Neff

Samuel Neff

November 9, 2016

English 477 Senior Seminar

Senior Project

Richard III: An Unhistorical Account

William Shakespeares The Tragedy of King Richard III is traditionally classified as a historical

drama that provides the main historical reference to to the rise and fall of King Richard III, the

last monarch of the York Dynasty before the Tudor Dynasty began. Although Shakespeares

timeline of events and subsequent rise and fall of Richard III are is mostly historically accurate,

it is critically necessary to explore Shakespeares inaccuracies. These inaccuracies include Queen

Margaret of Anjous character, the wooing of Anne Neville, and the death of Richard at the Battle

of Bosworth. Shakespeare writes these inaccuracies in order to portray Richard as the

embodiment of evil and to allow the hero of the play, Henry VII (Richmond), to become the

divine ruler and initiate the Tudor dynasty.

To begin with, Queen Margaret of Anjou in Richard III is an unhistorical figure in

reference to Richards ascent to the throne, yet her role is unequivocally significant to the

dramatization of the play. Historically and in the text, Queen Margaret of Anjou was married to

King Henry VI and reigned as queen on two separate occasions during the Wars of the Roses

(Britannica). Richard IIIs Queen Margaret is arguably one of the most influential characters in

the entire play although she only appears in two scenes. She plays the role of a prophetic, almost

ghost-like figure who casts curses upon the characters of the text as a result of the misfortunes of
 Neff
2

her Lancastrian family that includes the murder of her husband and son: Thou slewest my

husband Henry in the Tower, / and Edward, my poor son, at Tewkesbury. (RIII, 1.3.118-119)

The inaccuracy of Queen Margaret appearenceappearance in Shakespeares play is two-fold.

First, the validity of the accusations from Queen Margaret that Richard killed Henry VI

and his son, Prince Edward, are murky at best.Margarets accusations that Richard killed her

husband, King Henry VI, and son Prince Edward do not line up with most historical accounts.

According to Paul Murray Kendalls biography of Richard III, the detachment that overtook

Prince Edward during the battle at Tewkesbury was commanded by the Duke of Clarence, not

Richard (Kendall 118). However, at this time Henry VI had already been captured by the Yorks

and was being held in the Tower of London. After victory at Tewkesbury, King Edward sent

Richard, who was his newly appointed Constable of England, to bear an order to Lord Dudley,

Constable of the Tower, to end the life of Henry VI (Kendall 121). So, historically, Richard did

not have a direct hand in the killing of Prince Edward, and was only following orders of the King

in the execution of King Henry VI.

Second, while Queen Margarets curses provide an eerie foreshadowing in the text as

each one of them come true both in the text and historically:, she would not have been around to

cast the following curses:

Why, then, give way, dull clouds, to my quick curses.

If not by war, by surefeit die your king,

 Neff
3

As ours by murder to make him a king.

[To Queen Elizabeth] Edward thy son, which now is Prince of Wales,

Die in his youth by like untimely violence.

Thyself a queen, for me that was a queen,

Outlive thy glory, like my wretched self.

Long mayst thou live to wail thy childrens loss,

And see another, as I see thee now,

Decked in thy rights, as thou art stalled in mine.

Long die happy days before thy death,

And, after many lengthened hours of giref,

Die neither mother, wife, nor Englands queen.

Rivers and Dorset, you were standers by,

And so wast thou, Lord Hastings, when my son

Was stabbed with bloody daggers. God, I pray Him,

That none of you may live your natural age

But by some unlooked accident cut off.

(RIII 1.3.192-210)

She makes the killing of her son by Richard seem more crime-like and savage when she tells

Rivers, Dorset, and Hastings were mere standers by while her son Was stabbed with bloody

daggers. Even if Richard had killed her son, it was in an act of war, in which her son would

have done the same thing. These witch-like curses mold the role Shakespeare has in mind for

Queen Margaret. She is quick-tempered and resentful towards any member of Richards inner
 Neff
4

circle. She has only revenge in mind towards people who had no part in the death of her family,

except their relationships with Richard.

