Richard III (Shakespeare Explained)

Shakespeare Explained R ichard III richard Andersen Introduction by joseph sobran Text Consultant: Richard Larkin Co...

Author: Richard Andersen

323 downloads 2757 Views 29MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Shakespeare Explained

R ichard III richard Andersen Introduction by joseph sobran

Text Consultant: Richard Larkin Copyright 2011 Marshall Cavendish Corporation

©

Published by Marshall Cavendish Benchmark An imprint of Marshall Cavendish Corporation All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. Request for permission should be addressed to the Publisher, Marshall Cavendish Corporation, 99 White Plains Road, Tarrytown, NY 10591. Tel: (914) 332-8888, fax: (914) 332-1888. Website: www.marshallcavendish.us This publication represents the opinions and views of the author based on Corinne J. Naden’s personal experience, knowledge, and research. The information in this book serves as a general guide only. The author and publisher have used their best efforts in preparing this book and disclaim liability rising directly and indirectly from the use and application of this book. Other Marshall Cavendish Offices: Marshall Cavendish International (Asia) Private Limited, 1 New Industrial Road, Singapore 536196 • Marshall Cavendish International (Thailand) Co Ltd. 253 Asoke, 12th Flr, Sukhumvit 21 Road, Klongtoey Nua, Wattana, Bangkok 10110, Thailand • Marshall Cavendish (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd, Times Subang, Lot 46, Subang Hi-Tech Industrial Park, Batu Tiga, 40000 Shah Alam, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia Marshall Cavendish is a trademark of Times Publishing Limited All websites were available and accurate when this book was sent to press. Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data Andersen, Richard, 1946Richard III / by Richard Andersen. p. cm. — (Shakespeare explained) Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: “A literary analysis of the play ‘Richard III.’ Includes information on the history and culture of Elizabethan England”—Provided by publisher. ISBN 978-1-60870-387-6 1. Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. King Richard III—Juvenile literature. I. Title. PR2821.A86 2011 822.3’3—dc22 2009041733 Photo research by: Linda Sykes 20th Century-Fox Film/The Everett Collection: front cover; RonTech2000/istockphoto: 1; Mikhali/ Shutterstock: 2–3; Neven Mendrila/Shutterstock: 3; Raciro/istockphoto: 4, 40, 46, 94, 128; Art Parts RF: 6, 8, 13, 26, 27, 34, back cover; Nik Wheeler/Corbis: 11; Portraitgalerie, Schloss Ambras, Innsbruck, Austria/ Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY: 20; Travelshots.com/Alamy: 22; Hideo Kurihara/Alamy: 24; Corbis/Sygma: 29; Andrew Fox/Corbis: 32; Private Collection: 39; The Everett Collection: 45; Courtesy of The Hudson Valley Shakespeare Festival: 49; Royal Shakespeare Company Shakespeare Birthplace Trust: 55, 82; Thurston Hopkins/Getty Images: 60; Topfoto/The Image Works: 69; United Artists/The Everett Collection: 88; Mayfair/Bayly/Pare/The Kobal Collection: 93; Courtesy of The Utah Shakespeare Festival: 97, 101.

©

©

©

©©

Editor: Megan Comerford Publisher: Michelle Bisson Art Director: Anahid Hamparian Series Design: Kay Petronio Printed in Malaysia (T) 135 6 42

Shakespeare and His World by joseph Sobran . . . 4 1. Shakespeare and richard iii . . . 38 2. The Play’s the Thing . . . 44 3. A Closer Look . . . 92 Chronology . . . 112 Source notes . . . 114 Glossary . . . 116 Suggested Essay Topics . . . 119 testing your memory . . . 120 Further information . . . 122 Bibliography . . . 123 Index . . . 124

Shakespeare d l W s i H d an –—–—–—–—–—–—

––—–—–—–—–—–—

––—

kespear a h S m ia l il W

e,

––— –—–—–—–—–—–— –— –— –— –— –— –— is,

–—–—–—

Yet the Bard is also closer to our hearts than lesser writers, and his tremendous reputation should neither intimidate us nor prevent us from enjoying the simple delights he offers in such abundance. It is as if he had written for each of us personally. As he himself put it, “One touch of nature makes the whole world kin.” Such tragedies as Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, and Macbeth are world famous, still performed onstage and in films. These and other plays have also been adapted for radio, television, opera, ballet, pantomime, novels, comic books, and other media. Two of the best ways to become familiar with them are to watch some of the many fine movies that have been made of them and to listen to recordings of them by some of the world’s great actors.

Sh akesp ear e e xp l a ined: R ich ar d ii i

–—–—–—––

–—–—–—––

–—–—–—––

,” ed “the Bard often nicknam , the most comparison y an d n yo be literature. e in English towering nam e r his plays th Many conside stands written. He greatest ever ong geniuses. out even am

–—–— –—–—–—–—–—–— –— –— — –— –— –— –—–—

––—

4

–—–—–—–—–—–—

–—–—–—–—–—–—

–—–—–—–—–—–— –—–—–—–—–—–—

Even Shakespeare’s individual characters have lives of their own, like real historical figures. Hamlet is still regarded as the most challenging role ever written for an actor. Roughly as many whole books have been written about Hamlet, an imaginary character, as about actual historical figures such as Abraham Lincoln and Napoleon Bonaparte. Shakespeare created an amazing variety of vivid characters. One of Shakespeare’s most peculiar traits was that he loved his characters so much—even some of his villains and secondary or comic characters—that at times he let them run away with the play, stealing attention from his heroes and heroines. So in A Midsummer Night’s Dream audiences remember the absurd and lovable fool Bottom the Weaver better than the lovers who are the main characters. Romeo’s friend Mercutio is more fiery and witty than Romeo himself; legend claims that Shakespeare said he had to kill Mercutio or Mercutio would have killed the play. Shakespeare also wrote dozens of comedies and historical plays, as well as nondramatic poems. Although his tragedies are now regarded as his greatest works, he freely mixed them with comedy and history. And his sonnets are among the supreme love poems in the English language. It is Shakespeare’s mastery of the English language that keeps his words familiar to us today. Every literate person knows dramatic lines such as “Wherefore art thou Romeo?”; “My kingdom for a horse!”; “To be or not to be: that is the question”; “Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears”; and “What fools these mortals be!” Shakespeare’s sonnets are noted for their sweetness: “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?” –—–—–—––

–—–—–—–—–—–— —–— –—–— –—–— —–— –—–— –— —––— –—––— —––— — –—–— —–— – –—–—–——–—

–—–—–—––

D id s t t h o u n o t k il l –—–—–—–—–—–— —t –— —h –— —is –— —–— –—–— –k —–— –in —–— –—g –— —–— –?—–— – –—–——–—–— S h a kes pea r e a nd His Wor ld

5

Without a doubt, Shakespeare was the greatest master of the English language who ever lived. But just what does that mean?

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–— –—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—– Shakespeare’s vocabulary was huge, full of references to the Bible as well as Greek and Roman mythology. Yet his most brilliant phrases often combine very simple and familiar words: “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet.”

He has delighted countless millions of readers. And we know him only through his language. He has shaped modern English far more than any other writer. Or, to put it in more personal terms, you probably quote his words several times every day without realizing it, even if you have never suspected that Shakespeare could be a source of pleasure to you. So why do so many English-speaking readers find his language so difficult? It is our language, too, but it has changed so much that it is no longer quite the same language—nor a completely different one, either.

–—–––—–—–—–—–——–——––––—–––—–—–—–—–——–——––––—–––—–—–—–—–——–——–––

SHAKESPEARE’S LANGUAGE

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–——–—––– —–— —–— —–— –—–— —–––— ––—–––—–—–—–—–—–—–——–––

–—–––—–—–—–—–—–—–——––– –—–––—–—–—–—–——–——––––—–——–——––––—–——––

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–— —–— –—–—–—–—–—–—–—– –—–—–—–—–—–—––— —

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—––—–—–—–—

–––—–—–—–––—–—––—–—–——–––——–––

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—––—–—–—–—–—

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—––—–—–—–—–—

Shakespeare’s English and ours overlap without being identical. He would have some difficulty understanding us, too! Many of our everyday words and phrases would baffle him. Shakespeare, for example, would not know what we meant by a car, a radio, a movie, a television, a computer, or a sitcom, since these things did not even exist in his time. Our old-fashioned term railroad train would be unimaginable to him, far in the distant future. We would have to explain to him (if we could) what nuclear weapons, electricity, and democracy are. He would also be a little puzzled by common expressions such as high-tech, feel the heat, approval ratings, war criminal, judgmental, and whoopee cushion. So how can we call him “the greatest master of the English language”? It might seem as if he barely spoke English at all! (He would, however, recognize much of our dirty slang, even if he pronounced it slightly differently. His plays also contain many racial insults to Jews, Africans, Italians, Irish, and others. Today he would be called “insensitive.”) Many of the words of Shakespeare’s time have become archaic. Words like thou, thee, thy, thyself, and thine, which were among the most common words in the language in Shakespeare’s day, have all but disappeared today. We simply say you for both singular and plural, formal and familiar. Most other modern languages have kept their thou. Sometimes the same words now have different meanings. We are apt to be misled by such simple, familiar words as kind, wonderful, waste, just, and dear, which he often uses in ways that differ from our usage. Shakespeare also doesn’t always use the words we expect to hear, the words that we ourselves would naturally use. When we

–—–—–––—–––––—–—––—–—–——–——–––

7

–––—— – —–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—– –––——–—–—–—–—–—–—–––—–

–––——–—–—–—–—–—–—–––—–

might automatically say, “I beg your pardon” or just “Sorry,” he might say, “I cry you mercy.” Often a glossary and footnotes will solve all three of these problems for us. But it is most important to bear in mind that Shakespeare was often hard for his first audiences to understand. Even in his own time his rich language was challenging. And this was deliberate. Shakespeare was inventing his own kind of English. It remains unique today. A child doesn’t learn to talk by using a dictionary. Children learn first by sheer immersion. We teach babies by pointing at things and saying their names. Yet the toddler always learns faster than we can teach! Even as babies we are geniuses. Dictionaries can help us later, when we already speak and read the language well (and learn more slowly). So the best way to learn Shakespeare is not to depend on the footnotes and glossary too much, but instead to be like a baby: just get into the flow of the language. Go to performances of the plays or watch movies of them. –—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—– –— –—–—–— —–— —–— —–— –—––— —– s –—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–— —–— –—–— —–—– –—––— –— —––— — e ha uag g of lan way The e l a , if w agic self a m t i o g is n chin id ere tea h T tup . it el s e let f hen to ed w ily. son t a e a r tr eas rus me o c or f t n’ oes it d

–––——–——–—–—–—–—–––—––––——–——–—–—–—–—–––—––––——–——–—–—–—–—–––—–

––——–—––––——–——–—––––——–——–—–—–—–—––––—–

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–——––—–—–—–—–—

––—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–— — — — — — — — — –—–——–—–—–—–—–—–—–—

Hundreds of phrases have entered the English language from Hamlet alone, including “to hold, as ’twere, the mirror up to nature”; “murder most foul”; “the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to”; “flaming youth”; “a countenance more in sorrow than in anger”; “the play’s the thing”; “neither a borrower nor a lender be”; “in my mind’s eye”; “something is rotten in the state of Denmark”; “alas, poor Yorick”; and “the lady doth protest too much, methinks.” From other plays we get the phrases “star-crossed lovers”; “what’s in a name?”; “we have scotched the snake, not killed it”; “one fell swoop”; “it was Greek to me”; “I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him”; and “the most unkindest cut of all”—all these are among our household words. In fact, Shakespeare even gave us the expression “household words.” No wonder his contemporaries marveled at his “fine filed phrase” and swooned at the “mellifluous and honey-tongued Shakespeare.” Shakespeare’s words seem to combine music, magic, wisdom, and humor: “The course of true love never did run smooth.” “He jests at scars that never felt a wound.” “The Fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”

Y

“Cowards die many times before their deaths; the valiant never taste of death but once.” “Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more.” “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

Y

“Brevity is the soul of wit.”

