,” Richard declares that “since I cannot prove a lover…I am determined to prove a villain”.

Ironic that Richard says that he “cannot prove a lover”, as he is amazingly successful in courtship on one memorable occasion. In Act I, scene ii, he confronts Lady Anne Woodville, who is accompanying the corpse of her father King Henry VI; Richard has killed not only King Henry but also Lady Anne’s husband, Prince Edward. Yet Richard manages to convince Lady Anne that he killed her husband and father for love of her; and Lady Anne, initially disposed to spit upon Richard, is eventually moved to consent to marry him. Richard exults in his improbable amatory success – “Was ever woman in this humour wooed?/Was ever woman in this humour won?” – and mockingly speaks of himself as if he has become a gallant ladies’ man: “I’ll be at charges for a looking glass/And entertain a score or two of tailors”.

Richard the Third does indeed “prove a villain” in many ways – most memorably, for many playgoers and readers, in the way he does away with “the little princes” – the young Edward, Prince of Wales (the new King Edward V by royal succession, though not yet officially crowned), and his brother Richard, Duke of York. Richard Gloucester, in his role as Lord Protector, states that the little princes, for their own protection, need to go into the Tower of London, where their relatives will “meet you at the Tower and welcome you.” The boys are unhappy at this prospect, but feel that they must follow the Lord Protector’s orders; and the young King Edward speaks prophetically of his own impending demise when he says, “I shall not sleep in quiet at the Tower.”

Another of the compelling qualities of Richard the Third is the way in which it shows how those courtiers who played for power in Richard’s Game of Thrones world, but did not play the game as well as Richard, come to learn, albeit too late, how they betrayed themselves through their untrammeled ambition. George, the Duke of Clarence – Richard’s own brother – is soon to be killed by being drowned in a cask of malmsey wine; but just before that, he speaks of a dream he had of dying, going to the world of the dead, and being confronted by the people he killed in his quest for power: “Then came wandering by/A shadow like an angel, with bright hair/Dabbled in blood, and he shrieked out aloud,/‘Clarence is come, false, fleeting, perjured Clarence…’”

Similarly, William Lord Hastings, betrayed by Richard and consigned to execution, laments his choosing to focus on power in this world rather than universal standards of justice and right behaviour: “O momentary grace of mortal men,/Which we more hunt for than the grace of God!/Who builds his hope in air of your good looks/Lives like a drunken sailor on a mast,/Ready with every nod to tumble down/Into the fatal bowels of the deep.”

So what is the catalogue of Richard’s crimes, in Shakespeare’s reckoning? Let’s review:

• He murders Henry VI, the anointed King of England, an act that makes him a regicide;
• He kills Edward of Westminster – Henry VI’s son, the Prince of Wales, and heir to the throne;
• He has his brother George, the Duke of Clarence, killed – an act that re-enacts Cain’s killing of Abel and makes Richard a fratricide;
• He helps induce the premature death of the ailing King Edward IV by causing him to be tormented with guilt over Clarence’s death;
• He has Lord Hastings, Lord Rivers, Lord Grey, and Sir Thomas Vaughan imprisoned and executed;
• He has the young Edward V and his even younger brother the Duke of York imprisoned in the Tower of London and later murdered;
• He kills his wife Lady Anne Woodville by poisoning; and
• He has his erstwhile accomplice, the Duke of Buckingham, executed for betraying him.

No wonder Richard says, at one point, “I am in/So far in blood that sin will pluck on sin.”

Eventually, of course, King Richard III does face the consequences of his crimes. Henry, the Earl of Richmond, mobilizes an army and returns from his French exile to challenge Richard at the Battle of Bosworth Field. Haunted by the ghosts of his many victims, knowing that those who fight for his side do so out of fear and not love, Richard nonetheless displays a grim and single-minded kind of battlefield courage; even as the battle goes against him, he cries out, “A horse! A horse! my kingdom for a horse!”, showing his willingness to fight on to the end. Facing Richmond for a final duel, Richard echoes Julius Caesar’s Alea iacta est (“the die is cast”), stating that “I have set my life upon a cast,/And I will stand the hazard of the die.” He dies in the same bloody and violent way in which he lived, and leaves an unforgettably formidable impression.