What makes these curses and Margarets character a literary invention an addition Shakespeare

added is the fact that Queen Margaret would have not been present in Richards court. Richard

III took the throne on June 26th, 1483 and Queen Margaret died on August 25, 1482 (Britannica).

One could argue how that Shakespeare shrinks the timeline of almost ten years into a five act

play that seems to take place in a matter of two days. This could open up the possibility that in

Act 1 when Margaret first appears, it takes place is years before Richard takes the throne.

However, this that explanation can be nullified in two ways. First, Margaret was held prisoner in

England after her husbands death until 1476 when the King of France paid a ransom for

herMargaret had fled to France after Henry VI was killed in 1476 and remained there, living in

poverty, until her death in 1482. She then fled to France where she remained until her death in

1482 (Britannica). Also, Margarets next appearance in the play occurs in Act 4, Scene 4 when

Richard has already been crowned king.

Since we have concluded that Queen Margarets presence in Shakespeares play does not

coincide with historical accounts of her actual relationship to Richard, we can assume that he

employed her character for purposes of the play, not for historical accuracy. While Margarets

character in context of the play is completely fictitious, Shakespeare uses her to portray Richard

in an extremely negative way, which is mostly the purpose of the entire play. Shakespeare would

have written Richard III during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, who was of the part of the Tudor

Dynasty and quite arguably the greatest ruler England had seen at the time. At the end of the
 Neff
5

play, it is Richmond (Henry VII) who kills Richard and assumes the throne. Henry VII is the

grandfather of Elizabeth I and Shakespeare would have been writing and telling this story in a

way that would cater to the interests and perspectives of Elizabeth and other members of the

Tudor familyaccording to the needs of these Tudor monarchs. Those needs perspectives would

have included portraying include biases that portrayed the Yorks in a negative fashion, especially

Richard, the last York monarch before the change in dynasties (Pietruszynski).. She does this

with her frequent asides and directly to Richard:Shakespeare accomplishes the villainization of

Richard with Margarets frequent asides and direct comments to Richard: [aside] A murderous

villain, and so still/ thou art. (RIII, 1.3.133-134) Later, Margaret asks Richard to kill himself,

calls him a bunchbackd toad, damns him to hell, calls him a dog, and casts this curse upon

him:

Thy friends suspect for traitors while thou livest,

And take deep traitors for thy dearest friends.

No sleep close up that deadly eye of thine,

Unless it be whilst some tormenting dream

Affrights thee with a hell of ugly devils.

Thou elvish-marked, abortive, rooting hog

Thou that wast sealed in thy nativity

The slave of nature and the son of hell;

Thou slander of the mothers heavy womb,

Thou loathd issue of thy fathers loins,

Thou rag of honor, thou detested-

 Neff
6

(RIII, 1.3.219-226)

Shakespeare is using Margaret to vilify Richard. Shes done with her curse within five lines, but

the quote continues as she is simply on a rant about Richards evilness. If Shakespeare would

have only wanted to employ Margaret as a prophetic witch, this quote could have ended when

the curse was over; however, she continues on for six lines calling him a hog, a slander of his

mothers womb, and a loathd issue of thy fathers loinsThis curse is again prophetic by

Margaret; Richard is betrayed by the people he thought were his closest friends, suspects those

loyal to him as traitors, and has a tormenting dream towards the end of the play.

The presence of a historically absent Queen Margaret in the play fills a role that

Shakespeare needed to include in order to succeed in his vilification of Richard. Her curses add

dramatic and supernatural effects that display Shakespeares artistic abilities, but her role is

arguably the most critical to his portrayal of Richard. This is apparent by her asides and

comments directly towards Richard above, but those are not the only examples. After Queen

Elizabeth takes up for Richard after Margaret curses him, Margaret replies: Why strewst thou

sugar on that bottled spider, /Whose deadly web ensnareth thee about? (RIII 1.3.238-240).