“There’s a divinity that shapes our ends, Rough-hew them how we will.”

S h a kes pea r e a nd His Wor ld

9 8

Four centuries after Shakespeare lived, to speak English is to quote him. His huge vocabulary and linguistic fertility are still astonishing. He has had a powerful effect on all of us, whether we realize it or not. We may wonder how it is even possible for a single human being to say so many memorable things. Only the King James translation of the Bible, perhaps, has had a more profound and pervasive influence on the English language than Shakespeare. And, of course, the Bible was written by many authors over many centuries, and the King James translation, published in 1611, was the combined effort of many scholars.

EARLY LIFE So who, exactly, was Shakespeare? Mystery surrounds his life, largely because few records were kept during his time. Some people have even doubted his identity, arguing that the real author of Shakespeare’s plays must have been a man of superior formal education and wide experience. In a sense such doubts are a natural and understandable reaction to his rare, almost miraculous powers of expression, but some people feel that the doubts themselves show a lack of respect for the supremely human poet. Most scholars agree that Shakespeare was born in the town of Stratfordupon-Avon in the county of Warwickshire, England, in April 1564. He was baptized, according to local church records, Gulielmus (William) Shakspere (the name was spelled in several different ways) on April 26 of that year. He was one of several children, most of whom died young. His father, John Shakespeare (or Shakspere), was a glove maker and, at times, a town official. He was often in debt or being fined for unknown delinquencies, perhaps failure to attend church regularly. It is suspected that John was a recusant (secret and illegal) Catholic, but there is no proof. Many

10


ed for d home is car o o h d il h c s e’ are Shakespear the Shakespe , y it r a h c nt de n -Avon, by an indepen ratford -upo t S in , t s u r T Birthplace e, England. Warwickshir

scholars have found Catholic tendencies in Shakespeare’s plays, but whether Shakespeare was Catholic or not we can only guess. At the time of Shakespeare’s birth, England was torn by religious controversy and persecution. The country had left the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, who had died in 1547. Two of Henry’s children, Edward and Mary, ruled after his death. When his daughter Elizabeth I became queen in 1558, she upheld his claim that the monarch of England was also head of the English Church.


11

Did William attend the local grammar school? He was probably entitled to, given his father’s prominence in Stratford, but again, we face a frustrating absence of proof, and many people of the time learned to read very well without schooling. If he went to the town school, he would also have learned the rudiments of Latin. We know very little about the first half of William’s life. In 1582, when he was eighteen, he married Anne Hathaway, eight years his senior. Their first daughter, Susanna, was born six months later. The following year they had twins, Hamnet and Judith. At this point William disappears from the records again. By the early 1590s we find “William Shakespeare” in London, a member of the city’s leading acting company, called the Lord Chamberlain’s Men. Many of Shakespeare’s greatest roles, we are told, were first performed by the company’s star, Richard Burbage. Curiously, the first work published under (and identified with) Shakespeare’s name was not a play but a long erotic poem, Venus and Adonis, in 1593. It was dedicated to the young Earl of Southampton, Henry Wriothesley. Venus and Adonis was a spectacular success, and Shakespeare was immediately hailed as a major poet. In 1594 he dedicated a longer, more serious poem to Southampton, The Rape of Lucrece. It was another hit, and for many years, these two poems were considered Shakespeare’s greatest works, despite the popularity of his plays.

Fairer tha t o n g u e c a nn –—–—–—–—–—–— n a–— —–— e–— –— –—m –— —–— –— e—–— –—–— –t —–— –h —–— –e —.–— –—–—–—

–—–—–—––

–—–—–—––

–—–—–—–—–— —–— –—–— —–— –—–— –—–— –—–— –—–— —––— —–— —–— –—–— —––—–—–——–—

—–—–—

12


–—–––—–—–—–—–——–——––––—–——–——––––—–——––

Today movies, not live plays, are the more popular art form. Fortunately most of Shakespeare’s plays have been filmed, and the best of these movies offer an excellent way to make the Bard’s acquaintance. recently, Kenneth –—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–— –—–—–——–—–—–—–——–—– Branagh has become a respected converter of Shakespeare’s plays into film.

As You Like It One of the earliest screen versions of As You Like It is the 1936 film starring Laurence Olivier as Orlando and Elisabeth Bergner as Rosalind. The New York Times, in a movie review, praised both the directorial interpretation and the actors’ portrayals. British actress Helen Mirren starred in a 1978 BBC production that was filmed entirely outdoors. The most recent film version, directed by renowned Shakespearean actor Kenneth Branagh, aired in 2006 on HBO. Set in nineteenth-century Japan, it is visually stunning and a decent interpretation of the play. It also boasts an impressive supporting cast, including Kevin Kline as Jaques, Alfred Molina as Touchstone, and Romola Garai as Celia.

Hamlet

–—–––—–—–—–—–——–——––––—–––—–—–—–—–——–——––––—–––—–—–—–—–——–——–––

SHAKESPEARE’S on film: LANGUAGE a sampler

–—–—––—–—–—–—–—–—–—–

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–——–—––– –— —–— —–— —–— –—–— –— —–––— ––—–––—–—–—–—–—–—–——–––

–—–––—–—–—–—–—–—–——–––

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–— —–— –—SHAKESPEARE –—–—–—–—–—–—– –—–—–—–—–—–—––— —

Hamlet, Shakespeare’s most famous play, has been well filmed several times. In 1948 Laurence Olivier won three Academy —–—––—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—––—–—–—–—–—

13

–––––—–—–—–––—–—––—–—–——–——––– Henry IV, Part One The 1979 BBC Shakespeare series production does a commendable job in this straightforward approach to the play. Battle scenes are effective despite obvious restrictions in an indoor studio setting. Anthony Quayle gives jovial Falstaff a darker edge, and Tim Pigott-Smith’s Hotspur is buoyed by some humor. Jon Finch plays King Henry IV with noble authority, and David Gwillim gives Hal a surprisingly successful transformation from boy prince to heir apparent.

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—––—–—–—–—–—

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—––—–—–—–—–—

Awards—for best picture, best actor, and best director—for his version of the play. The film allowed him to show some of the magnetism that made him famous on the stage. Nobody spoke Shakespeare’s lines more thrillingly. The young Derek Jacobi played Hamlet in a 1980 BBC production of the play, with Patrick Stewart (now best known for Star Trek: The Next Generation) as the guilty king. Jacobi, like Olivier, has a gift for speaking the lines freshly; he never seems to be merely reciting the famous and familiar words. But whereas Olivier has animal passion, Jacobi is more intellectual. It is fascinating to compare the ways these two outstanding actors play Shakespeare’s most complex character. Franco Zeffirelli’s 1990 Hamlet, starring Mel Gibson, is fascinating in a different way. Gibson, of course, is best known as an action hero, and he is not well suited to this supremely witty and introspective role, but Zeffirelli cuts the text drastically, and the result turns Hamlet into something that few people would have expected: a short, swiftly moving action movie. Several of the other characters are brilliantly played.

–—–––—–—–––––—–—––—–—–——–——–––

–––—–—–—–––—–—––—–—–——–––——––– No really good movie of Julius Caesar exists, but the 1953 film, with Marlon Brando as Mark Antony, will do. James Mason is a thoughtful Brutus, and John Gielgud, then ranked with Laurence Olivier among the greatest Shakespearean actors, plays the villainous Cassius. The film is rather dull, and Brando is out of place in a Roman toga, but it is still worth viewing.

King Lear In the past century, King Lear has been adapted for film approximately fifteen times. Peter Brook directed a bleak 1971 version starring British actor Paul Scofield as Lear. One of the best film versions of King Lear, not surprisingly, features Laurence Olivier in the title role. The 1983 British TV version, directed by Michael Elliott, provides a straightforward interpretation of the play, though the visual quality may seem dated to the twentyfirst–century viewer. Olivier won an Emmy for Outstanding Lead Actor for his role.

Macbe Roman Polanski is best known as a director of thrillers and horror films, so it may seem natural that he should have done his 1971 The Tragedy of Macbeth as an often-gruesome slasher flick. But this is also one of the most vigorous of all Shakespeare films. Macbeth and his wife are played by Jon Finch and Francesca Annis, neither known for playing Shakespeare, but they are young and attractive in roles that are usually given to older actors, which gives the story a fresh flavor.

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—––—–—–—–—–—

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—––—–—–—–—–—

Julius Caesar

–—–—–––—–––––—–—––—–—–——–——–––

15

–––––—–—–—–––—–—––—–—–——–——––– Once again the matchless Sir Laurence Olivier delivers a great performance as Shylock with his wife Joan Plowright as Portia in the 1974 TV film, adapted from the 1970 National Theater (of Britain) production. A 1980 BBC offering features Warren Mitchell as Shylock and Gemma Jones as Portia, with John Rhys-Davies as Salerio. The most recent production, starring Al Pacino as Shylock, Jeremy Irons as Antonio, and Joseph Fiennes as Bassanio, was filmed in Venice and released in 2004.

