Richard III

By William Shakespeare

In "Richard III," Shakespeare portrays the Machiavellian rise and fall of Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Ambitious and devious, Richard schemes and murders his way to the throne, revealing the destructive nature of unchecked power. The play explores themes of manipulation, tyranny, and the consequences of ruthless ambition in a tale of political intrigue and personal tragedy.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Interactive Media
• Release date: Sep 15, 2015
• ISBN: 9781910833520

William Shakespeare

William Shakespeare (1564–1616) is arguably the most famous playwright to ever live. Born in England, he attended grammar school but did not study at a university. In the 1590s, Shakespeare worked as partner and performer at the London-based acting company, the King’s Men. His earliest plays were Henry VI and Richard III, both based on the historical figures. During his career, Shakespeare produced nearly 40 plays that reached multiple countries and cultures. Some of his most notable titles include Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet and Julius Caesar. His acclaimed catalog earned him the title of the world’s greatest dramatist.

Book preview

CAST

King Edward the Fourth

Edward, Prince of Wales, [afterwards King Edward V], son to the King

Richard, Duke of York

George, Duke of Clarence, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, [afterwards King Richard III],brothers to the King

A young son of Clarence

Henry, Earl of Richmond, [afterwards King Henry VII]

Cardinal Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury

Thomas Rotherham, Archbishop of York

John Morton, Archbishop of Ely

Duke of Buckingham

Duke of Norfolk

Earl of Surrey, his son

Earl Rivers, brother to Elizabeth

Marquis of Dorset and Lord Grey, sons to Elizabeth

Earl of Oxford

Lord Hastings

Lord Stanley, called also Earl of Derby

Lord Lovel

Sir Thomas Vaughan

Sir Richard Ratcliff

Sir William Catesby

Sir James Tyrrel

Sir James Blount

Sir Walter Herbert

Sir Robert Brakenbury, Lieutenant of the Tower

Christopher Urswick, a priest

Second Priest

Tressel and Berkeley, gentlemen attending on the Lady Anne

Lord Mayor of London. Sheriff of Wiltshire

Elizabeth, Queen to King Edward IV

Margaret, widow of King Henry VI

Duchess of York, mother to King Edward IV

Lady Anne, widow of Edward Prince of Wales (son to King Henry VI) [afterwards married to Richard]

A young Daughter of Clarence

Ghosts of those murdered by Richard III, Lords and other Attendants; a Pursuivant, Scrivener, Citizens, Murderers, Messengers, Soldiers, &c.

Scene: England

ACT I

SCENE I. LONDON. A STREET.

Enter GLOUCESTER, solus

GLOUCESTER

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.

Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths;

Our bruised arms hung up for monuments;

Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings,

Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.

Grim-visaged war hath smooth’d his wrinkled front;

And now, instead of mounting barded steeds

To fright the souls of fearful adversaries,

He capers nimbly in a lady’s chamber

To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.

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:

And if King Edward be as true and just

As I am subtle, false and treacherous,

This day should Clarence closely be mew’d up,

About a prophecy, which says that ‘G’

Of Edward’s heirs the murderer shall be.

Dive, thoughts, down to my soul: here

Clarence comes.

Enter CLARENCE, guarded, and BRAKENBURY

Brother, good day; what means this armed guard

That waits upon your grace?

CLARENCE

His majesty

Tendering my person’s safety, hath appointed

This conduct to convey me to the Tower.

GLOUCESTER

Upon what cause?

CLARENCE

Because my name is George.

GLOUCESTER

Alack, my lord, that fault is none of yours;

He should, for that, commit your godfathers:

O, belike his majesty hath some intent

That you shall be new-christen’d in the Tower.

But what’s the matter, Clarence? may I know?

CLARENCE

Yea, Richard, when I know; for I protest

As yet I do not: but, as I can learn,

He hearkens after prophecies and dreams;

And from the cross-row plucks the letter G.

And says a wizard told him that by G

His issue disinherited should be;

And, for my name of George begins with G,

It follows in his thought that I am he.

These, as I learn, and such like toys as these

Have moved his highness to commit me now.