Later, in a conversation with Buckingham, Margaret is fervently warning Buckingham to stay

away from Richard:

... O Buckingham, beware of yonder dog.

Look when he fawns, he bites; and when he bites,

His venom tooth will rankle thee to death.

Have not to do with him, beware of him;

 Neff
7

Sin, death, and hell have set their marks on him,

And all their ministers attend on him. (RIII 1.3.285-290)

This textual evidence shows the reader that Queen Margarets main role is to vilify Richard,

however she is not the only one to do so.

Margaret is not the only character in Richard III to portray Richard in such a negative fashion,

especially in regards to his appearance. Richard himself in his opening soliloquy laments on the

ugly nature of his being:

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;

(RIII 1.1.16-24)

This description of himself is not only a tactic used by Shakespeare and Richard for the audience

feel pity for Richard, it is also historically inaccurate. Sourced from Thomas Mores History of

King Richard III, also written to appease the Tudors, Richard in Shakespeares play is portrayed

as hunchbacked with an arm deformity and, as Richard himself says, so ugly that dogs bark at

him as he walks by. Little York says Richard could gnaw a crust at two hours old (RIII,2.4.28),
 Neff
8

implying that Richard was born with a full set of teeth even though it was said he was born

prematurely. No matter how early or late a child is born, no child can be born with a full set of

teeth. While it is true Richard suffered from idiopathic scoliosis (Huntley), as found from his

autopsy, he would have only suffered from slightly uneven shoulders (Huntley). Why would

Shakespeare portray Richard in such an ugly, monstrous fashion? Again, Shakespeare was

writing in the Elizabethan era, he was basically writing Tudor propaganda that shed negative

light on the Yorkish era and positive light upon the Tudors.

Perhaps one of the most disturbing scenes in Shakespeares collection of work occurs in

Act 1, Scene 2, also known as The Wooing Scene. It is in this scene that Richard wins the hand

of Lady Anne Neville, the widow of recently slain Prince Edward of Westminster

(Pietruszynski). It is also in this scene when that Shakespeare first introduces the accusations that

Richard was solely to blame for the murders of Edward and King Henry VI that were later

expanded upon in the scenes with Queen Margaret which were discussed above. To set this

scene, Anne enters alongside the casket bearing King Henry VI on the way to the funeral

procession. Richard enters, interrupting and halting the procession and begins conversing with

Anne Neville, as her recently slain father-in-law lie beside her. While the marriage between

Richard and Anne is historically accurate, Shakespeare twists this wooing scene in a way thatt: 1)

furthers the shaping of Richards character as the embodiment of evil. and 2) indebts this scene

to the great Greek playwright Seneca (Brooks), and might possibly be attempting to outdo

Seneca.

As soon as Richard enters the scene, Anne reacts as any lamenting woman would: What

black magician conjures up this fiend/ to stop devoted charitable deeds? (RIII, 1.2.32-33) Also,

as it will become the norm of the play, Anne begins insulting Richard and commenting on his
 Neff
9

evil persona: Foul devil, for Gods sake, hence, and trouble/ us not. / For thou hast made the

happy earth thy hell, /Filled it with cursing cries and deep exclaims. (RIII, 1.2.48-50). For over

one hundred lines Lady Anne aids Margaret in their portrayal of Richard as the ultimate villain:

And thou unfit for any place but hell. (RIII, 1.2.106), Never hung poison on a fouler toad. /Out

of my sight! Thou dost infect my eyes. (RIII, 1.2.145-146). This is merely a sample of quotes

where Anne is characterizing Richard in this evil way, Shakespeare makes the characters view

of Richard abundantly clear; which, in turn, allows to the audience to buy in to what they are all

saying.

The back and forth between Richard and Anne continues for over 80 lines. She accuses

him repetitively of killing Edward and Henry and he continuously denies: I did not kill your

husband. (RIII, 1.2.89) The scene becomes uncomfortable to even read when Anne tells Richard

he is unfit for any place but hell and he replies:

Gloucester: Yes, one place else, if you will hear me name it.