King Richard III – both as the historical figure, and as the Shakespearean character – keeps making his way back into the popular imagination. In 1996, a mock trial was held at Indiana University in Bloomington; Richard Gloucester was symbolically brought before the bar on charges of having murdered the little princes. Citing “ambiguity as to when the murders took place”, along with the questionable reliability of “contemporary accounts” that “are not worth much in a trial of this sort…because they are not made with first-hand knowledge; they are a kind of rumor on rumor”, a three-judge panel led by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist found Richard not guilty, stating that the prosecution had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. If Richard did murder the little princes, he evidently maintained a sufficient level of what, nowadays, would be referred to as “plausible deniability.”

And Richard the Third made his way back into the news once again when his skeletal remains, long thought lost, were found beneath a car park in Leicester, on the site of what had once been the Greyfriars Friary Church, in 2012. The skeleton bore traces of scoliosis, a sidewise curvature of the spine – the disability that causes Shakespeare’s Richard to refer to himself as “Deformed, unfinished…scarce half made up”. Scientists from the University of Leicester eventually confirmed through DNA testing that the skeleton was indeed that of Richard III; and once that DNA confirmation had occurred, the king received a ceremonial reburial in Leicester Cathedral.

So how would the real Richard III feel about receiving all that attention – about being remembered as one of the greatest villains in Shakespeare’s oeuvre? My own hunch is that he might be balefully amused by it. Looking at the monarchs who ruled before and after him, I reflect that his predecessor Edward IV, compared with Richard, is little more than the answer to a trivia question; his successor Henry VII, founder of the Tudor line, is largely overshadowed by his more famous successors Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. By contrast, Richard III has what every monarch no doubt wants – he is remembered. Say his name, “Richard the Third,” and you’ll find that it’s a name that everyone knows. “Thus high…is King Richard seated” – among the most infamous and fascinating villains in all of literature, thanks to the genius of William Shakespeare. Perhaps the real King Richard III would approve.

[Ted · Rating 4 out of 5]

Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York,
And all the clouds that lowered upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.


Rating: 3 1/2 for reading, 4+ for seeing.

Richard, Duke of Gloucester. The lead. The future king Richard III.

He that hath here, in the first 41 lines of the play, surely the most revealing opening monologue in any of Shakespeare’s plays.

Further on, Richard declaims

But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
I, that am rudely stamped, and want love’s majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
I, that am curtailed of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinished, sent before my time
Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
And that so lamely an unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them –
Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my shadow in the sun
And descant on mine own deformity.
And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days.
Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous,
By drunken prophesies, libels, and dreams,
To set my brother Clarence and the King
In deadly hate the one against the other.
And if King Edward be as true and just
As I am subtle, false, and treacherous,
This day should Clarence closely be mewed up …

Richard one of the great stage villains

This monster, both physical and moral – a view of the future King Richard III (called Gloucester throughout the play) not invented by Shakespeare. But it was invented! And by whom?

By Sir Thomas More (1478 – 1535), known to Roman Catholics as Saint Thomas More, the English social philosopher, author, and noted Renaissance humanist, the writer of Utopia. More also worked on a History of Richard III for several years, which was published after his death. In this biography More set forth the idea that Richard was “a lame and twisted hunchback whose misshapen body reflects the evil heart within it”, as John Norwich (see Reviewer’s aside below) puts it. From More, it went to Richard Halle’s Chronicle, thence almost verbatim to Holinshed’s Chronicle - from there to Shakespeare, and thence to us, becoming the most enduring legend of any of the English Kings.

The earliest man to gain fame playing Richard was the great English actor Richard Burbage, the star actor of Shakespeare’s theater company. He played the part when the play was introduced at the Globe Theater. (Burbage also played the leads in Hamlet, Othello and King Lear.) Many other famous actors have played Richard – to name just a few, Alec Guinness, Laurence Olivier, Vincent Price, George C. Scott, and … John Wilkes Booth.