GLOUCESTER

Why, this it is, when men are ruled by women:

‘Tis not the king that sends you to the Tower:

My Lady Grey his wife, Clarence, ‘tis she

That tempers him to this extremity.

Was it not she and that good man of worship,

Anthony Woodville, her brother there,

That made him send Lord Hastings to the Tower,

From whence this present day he is deliver’d?

We are not safe, Clarence; we are not safe.

CLARENCE

By heaven, I think there’s no man is secure

But the queen’s kindred and night-walking heralds

That trudge betwixt the king and Mistress Shore.

Heard ye not what an humble suppliant

Lord hastings was to her for his delivery?

GLOUCESTER

Humbly complaining to her deity

Got my lord chamberlain his liberty.

I’ll tell you what; I think it is our way,

If we will keep in favour with the king,

To be her men and wear her livery:

The jealous o’erworn widow and herself,

Since that our brother dubb’d them gentlewomen.

Are mighty gossips in this monarchy.

BRAKENBURY

I beseech your graces both to pardon me;

His majesty hath straitly given in charge

That no man shall have private conference,

Of what degree soever, with his brother.

GLOUCESTER

Even so; an’t please your worship, Brakenbury,

You may partake of any thing we say:

We speak no treason, man: we say the king

Is wise and virtuous, and his noble queen

Well struck in years, fair, and not jealous;

We say that Shore’s wife hath a pretty foot,

A cherry lip, a bonny eye, a passing pleasing tongue;

And that the queen’s kindred are made gentle-folks:

How say you sir? Can you deny all this?

BRAKENBURY

With this, my lord, myself have nought to do.

GLOUCESTER

Naught to do with mistress Shore! I tell thee, fellow,

He that doth naught with her, excepting one,

Were best he do it secretly, alone.

BRAKENBURY

What one, my lord?

GLOUCESTER

Her husband, knave: wouldst thou betray me?

BRAKENBURY

I beseech your grace to pardon me, and withal

Forbear your conference with the noble duke.

CLARENCE

We know thy charge, Brakenbury, and will obey.

GLOUCESTER

We are the queen’s abjects, and must obey.

Brother, farewell: I will unto the king;

And whatsoever you will employ me in,

Were it to call King Edward’s widow sister,

I will perform it to enfranchise you.

Meantime, this deep disgrace in brotherhood

Touches me deeper than you can imagine.

CLARENCE

I know it pleaseth neither of us well.

GLOUCESTER

Well, your imprisonment shall not be long;

Meantime, have patience.

CLARENCE

I must perforce. Farewell.

Exeunt CLARENCE, BRAKENBURY, and Guard

GLOUCESTER

Go, tread the path that thou shalt ne’er return.

Simple, plain Clarence! I do love thee so,

That I will shortly send thy soul to heaven,

If heaven will take the present at our hands.

But who comes here? the new-deliver’d Hastings?

Enter HASTINGS

HASTINGS

Good time of day unto my gracious lord!

GLOUCESTER

As much unto my good lord chamberlain!

Well are you welcome to the open air.

How hath your lordship brook’d imprisonment?

HASTINGS

With patience, noble lord, as prisoners must:

But I shall live, my lord, to give them thanks

That were the cause of my imprisonment.

GLOUCESTER

No doubt, no doubt; and so shall Clarence too;

For they that were your enemies are his,

And have prevail’d as much on him as you.

HASTINGS

More pity that the eagle should be mew’d,

While kites and buzzards prey at liberty.

GLOUCESTER

What news abroad?

HASTINGS

No news so bad abroad as this at home;

The King is sickly, weak and melancholy,

And his physicians fear him mightily.

GLOUCESTER

Now, by Saint Paul, this news is bad indeed.

O, he hath kept an evil diet long,

And overmuch consumed his royal person:

‘Tis very grievous to be thought upon.

What, is he in his bed?

HASTINGS

He is.

GLOUCESTER

Go you before, and I will follow you.

Exit HASTINGS

He cannot live, I hope; and must not die

Till George be pack’d with post-horse up to heaven.