A Midsumm Night’s Dream Because of the prestige of his tragedies, we tend to forget how many comedies Shakespeare wrote—nearly twice the number of tragedies. Of these perhaps the most popular has always been the enchanting, atmospheric, and very silly masterpiece A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Several films have been made of A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Among the more notable have been Max Reinhardt’s 1935 blackand-white version, with Mickey Rooney (then a child star) as Puck. Of the several film versions, the one starring Kevin Kline as Bottom and Stanley Tucci as Puck, made in 1999 with nineteenthcentury costumes and directed by Michael Hoffman, ranks among the finest, and is surely one of the most sumptuous to watch.

Oello Orson Welles did a budget European version in 1952, now available as a restored DVD. Laurence Olivier’s 1965 film performance is predictably remarkable, though it has been said that he would only approach the part by honoring, even emulating, Paul Robeson’s

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—––—–—–—–—–—

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—––—–—–—–—–—

The Mchant of Venice

–—–––—–—–––––—–—––—–—–——–——–––

–––—–—–—–––—–—––—–—–——–––——––– Richard III Many well-known actors have portrayed the villainous Richard III on film. Of course, Laurence Olivier stepped in to play the role of Richard in a 1955 version he also directed. Director Richard Loncraine chose to set his 1995 film version in Nazi Germany. The movie, which starred Ian McKellen as Richard, was nominated for two Oscars; McKellen was nominated for a Golden Globe for his performance. The World War II interpretation also featured Robert Downey Jr. as Rivers, Kristin Scott Thomas as Lady Anne, and Maggie Smith (from the Harry Potter movies) as the Duchess of York. A 2008 version, directed by and starring Scott Anderson, is set in modern-day Los Angeles. Prolific actor David Carradine portrays Buckingham.

Romeo and Juliet This, the world’s most famous love story, has been filmed many times, twice very successfully over the last generation. Franco Zeffirelli directed a hit version in 1968 with Leonard Whiting and the rapturously pretty Olivia Hussey, set in Renaissance Italy. Baz

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—––—–—–—–—–—

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—––—–—–—–—–—

definitive interpretation that ran on Broadway in 1943. (Robeson was the first black actor to play Othello, the Moor of Venice, and he did so to critical acclaim, though sadly his performance was never filmed.) Maggie Smith plays a formidable Desdemona opposite Olivier, and her youth and energy will surprise younger audiences who know her only from the Harry Potter films. Laurence Fishburne brilliantly portrayed Othello in the 1995 film, costarring with Kenneth Branagh as a surprisingly human Iago, though Irène Jacob’s Desdemona was disappointingly weak.

–—–—–––—–––––—–—––—–—–——–——–––

17

–––––—–—–—–––—–—––—–—–——–——––– The Taming of e Shrew Franco Zeffirelli’s 1967 film version of The Taming of the Shrew starred Elizabeth Taylor as Kate and Richard Burton as Petruchio. Shakespeare’s original lines were significantly cut and altered to accommodate both the film media and Taylor’s inexperience as a Shakespearean actress. Gil Junger’s 1999 movie 10 Things I Hate About You is loosely based on Shakespeare’s play. Julia Stiles and Heath Ledger star in this interpretation set in a modern-day high school. In 2005 BBC aired a version of Shakespeare’s play set in twenty-first-century England. Kate is a successful, driven politician who succumbs to cash-strapped Petruchio, played by Rufus Sewell.

The Tempest A 1960 Hallmark Hall of Fame production featured Maurice Evans as Prospero, Lee Remick as Miranda, Roddy McDowall as Ariel, and Richard Burton as Caliban. The special effects are primitive and the costumes are ludicrous, but it moves along at a fast pace. Another TV version aired in 1998 and was nominated for a Golden Globe. Peter Fonda played Gideon Prosper, and Katherine Heigl played his daughter Miranda Prosper. Sci-fi fans may already know that the classic 1956 film Forbidden Planet is modeled on themes and characters from the play.

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—––—–—–—–—–—

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—––—–—–—–—–—

Luhrmann made a much more contemporary version, with a loud rock score, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes, in 1996. It seems safe to say that Shakespeare would have preferred Zeffirelli’s movie, with its superior acting and rich, romantic, sundrenched Italian scenery.

–—–––—–—–––––—–—––—–—–——–——–––

–––—–—–—–––—–—––—–—–——–––——––– Trevor Nunn adapted the play for the 1996 film he also directed in a rapturous Edwardian setting, with big names like Helena Bonham Carter, Richard E. Grant, Imogen Stubbs, and Ben Kingsley as Feste. A 2003 film set in modern Britain provides an interesting multicultural experience; it features an Anglo-Indian cast with Parminder Nagra (Bend It Like Beckham) playing Viola. For the truly intrepid, a twelve-minute silent film made in 1910 does a fine job of capturing the play through visual gags and over-the-top gesturing. These films have been selected for several qualities: appeal and accessibility to modern audiences, excellence in acting, pacing, visual beauty, and, of course, fidelity to Shakespeare. They are the motion pictures we judge most likely to help students understand the source of the Bard’s lasting power.

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—––—–—–—–—–—

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—––—–—–—–—–—

Twelf Night

–—–—–––—–––––—–—––—–—–——–——–––

19

SHAKESPEARE’S THEATER Today we sometimes speak of “live entertainment.” In Shakespeare’s day, of course, all entertainment was live, because recordings, films, television, and radio did not yet exist. Even printed books were a novelty. In fact, most communication in those days was difficult. Transportation was not only difficult but slow, chiefly by horse and boat. Most people were illiterate peasants who lived on farms that they seldom left; cities grew up along waterways and were subject to frequent plagues that could wipe out much of the population within weeks. Money—in coin form, not paper—was scarce and hardly existed outside the cities. By today’s standards, even the rich were poor. Life was precarious. Most children died young, and famine or disease might kill anyone at any time. Everyone was familiar with death. Starvation was not rare or remote, as it is to most of us today. Medical care was poor and might kill as many people as it healed. This was the grim background of Shakespeare’s theater during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, who ruled from 1558 until her death in 1603. During that period England was also torn Elizabeth I, a great by religious conflict, often violent, patron of poetry and te wro the theater, among Roman Catholics who were sonnets and translated classic works. 20


loyal to the pope, adherents of the Church of England who were loyal to the queen, and the Puritans who would take over the country in the revolution of 1642. Under these conditions, most forms of entertainment were luxuries that were out of most people’s reach. The only way to hear music was to be in the actual physical presence of singers or musicians with their instruments, which were primitive by our standards. One brutal form of entertainment, popular in London, was bearbaiting. A bear was blinded and chained to a stake, where fierce dogs called mastiffs were turned loose to tear him apart. The theaters had to compete with the bear gardens, as they were called, for spectators. The Puritans, or radical Protestants, objected to bearbaiting and tried to ban it. Despite their modern reputation, the Puritans were anything but conservative. Conservative people, attached to old customs, hated the Puritans. They seemed to upset everything. (Many of America’s first settlers, such as the Pilgrims who came over on the Mayflower, were dissidents who were fleeing the Church of England.) Plays were extremely popular, but they were primitive, too. They had to be performed outdoors in the afternoon because of the lack of indoor lighting. Often the “theater” was only an enclosed courtyard. Probably the versions of Shakespeare’s plays that we know today were not used in full, but shortened to about two hours for actual performance. But eventually more regular theaters were built, featuring a raised stage extending into the audience. Poorer spectators (illiterate “groundlings”) stood on the ground around it, at times exposed to rain and snow. Wealthier people sat in raised tiers above. Aside from some costumes, there were few props or special effects and almost no scenery. Much had to be imagined: Whole battles might be represented by a few actors with swords. Thunder might be simulated by rattling a sheet of tin offstage.


21

The plays were far from realistic and, under the conditions of the time, could hardly try to be. Above the rear of the main stage was a small balcony. (It was this balcony from which Juliet spoke to Romeo.) Ghosts and witches might appear by entering through a trapdoor in the stage floor. Unlike the modern theater, Shakespeare’s Globe Theater—he describes it as “this wooden O”—had no curtain separating the stage from the audience. This allowed intimacy between the players and the spectators.

e ed Glob t c u r t 1997 on s The rec as completed in st 200 w ju Theater ted in London, ca the site and is lo meters) from 83 yards (1 riginal. of the o

22


—–—–—–——–— —–—–— —–— –—–— –—–— –— –—– —–— —–— —–— —–— –— —– — –— —– –—–—–—–—

–—–—–—––

–—–—–—––

” “ –—

was ever a w o m a n in t h is ?–—–— o w – —–—–— r — o–— —–— –n —–— —–— –— h — –— –—–— –— — –— – –— —m –— —u –— —– — —–— –—–—–— The spectators probably reacted rowdily to the play, not listening in reverent silence. After all, they had come to have fun! And few of them were scholars. Again, a play had to amuse people who could not read. The lines of plays were written and spoken in prose or, more often, in a form of verse called iambic pentameter (ten syllables with five stresses per line). There was no attempt at modern realism. Only males were allowed on the stage, so some of the greatest women’s roles ever written had to be played by boys or men. (The same is true, by the way, of the ancient Greek theater.) Actors had to be versatile, skilled not only in acting, but also in fencing, singing, dancing, and acrobatics. Within its limitations, the theater offered a considerable variety of spectacles. Plays were big business, not yet regarded as high art, sponsored by important and powerful people (the queen loved them as much as the groundlings did). The London acting companies also toured and performed in the provinces. When plagues struck London, the government might order the theaters to be closed to prevent the spread of disease among crowds. (They remained empty for nearly two years from 1593 to 1594.) As the theater became more popular, the Puritans grew as hostile to it as they were to bearbaiting. Plays, like books, were censored by the government, and the Puritans fought to increase restrictions, eventually banning any mention of God and other sacred topics on the stage.


23

In 1642 the Puritans shut down all the theaters in London, and in 1644 they had the Globe demolished. The theaters remained closed until Charles’s son, King Charles II, was restored to the throne in 1660 and the hated Puritans were finally vanquished. But, by then, the tradition of Shakespeare’s theater had been fatally interrupted. His plays remained popular, but they were often rewritten by inferior dramatists, and it was many years before they were performed (again) as he had originally written them.

The Royal S hakespeare Theater, in Stratfor d -upon-Avo n, was closed in 20 07 to build a 1,000 seat audito rium . 24


Today, of course, the plays are performed both in theaters and in films, sometimes in costumes of the period (ancient Rome for Julius Caesar, medieval England for Henry V), sometimes in modern dress (Richard III has recently been reset in England in the 1930s).