Portrait of Richard Burbage, Dulwich Picture Gallery, London


I’m sure there are many ways of playing the part. I recently saw a production of Richard III put on by the Chesapeake Shakespeare Company, starring Vince Eisenson.



for the costume, see last section

As hinted in the photo above, Eisenson played Richard in such a way that he made him almost likeable, at least through much of the play. When Richard had asides, he would turn to the audience, smile, and speak as if he were letting us in on a secret – that he was both amused and amazed that he could blatantly lie to and mislead the other characters over and over, and they just never got it!


Can be a tough play to read

The introduction to the play in my edition of Shakespeare’s Complete Works notes that to anyone “unfamiliar with an intricate period of English history, Richard III is difficult to follow in the reading”.

This is because (for anyone familiar with the history of the period) Shakespeare completely ignores the actual timeline. Of course he compresses events that took place at particular times in a multi-year saga. We must allow him that. But the details of this compression are enough to quite confuse a knowledgeable reader of the play.

Beyond this (not much of a problem for me, since I wasn’t much in the historic know) there’s the simple matter of keeping the characters straight, and remembering how they are aligned.


Knowing that Richard III was king of England for only a couple years, I assumed that there would be quite a bit of conflict between the Houses of York and Lancaster. But not so. Only in the last act does Henry, Earl of Richmond, take the stage. At least he is there to announce, in the final scene, that as Henry VII, he will wed Elizabeth of York to bring the two Houses together. (This Elizabeth was the first child of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville, the latter the Queen Elizabeth of the play.


Elizabeth of York was in fact the daughter (of Edward IV), sister (of Edward V), niece (of Richard III), wife (of Henry VII), mother (of Henry VIII) and grandmother (of Edward VI) of six successive rulers of England.

No, the conflict in the play only latterly comes down to the York/Lancaster war. Before that, it is a conflict embroiling different royal members of the House of York (much instigated by Gloucester – that is, Richard), and also between factions for and against Edward’s queen, Elizabeth Woodville. For Edward had married one of his subjects, a woman of surpassing beauty but not from the highest ranks of the English nobility. This was a source of contention throughout nobles and the House of York ever after.

In the play, the Woodville faction consists mainly of the brothers, relatives, and hangers-on of the Queen. All these are wont to capitalize on the good fortune thrown their way by Edward’s unseemly marriage to the Woodville beauty. Gloucester’s machinations take advantage of the enmity this engenders.

Reviewer. [Aside]

I got hold of two books when I started the histories: Shakespeare’s Kings by John Norwich (a popular historian), and Shakespeare’s English Kings by Peter Saccio, a professor of Shakespearean Studies and English, and “an accomplished actor and theatrical director”. I should someday do a syntopical review of these books. I find both these books useful, but don’t want to say anything more about them now, since I could easily mislead. [Exeunt.]

See it on the stage – or in a movie

The play has been more popular over the years on the stage than as a read, I think.

With a good production, with a good lead actor, it’s both easier to follow and more interesting.

But you will never see an uncut, unedited version on the stage. It’s Shakespeare’s 4th longest play, over 4000 lines. So it’s invariably edited, cutting scenes and parts of scenes to make a tighter, less rambling narrative.

Because of the nature of Richard, the arch-villain, it has also become popular to shift the play into different historic periods. The version I saw was set in the years around World War I. The costumes were from that era. Why was this done? Frankly, it wasn’t entirely clear, though one reason was to allow some singers to serenade the audience before the action began, and again at intermission, with songs associated with WW I that had been written and sung by a Baltimore native of that time.

The battle scene in Act V was also very exciting in the production, lasting several minutes, strobe lights, sounds of explosions, characters appearing and disappearing on the stage, combatants carrying rifles and wearing gas-masks (very spooky).