Lady Anne: Some dungeon.

Gloucester: Your bedchamber.

(RIII, 1.2.107-110)

It is then here when Richard shifts gears and begins trying to court Anne. He starts by

finally admitting that he did in fact kill Henry and Edward, but it was the beauty of Anne that

provoked him to do so. His wooing tactics become effective when he offers Anne a sword to kill

him with and she refuses. Then, he offers her the opportunity to tell him to kill himself and he

will follow through. Again, she denies. He offers her a ring, and she accepts; thus culminating

the wooing scene and confirming their marriage. A few lines later, Anne and the gentlemen
 Neff
10

carrying the casket leave the scene and Richard is left alone to deliver these lines directly to the

audience: Was ever a woman in this humor wooed? /Was ever woman in this humor won? /Ill

have her, but I will not keep her long. (RIII, 1.2.214-216) Here Richard is relishing in his

evilness in this gasping moment for the audience. Talk about the embodiment of evil; what man

would ever feel satisfied and relish the courting of the widow of a man he just killed, as well as

his father? Also, Richard is insinuating that Anne will not last long as his wife as he has plans to

kill her.

In relation to Anne, only their marriage in Shakespeares version of events is factual.

According to Paul Murray Kendalls biography Richard the Third, Richard actually spent a

significant amount of time pursuing Anne due to a possible significant inheritance that George of

Clarence was trying to seize. Clarence took her in charge and sent her to Isabel (Kendall) to

hide, only to be found by Richard. Also, Richard and Anne were cousins and had known each

other well in childhood, even being called companions (Kendall). Richard was not the savage

dog Shakespeare portrays him to be in relation to Anne; in fact, he secured permission of the

King to make her his wife before he even began to look for her. Kendall describes their marriage

as domestic happiness and, as the play fails to mention before she is killed off, they bore a son

named Edward in 1473. Author of historical fiction Leslie Carroll writes in a blog titled Richard

III & Anne Neville: a love story?? that Richard and Anne were genuinely in love (Carroll). It

seems as though the only wrong Richard committed in his marriage to Anne was not waiting for

an ecclesiastical dispensation to wed since they he and Anne were cousins. Finally, according to

history, historically Anne died from a disease known as consumption (aka tuberculosis), one in

which her sister Isabel also died from, not by being poisoned by Richard, as Shakespeare

suggests. The announcement of the death of the Queen comes in Act IV, Scene 3 when Richard
 Neff
11

plainly says: And Anne my wife hath bid the world goodnight (RIII, 4.3.39). He then, starting

with the next line, says that he will begin courting young Elizabeth, future wife of Richmond. It

is apparent that modern historical sources allude to Richard and Annes relationship in a much

more positive light than Shakespeare did. His dramatization of first the wooing scene, then

Richards suggested poisoning of Anne, and his quick dismissal of her death further adds to

Shakespeares portrayal of Richard as the embodiment of evil.

In his article Richard III, Unhistorical Amplifications: The Womens Scenes and Seneca,

Harold F. Brooks credits Seneca has the major source of this scene between Richard and Anne.

He says that in Senecas Hercules Furens, Megara is wooed by Lycus in a similar fashion. Lycus

attempts to woo Megara after slaying her husband. However, Lycus fails in his wooing attempts,

yet Richard outdoes him and succeeds. Granted, Shakespeare has history on his side since

Richard and Anne were historically married. Yet it is interesting that Shakespeare would use a

Senecan scene in which Senecas character fails, and have his own character succeed. Further,

Shakespeare combines another Senecan play, Hippolytus, when Richard, at Annes feet,

encourages her to kill him with a sword he has pointed at his own breast (Brooks). These are

only two of the dozen or so scenes in which Shakespeare mirrors Senecan tragedies.