PLAYS In the England of Queen Elizabeth I, plays were enjoyed by all classes of people, but they were not yet respected as a serious form of art. Shakespeare’s plays began to appear in print in individual, or quarto, editions in 1594, but none of these bore his name until 1598. Although his tragedies are now ranked as his supreme achievements, his name was first associated with comedies and with plays about English history. The dates of Shakespeare’s plays are notoriously hard to determine. Few performances of them were documented; some were not printed until decades after they first appeared on the stage. Mainstream scholars generally place most of the comedies and histories in the 1590s, admitting that this time frame is no more than a widely accepted estimate. The three parts of King Henry VI, culminating in a fourth part, Richard III, deal with the long and complex dynastic struggle or civil wars known as the Wars of the Roses (1455–1487), one of England’s most turbulent periods. Today it is not easy to follow the plots of these plays. It may seem strange to us that a young playwright should have written such demanding works early in his career, but they were evidently very popular with the Elizabethan public. Of the four, only Richard III, with its wonderfully villainous starring role, is still often performed. Even today, one of Shakespeare’s early comedies, The Taming of the Shrew, remains a crowd-pleaser. (It has enjoyed success in a 1999 film adaptation, 10 Things I Hate About You, with Heath Ledger and Julia Stiles.) The story is simple: The enterprising Petruchio resolves to marry a rich


25

–—–––—–—–—–—–—–—–——––– –—–––—–—–—–—–——–——––––—–——–——––––—–——––

the “real” SHAKESPEARE

Around 1850 doubts started to surface about who had actually written Shakespeare’s plays, chiefly because many other authors, such as Mark

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–— –—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—– Twain, thought the plays’ author was too well educated and knowledgeable to have been the modestly schooled man from Stratford.

Who, then, was the real author? Many answers have been given, but the three leading candidates are Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, and Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford.

Francis Bacon (1561-1626) Bacon was a distinguished lawyer, scientist, philosopher, and essayist. Many considered him one of the great geniuses of his time, capable of any literary achievement, though he wrote little poetry and, as far as we know, no dramas. When people began to suspect that “Shakespeare” was only a pen name, he seemed like a natural candidate. But his writing style was vastly different from the style of the plays.

–—–––—–—–—–—–——–——––––—–––—–—–—–—–——–——––––—–––—–—–—–—–——–——–––

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–——–—––– —–— —–— —–— –—–— —–––— ––—–––—–—–—–—–—–—–——–––

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–— —–— –—–—–—–—–—–—–—– –—–—–—–—–—–—––— —

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—––—–—–—–—

Christoph Marlowe (1564-1593) Marlowe wrote several excellent tragedies in a style much like that of the Shakespearean tragedies, though without the comic blend. But he was reportedly killed in a mysterious incident in 1593, before most of the Bard’s plays existed. Could his death have been faked? Is it possible that he lived on for decades in hiding, writing under a pen name? This is what his advocates contend.

Edward de Ve, Earl of Oxfd (1550-1604) Oxford is now the most popular and plausible alternative to the lad from Stratford. He had a high reputation as a poet and playwright in his day, but his life was full of scandal. That controversial life seems to match what the poet says about himself in the sonnets, as well as many events in the plays (especially Hamlet). However, he died in 1604, and most scholars believe this rules him out as the author of plays that were published after that date.

–––——–—–—–—–—–—–—–––—–

–––—— – —–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—– –––——–—–—–—–—–—–—–––—–

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—– —–—–—–—–— —–— —– –—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–— –— –—–—–—–— —–— —–— —–— –—– —–—

––—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–— –— —–— –—–—–—–—–— — — — — — —–—–—–—

–––——–——–—–—–—–—–––—––––——–——–—–—–—–—–––—––––——–——–—–—–—–—–––—–

––——–—––––——–——–—––––——–——–—–—–—–—––––—–

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—––—–—–—–—–

The great majority of experts reject these and all other alternative candidates, sticking with the traditional view, affirmed in the 1623 First Folio of the plays, that the author was the man from Stratford. That remains the safest position to take, unless startling new evidence turns up, which, at this late date, seems highly unlikely.

–—–—–—–—–—–—–———–—– ––—–— –— —–— –—–— —–—–— –— —–— —–— –—–— –—–— – ——–— —–

27

young woman, Katherina Minola, for her wealth, despite her reputation for having a bad temper. Nothing she does can discourage this dauntless suitor, and the play ends with Kate becoming a submissive wife. It is all the funnier for being unbelievable. With Romeo and Juliet the Bard created his first enduring triumph. This tragedy of “star-crossed lovers” from feuding families is known around the world. Even people with only the vaguest knowledge of Shakespeare are often aware of this universally beloved story. It has inspired countless similar stories and adaptations, such as the hit musical West Side Story. By the mid-1590s Shakespeare was successful and prosperous, a partner in the Lord Chamberlain’s Men. He was rich enough to buy New Place, one of the largest houses in his hometown of Stratford. Yet, at the peak of his good fortune came the worst sorrow of his life: Hamnet, his only son, died in August 1596 at the age of eleven, leaving nobody to carry on his family name, which was to die out with his two daughters. Our only evidence of his son’s death is a single line in the parish burial register. As far as we know, this crushing loss left no mark on Shakespeare’s work. As far as his creative life shows, it was as if nothing had happened. His silence about his grief may be the greatest puzzle of his mysterious life, although, as we shall see, others remain. During this period, according to traditional dating (even if it must be somewhat hypothetical), came the torrent of Shakespeare’s mightiest works. Among these was another quartet of English history plays, this one centering on the legendary King Henry IV, including Richard II and the two parts of Henry IV. Then came a series of wonderful romantic comedies: Much Ado About Nothing, As You Like It, and Twelfth Night. In 1598 the clergyman Francis Meres, as part of a larger work, hailed

28


Actor Joseph Fiennes portrayed the Bard in the 1998 film Shakespeare in Love, directed by John Madden. Shakespeare as the English Ovid, supreme in love poetry as welllll as drama. dra rama ma “The Muses would speak with Shakespeare’s fine filed phrase,” Meres wrote, “if they would speak English.” He added praise of Shakespeare’s “sugared sonnets among his private friends.” It is tantalizing; Meres seems to know something of the poet’s personal life, but he gives us no hard information. No wonder biographers are frustrated. Next the Bard returned gloriously to tragedy with Julius Caesar. In the play Caesar has returned to Rome in great popularity after his military triumphs. Brutus and several other leading senators, suspecting that Caesar means to make himself king, plot to assassinate him. Midway


29

through the play, after the assassination, comes one of Shakespeare’s most famous scenes. Brutus speaks at Caesar’s funeral. But then Caesar’s friend Mark Antony delivers a powerful attack on the conspirators, inciting the mob to fury. Brutus and the others, forced to flee Rome, die in the ensuing civil war. In the end the spirit of Caesar wins after all. If Shakespeare had written nothing after Julius Caesar, he would still have been remembered as one of the greatest playwrights of all time. But his supreme works were still to come. Only Shakespeare could have surpassed Julius Caesar, and he did so with Hamlet (usually dated about 1600). King Hamlet of Denmark has died, apparently bitten by a poisonous snake. Claudius, his brother, has married the dead king’s widow, Gertrude, and become the new king, to the disgust and horror of Prince Hamlet. The ghost of old Hamlet appears to young Hamlet, reveals that he was actually poisoned by Claudius, and demands revenge. Hamlet accepts this as his duty, but cannot bring himself to kill his hated uncle. What follows is Shakespeare’s most brilliant and controversial plot. The story of Hamlet is set against the religious controversies of the Bard’s time. Is the ghost in hell or purgatory? Is Hamlet Catholic or Protestant? Can revenge ever be justified? We are never really given the answers to such questions. But the play reverberates with them.

THE KING’S MEN In 1603 Queen Elizabeth I died, and King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England. He also became the patron of Shakespeare’s acting company, so the Lord Chamberlain’s Men became the King’s Men. From this point on, we know less of Shakespeare’s life in London than in Stratford, where he kept acquiring property. In the later years of the sixteenth century Shakespeare had been a

30


rather elusive figure in London, delinquent in paying taxes. From 1602 to 1604 he lived, according to his own later testimony, with a French immigrant family named Mountjoy. After 1604 there is no record of any London residence for Shakespeare, nor do we have any reliable recollection of him or his whereabouts by others. As always, the documents leave much to be desired. Nearly as great as Hamlet is Othello, and many regard King Lear, the heartbreaking tragedy about an old king and his three daughters, as Shakespeare’s supreme tragedy. Shakespeare’s shortest tragedy, Macbeth, tells the story of a Scottish lord and his wife who plot to murder the king of Scotland to gain the throne for themselves. Antony and Cleopatra, a sequel to Julius Caesar, depicts the aging Mark Antony in love with the enchanting queen of Egypt. Coriolanus, another Roman tragedy, is the poet’s least popular masterpiece.

SONNETS AND THE END The year 1609 saw the publication of Shakespeare’s Sonnets. Of these 154 puzzling love poems, the first 126 are addressed to a handsome young man, unnamed, but widely believed to be the Earl of Southampton; the rest concern a dark woman, also unidentified. These mysteries are still debated by scholars. Near the end of his career Shakespeare turned to comedy again, but it was a comedy of a new and more serious kind. Magic plays a large role in these late plays. For example, in The Tempest, the exiled duke of Milan, Prospero, uses magic to defeat his enemies and bring about a final reconciliation. According to the most commonly accepted view, Shakespeare, not yet fifty, retired to Stratford around 1610. He died prosperous in 1616 and left a will that divided his goods, with a famous provision leaving his wife


31

“my second-best bed.” He was buried in the chancel of the parish church, under a tombstone bearing a crude rhyme:

Y

Good friend, for Jesus sake forbeare, To dig the dust enclosed here. Blest be the man that spares these stones, And cursed be he that moves my bones.

Y

This epitaph is another hotly debated mystery: did the great poet actually compose these lines himself?