I’ll in, to urge his hatred more to Clarence,

With lies well steel’d with weighty arguments;

And, if I fall not in my deep intent,

Clarence hath not another day to live:

Which done, God take King Edward to his mercy,

And leave the world for me to bustle in!

For then I’ll marry Warwick’s youngest daughter.

What though I kill’d her husband and her father?

The readiest way to make the wench amends

Is to become her husband and her father:

The which will I; not all so much for love

As for another secret close intent,

By marrying her which I must reach unto.

But yet I run before my horse to market:

Clarence still breathes; Edward still lives and reigns:

When they are gone, then must I count my gains.

Exit

SCENE II. THE SAME. ANOTHER STREET.

Enter the corpse of KING HENRY the Sixth, Gentlemen with halberds to guard it; LADY ANNE being the mourner

LADY ANNE

Set down, set down your honourable load,

If honour may be shrouded in a hearse,

Whilst I awhile obsequiously lament

The untimely fall of virtuous Lancaster.

Poor key-cold figure of a holy king!

Pale ashes of the house of

Reviews for Richard III

[shanaqui_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

(My first book finished during the readathon!)

I don't like reading plays, really. I much prefer to see them performed -- they make much more sense when you do. And I'm not really a fan of Shakespeare: either he's too modern for me or not modern enough (my interest peters out shortly after Malory, ish, and doesn't revive until it starts to struggle back to life with Austen -- and even then...). No doubt some of you are just itching to say (probably not the first time) that I must be a pretty crappy lit student. To which I say, pfffttt. There's more to literature than Shakespeare.

Still, I did think I would take at least one module on Shakespeare -- not counting the Renaissance Lit module I've already done -- and so I'm doing one on the history plays, starting with Richard III. In my experience of reading plays, this is an extremely compelling one. It's never boring, and there's a lot of quick back-and-forth, particularly between Richard and Anne, and Richard and Elizabeth, that's wonderful to read (better yet, I imagine, to see). Richard's a horribly compelling character, though I found that shone through best in the first act.

It's funny how many Shakespearean references I make without knowing exactly where they come from. I found several in this play. Now I know!

[tkcs-3 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

The Josephine Tey book I just finished got me interested in Richard III. At the same time, I've been meaning to read some Shakespeare, and since I've never read The Tragedy of KR III it seems like a good place to start. I seldom read Shakespeare but I always enjoy it when I do. I remember loving a Shakespeare class at BYU. I took it summer term from Nan Grass, and some sessions we met in her family cabin in Provo Canyon--Vivian Park for those who know it. Great memories!

[delta351 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

By far the most evil character in any Shakespeare plays that I have read. Hard to keep track of all the Edward's and Richard's and the female characters. I think it is pretty tightly scripted, prob because it is mostly historically accurate. Sorry I waited so long to read this one

[adaorhell · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Richard, you hero, you villain. I am not sure how I feel about this play, I might have done a bad reading of it originally. But I am enraptured with Richard III any way. He did great things for the poor, he murdered children. He was the last King to die on the battlefield, he wasn't a legitimate King anyway. Sly, cunning, vicious and ambitious, Richard III is coming close to taking Macbeth away as my favourite Shakespeare.

[briony_2 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I never thought I would enjoy this as much as I did, and the Ian McKellen adaptation of this just makes it even better.

[kaboomcju · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Not a big fan of Shakespeare's history plays. See some of the film and stage adaptations of this play...they're more entertaining.

[wealhtheowwylfing · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Despair and die!, spoken by a ten year old, is the highlight of any performance.

[lyzadanger · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

My first Shakespeare history: I've been avoiding them for years. I care too much about keeping everything straight: the four characters named Richard, the handful of Edwards, the nobility calling each other by their titles sometimes, their Christian names other times. And then titles will change. And I care about the events and the lineages and I manage to get all wound up and muddled and frustrated.Of course it's better if you just read it as a play. And for that, it still has a profoundly different tone than the tragedies or the comedies. There's a lot of vitriol here. Not a lot of subtlety. Strong female characters. A LOT of characters. Children.It wasn't my favorite. It wasn't my least favorite. It was more of another notch in my complete-works-of-the-Bard-read stick.