Finally, Shakespeare credits Richmond with the killing of Richard at the Battle of

Bosworth in the final act and scene of the play. Richmond, also known as Henry, Earl of

Richmond and later King Henry VII was a somewhat distant relative of the Lancastrian family

and had attempted to challenge Richards claim to the throne multiple times before finally

succeeding in 1485 at the Battle of Bosworth. Henry Tudor in the play represents the start of a

new age and represents another political stance taken by Shakespeare to be in curry favor of

thenwith Queen Elizabeth. As Shakespeare set Richard up to be the epitome of evil, Richmond
 Neff
12

(Henry) is portrayed as the direct opposite of Richard. He is eloquent and represents a save the

day character as we see in his closing soliloquy. :

Inter their bodies as becomes their births:

Proclaim a pardon to the soldiers fled

That in submission will return to us:

And then, as we have ta'en the sacrament,

We will unite the white rose and the red:

Smile heaven upon this fair conjunction,

That long have frown'd upon their enmity!

What traitor hears me, and says not amen?

England hath long been mad, and scarr'd herself;

The brother blindly shed the brother's blood,

The father rashly slaughter'd his own son,

The son, compell'd, been butcher to the sire:

All this divided York and Lancaster,

Divided in their dire division,

O, now, let Richmond and Elizabeth,

The true succeeders of each royal house,

By God's fair ordinance conjoin together!

And let their heirs, God, if thy will be so.

Enrich the time to come with smooth-faced peace,

With smiling plenty and fair prosperous days!

Abate the edge of traitors, gracious Lord,

 Neff
13

That would reduce these bloody days again,

And make poor England weep in streams of blood!

Let them not live to taste this land's increase

That would with treason wound this fair land's peace!

Now civil wounds are stopp'd, peace lives again:

That she may long live here, God say amen!

(5.5.15-41)If we were to compare Richard and Richmonds opening and closing

soliloquies side by side, we would see a clear difference in language, as well as their message

that enables Shakespeare to bring the purpose of this play home. The purpose of Richards

opening soliloquy was to establish that he will become the villain: I am determind to prove a

villain (RIII, 1.1.30) while Richmond proclaims that with the past rulers England hath long

been mad and scarrd herself.

In this soliloquy we can also see Shakespeares main purpose of the play when Richmond says

We will untie the white rose and the red: The killing of Richard was the final event of the War

of the Roses and the Tudor Dynasty began when Richmond was crowned as King Henry VII.

Richmond killing Richard acts as another piece of Tudor propaganda that portrays Richmond as

the savior of England.

While Thethe events during the Battle of Bosworth have a variation of exact details

depending on the historian, however not been relatively clear in the past, no historians credit

Richmond with the direct killit is pretty clear that Henry was not directly involved in the killing

of the king. In the text, Shakespeare simply uses a stage direction to detail the fight between

Richard and Richmond in which it simply says Richard is slain with the two of them being the

only characters on stage at the time. This, along with Richmonds soliloquy insinuates that
 Neff
14

Richmond killed Richard on the battlefield. It is known that historically Richmond did not kill

Richard, rather he was yards away on the battlefield (Hipshon). However, multiple accounts

credit a Welshman with the killing of Richard. Dtdespite his active fighting on the York ist side

of the War of the Roses, a poet by the name of Gutor Glyn wrote a poem directed toward Sir

Rhys ap Thomas celebrating the victory and crowning of Henry VII (Wales). The poem titled In

Praise of Sir Rhys ap Thomas of Abermarlais details the Battle of Bosworth and contains this

excerpt which leads scholars to believe Sir Rhys ap Thomas killed Richard:

King Henry won the day

through the strength of our master:

killing Englishmen, capable hand,

killing the boar, he shaved his head,

and Sir Rhys like the stars of a shield

with the spear in their midst on a great steed.

(Translated from Welsh)

From: In Praise of Sir Rhys ap Thomas of Abermarlais (45-40) (Johnston).