Shakespear e’s grave in Ho Trinity Chu rch, Stratf ly ord -uponAvon . His wif e, Anne Hath away, is buried bes ide him . 32


THE FOLIO In 1623 Shakespeare’s colleagues of the King’s Men produced a large volume of the plays (excluding the sonnets and other poems) titled Mr. William Shakespeares Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies with a woodcut portrait of the Bard. As a literary monument it is priceless, containing our only texts of half the plays; as a source of biographical information it is severely disappointing, giving not even the dates of Shakespeare’s birth and death. Ben Jonson, then England’s poet laureate, supplied a long prefatory poem saluting Shakespeare as the equal of the great classical Greek tragedians Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, adding that “He was not of an age, but for all time.” Some would later denigrate Shakespeare. His reputation took more than a century to conquer Europe, where many regarded him as semibarbarous. His works were not translated before 1740. Jonson himself, despite his personal affection, would deprecate “idolatry” of the Bard. For a time Jonson himself was considered more “correct” than Shakespeare, and possibly the superior artist. But Jonson’s generous verdict is now the whole world’s. Shakespeare was not merely of his own age, “but for all time.”

–—–—–—––

– –—––—–——–— —–— –—–— —–— —–— —–— —–— – –— –— — – –— — –— — –— —– — –— —– –— –— –— –—

–—–—–—––

n o w is t h e w in t e r o f o u r .—–—––——–—–— t e—n n o —–— c –—––— –— is d —–— –t —–— —– ––— — – –— — – –— — – –— — –— — –— — –— —– –— –—–—–— S h a kes pea r e a nd His Wor ld

33

–— –—–—–—–— –—–––—–—–—–—–—–—–——––– –—–––—–

–—–––—–—–—–—–—–—–——–––

—––— —––— —–—–—–— —–—–— — –—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—

A glossary of literary terms

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—

alliteration alliteration—repetition of one or more initial sounds, especially consonants, as in the saying “through thick and thin,” or in Julius Caesar’s statement, “veni, vidi, vici.” allusion allusion—a reference, especially when the subject referred to is not actually named, but is unmistakably hinted at. aside aside—a short speech in which a character speaks to the audience, unheard by other characters on the stage.

—–—–—–—–——–——––––—–——–——––––—–——––——

—–—–—–—–——–——––––—–——–——––––—–——––——

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—––—–—–—–—— allegory—a story in which characters and events stand for allegory general moral truths. Shakespeare never uses this form simply, but his plays are full of allegorical elements.

comedy comedy—a story written to amuse, using devices such as witty dialogue (high comedy) or silly physical movement (low comedy). Most of Shakespeare’s comedies were romantic comedies, incorporating lovers who endure separations, misunderstandings, and other obstacles but who are finally united in a happy resolution. –—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—––—–—–——–—

–––—–—–—–––—–—––—–—–——–––——––– dialogue dialogue—speech that takes place among two or more characters. diction diction—choice of words for a given tone. A speech’s diction may be dignified (as when a king formally addresses his court), comic (as when the ignorant grave diggers debate whether Ophelia deserves a religious funeral), vulgar, romantic, or whatever the dramatic occasion requires. Shakespeare was a master of diction. Elizabethan Elizabethan—having to do with the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, from 1558 until her death in 1603. This is considered the most famous period in the history of England, chiefly because of Shakespeare and other noted authors (among them Sir Philip Sidney, Edmund Spenser, and Christopher Marlowe). It was also an era of military glory, especially the defeat of the huge Spanish Armada in 1588. Globe Globe—the Globe Theater housed Shakespeare’s acting company, the Lord Chamberlain’s Men (later known as the King’s Men). Built in 1598, it caught fire and burned down during a performance of Henry VIII in 1613. hyperbole hyperbole—an excessively elaborate exaggeration used to create special emphasis or a comic effect, as in Montague’s remark that his son Romeo’s sighs are “adding to clouds more clouds” in Romeo and Juliet. irony irony—a discrepancy between what a character says and what he or she truly believes, what is expected to happen and

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—––—–—–—–—–—

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—––—–—–—–—–—

deus ex machina—an machina unexpected, artificial resolution to a play’s convoluted plot. Literally, “god out of a machine.”

–—–—–––—–––––—–—––—–—–——–——–––

35

–––––—–—–—–––—–—––—–—–——–——––– metaphor metaphor—a figure of speech in which one thing is identified with another, such as when Hamlet calls his father a “fair mountain.” (See also simile.) monologue—a speech delivered by a single character. monologue motif motif—a recurrent theme or image, such as disease in Hamlet or moonlight in A Midsummer Night’s Dream. oxymoron oxymoron—a phrase that combines two contradictory terms, as in the phrase “sounds of silence” or Hamlet’s remark, “I must be cruel only to be kind.” personification personification—imparting personality to something impersonal (“the sky wept”); giving human qualities to an idea or an inanimate object, as in the saying “love is blind.” pun pun—a playful treatment of words that sound alike, or are exactly the same, but have different meanings. In Romeo and Juliet Mercutio says, after being fatally wounded, “Ask for me tomorrow and you shall find me a grave man.” Grave could mean either “a place of burial” or “serious.” simile simile—a figure of speech in which one thing is compared to another, usually using the word like or as. (See also metaphor.) soliloquy soliloquy—a speech delivered by a single character, addressed to the audience. The most famous are those of Hamlet, but Shakespeare uses this device frequently to tell us his characters’ inner thoughts. symbol—a visible thing that stands for an invisible quality, as symbol

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—––—–—–—–—–—

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—––—–—–—–—–—

what really happens, or what a character says and what others understand.

–—–––—–—–––––—–—––—–—–——–——–––

–––—–—–—–––—–—––—–—–——–––——––– syntax syntax—sentence structure or grammar. Shakespeare displays amazing variety of syntax, from the sweet simplicity of his songs to the clotted fury of his great tragic heroes, who can be very difficult to understand at a first hearing. These effects are deliberate; if we are confused, it is because Shakespeare means to confuse us. theme theme—the abstract subject or message of a work of art, such as revenge in Hamlet or overweening ambition in Macbeth. tone—the style or approach of a work of art. The tone of tone

A Midsummer Night’s Dream, set by the lovers, Bottom’s crew, and the fairies, is light and sweet. The tone of Macbeth, set by the witches, is dark and sinister. tragedy tragedy—a story that traces a character’s fall from power, sanity, or privilege. Shakespeare’s well-known tragedies include Hamlet, Macbeth, and Othello. tragicomedy tragicomedy—a story that combines elements of both tragedy and comedy, moving a heavy plot through twists and turns to a happy ending. verisimilitude—having the appearance of being real or true. verisimilitude understatement understatement—a statement expressing less than intended, often with an ironic or comic intention; the opposite of hyperbole.

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—––—–—–—–—–—

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—––—–—–—–—–—

poison in Hamlet stands for evil and treachery.

–—–—–––—–––––—–—––—–—–——–——–––

37

Shakespeare and

Richard III

A poster advertising an 1884 performance of Richard III starring American Shakespearean actor Thomas Keene.

Shakespeare and | | | d r a h c i R ch ap te r on e

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–— How do you get people

interested in a story they already know? That was

Shakespeare ’s job when he sat down to write Richard

III

in 1591. how do you make sen se

of a play when you don’t

know what the Elizabeth ans

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—

––— —–—–—–—–—–—–—–— —–— —–– ––––— —— — —––— —— —––

–— – —–— –—–— –—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—

––— —––— —––— —– —–— –—–— –—–— –—–— –—–— –—–—–—–—

The historical Richard III didn’t live long—from 1452 to 1485—and he was king for only twenty-six months, but his story is long, confusing, and bloody. It begins before he does, and thanks to Shakespeare, it’s still going strong after four hundred years. Here’s where the historical part of the story starts: late in the fourteenth century, the aged English king Edward III died. Edward had seven sons. One of his grandsons, whose father was already dead, became Richard II when he was only eleven years old. Richard II ruled England for twentytwo years before he was overthrown by one of his cousins. This cousin—the Duke of Lancaster—became Henry IV. But Henry also had a

40


––——

––—–– –

knew? That’s our job. An d it ain ’t for sissies. –— – –— –—–— –—– —–— —–— —–— –—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–— –—–—–—

cousin—the Duke of York—who didn’t take kindly to what the Duke of Lancaster had done, and neither did his descendants. The Yorks were also of royal blood, and they believed they could wield power just as well as any Lancaster. Furthermore, the Yorks were willing to use force to gain the throne and made several failed attempts to overthrow Henry IV. They also tried (unsuccessfully) to topple his son Henry V, who passed the crown on to his son Henry VI. The Yorks successfully took the throne in 1461. Henry VI was overthrown, and the head of the House of York had himself crowned Edward IV. Now it was the Lancasters’ turn to rebel. Nine years after Edward IV became king, an army led by Henry VI regained the throne. The Yorks overthrew their rival again. This time Edward IV, along with his brothers George, Duke of Clarence, and Richard, Duke of Gloucester, killed Henry VI. Then, just to make sure there would be no more rebellions anytime soon, they also murdered Henry’s son and heir, the young prince Edward. And lest we get the wrong idea about the Yorks, the Lancasters also did their share of killing, having earlier knocked off the youngest brother of Edward, Clarence, and Richard. Got all those Henrys, Edwards, and Richards straight? It was the men who were out waging war to bring peace to fifteenth-century England, but the royal women were also players in all this. King Henry VI’s widow is Queen Margaret. Though historically she was already dead when Richard seized the crown, Shakespeare recognized the usefulness of her character for his play. She appears in Richard III to bring down a hail of curses on the Yorks. Lady Anne, the widow of Henry VI’s son Prince Edward, allows herself to be seduced by the same Richard who murdered her husband and father-in-law; but their marriage won’t last long. Richard will murder her shortly after he becomes king. Then there’s Queen Elizabeth. When the play begins, she’s still married to the soon-to-

S h a kes pea r e a nd R icha r d iii

41

be late King Edward IV. Elizabeth’s elder son by King Edward is first in line to inherit the throne, but he’s still a child. No problem. Clarence, Richard’s older brother, can be made temporary king until the boy comes of age. At least that’s what Richard fears is going to happen. So what’s a poor, ambitious York such as Richard to do with so many people lined up between him and the throne? If Richard wants to wear that crown for more than just a few years, he’s going to have to get rid of them all. And that still leaves the boys’ sister, Elizabeth. What’s Richard going to do about her? Richard convinces Elizabeth’s mother to allow her daughter to become his queen, but whether the mother means to keep her side of the agreement is a matter of debate. Fortunately for the princess and the queen, the Earl of Richmond kills Richard before a wedding can be arranged. The Earl of Richmond is from the Tudor family (the famous Henry VIII is his son). He wants to overthrow Richard III, become king, and also marry Princess Elizabeth. Will there be no end to this family feud? It’s been going on for more than thirty years. It even has a name—the War of the Roses— because each family is historically symbolized by a different-colored rose: red for the Lancasters and white for the Yorks. How many will have to die before a lasting peace is established? A lot. When Richard learns that Richmond has landed in England with an army he raised in France, he knows he won’t be able to resort to his underhanded tactics. He’ll have to meet his adversary in the mother of all family battles at Bosworth Field. So how does Shakespeare pull all this information together in a play that’s going to hold his audience’s attention for hours on end? He doesn’t. Because most Elizabethans were familiar with the history of the Lancasters and the Yorks, Shakespeare knew he didn’t have to retell the whole story, just the most interesting parts at an accelerated pace. Though the events in Richard III’s life took place over a period of slightly