There have been several movies made of Richard III. A very popular one was produced in 1995, set in a fascist England early in the last century. Starring Ian McKellen, it was nominated for two Oscars.



The trailer on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXc0-...

Much of the movie can be viewed on YouTube, but whether it’s all there isn’t clear.

The 1955 British film starring Laurence Olivier is also recommended.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Previous review: The God of Small Things
Random review: Life and Writings of Abraham Lincoln
Next review: Animalia guess what it is, then check it out

[Astraea · Rating 4 out of 5]

من خیلی دنبال این کتاب گشتم و هیچ جا پیداش نکردم. خوشبختانه متن انگلیسیش در اینترنت به سادگی دسترس هست و البته سپاس ویژه از شبکه 4 صدا و سیما که تله تئاتر این اثر زیبا رو نشون داد!

ریچارد سوم نمایشنامه‌ای تاریخی اثر ویلیام شکسپیر و داستانی تراژیک است که به قدرت رسیدن شاه ریچارد سوم و سقوط او را روایت می‌کند.


خلاصه داستان:

داستانِ این نمایشنامه درباره ی ریچارد، دوک گلوسستر است که در آرزوی رسیدن به قدرت، دسیسه ای می چیند که هانری چهارم دستور زندانی شدن برادرشان(برادر ریچارد و هانری) جرج دوک کلارانس را می دهد و بعد هم او را به قتل می رساند. سپس زیر پای ملکه "آن"، بیوه ادوارد شاهزاده ی گال می نشیند و در هنگامی که این زن تابوت همسرش را بدرقه می کند، به وی اظهار عشق می کند.

"آن" دست رد به سینه ی او می زند و حتی به وی دشنام می دهد، اما سرانجام با تقاضای ازدواجش موافقت می کند. با مرگ ادوارد چهارم، ریچارد تا رسیدن ادوارد پنجم به سن بلوغ نایب السلطنه می شود. سپس ادوارد پنجم را در برج لندن زندانی می کند و د�� نهایت ناجوانمردی او و برادرش "دوک دیورک" را به قتل می رساند. آن گاه با همدستی "دوک بوکینگهام" خود را شاه اعلام می کند و ملکه "آن" را طلاق می دهد تا با دختر برادر جوان اش الیزابت دیورک ازدواج کند.

"بوکینگهام" از ناسپاسی "ریچارد" رنجیده خاطر شده علیه او توطئه می چیند، اما دستگیر و اعدام می شود. سرانجام، طرفداران هانری، کنت ریچموند، به جنگ با سپاه ریچارد برمی خیزند و او را شکست می دهند و ریچارد در جنگ کشته می شود و کنت ریچموند به نام هانری سوم به تخت می نشیند.

A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!

[Saeid soheili · Rating 5 out of 5]

ترجمه‌ی عبدالله کوثری چنان زیباست که راه بر رشک بردن به خواننده‌ی انگلیسی زبان می‌بندد‌!

[Trish · Rating 5 out of 5]

This. ARG! This play really made me FURIOUS!
*takes a deep breath*

First things first, the plot:
Edward IV is king, we learn from his brother Richard (called Gloucester for his dukedom) how he became king. Richard is described as an ugly hunchback and he vows to behave as is expected of him.