[the_awesome_opossum · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

It took awhile to get into Richard III - it's set during/just after the War of the Roses, and there's a lot of politics going on that are pretty obscure now. However, reading it as a tragedy with a touch of modern thriller makes it awesome. Richard is brother to the sickly king, and a very respected military officer, but he craves more power and admiration than that. He has to work his way through most of his family and acquaintances though, picking them off one by one, to capture the crown. He's a master of manipulation and psychology, yet throughout the play we see Richard's own psyche and facades crumbling beneath the weight of this single-minded obsession. Wonderful, thrilling play that is completely worth the work to get through

[jwhenderson_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Shakespeare's history of Richard III reads like a tragedy. Of course the tragic thing is that the hero is so despicable, yet it is hard to dislike him too much, he has such good lines. "Now is the winter of our discontent . . ." the play opens and the reader is swept up by the perfidy and creative conniving of Richard. As his plans thicken he seems to be succeeding, only to fail in the end as his apparent allies fail him and turn. Filled with some of the best poetry of the early Shakespeare this play is deservedly one of his most popular creations.

[frankjl_1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Shakespeare's take on Richard III. Very dark historical play, but just a play. Mostly inaccurate historically though.Very long play, S's 2nd longest just behind Hamlet.

[stillatim · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Am I the only person who thinks Richard is kind of sympathetic? Seriously, *every* other person in the play is a moron. I've never been comfortable with Nietzsche's whole 'the weak gang up to ruin the world by undermining the strong' nonsense, but as an analysis of this book? Pretty good. Look, everyone in this play is morally repulsive. The difference between them and RIII is that the king's much smarter. He moves the pieces around the board pretty well. And for that he's the greatest villain the world has ever seen? I don't get it.

As for this edition (most recent Arden), it's got a very well-written introduction that provides a lot of background information; maybe too much background information. I would have liked a bit more interpretation. Same thing with the annotation, which was very heavy on the manuscript-variations but a bit light on historical information. But thankfully no fatuous 'thematic' interpretation stuff at all.

[dinadansfriend · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

With the understanding that insulting the ruler's grandfather was a de-earring offense, and that all plays had to be run by the Lord Chamberlain for approval before publication or performance, what do you do? You slag the man the grandfather took the throne from. Safe move, Willy! And I've always been a richardian. I'm glad his corpse will at last come out from under the car park and be properly housed.I keep quoting the play, and have read it....oh, six times from beginning to end.

[francescaforrest · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

This was the most stagey of any Shakespeare play I've ever read--or at least the most stagey I remember. Richard comes out at the start and announces his evil intentions. Later, characters whisper asides to the audience while lying to their interlocutors on stage. And at the end, ghosts.

It was interesting, but the over-the-top villainry of Richard somehow left me a little cold. A small thing along the way that bugged me was the ease with which Richard won over female characters who hated and excoriated him. A little sweet talk, and they acquiesce. What?! Please. Way to give women a bad name, Bill!

[catherinestead · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Great drama, a somewhat... um... flexible attitude to history, and scarcely a character alive by the end. There are the famous lines ("Now is the winter of our discontent"; "A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!") and some that really ought to be more famous ("fair Saint George,/ Inspire us with the spleen of fiery dragons!"). Very entertaining.

[lisapeet · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

So how geeky is it to have his'n'hers copies of Richard III? Don't answer that. We saw the Brooklyn Academy of Music production with Kevin Spacey last year and both wanted to read it through again first. The play, by the way, was fun -- a big spectacle, kind of like the circus for grownups without the animal cruelty. But with plenty of scenery chewing. Anyway, the play is bad ass. But you all knew that.

[bell7_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Richard, Duke of Gloucester, plots to kill brothers and nephews on his way to the throne of England.I had a tough time organizing my thoughts after reading this play. Richard is such a rich character. He plots and schemes, but he has some fantastic lines and he's very charismatic. I had a tough time following all the Henry's and Edward's and such, more so than Shakespeare's audience would have, I'm sure. The plotting portion was much more interesting to me than his inevitable downfall, but I think that's at least in part because of how it reads rather than how it would play out on stage. The lines "sword fight and ____ dies," for example, are so quick that I hardly took it in before it was over. I'm not sure that I would read it again, but I'd definitely watch a film version and read up on my English history to learn more about the historical Richard.