42


more than two years, Shakespeare condenses the action into a much shorter time frame. In one scene Richard’s brother is being thrown in jail and in the next Lady Anne is burying her father-in-law, whom Richard and his brothers have murdered. Before the scene ends Richard convinces Lady Anne that he participated in the killing of her husband and father-in-law out of love for her. He then woos her and convinces her to accept his ring as a sign of affection. The whole play moves quickly because Shakespeare doesn’t have to fill in his audience on much of what it already knows. Another technique Shakespeare used in constructing Richard III was to begin as far into his story as he could and then remind his audience as the play progressed of what they needed to know in order to accept his version of the historical events. When the play opens, Henry VI has just been overthrown, and he and his son have been murdered. Richard’s eldest brother has been crowned Edward IV. The audience would know the history—that the War of the Roses had ended and the English people were hoping for peace and prosperity—so Shakespeare could immediately introduce Richard in all his evilness. The familiarity of the story enabled Shakespeare to concentrate on how Richard seizes the throne. Had Shakespeare also focused on why Richard behaves as he does, the play might have ranked as one of his greatest works. As it is, many critics consider it an apprentice work for Macbeth, Shakespeare’s more mature play about another warrior-king whose ambition knows no limits. But Shakespeare doesn’t limit himself in Richard III to furthering the action. He increases our understanding of the issues at stake by resurrecting the historical Queen Margaret from the dead and making her the voice of the Lancaster side of the story that he wants his audience to keep in mind. He also rearranges the historical sequence in which events took place to suit his own dramatic purposes. In other words, Shakespeare isn’t so much concerned with historical facts as he is with telling a good story.

S h a kes pea r e a nd R ich a r d iii

43

The Play’s the Thing • Overview and Analysis • List of Characters • Analysis of major characters

Laurence Olivier starred in the 1955 film version of Richard III.

44


r unning foot her e

45

ch ap te r tw o –—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—

The Play’s e Thing

––—–— —–—–—–— —–— —–—–—–—–—–—

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—––

––— —–—––— —–—–— —–—–—–—–—––

–—–— –— –—–— –—–—–— —–— –—–— —–— —–— –—––

––— —–—–—–—–—–— —–— –—–—–—–—–—

–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—

Act I, Scene 1 Overview Shakespeare opens Richard III with one of his most famous soliloquies. Addressing the audience, Richard tells us that a long war has just ended; but because he was born ugly and deformed, he has not been able to participate with joy in the victory celebrations. Nor can he tolerate the peace that has followed. Determined to “prove a villain,” Richard tells us he has used a prophecy that his brother, King Edward IV, will be murdered by an heir whose name begins with the letter G. He did this because he wants to turn the king against their brother George, who goes by his titled name: Duke of Clarence. What the superstitious King Edward doesn’t realize is that there’s another G who might covet his crown: Richard, whose royal title is Duke of Gloucester.

46


No sooner does Richard explain his scheme to the audience than Clarence appears. Escorted by a guard to a cell in the Tower of London, Clarence tells Richard that Edward has had him arrested. Richard replies that the fault is not their brother’s but that of his influential and interfering wife, Elizabeth. Wasn’t it she who had Lord Hastings imprisoned? Richard promises to do what he can to secure Clarence’s release, but as soon as his brother is out of sight, he expresses delight at how well his plan is working and notes with glee that Clarence’s soul will soon be in heaven. Enter Lord Hastings. Just freed from the Tower of London, where he’d been locked up by the paranoid Edward IV, the loyal Hastings tells Richard that the king is very ill and may soon die. Richard is thrilled to hear this but realizes he has to quickly convince Edward to order Clarence’s death; otherwise, Clarence will become king when Edward dies. Richard also plans to add some luster to his bid for the crown by marrying Lady Anne. What does it matter if he murdered her father-in-law (Henry VI) and her husband (Edward, Prince of Wales), the heir to the throne! He’ll claim that her beauty and his passion for her drove him to commit these crimes. Who could resist such an argument?

Analysis Richard’s opening lines remind his audience of the long civil war—“the winter of our discontent”—that was waged between the families of York and Lancaster for control of the English throne. That winter has now been made a “glorious summer by this sun of York.” Did you notice the pun in this line? Richard’s brother Edward IV is the victorious son of York, but he’s also the “sun” that now shines rays of peace on the people of England. Right away, Shakespeare is showing us his Richard has a way with words. The would-be king tells us he is ugly, deformed, and unsuccessful with women. Because he cannot repair the damage of a birth he claims was premature and can find no joy in the celebration of others, he is

The Pla y’s th e Thing

47

determined to ruin everyone else’s good time. But can we believe him? We discover later in the play that Richard can seduce women without much effort and do considerable damage with a sword in battle. And are having a face not made for mirrors, a withered arm, a shortened leg, and a hunched back sufficient reasons to lay plots to have his brother Edward IV kill their brother Clarence? Could Richard be deceiving us with the same verbal virtuosity he uses to manipulate the superstitious Edward, reassure the trusting Clarence, and woo the widowed Lady Anne? He seems to be telling us the truth—his devious plot to have Clarence arrested unfolds before our eyes—and his deformities do arouse our sympathy, but he never gives us a credible reason to justify his desire to kill and rule. Has Shakespeare come up short on this one? Of course not. In Elizabethan England, morality plays were very popular. Every morality play had the allegorical character Vice, who tempted the protagonist to sin. Because of the way Shakespeare presented Richard, Elizabethans would have recognized him not just as the evil would-be king, but as Vice. Richard even compares himself to Vice in Act III, Scene 1. Richard, of course, is much more than an allegorical character—a point Shakespeare underscores by continually reminding us that there is more to this villain than the villain lets us know. A consummate actor who can play the trusted adviser to Edward IV, the loyal brother to Clarence, and the misunderstood lover to Lady Anne, Richard also struts his time on Shakespeare’s stage as the unreliable narrator of his own play. In other words, his seeming honesty toward his audience is all part of his act. Don’t be taken in by it. The Elizabethans weren’t—and not just because they recognized Shakespeare’s depiction of the historical Richard as Vice. Elizabeth I was on England’s throne at the time. The Earl of Richmond, who defeated Richard at Bosworth Field, was her grandfather. The Yorks were her family’s enemies. For Shakespeare to present Richard III as

48


anything less than Vice and Richmond as anything less than Virtue might have resulted in the playwright’s imprisonment in the Tower of London. We know from Richard III what that can mean. And knowing the unpredictability and volatility of Elizabethan politics, he’d probably have some royal company. Elizabeth spent time in the Tower before becoming queen; and her mother, Anne Boleyn, was imprisoned there before being beheaded by her husband, Henry VIII.

Christopher V. Edwards played by the Richard III in a 2007 production tival. Fes re Hudson Valley Shakespea


49

—–—–—–—–——–— –— –—– –—–— —–— —–— —–— —–— –— — —– – –— —– –— —– –— –— –— –— –— –—

–—–—–—––

“ ”

–—–—–—––

I would I knew r a–— e h – –—–——–—–— y –— –—.–— h —t –— t –— –— –— — –— — –— — –— – — –— — –— — –— –— –— –—–—–—

Act I, Scene 2 Overview O

Henry VI’s body enters the stage in a hearse. The late king is followed by Lady Anne, whose husband, Henry’s son, was also killed in the latest round of fighting between the Lancasters and the Yorks. Anne blames Richard for both deaths and curses any children he might someday have. She also prays that if Richard ever marries, he will make his wife miserable. Little does she know that this prayer will be answered in a most ironic way. Richard, a master of timing, halts the procession to protest his innocence; but before he can make his plea, Henry’s corpse starts bleeding. Because the Elizabethans believed that a murdered person would sometimes bleed if the killer came near, Anne knows that Richard is guilty regardless of what he might say in his defense. Richard realizes this too, so he tries a different approach: he says that her beauty and his love for her drove him to kill. Anne spits in his face, but this only makes Richard more determined. He gives Anne his sword and tells her that if she can’t forgive him, she can at least run the sword through his heart and release his adoring soul. When Anne looks as if she might grant his request, Richard starts talking as if his life really does depend on what he says. The murders, he tells Anne, were partially her fault. If it wasn’t for her beauty, he would never have killed the king and her husband. That makes her an accessory to his crime. Anne drops the sword, but Richard has only just begun to turn on his idiosyncratic charm. He tells her he will never be happy unless she forgives him and agrees to marry him. She does more. She accepts a ring as a sign

50


of his love, allows him to accompany the corpse to a grave without her, and agrees to meet him after Henry VI is buried. When Anne is gone, Richard celebrates his triumph. Her husband hasn’t been dead three months, but she’s already forgotten him. Her bleeding father-in-law isn’t yet in the ground, but it no longer g matters. Richard has already won her over.

Analysis A nalysis This scene emphasizes Richard’s dangerous ability to manipulate others with powerful words and dramatic gestures. He is confident that he will persuade Anne to marry him, even though he killed her husband—a deal breaker in most marriage proposals. The scene construction shows how Richard—unarmed and at the mercy of a hate-filled, sword-bearing foe— is able to charm his way out of being killed and into Anne’s heart. Clearly, Richard has no respect for Anne and views her as a mere pawn in his scheme to become king. He hasn’t yet married her, and he’s already planning to get rid of her: “I’ll have her, but I will not keep her long.” He takes advantage of Anne’s emotionally vulnerable state and sweet-talks her into her own death sentence.