Next, he plots to have his brother George Clarence put away in the Tower of London (there is a prophecy here, actually quite a number of them, but this one says that Edward's heirs will be killed by "G" which Edward thinks is George but which could also be Gloucester, meaning Richard) because he is next in the line of succession after Edward.
Richard manages to get George imprisoned but here is where Shakespeare once again gets VERY inaccurate. George was imprisoned and eventuelly executed on Edward's orders for high treason (he was apparently not a very nice person, not even to his own wife who died in childbed 2 years before George was executed in a casket of his favourite wine, but he also defected several times and even when not siding with a faction plotted against Edward). Here in the play however it is a clever ploy by Richard that gets George into the Tower and then he sends assassins (who take one looong time before they finally do the deed).
In the meantime, Richard woos Anne, Warwick's other daughter (keeping from her the fact that he killed both her husband and father and just sent assassins to kill her brother-in-law). In reality, the marriage was arranged by Edward and apparently Richard and Anne were happy although the sickness and eventual death of their only child, a son, changed the couple (only natural, I'd say).
The court we see is as awful as ever, the backstabbing merrily continuing.
Enter Margaret of Anjou, still alive, returning against her banishment (again, historically NOT correct) to curse basically everyone she can spit at. I really felt for her. All the things this woman endured and still she fought, never giving up. She was so STRONG. And Shakespeare must have liked her a great deal too considering how he portrayed her. I said in my review of the previous play that I shuddered when she seemingly had her victory over Richard of York (King Edward IV's father). But this play made her even more spooky! Far, far more spooky (with a slight supernatural element)! That insane laughter from the mountain of corpses (if only I had known how accurate I'd be with my saying "having her final laugh" in my earlier review) ... *shivers*
When King Edward hears of his brother's death in the Tower, his already dwindling health is gone for good and he dies (again, not true, but a nice touch).

Thus, his son, Edward V becomes king but is intercepted on his way to the coronation by Richard. He persuades Edward and his younger brother to stay at the Tower for some time but it is quite clear that all of Richards puns and schemes will not work with these two boys. They are clever (although cruel when making jokes about their uncle) and thus an actual threat to him.
Nevertheless, he starts a campaign that names him King Richard III while the boys are kept in the Tower. All opposition is killed one way or another by Richard until he also orders the murder of the two boys.
This sparks outrage and a new rebellion.

Richard meanwhile sets his eyes on his niece Elizabeth (the oldest daughter of Edward) and therefore poisons his wife (having already said earlier in the play that he will dispose of her once she has served her purpose). The former queen (Elizabeth's mother) however is not stupid either and plays for time. She also sides with Margaret of Anjou of all people to curse some more.
Richard gets more and more paranoid culminating in a great scene in which he dreams to be haunted by all his victims who tell him to die, making him realize that he has no allies whatsoever.

The rebellion arrives in England, headed by Richmond (who is Henry Tudor). We get to see the Battle of Bosworth, the famous end of Richard, where he is (historically probably inaccurate) killed in hand-to-hand combat by the future king. This is where the famous cry "A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!" comes from.
Richmond becomes King Henry VII and marries Elizabeth of York to unite the Houses of Lancaster and York, forming the Tudor dynasty (giving him legitimacy).

So much for the plot. Now for what enraged me so much:
Richard must have been a pretty ruthless character but not more ruthless than other men of his time. He was also not known as a scheming hunchback but as a very good general and able fighter, never feeling too high-born to get his own hands dirty but rather fighting alongside his men. Plus, he was loyal to his brother Edward (helping him against various plots from George). There are A LOT of rumours as to what happened to those boys in the Tower and why Richard had himself named king instead of simply Protector of the Realm but it is disputed that the boys were killed on Richard's orders for several reasons.
The fact that Shakespeare, from the get-go, suddenly portrays him as a hunchback (physically disabled people were associated with the Devil at the time so the true-life Henry VII had paintings repainted to make Richard appear a hunchback) and made him be sly and use poison (a coward's or woman's practice) just didn't sit right with me (just like the way his corpse was paraded around after the actual Battle of Bosworth - they stripped him naked, put a sword up his butt and paraded him around for humiliation).

Yes, this play is written fantastically and it is thrilling and has a superb villain but I feel for the historical figure now that I've read quite a number of non-fiction stuff about that time.

Interesting is the supernatural element Shakespeare implements here. Many people rightfully say this was the beginning of Shakespeare becoming a master and having so many great ideas for characters and plot lines that we get to enjoy in numerous plays later.
I think the reason this play is so underrated (I've heard quite a number of times that it is supposedly not very good) is that of all the histories it is the most inaccurate and not just as propaganda for the Tudor queen under whose reign he lived but simply for sensationalism's sake.
And I agree: that is bad.
Nevertheless, for what it is, I have to give this play full 5 stars because all characters portrayed were fantastic in their roles (although not historically accurate) and I was sitting at the edge of my seat so to speak.