[thornton37814 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Following the deaths of Edward IV and Edward V in 1483, Richard III becomes monarch of England. It is quite a bit into the play before we are introduced to Richard III, but when we are, we see him as a tyrant. What a vivid picture of his wickedness Shakespeare paints! One can't help but wonder if the people of England didn't sing, "Ding, dong, the king is dead, the wicked king is dead" when he died a couple of years after assuming the throne. I really think I'd love to see this one performed live. I may have to settle for a movie version, but I really think that live would be preferable.

[sly_wit · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I really enjoyed this play, and it was only enhanced by the audio version bringing it to life. It was an interesting follow-up to Tey's A Daughter of Time, which presents a very different picture of Richard and his character and motivations. I remember having tickets I couldn't use to McKellen's Richard years ago and I'm sorry I've never seen this play on stage.

[kimmr_2 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I've just seen the wonderful Kevin Spacey / Sam Mendes production which opened at the Old Vic this year and is on a world tour. An amazing production and a superlative performance by Spacey.

[antao-3 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Killing Frenzy: "Richard III" by William Shakespeare, Burton Raffel, Harold Bloom Published 2008.


A typical king;
Killed everybody who got in his way;
A typical fat slob of a king;
Out to get his own greedy needs met;
Uses every individual who crossed his path;
More often than not, slap happy drunk;
Seen on numerous occasion dancing amongst the moon lit paths;
Often times his royal trousers would fall to his ankles causing the King to fall face down.

Was Shakespeare’s Richard any different from some of the politicians we all know so well? The only difference is that they're not allowed to get away with it as much, what with the paparazzi and all.

I finished reading this, Richard III, prior to go see him in the theatre. Even in Portuguese I felt as if I’d come under a spell. What marvelous language. Everyone knows this. It’s obvious, but does everyone really know it? It’s different to know than to experience. And I’ve experienced, once again, the glory of his language in this story.

Read on, if you feel so inclined.

[amerynth · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

It wasn't by design, but I managed to save a great play for my final Shakespare (because apocrypha be damned.) Richard III was one definitely one of my favorites.... great story, great dialog and great pacing, what more could you ask for in a play?The play tells the story of the nefarious Richard's rise to the throne and ultimate demise. He's an evil mastermind behind the deaths of kings and princes, and even those who supported his aims fall to his sword. This isn't one of Shakespare's subtler works, but I thoroughly enjoyed it.

[aliceanna-1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

The true tragedy of this piece is that Richard was almost certainly falsely accused of doing away with his nephews. But as theatre, Richard III exudes a charismatic evil. Based on Tudor sources, Shakespeare wrote for the day. And the day required that the Plantagenets be hung out to dry. The depiction of Edward IV as a lecherous, over-eating, self-indulgent monarch was probably valid though. An interesting piece of theatre, but I couldn't help but feel sorry for poor Richard.

[maxernst11 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

1592-93, enorm populair; flamboyante persoonlijkheid, gezicht van het kwaadPrachtige opening met monoloog door Gloucester waarin hij de innerlijke drijfveer voor zijn slechtheid blootlegt (ik ben niet geschikt voor vrede, rust en hoofse liefde?).Nogal rauw en bloeddorstig, geen spoor van moraal. Confrontatie met dame Anna: vurig, maar snelle ommezwaai na stroperige ode over haar schoonheid. Mengeling van brutale verbale confrontaties en cynische humor (de 2 beulen die een beetje last hebben van hun geweten als ze Clarence moeten doden); subliem woordenspel tussen de jonge prins van York en Gloster en Buckingham (III,1).Verschillende sc?nes met klagende vrouwen. ?s Nachts voor de slag: knagend geweten van RichardSlotpleidooi van Richmond en consecratie van de TudurdynastieImpressie: sterk, ?fierce?, maar de vrouwenstukken zijn het subtielst.