Act I, Scene 3 Overview Queen Elizabeth, wife of the ill King Edward IV, fears that Richard plans to do them harm. Because Edward doesn’t trust Clarence, he is determined to name Richard as Lord Protector of his and Elizabeth’s son until the boy is old enough to be crowned king. As regent, Richard would control the throne; Elizabeth’s fate and that of her two young sons would be in his hands. The Duke of Buckingham then enters with a favorable report about Edward’s health and news of the monarch’s desire to reconcile the differences between Richard and the other members of his family. Elizabeth replies: “I fear our happiness is at the height.” Th e Pla y’s the Th ing

51

Richard then enters with Lord Hastings. He complains loudly that false rumors are being spread about him for no reasons other than that he is open, honest, and fair. When Lord Grey, Elizabeth’s son from a prior marriage, asks Richard who he thinks is guilty of this slander, Richard accuses him and everyone else on Elizabeth’s side of the family. Queen Elizabeth and her brother, Earl Rivers, counter Richard’s attacks, but Richard keeps them on the defensive with more accusations. Then Queen Margaret enters unnoticed. The aged widow of Henry VI, Margaret has been banished from the kingdom under pain of death; but like so many other Lancasters and Yorks, she can’t stay away from the royal action for long. In a series of asides that punctuate the lines spoken mostly by Richard and Elizabeth, Margaret reminds us of the role the York brothers played in the deaths of her husband and son. When her patience runs out, she steps forward to accuse Richard of murder and, along with the other Yorks, of usurping the privileges due her as England’s rightful queen. Richard retaliates with a charge of his own: the murder of his older brother Edmund, Duke of Rutland, whom the Lancasters killed when he was still a child. The other nobles rally to Richard’s side. The old queen is unfazed. Dismissing Rutland as a “peevish brat” who deserved to die, she rains down upon the Yorks a deluge of prophetic curses: Elizabeth will live to see her

–—–—–—––

—–—–——–— —–— —– –—––— —–— –—––— —–— —–––— — –—––— –—–— —–— —––— —–— —–––— — –—–—–—–—–—

–—–—–—––

I a m su b tl e, fa ls e, ch –—–——–—–— ea —.–— tr –—––— –— —us ––— —o –—–— –— —er —–— ––— — –—–— –— — —– —––— —–— –—–—–—–—–—

52


children die, her time as queen will end before she will, and the lords who stood by while Margaret’s son was murdered will meet early deaths. Her most venomous words, of course, are saved for Richard. Calling him everything from a “bottled spider” to a “bunch-back’d toad,” she asks heaven to inflict upon Richard a conscience that will gnaw at his soul and keep him awake at night. It’s hard to imagine anything worse for Richard than a guilty conscience, but Margaret isn’t through: Richard will mistake friends for foes and foes for friends. That will do him in for sure. And how does Richard respond? Brilliantly! After Margaret leaves, he notes that the queen has been much wronged, that she cannot be blamed for being bitter, and that he has repented for the part he has played in her downfall. Rivers, who moments before was arguing with Richard, now praises him for “a virtuous and a Christian-like conclusion.” Then, after everyone else leaves the room, Richard produces for two murderers the warrant they need to enter the Tower of London and kill Clarence.

Analysis A nalysis Richard enters this scene with another trick pulled from his bag of rhetorical devices: attack your enemy before your enemy can attack you. He accuses Elizabeth and her family members of spreading false rumors, thus forcing them to defend themselves in front of Lord Hastings. By accusing Elizabeth, Richard forces her to defend herself by proving she has not been spreading false rumors—a difficult task. Once a person is accused of something—a sports star accused of using performance-enhancing drugs, for example— it’s very difficult to prove otherwise. Worse, even if the person’s innocence is proved, the label sticks. What Richard wants to do, of course, is plant the idea in other people’s minds that he’s being slandered. Elizabeth can do little other than deny Richard’s charges. The few times Elizabeth does manage to strike back or offer an opportunity to reconcile, Richard ignores what she says and


53

–—–—–—––—–—–——–— —–— —–— —–— –—–— –— — –— — –— —– — –— —– –— —– — –— —– –— –— –—–—

–—–—–—––

” “

–—–—–—––

i never s u e d t o f r ie n d m e–— – —–—–— e–— –.—–—–— —–— r–— –y o–— –— –—–— n — — —–— –n — –—–— — –— —–— –— —– –— —– –—–—–—–— retaliates with another false accusation. Because Elizabeth cannot disprove Richard’s accusations, it is likely that Hastings will believe Richard—he has no reason not to. Richard’s tactic is smart . . . and good. Enter Queen Margaret. The historical Queen Margaret, Henry VI’s widow, was dead by the time Richard claimed the throne, but it’s easy to see why Shakespeare resurrected her for his play. Who has more and better reasons to condemn the Yorks and prophesy their downfall than Margaret? Who comes closer to Richard in verbal ability? Her description of Richard as an “abortive, rooting hog,” for example, is not only a clever play on Richard’s heraldic symbol—a white boar—but also a scathing insult aimed at Richard’s weaknesses. While the white boar is an image of strength, courage, and fierceness in battle, the animal of Margaret’s image is dirty, base, and insulting. She likens him to a hog—a mere farm animal— that roots around, or digs, in dirt. The word abortive was often understood as “monstrous,” thus alluding to Richard’s physical deformity. In other words, according to Margaret, Richard is much less than the powerful boar he symbolically identifies with and advertizes himself to be. Finally, there’s Richard’s clever address to us just before he dispatches Clarence’s murderers to the Tower of London. He calls our attention to his ability to look like a saint while behaving like the devil. Is it any wonder we take such a perverse delight in him? It won’t last. And neither will Richard.

54


rred as Aislín McGuckin and Aidan McArdle sta Shakespeare Lady Anne and Richard III in the Royal Company’s 2000 production.

Act I, Scene 4 Overview Clarence tells his keeper in the Tower of London about a terrible dream he had the previous night. He’d escaped from the prison and was sailing to France when his brother Richard stumbled on the deck and accidently knocked him overboard. Sinking to the bottom of the ocean, Clarence saw


55

the wrecks of many ships and the skeletons of thousands of men. Also scattered about the ocean floor were wedges of gold and piles of pearls. Jewels stared out from the eyes of some of the skulls. Clarence tried to end the pain of drowning by willing himself to die, but his body refused to give up its ghost. It wasn’t until he had seen Henry VI and his son Edward, for whose deaths he is partially responsible, and was being dragged to hell by screaming Furies that Clarence woke up trembling. The keeper leaves, Clarence goes back to sleep, and Sir Robert Brakenbury, lieutenant of the Tower, enters. He is soon joined by the two murderers, who hand him the warrant given them by Richard. Brakenbury is to leave the men alone with the prisoner; no questions asked. One of the murderers is struck by pangs of conscience after Brakenbury exits, but the thought of what’s waiting for him in Richard’s purse momentarily drives away any reluctance he may be feeling. The two decide to beat Clarence with their swords and drown him in a nearby wine cask just as their intended victim wakes up and begins pleading for his life. Richard, we discover, is not the only York with a way with words. Clarence gets the men thinking again about the moral consequences of the crime they’re being paid to commit but seals his fate when he says that Richard will reward them for sparing his life. The murderers then inform Clarence that it was Richard who sent them. The naive, trusting, gullible duke can’t believe it. In a last, desperate attempt to save his life, he asks the men to put themselves in his position; but his argument is too little, and it comes too late. Within seconds he is stabbed and tossed headfirst into the wine barrel.

Analysis A nalysis Clarence’s dream ironically comments on the play’s action, provides us with an Elizabethan lesson on false values, and gives us a preview of what’s to come. The action: Richard knocks Clarence overboard, but the trusting duke does not suspect his untrustworthy brother of having pushed him;

56


similarly, the thought that Richard might be the cause of his imprisonment never enters Clarence’s mind. The lesson: material riches are temporary; we’re all going to wind up on the dinner plate of some fish or worm; think about your soul. The preview: Clarence’s nightmare foreshadows in vivid language—“What dreadful noise of waters in mine ears! / What sights of ugly death within mine eyes!”—his drowning in a wine barrel, but it also gives us some measurement of the importance of dreams to Elizabethans. Richard too will experience a foreshadowing dream the night before he meets Richmond in deadly battle. One of the two murderers has cold feet, but Shakespeare presents their conversation as a comedy routine: “Shall we stab him as he sleeps? / No, he’ll say ’twas done cowardly when he wakes.” The murderers are joking about taking a person’s life. Is it because they don’t think people’s lives are important? Or are they trying to lessen the severity of their crime? Probably both. Even the hesitant murderer’s complaints about his conscience always showing up at the wrong time are darkly humorous: “A man cannot steal, but it accuseth him; a man cannot swear, but it checks him; a man cannot lie with his neighbour’s wife, but it detects him.” The Elizabethans were used to and expected comic relief from the secondary characters in the plays they saw—even tragedies. But Shakespeare’s clowns serve an additional purpose. They create a dramatic tension between their humor and the action they’re about to take that underscores the seriousness of their crimes in a way that Shakespeare’s Richard cannot. Richard is purely evil. He has no conscience. He doesn’t care what he does as long as it works. The murderers, on the other hand, are morally more complex. It’s almost as if their crime is more appalling than Richard’s because they know what they’re doing is wrong. Clarence wakes up from his sleep but not to the idea that Richard could possibly be responsible for his death. When the murderers tell him, he


57

refuses to believe them: “It cannot be, for he bewept my fortune, / And hugg’d me in his arms.” Clarence dies with the comforting idea that his deceitful, conniving brother could never have betrayed him, and some good does come from his death: his eloquent arguments to spare his life inspire the conscience-stricken murderer to repent his sin and forsake his reward.

