Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

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

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    King Richard III
    King Richard III
    King Richard III
    Ebook169 pages1 hour

    King Richard III

    By William Shakespeare

    4/5

    ()

    Switch to audiobook
    Read preview

    About this ebook

    Villainy and Treachery-- Richard III tells of the story of how Richard steals the kingdom from his young nephew after the death of his brother Edward. There is much murder and treachery until Richmond leads a revolt against Richard. 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.
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherWilder Publications, Inc.
    Release dateJun 10, 2015
    ISBN9781627557108
    Author

    William Shakespeare

    William Shakespeare is widely regarded as the greatest playwright the world has seen. He produced an astonishing amount of work; 37 plays, 154 sonnets, and 5 poems. He died on 23rd April 1616, aged 52, and was buried in the Holy Trinity Church, Stratford.

    Read more from William Shakespeare

    Related to King Richard III

    Related ebooks

    Performing Arts For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • Article

      Grace Period

      Jun 9, 2022

      Grace Period
      9 min read

    • Article

      City Of A Scandal

      Jan 4, 2023

      City Of A Scandal
      5 min read

    • Article

      Crowning Glory

      May 21, 2023

      Crowning Glory
      2 min read

    • Article

      Crowning Glory

      May 21, 2023

      Crowning Glory
      2 min read

    • Article

      King Of The Road

      Feb 7, 2024

      King Of The Road
      4 min read

    • Article

      Dawn Neesom Mind Of My Own

      Apr 5, 2022

      Dawn Neesom Mind Of My Own
      4 min read

    • Article

      A Confluence Of Great Good Fortune

      Sep 21, 2022

      FOR years, I defended my affection for the Royal family with a quote from the dark comedy Harold and Maude. The spunky octogenarian Maude explains her late-in-life mellowing to her troubled young friend Harold: ‘I don’t believe in monarchy’ she says,

      4 min read

    • Article

      Behind The Scenes Of The Queen’s Funeral sharing Remarkable Stories we Meet The Incredible People Who Took Part In The Nation’s Most Historic Event Of The Year

      Sep 26, 2022

      Behind The Scenes Of The Queen’s Funeral sharing Remarkable Stories we Meet The Incredible People Who Took Part In The Nation’s Most Historic Event Of The Year
      9 min read

    • Article

      Letters

      Dec 28, 2022

      I was intrigued by the short story in the November issue's Anniversaries section regarding the peaceful transfer of power from Henry III to his son Edward I –the first such occasion in English history. I wanted to know more about why this particular

      4 min read

    • Article

      Unforgettable!

      May 12, 2023

      Unforgettable!
      4 min read

    • Article

      Right Royal Blunders

      Apr 5, 2023

      Right Royal Blunders
      4 min read

    • Article

      Mercia, She Wrote

      Jul 15, 2020

      Mercia, She Wrote
      2 min read

    • Article

      Queen Elizabeth I

      Aug 2, 2023

      Queen Elizabeth I
      6 min read

    • Article

      Thank you, Your Majesty

      Jun 15, 2022

      Thank you, Your Majesty
      5 min read

    • Article

      The day I met Princess Anne

      Oct 28, 2022

      The day I met Princess Anne
      4 min read

    • Article

      'Black Tudors' Reveals a Surprising and Overlooked Chapter of History

      Nov 16, 2017

      Hidden in British archives and parish records are the identities of dozens of black people who lived in England during Tudor times.

      3 min read

    • Article

      The Sands of TREGANLLAW

      May 5, 2022

      England, 1497. Henry VII, the first Tudor king, reigns, having vanquished Richard III, the last monarch of the House of York, at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485. A young man calling himself Richard, Duke of York has spent years striving for recogniti

      5 min read

    • Article

      The Foul-mouthed Miller And The Prim Prioress

      Jan 3, 2024

      HAT Geoffrey Chaucer’s ‘drasty rhyming is nat worth a toord’ (his ‘dirty rhyming isn’t worth a turd’), the Host’s pungent dismissal in Chaucer’s best-known, but incomplete poem The Canterbury Tales, is a verdict that, with good reason, posterity has

      4 min read

    • Article

      The Death Of Chivalry

      Nov 26, 2020

      The Death Of Chivalry
      10 min read

    • Article

      Kind Hearts And Coronets

      May 3, 2023

      Kind Hearts And Coronets
      3 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for King Richard III