[bookwoman247 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

I think that almost everyone knows Shakespeare's verson of the story of the monstrous King Richard III, how he plotted the murder of anyone who stood in the way of his gaining the crown of England. This was certainly not my first encounter with Shakespeare. I've read his work several times before. However, I seem to have missed the history plays, until now.I'm embarrassed to admit, that this is also the first time that I've felt the magic of Shakespeare. It's the first time I've been held in the thrall of the power of his words.I've always enjoyed his work, but I never understood what all the fuss was about. Now I get it.

[meditationesmartini · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Richard, literature's greatest monster of indignation? I can't help but compare him to Iago--really can't help it, because the Richard I saw Bob Frazer play at Bard on the Beach the other night and the Iago I saw him play back in 2009 have such suggestive similarities. Iago gets archetypalized, and all too often played, as the moustache-twirling villain--the spider, the blot, the malignancy who fools everyone, inexplicably. But there shouldn't be anything inexplicable about it. He's "honest Iago", and it's in that that his awfulness lies. Frazer plays him that way--the bluff young honest handsome quick-witted hero of the wars against the Turk, the least villainous of all the characters in the play until he ushers you in. You expect him to flush some kid's head down the toilet, maybe, but not destroy lives.Is it too much to posit that the difference between real evil and the "mere" twisted and wrong that is the distillation of human pain is the difference between foulness with a fair face and foulness that looks foul? I've been thinking a lot about the limits of responsibility lately, and toying with the probably extreme but seductive and satisfying viewpoint that nobody's responsible for anything, ever, in a transcendent or a moral way. I don't know if I really believe it, but it leaves us with a principle to be debated when we come back to the question of where we forgive and where we condemn--malice that comes out of success, esteem, trust, handsomeness, camaraderie, triumphs aplenty, like Iago's: that is evil. But it's hard to say what good the principle really is in our practical ethical dilemmas, given that we can never really know anyone well enough to pass that kind of judgment. I guess it leaves us with a theoretical but indeterminate principle of evil, in theory, for now.And that's where Frazer's Richard comes in. He is the malignancy, the blot, the Spider King. Quite literally that, rushing forward on his crutches like a bug up your face and then when you* sweep it frantically away and twist it, crumple and break it without anywise meaning to, that's when he shows you that the ugly and bent is not the weak and broken and jumps down your throat dripping with poison. But nobody is taken in. They hate him because he's ugly, but their desire to seem unafraid causes them to act nonchalant, even to find excuses in his royal blood to treat him as part of the band of brothers.They make him with their horror and hypocrisy, and he kills them all, of course. And of course the logic I've outlined makes this a perfect story for Shakespeare, and this being Shakespeare, Richard is of course doomed as well. He's a magnificent character, one of the all-time gross and great, and let me say again for the record that Frazer played him magnificently, with his liplicking and hatred and glee. I don't think this is a perfect play, by any means; it hangs so crucially on the protagonist (here I've spent this whole review talking about him, well, and Iago, I guess) and everyone else seems window-dressing; it would have been fascinating if the venial lords who convince themselves Richard's just another one of them, to be trusted just as far and no further than they are, had come to quickened threatening life, if this in its first half had been a play about machinations and not inevitable rise, and only then in the second act, as it is, a play about inevitable downfall, it would have been more compelling I think to a 21st-century audience. This leads into a more general discomfort with great-man history from my perspective, but one which again I think a more balanced picture of the political manoeuvrings would have done something to help address, since it is undoubtedly two that back then only the gentry counted, be they great or no. I think the comedic scenes in this one, especially the conscience-searching before the murder of Clarence, are especially good; I think the primes steal the scene in their brief appearance, and if that hammers home the logic of their murder in a grimy way, which is good, it also means they're removed from the stage, which is dramaturgically bad; I think the whole second act, where England descends into fascist dark and then the bullies come back from polo or whatever in France and fight and win, and we're glad that the doofy brute Richmond, and not his opposite number livid broken sad Richard, wins, is not inferior to Lolita in the ways it makes us complicit (while still giving us some sweet fight scenes and brooding-lord pageantry, climaxing in the incredible ghost scene, which I wonder if it's the first instance of the ol' "it was only a dream" cliche, don't you?). But it's imbalanced in the end by the concentrated enmity of the figure at its centre. Not a perfect play; but Richard goes on the long shortlist of literature's most perfectly turned characters.*you are the Lady Anne, you are Elizabeth Woodville, you are the men too, in the unmanned way an Elizabethan blood might have felt when stumbling into a nest of creepy-crawlies, but predominantly, let it be noted, you are the women, whose desire to protect makes them susceptible to Richard in the way that the men's asshole revulsion at the bent makes them not. Men created Richard the monster, perhaps, and women made his success as monster possible. In that light, his relationship with his mother, a hard woman, takes on an interesting light, as well as the fact that it's Queen Margaret's curse that brings him down. I don't endorse the idea of a perversion of women's 'natural role' that I see in this play, Master Will, but I do fear me it's there.