[Sara · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have long been fascinated with this play and the manner in which Richard III was made villainous by the Tudor version of history. It is hard to believe any man could be so evil as he is painted here, but we know of course that some men are.

Shakespeare is so revered that this version of Richard has been the only one carried forward and the one that most people have believed. But, the actual historical record does not support it and it would seem that as English kings go he may have been no worse than most. After all, Henry VIII was quite liberal with killing off anyone who displeased him, and he was a Tudor.

I do love reading Shakespeare's histories. I have seen a few Shakespearean plays performed, and I can only imagine how it felt to see them during his lifetime and in the Globe Theater. I was happy to revisit this one.

[Carmo · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Uniremos a Rosa Branca e a Rosa Vermelha. Sorri, céus, a esta ditosa aliança.
Agora as guerras internas estão cerradas; a paz vive de novo..."

Melhor que muitas histórias meramente imaginárias, Ricardo III de Shakespeare assenta numa realidade repleta de sangue e traição. (mantendo presente algum exagero teatral e elementos de teor, quiçá, lendário) Tive que voltar ao período histórico que envolveu a guerra das rosas, rever séries, vasculhar a santa internet e queimar as pestanas entre a leitura e as pesquisas para não me perder neste emaranhado de nomes e títulos. Acreditem que vale a pena, caso contrário não passará de uma história onde todos andam à bulha.
Para coroar de glória um enredo já de si opulento, Shakespeare aprimorou e elevou os diálogos a um patamar deliciosamente viperino.

[Meike · Rating 4 out of 5]

I usually stay away from English Renaissance drama altogether, because the language alone is killing me (don't laugh, how do you fare at 400+ year old versions of your fourth language?). Yesterday, I came across the Schaubühne stage production of Richard III. though, directed by Thomas Ostermeier and starring Lars Eidinger - holy sh**!!! This was so insanely fascinating and powerful (proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEt4z...) that I actually picked up the original English text, and you have to give it to good old Billy that he invented a brilliant villain - and this is an invention, because the play is not historically accurate - and had a couple of smart things to say about the nature of power.

Richard, a physically disabled Duke, grew up knowing nothing but war, and sure acts as if he read his Machiavelli and Nietzsche (the latter is impossible, of course). Fighting the odds of social darwinism (also not yet a thing back then - not too shabby, Billy!), he plots and kills his way to the top, always smartly using the ambition of others to serve his own goals. There are no inherently good characters in this play, there is no hero who steps up for moral virtues when the physically handicapped Richard sublimates his feelings of inferiority into a ruthless quest for power for power's sake. The women generally look pretty bad here, especially Anne who falls for the guy who killed her husband and father - this scene is particularly enigmatic, and in Ostermeier's stage version, it becomes particularly haunting and impressive.

So is Richard III. the devil? Such banality would of course be beneath Shakespeare, he does not allow his audience to distance themselves that easily from human evil:

"And thus I clothe my naked villany
With odd old ends, stol’n forth of Holy Writ,
And seem a saint when most I play the devil."

He plays the devil, he is a plotter among plotters, a schemer among schemers, an actor in a play called "The King's Court" -he succeeds not because of his high character or noble aim, but because he's better at this power game than the others. This is a truly fascinating play.

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 5 out of 5]

Richard III is a drama of Shakespeare's prentice-period and with which the bard of Avon crossed his non-age. It bears the marks of the author's prentice-hand and also the signs of coming mellowness. It is something like a flawed masterpiece and it has many elements in it so that it has been variously termed as a chronicle play, a historical play, or s tragedy in patches, or a revenge tragedy.

In this play, Shakespeare is generally found as bound to the past and influenced by his predecessors to a great extent. In theme, style, wording and dialogue, and predominantly in the use of available materials, this play follows the tradition of Marlowe and Kyd.