    4/5

    71 ratings32 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

    • 4/5
      (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!
    • 3/5
      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!
    • 5/5
      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
    • 4/5
      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.
    • 5/5
      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.
    • 3/5
      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.
    • 4/5
      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.
    • 4/5
      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.
    • 4/5
      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.
    • 4/5
      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.
    • 3/5
      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!
    • 4/5
      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.
    • 3/5
      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.
    • 5/5
      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.
    • 5/5
      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.
    • 5/5
      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.
    • 4/5
      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.
    • 4/5
      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.
    • 3/5
      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.
    • 2/5
      Not a big fan of Shakespeare's history plays. See some of the film and stage adaptations of this play...they're more entertaining.
    • 3/5
      I never thought I would enjoy this as much as I did, and the Ian McKellen adaptation of this just makes it even better.
    • 5/5
      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.
    • 5/5
      Despair and die!, spoken by a ten year old, is the highlight of any performance.
    • 5/5
      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
    • 4/5
      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.
    • 4/5
      Richard III, the tragedy about the Yorkist Götterdämmerung, is Shakespeare's second longest play. Laurence Olivier's 1955 film version clocks in at 161 minutes. Ian McKellen's 1995 film abridges Shakespeare's play too much, at 104 minutes. Richard III is anything but boring: Shakespeare piles murder upon murder at the feet of Richard III, some of which he clearly wasn't remotely responsible for. What is important to remember, though, is that Richard III kills for dynastic and political reasons. While Shakespeare highlights Richard's envy and discontent, the murders are politically necessary to open Richard's path to power. The tragedy not only requires the murders, each murder triggers the next until it is Richard's turn to die.Shakespeare endowed Richard with a wicked charm, memorable physical disabilities and a singular connection to the audience that lets one both roots for and against this evil man. Richard's dominance and centrality in the play is also its weakness: the other actors' light only shines for a few lines at a time. The other actors' roles never develop beyond types (grieving mother, opportunists, ...). The performance rests almost completely upon the central actor's misshapen shoulders and the absence of a medieval get-away car.
    • 4/5
      Shakespeare may have embellished the historical truth a bit when he wrote Richard III, but he certainly knew a good story when he saw it. The War of the Roses between Lancaster and York from 1455-1485 following over 100 hundred years of warfare with France ripped the country apart and led to cruel murders on both sides. Many vied for the throne or to be an inch closer to it, and blind ambition was the order of the day from women and men alike. One of the horrifying outcomes was the famous ‘Princes in the tower’, with Richard III imprisoning his older brother Edward IV’s children to take the throne after Edward had died, and then disposing of them. Shakespeare wrote the play a little over a hundred years later, around the year 1592, and the quality is impressive given its over 400 years old today. He painted Richard a bit blacker than he actually was, most notably making him the killer of middle brother George (Duke of Clarence), when it was actually Edward who had him drowned in a barrel of wine. In this story the will to power is concentrated into the character of Richard, who gains the throne but only after having done so many evil deeds that he is hated and isolated. His ambition starts with “Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious summer by this sun of York” at the outset of the play, and ends with him tormented with a guilty conscience and then killed at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485 after screaming “A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!”, thus ushering in Henry VII as the first Tudor king. The tragic irony is that Richard has brought about his own destruction by destroying others.Quotes; just this one on man’s inhumanity:Richard: Lady, you know no rules of charity, which renders good for bad, blessings for curses.Anne: Villain, thou know’st nor law of God nor man. No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity.Richard: But I know none, and therefore am no beast.
    • 3/5
      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.
    • 4/5
      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.
    • 4/5
      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.

    Book preview

    King Richard III - William Shakespeare

    KING RICHARD III

    by William Shakespeare

    Wilder Publications, Inc.

    Copyright © 2014

    All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof in any form whatsoever.