[coach_of_alva · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

After reading and watching this play, I have now “heard” it. What I noticed, in this version, was that the effect of hearing was to level the players. Richard III is usually regarded as having one interesting character and many boring ones, and so being dependent on a show-stopping performance by the lead to make a performance watchable. Here, the lead actor, David Troughton, is good as the king but not domineering. Instead of ruining the performance, though, his refusal to chew scenery allows the other actors to bring their characters to life. Especially memorable are rages of a furious, dying Edward IV at the backbiting court that failed to protect his brother from himself and the lesson Queen Margaret gives Queen Elizabeth in the art of cursing. I was also happy to find this production unabridged.

[bookomaniac-1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

1592-93, enorm populair; flamboyante persoonlijkheid, gezicht van het kwaadPrachtige opening met monoloog door Gloucester waarin hij de innerlijke drijfveer voor zijn slechtheid blootlegt (ik ben niet geschikt voor vrede, rust en hoofse liefde”).Nogal rauw en bloeddorstig, geen spoor van moraal. Confrontatie met dame Anna: vurig, maar snelle ommezwaai na stroperige ode over haar schoonheid. Mengeling van brutale verbale confrontaties en cynische humor (de 2 beulen die een beetje last hebben van hun geweten als ze Clarence moeten doden); subliem woordenspel tussen de jonge prins van York en Gloster en Buckingham (III,1).Verschillende scènes met klagende vrouwen. ’s Nachts voor de slag: knagend geweten van RichardSlotpleidooi van Richmond en consecratie van de TudurdynastieImpressie: sterk, “fierce”, maar de vrouwenstukken zijn het subtielst.