This is not to say that here Shakespeare was slavishly following the tradition. In fact, although Shakespeare was still far away from his native source of success, he was slowly but surely making his way to it. Richard III shows the way he was proceeding, for in it we find, Shakespeare imposing a very individual variation upon a traditional manner of English drama. Indeed here he makes an improvement upon his predecessors who also did their best to better the tradition of English moralities and miracle plays.

Shakespeare set his whole heart into the composition of this play and before doing so, he had gained some necessary experience from the three parts of Henry VI, which had preceded it. In theme and style, he could not yet discard the influence of Marlowe and the historical materials that he found were often unmanageable. But the handicaps did not deter the young dramatist, rather they goaded him on to master them and by so doing to chart out the path that led to the development and success of his innate native genius. Thus we find him treating the old intractable materials and prevalent tradition in a new way and trying a variation in manner and theme.

The young dramatist concentrated all his creative energies on a single, central character because by so doing alone, he would be to melt the otherwise intractable and materials inconsistencies for patterning out of them a wholeness within the lucid framework for a plausible plot.

It has to be admitted that in trying to impose a variation on the pattern of prevalent tradition, Shakespeare did not wholly succeed in eliminating all the pervasive dross and irregularities in style and substance. The verse sometimes hovers on the periphery of a pedestrian dullness and the composition at times appears long and laborious.

This, however, is quite natural in the long process of an artistic development when the art of a young dramatist in embattled in a cruel contest with the materials of his art. There are imperfections in Richard III but they do not stand in its being considered either as a popular or as a powerful play.

Facts indicate its popularity quite clearly in that there were six quartos of it before the folio of 1623. The theatrical effectiveness of the play was also an established fact and as witness we have the great Dr. Johnson who admitted that the play had to its credit several eminent performances.

The play also became a powerful one because of the young dra- matist's singular selection of the central character and his peculiar concentration on it as the focus of the drama. The resultant action is violent and even reckless-murder followed by murder in a cal culated game of interminable cunning and meanness.

A contrast to these is offered by the cool and calm of the central character, the hero or the villain as one may call him. Richard remains through out le up to the moment of his final fall at the field of Bosworth, fully composed, beyond any consciousness of good or evil, the perfect Machiavellian, unperturbed in weal and woe, moving with wit and word, amid the blood and thunder of looming events. In the midst of this bloody business, he can find time also to make love to Anne in the manner of a minor Elizabethan sonneteer and talks Donne-like conceits.

Richard III attains its ultimate success as a highly actable and powerful play because of its brutal and theatrically sustaining ways.

As we have already observed, Shakespeare was here attempting an individual variation on the traditional theme of blood and with its melodramatic accompaniments. One theme is of revenge and the other is a queer belief in an overpowering destiny that links crime and punishment in a retributive justice.

It is through this latter theme that young Shakespeare managed to convey his tragic appeal of the play. In handling the materials, Shakespeare had to retreat English chronicle history of Hall, Holinshed and More to suit his own historic vision, which meant England's deliverance from chaos into the Tudor heaven of peace and prosperity as almost divinely ordained, and to use them also to subserve the end of a tragedy that befell the singularly central character of the play.

For the play after all portrayed with a singleness of purpose the rise and fall of the first true Shakespearean villain, although it had the other and perhaps the major aim of depicting the working out of God's Providence in English history with a religious fervour. History, no doubt, avenges itself at the behest of a sleepless Nemesis but for the central character of the play we experience a definitely tragic feeling akin to Catharsis.

When in conclusion the battle goes against the evil king and his horse is killed under him and Richard shouts looking aggressively for his enemy, even "in the throat of death" for another mount, "A horse! A horse! my kingdom for a horse!" we feel pitiably moved for the historic villain's gloomy end.

There is historic justice here soaked in revenge and blood fulfilling Shakespeare's vision of English Providence but there are tears also for the deformed hunch-back of English history.

The tragic appeal is limited but it has its moment of truth!