    Manufactured in the United States of America

    10   9   8   7   6   5   4   3   2   1

    ISBN 

    Table of Contents

    Dramatis Personae

    ACT I

    ACT I. SCENE I. London. A street

    ACT I. SCENE II. London. Another street

    ACT I. SCENE III. London. The palace

    ACT I. SCENE IV. London. The Tower

    ACT II

    ACT II. SCENE I. London. The palace

    ACT II. SCENE II. London. The palace

    ACT II. SCENE III. London. A street

    ACT II. SCENE IV. London. The palace

    ACT III

    ACT III. SCENE I. London. A street

    ACT III. SCENE II. Before LORD HASTING’S house

    ACT III. SCENE III. Pomfret Castle

    ACT III. SCENE IV. London. The Tower

    ACT III. SCENE V. London. The Tower—walls

    ACT III. SCENE VI. London. A street

    ACT III. SCENE VII. London. Baynard’s Castle

    ACT IV

    ACT IV. SCENE II. London. The palace

    ACT IV. SCENE III. London. The palace

    ACT IV. SCENE IV. London. Before the palace

    ACT IV. SCENE V. LORD DERBY’S house

    ACT V

    ACT V. SCENE I. Salisbury. An open place

    ACT V. SCENE II. Camp near Tamworth

    ACT V. SCENE III. Bosworth Field

    ACT V. SCENE IV. Another part of the field

    ACT V. SCENE V. Another part of the field

    Dramatis Personae

    EDWARD THE FOURTH

    Sons to the King

    EDWARD, PRINCE OF WALES afterwards KING EDWARD V

    RICHARD, DUKE OF YORK, Brothers to the King

    GEORGE, DUKE OF CLARENCE,

    RICHARD, DUKE OF GLOUCESTER, afterwards KING RICHARD III

    A YOUNG SON OF CLARENCE (Edward, Earl of Warwick)

    HENRY, EARL OF RICHMOND, afterwards KING HENRY VII

    CARDINAL BOURCHIER, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

    THOMAS ROTHERHAM, ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

    JOHN MORTON, BISHOP OF ELY

    DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM

    DUKE OF NORFOLK

    EARL OF SURREY, his son

    EARL RIVERS, brother to King Edward’s Queen

    MARQUIS OF DORSET and LORD GREY, her sons

    EARL OF OXFORD

    LORD HASTINGS

    LORD LOVEL

    LORD STANLEY, called also EARL OF DERBY

    SIR THOMAS VAUGHAN

    SIR RICHARD RATCLIFF

    SIR WILLIAM CATESBY

    SIR JAMES TYRREL

    SIR JAMES BLOUNT

    SIR WALTER HERBERT

    SIR WILLIAM BRANDON

    SIR ROBERT BRAKENBURY, Lieutenant of the Tower

    CHRISTOPHER URSWICK, a priest

    LORD MAYOR OF LONDON

    SHERIFF OF WILTSHIRE

    HASTINGS, a pursuivant

    TRESSEL and BERKELEY, gentlemen attending on Lady Anne

    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 the Duke of Gloucester

    A YOUNG DAUGHTER OF CLARENCE (Margaret Plantagenet,

    Countess of Salisbury)

    Ghosts, of Richard’s victims

    Lords, Gentlemen, and Attendants; Priest, Scrivener, Page, Bishops,

    Aldermen, Citizens, Soldiers, Messengers, Murderers, Keeper

    SCENE: England

    ACT I

    ACT I. SCENE I. London. A street

    Enter RICHARD, DUKE OF 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 chang’d to merry meetings,

    Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.

    Grim—visag’d war hath smooth’d his wrinkled front,

    And now, instead of mounting barbed 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 shap’d 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,

    Deform’d, 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,

    Tend’ring my person’s safety, hath appointed

    This conduct to convey me to th’ 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 should be new—christ’ned 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

    Hath mov’d his Highness to commit me now.

    GLOUCESTER: Why, this it is when men are rul’d 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,

    Antony Woodville, her brother there,

    That made him send Lord Hastings to the Tower,

    From whence this present day he is delivered?

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

    CLARENCE: By heaven, I think there is no man is secure

    But the Queen’s kindred, and night—walking heralds

    That trudge betwixt the King and Mistress Shore.

    Heard you not what an humble suppliant

    Lord Hastings was, for her 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’er—worn widow, and herself,

    Since that our brother dubb’d them gentlewomen,

    Are mighty gossips in our 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 your 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 gentlefolks.

    How say you, sir? Can you deny all this?

    BRAKENBURY: With this, my lord, myself have naught to do.

    GLOUCESTER: Naught to do with Mistress Shore! I tell thee,

    fellow,

    He that doth naught with her, excepting one,

    Were best to do it secretly alone.

    BRAKENBURY: What one, my lord?

    GLOUCESTER: Her husband, knave! Wouldst thou betray me?

    BRAKENBURY: I do 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 whatsoe’er 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;

    I will deliver or else lie for you.

    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—delivered Hastings?

    Enter LORD 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 eagles should be mew’d

    Whiles kites and buzzards prey at liberty.

    GLOUCESTER: What news abroad?

    HASTINGS:

    Enjoying the preview?
    Page 1 of 1