This excerpt begins with celebrating King Henry winning the day, but it was through the strength

of our master that he was able to be crowned (A.K.A. Sir Rhys ap Thomas) (Wales). The

boar was Richard; it was his widely known nickname of the time in reference to his coat of

arms that entailed a White Boar (Pietruszynski). He shaved his head is a description of the

main blow to Richards head that Richard III historians claimed to have been from the
 Neff
15

Renaissance weapon the halberd (Wales). According to the University of Leicesters King

Richard website dedicated to tourist information of the fallen king, as written by historian Ruth

E. Richardson, Richard was killed in this manner: One of the Welshmen then came after him,

and struck him dead with a halberd, and another took his body and put it before him on his horse

and carried it, hair hanging as one would bear a sheep. (Richardson). This Welshmen

Richardson writes about was indeed Sir Rhys ap Thomas. Shakespeare again uses dramatization

and unhistorical accounts to cater to the perspective of the Tudor House that would want to vilify

Richard while glorifying Richmond.

All of Shakespeares inaccuracies in Richard III are intentional. As mentioned, he was

writing this play during the Elizabethan era. Queen Elizabeth was the granddaughter of the

savior of this play, Henry VII. Brooks says that Richard III is a drama of history, moralized

according to the Tudor political idea of the providentially-ordered process that brought

Richmond and his successors to the throne...dramatized the divine plan of religious salvation for

mankind. During the Early Modern Period (Renaissance, Elizabethan Era, etc.), they believed in

the Great Chain of Being that placed God above anything earthly, and maintained the idea that

rulers were ordained by God. Using this theory, it is easy to see how the Tudor historians, such as

Shakespeare, would be given reason to blacken Richards reputation (Huntley) to glorify their

Tudor, Richmond, as the savior of England. Without Richmonds usurpation of the throne, Queen

Elizabeth may have never become queen. So, what is traditionally used as the main source of a

biography of King Richard III, is actually just another piece of Tudor propaganda that portrays

Richard as the embodiment of evil to justify the Tudors taking control of England. Shakespeare

accomplishes this through multiple examples of fallacies, including: the wooing of Anne Neville,

the character of Queen Margaret, and Richards death on the battlefield at Bosworth.
 Neff
16

Bibliography

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopdia. King Henry VI, King of England. 2 July 2007. 19

November 2016. <https://www.britannica.com/biography/Henry-VI-king-of-England>.

Brooks, Harold F. ""Richard III", Unhistorical Amplifications: The Women's Scenes and

Seneca." Modern Language Review 75.4 (1980): 721-737.

 Neff
17

Carroll, Leslie. Richard III & Anne Neville: a love story??? 11 November 2009. 20 November

2016. <http://historyhoydens.blogspot.com/2009/11/richard-iii-anne-neville-love-

story.html>.

Hipshon, David. "Richard III." History Review 66 (2010).

Huntley, Dana. "Richard III in Yorkshire." British Heritage 34.5 (2013): 24-29.

Johnston, David. Praise be to Sir Rhys ap Thomas of Abermarlais. Ed. David Johnston. n.d.

Center for Advanced Welsh and Celtic. <http://www.gutorglyn.net/gutorglyn/poem/?

poem-selection=014>.

Kendall, Paul Murray. Richard the Third. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc., 1955.

Pietruszynski, Jeff. "Richard III". Shakespeare Class. West Virginia State University. 22 August

2016. Lecture

Richard III Jeff Pietruszynki. 22 August 2016.

Richardson, Ruth E. "Who Killed King Richard III?" 2014. King Richard in Leicester. 1

Novmber 2016. <http://kingrichardinleicester.com/killed-king-richard-iii/>.

Wales, University of. The Battles. n.d. 19 November 2016.

<http://www.gutorglyn.net/gutoswales/en/ygad-rhyfelrhos-brwydrau.php#bosworth>.
 Neff
18

Bibliography

Brooks, Harold F. ""Richard III", Unhistorical Amplifications: The Women's Scenes and

Seneca." Modern Language Review 75.4 (1980): 721-737.