[dypaloh · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Settling back in my chair to think about what I’ve read . . .Remember when, in Patton, George C. Scott exclaims, “Rommel, you magnificent bastard. I read your book!”?It’s possible to imagine an unnamed candidate exclaiming in admiration after election to presidential office, “Shakespeare, you magnificent bastard. I did it like Richard III!” (Or possibly he’d say, “like Richard Three”).What might I mean?To begin with, Shakespeare has made this Richard III fellow so grotesquely grotesque that it’s hard to think how one might endure a play about him, and not a short play either. He hardly needed grotesqueness of body too. He is a pillar of grotesquerie. And it doesn’t help that he suffers from Asinine Distemper Syndrome.<SPOILER NOTICE: The discussion that follows is partially a synopsis. Several events in the play are revealed.>The action opens with Richard acquainting us with his newest plan: “I am determined to prove a villain.” In this he does not lie. It’s barely possible for his interest to be captured by any other ambition, whether he is capering in this play or in Shakespeare’s telling of the reign of King Henry VI. We immediately learn that he has laid plots to set his brother Clarence “in deadly hate” against his other brother who is, for the moment, king. Well, who’d have guessed? Every reader of the Henry VI saga, I’d say. Facing the predictability of it all, one is tempted to cry, “A hearse, a hearse! What boredom, bring a hearse!”Nonetheless, Richard surprises with how successfully he manipulates others to his ends when he is so minded. Having previously killed Lady Anne’s husband plus her father-in-law (Henry VI), he manufactures from these actions a romantic advantage. What though I killed her husband and her father?The readiest way to make the wench amendsIs to become her husbandIt takes some convincing but somehow the noble “wench” softens toward his intent and becomes his wife. Next an encounter with Margaret, Henry VI’s widow, who as a jewel of antagonistic behavior is almost a clone of Richard’s soul. Here Richard accomplishes something deft. While Margaret’s spite is obdurate—she resembles Richard greatly in capacity for distemper—Richard scores bonus points with the nobles witnessing their exchange. They go away impressed at his “virtuous and Christian-like” and prayerful manner. No matter that Richard has won their good opinion by feigning Christian conduct. Appositely, the Editor’s note here cites Milton’s Eikonoklastes: “The deepest policy of a tyrant hath ever been to counterfeit religious.” The reader can only shake his head.Later, in a scene similar to the wooing of his by now deceased first wife, Richard, having killed Queen Elizabeth’s two young sons, bids her intercede to persuade her daughter to marry him. When she complains, saying her sons are “Too deep and dead, poor infants, in their graves,” he rebuts “Harp not on that string, madam; that is past.”Swell guy. Still, the unapologetic Richard sways her. To her protest “Yet thou didst kill my children,” he replies: But in your daughter’s womb I bury them:Where in the nest of spicery, they will breedSelves of themselves, to your recomfiture.Crass modern translation: “Yeah, your sons are ****ing dead. You’ll feel better by setting it up so I can **** your daughter too.” So Elizabeth agrees. Give her credit. Richard had to pursue his goal patiently for 174 lines (believe me, that’s a lot of lines) before she gave consent.Just after Elizabeth leaves to bring Daughter the unexpected news, Richard brands her a “Relentless fool.” Nothing so arouses his contempt as giving in to what he wants. Nothing arouses his ire more than opposing what he wants. Richard, how in good conscience do you do the things you do? He kindly explains:For conscience is a word that cowards use,Devis’d at first to keep the strong in awe:Our strong arms be our conscience, swords our law.One feels sure even Socrates would fail to convince him otherwise.Settling back in my chair to think about what I’ve read . . . Well, perhaps you now imagine an unnamed candidate too. And that’s why you should read Richard III.

[meandmybooks-1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Round after round of scheming, skulking, and stabbing, interspersed with wailing and recriminations. Betrayals, betrothals, beheadings. Part of my dissatisfaction with this play undoubtedly is due to coming to this straight from Henry VI, parts 1, 2, and 3. A little over a year ago, though, I read “The Henriad” – Richard II, Henry IV pts 1 and 2, and Henry V, and enjoyed it very much, and it seemed as though this “set” should be just as good. But it's not. The Henriad offers a lot of variety in characters, types of action, tone, etc. This, not so much. The Henry VI trilogy provides a fairly unvaried menu of murder and mayhem, and Richard III, even with Richard vamping it up as Diabolical Villain Extraordinaire and the “Greek chorus” of Margaret, Elizabeth, the Duchess of York, and Anne (which is a wonderful touch!), is much of a muchness. Even the most tender-hearted reader gets to the point where the tearful pleas of soon-to-be murder victims leave her unmoved. Which, especially in this play, which lacks any sort of humor except of the ironic variety, or any scenes of love, except for in mourning, or any scenes of nobility, faithful friendship, courage, hope, etc., leaves little else to maintain readerly interest. This reader, at least, was motivated to keep doggedly reading/listening only by anticipation of Richard's profoundly well-deserved end. No matter how unpleasant a person Henry VII may have been in real life, in this play, as Shakespeare intended, he is a blessed ray of sunshine in the ugly world of gloom and corruption these endlessly feuding nobles have created.I read this in the Arden edition of Richard III while listening to the audio recording by Naxos, featuring Kenneth Branagh (as Richard), Geraldine McEwan, etc. It was excellently done, but Branagh's Richard did more giggling and evil chortling than I thought was strictly necessary. The Arden Shakespeare is lovely, with bright white paper and reasonable size print, but I missed the simpler, more useful footnotes which the RSC edition of Henry VI pts 1-3 provided.