Hipshon, David. "Richard III." History Review 66 (2010).

Huntley, Dana. "Richard III in Yorkshire." British Heritage 34.5 (2013): 24-29.

Kendall, Paul Murray. Richard the Third. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc., 1955.

Richardson, Ruth E. "Who Killed King Richard III?" 2014. King Richard in Leicester. 1

Novmber 2016. <http://kingrichardinleicester.com/killed-king-richard-iii/>.


UNSATISFACTORY
Work lacks organizational structure.
It contains many grammatical errors
and does not flow properly. The work
loses its way from the thesis. It was
not edited with proper attention. The
Organization/Writing paragraphs are not developed well
enough to track the structure of the
work. It cites sources within the text
and in a Works Cited page improperly.
Work relies too heavily upon sources
and does not have a voice of its own;
OR the paper does not use any
sources from peer-reviewed academic
journals.
Use of Secondary Sources
Work provides side-by-side
comparison of historical timeline to
the timeline of the play in its own
section of the paper with no
explanation of intent of the author.
The effort to critically explore the
inaccuracies of the play is not
present.
Literary and Historical
Integration
Work does not produce an
interpretive point of view or specific
argument with the source information
provided. The source information
does not support the thesis.
Interpretive point of
view/argument
Work displays summary of text and
history rather than analysis in regards
to the purpose of the paper. The play
Close Textual analysis
is rarely cited.
Samuel Nef
PROFICIENT
Work was edited, but not careful
enough to find all errors. Some parts
roam from the thesis, but it is mostly
on topic. Paragraphs are well
developed, but could use some
restructuring. The structure of the
work can be tracked, but does not
flow well. Sources are cited correctly.
Work has an insignificant number of
peer-reviewed sources (less than
three.) It has its own voice, but at
times does not engage actively with
the sources.
Work shows moderate effort to
critically explore the inaccuracies of
the play. The historical timeline is not
directly compared to the timeline of
the play in its own section, but the
inaccuracies are not expounded upon
enough to analyze the intent of the
author.
Work does produce an interpretive
point of view/argument, but its support
through source information and text
citations is unsound.
Work offers new insight to the text for
the reader, but is not clarified through
supportive research and reasoning.
The text is cited frequently, but offers
no commentary with the citation.
Neff
19
DISTINGUISHE
Work contains a well-devel
introductory paragraph with
thesis that is explored prop
through the body paragrap
conclusion that wraps the p
and points back to the thes
are little to no grammatical
feels as though the piece w
carefully written and edited
are cited correctly.
Work uses a proper balanc
reviewed sources and othe
secondary sources; there a
three peer-reviewed source
library database. The use o
sources supports the voice
writer rather than being the
of the text.
Work does an exceptional
combining history and a lite
reading of Richard III. It pro
lens known as The Tudor M
explains why Shakespeare
provide unhistorical comme
historical play.
Work produces a sound, s
interpretive point of view/ar
that analyzes the intent of t
unhistorical events Shakes
in the text as a way of portr
Richard III as the embodim
Work closely analyzes Ric
frequent citations and exce
commentary that enables a
supports the comparison o
and the events of the play.
 Neff
20

Rubric: Final Project

Great job on your paper, Sam. Im not sure if you intended to submit a document with

comments and corrections, but thats what I have here. It doesnt really matter in terms of my

evaluation of your work, but a final draft should just be the document.

Anyways, the success of your paper is a result of your dedicated, consistent work on your

project. You, perhaps more than anyone else, managed your work in a really impressive way.

And you did an excellent job incorporating feedback partially because you were on the ball and

had time to revise your work.

Proposal A (10%)
Updates A (15%)
Presentation B+ (15%)
Written Product A (60%)

Your presentation was good overall. The content was there, but it would help for you to think of
giving a presentation like that as giving a lecture to a group of students. Make your audience
feel like youre engaging them and guiding them through what is, for them, unfamiliar material.
Cut way down on the text in your slides. Bullet points. Just bullet points. And images.