Act II, Scenes 1 & 2 Overview Scene 1. King Edward IV implores his wife (Elizabeth), some family members, and several advisers to end their infighting and make peace with one another. They agree and are no sooner done embracing when Richard enters and expresses his desire to be a part of the peace process. Perhaps remembering Richard’s accusation that she is responsible for his brother’s imprisonment in the Tower of London, Elizabeth beseeches her husband to forgive Clarence. This is just the kind of opportunity to create the dissension for which Richard waits. He accuses the queen of turning into a joke his willingness to make peace with the family, and before she can recover from the shock of his attack, he tells her she has added insult to injury by pretending she doesn’t know Clarence is dead. All are startled by the news of Clarence’s death, but none more so than Edward. He’d dispatched an order reversing his brother’s execution; but Richard, who intercepted it, informs everyone that the king’s pardon arrived too late. Suddenly they are interrupted. Lord Stanley (Earl of Derby) wants the king to pardon one of his servants for killing an attendant of the Duke of Norfolk. Edward grants Stanley’s request but can’t help unleashing his pain over Clarence’s death on all who are assembled. Where were they when their king let his anger get the best of him? Why didn’t anyone intercede for his brother the way Stanley pleaded for the life of his servant? Who among them 58


wasn’t indebted to Clarence when he was alive? How could they all let him die without voicing a word in his defense? The king concludes, “O God! I fear thy justice will take hold / On me and you, and mine and yours, for this!” Scene 2. The Duchess of York—the mother of Edward, Clarence, and Richard—can’t bear to admit to Clarence’s two young children that their father is dead. Richard has already told them that Queen Elizabeth is responsible for Edward’s decision to send Clarence to prison and that they can depend on him, their uncle, to protect them as if he were their father. The duchess recognizes her son’s pattern of deceit, however, and says she is ashamed to be his mother. Elizabeth enters with what looks like a bad-hair day—a sure sign of grief for the Elizabethans sitting in Shakespeare’s audience—and tells the duchess that her son, King Edward, has died. Everybody mourns somebody: the children their father, the queen her husband, and the duchess her sons. Lord Rivers, who came in with Elizabeth, tells his sister that now she has to think of her and Edward’s older son. The future king of England—also called Edward—must be summoned to the court and crowned. Richard appears with several of his newfound cronies in tow. The Duke of Buckingham proposes that Prince Edward be brought from Ludlow in a small entourage. There may be some lingering resentment among the late king’s former enemies, and it might be best not to call too much attention to the young prince’s whereabouts until he can be properly protected. After Queen Elizabeth and her family leave to discuss who should accompany her son to London, Buckingham tells Richard they should get themselves included in the entourage. He says he also has some ideas on ways to separate the prince from his family. Richard is delighted. In two lines he calls Buckingham his “other self,” his “oracle”, his “prophet,” and his “cousin”—a bit much even for Richard, don’t you think?—and agrees that they will not stay behind.


59

ected by A scene from the 1955 movie dir right Laurence Olivier. The flag on the d III’s is decorated with a boar, Richar heraldic symbol.

60


Analysis A nalysis Scene 1. Once again we see Richard at his rhetorical best. Proclaiming his desire to bring about a lasting peace, he tells the differing factions of his family, “’Tis death to me to be at enmity; / I hate it, and desire all good men’s love.” And he can improvise with the best, no? When Elizabeth asks Edward IV to release Clarence from prison, Richard rushes to accuse her of hypocrisy and denounce her for disrespecting his brother’s corpse. The news of Clarence’s death sends Edward IV’s mind spinning with remorse, and he lashes out at those assembled for not speaking up in Clarence’s defense. Who spoke of “brotherhood” or “love,” he asks the assembled nobles. Who reminded him of the younger brother who had fought in battle against the Lancasters so his older brother could be king? But Edward’s displaced anger cannot quell his grief or assuage his guilty conscience, and he leaves the room a broken man. Shortly afterward, he dies. Edward’s death should pass the crown on to his son, but Richard and his ally, Buckingham, are already making plans to usurp the young prince’s right to rule. Scene 2. When Clarence’s son tells the Duchess of York that Richard wept when telling the children of Queen Elizabeth and Edward IV’s role in their father’s imprisonment, the duchess and the audience realize how conniving Richard can be. He puts on a charade even for young children so that they will trust him and favor him. The duchess tells them that Richard has misrepresented the king, but the children refuse to believe her; Richard has beat her to the punch. In fact, they accuse her of not mourning their father’s death. A final note: the historical Clarence died in 1478, five years before Edward IV. As he did with the historical Queen Margaret, Shakespeare brings Clarence back to life for the dramatic purpose of underscoring Richard’s unscrupulous villainy.

Th e Pla y’s the Th ing

61

Act II, Scenes 3 & 4 Overview Scene 3. Three citizens discuss the possible consequences of King Edward’s death. Two of them are not optimistic: the rightful heir is only a boy, and unlike the uncles of Henry VI, who was crowned when he was nine months old, Edward’s relatives are vying with one another for power. Richard, as we know, is the one to be feared most. The citizens know it too but resolve to “leave it all to God.” Scene 4. The Archbishop of York informs Elizabeth that her son Edward is only a day or two from London. The queen and the Duchess of York say how much they are looking forward to seeing him, but Prince Edward’s younger brother, the Duke of York, is not so enthusiastic. He worries that he may have grown faster than his older sibling. According to his uncle Richard, rapid growth is the sign of an improper upbringing. The duchess points out that Richard was very slow in growing and turned out to be not at all gracious, but York says he heard Richard grew so fast, “he could gnaw a crust at two hours old.” A messenger enters with disturbing news: Richard and Buckingham have imprisoned Elizabeth’s relatives Rivers and Grey, along with Sir Thomas Vaughan, in Pomfret Castle. The queen knows what this means: “I see the ruin of my house.” The Duchess of York also sees the death and destruction that’s destined to take place: “Let me die, to look on death no more!” Because she is not a threat to Richard’s quest for power, the duchess’s life is not in danger; but Elizabeth’s is, and she exercises the only option she has to protect herself and her younger son from almost certain imprisonment and possibly death: sanctuary. The archbishop grants her request and accompanies her to the safety of his church.

62


Analysis A nalysis Scene 3. The conversation that takes place among the three citizens of London is an example of what critics call a “window scene” because it gives audiences an opportunity to learn the common people’s view of the action taking place inside the royal palace. With Catholic forces threatening to topple Queen Elizabeth I in Shakespeare’s time, this scene must have had particular relevance for people watching the play in 1592. Did they too feel powerless to control events and so would leave their fate in God’s hands? Scene 4. The fatalistic responses of Elizabeth and the Duchess of York are not unjustified. Pomfret Castle in Yorkshire was known as a prison from which not many returned. Richard II died there in 1400, and the chances are not good that Rivers, Grey, and Vaughan will survive either. Not with Richard on the throne. And with the young prince Edward almost in his custody, the throne is exactly where Richard is headed. Elizabeth has no choice. If she wants to save herself and her younger son, sanctuary is her only recourse. But will Richard honor the sacred tradition of a church providing refuge for people whose lives are in danger? The Elizabethans watching Shakespeare’s play already knew the answer to that question: he would not. The Elizabethans were superstitious and believed that anything that was unnatural was evil. It is significant, therefore, that Shakespeare has York comment on Richard eating bread as a newborn. It implies that Richard had teeth as an infant, which is certainly unnatural. In fact, York even points out the oddity by saying he did not

–—–—–—––

– –——–— – –—–—–— –—–— —–— —– —–––— — –—––— —–— —––— —–— —––— —––— —––— — —––— –—–—–—–—

–—–—–—––

w he r e’ s th y co n sc ie n ce w n – —–—–— –—–—–—–—–—–— –— —? —–— —–— –o –—–— –— —– — –— —– –—–—–—–—–—–—–— The Pla y’s th e Thing

63

have one tooth until he was two years old. For the Elizabethans, Richard’s newborn teeth, combined with his hunched back, were sure signs that no good would ever come of him.

Act III, Scene 1 Overview Trumpets announce the arrival of young Prince Edward, who tells Richard he expected more uncles to welcome him. When Richard points out that the relatives he has in mind are false friends, the prince disagrees. And where, the boy wants to know, are his mother and brother? Hastings informs him that they have taken sanctuary in a church. Buckingham then tells Hastings to go to the church with Cardinal Bourchier and, if Elizabeth won’t allow young Richard to see his brother, to take the boy by force. The cardinal says he will speak to Elizabeth about allowing the boy to go but reminds Buckingham that to violate the holy privilege of sanctuary is a grievous sin. Buckingham replies that it cannot be a sin in this instance because the boy is not old enough to know whether his sanctuary is warranted: “Oft have I heard of sanctuary men, / But sanctuary children ne’er till now.” The cardinal, who thirteen lines earlier claimed, “Not for all this land / Would I be guilty of so deep a sin,” decides Buckingham’s violation of the sacred tradition is not so serious after all. After Hastings leaves with the cardinal, Edward asks Richard where he and his brother will stay until the coronation. Richard, of course, has a cell already reserved for them in the Tower of London. When Hastings and the cardinal return, the younger brother engages Richard in an exchange of wordplay that indicates he is quite capable of determining whether his sanctuary was justified. Buckingham is impressed. To be “so cunning and so young is wonderful,” he tells Hastings. Even Richard is moved to speak the truth, praising the boy as “Bold, quick, ingenious, forward, capable.”

64


Once the boys are taken to the Tower, Buckingham and Richard talk with their ally, Catesby, about whether Richard’s claim to the throne will be supported by Hastings and Stanley. Catesby expects Hastings to remain loyal to Prince Edward and Stanley to follow his lead. Buckingham then orders Catesby to sound out the two. Richard adds that Hastings should know that his adversaries imprisoned at Pomfret Castle will not live another day. That should please him. And what, Buckingham asks after Stanley leaves, will Richard do if Hastings does not come over to their side? The usually verbose Richard answers bluntly: “Chop off his head!”

Analysis A nalysis Richard’s hypocrisy is catching up with him. He can fool Edward IV, Lady Anne, Clarence, and some of the other nobles of the court, but he can’t fool his mother, Queen Elizabeth, or the young princes. When Prince Edward suspects him of harming those who didn’t show up to welcome him home, Richard tells the boy that, because he is young, he did not see “the poison of their hearts.” But the prince does not believe his uncle, and his emphatic denial may imply that he suspects Richard of being just the kind of false friend his uncle warns Edward to beware of. Buckingham uses the prince’s youth to convince the cardinal that because Edward’s younger brother cannot understand the meaning of sanctuary, he cannot claim he deserves it. The cardinal allows Buckingham’s groundless argument to “o’er-rule [his] mind for once.” For once? Who does the cardinal think he’s fooling? He caves in so quickly to Buckingham’s argument, we know he’ll go with might over right any time the two are in conflict. When the princes are finally reunited, young Richard demonstrates his ability to recognize hypocrisy and to articulate thought as effectively as his uncle. Suspecting an ulterior motive in Richard’s plan to place him and his brother in the Tower of London, young Richard, the Duke of York, says he doesn’t want to go there because he fears “Clarence’[s] angry ghost.”


65

Edward, who is not quite as sharp, announces that he fears no dead uncles, to which Richard replies, “Nor none that live, I hope.” His words fail to sway the prince, however. “I hope I need not fear,” Edward tells the man who will soon order his execution. After the princes are led to their impending doom, Richard and Buckingham decide to hold two separate meetings the following day. At the first meeting, which will be held in secret, they will strategize with their allies on the most effective way for Richard to become king; at the second meeting, which will be public, they will start implementing their plan. If Hastings will not join them, he will lose his head. It’s as simple as that. And as complex. Richard’s decision to execute Hastings by cutting off his head is the first decision he makes that is not premeditated. It contains none of the clever manipulations we’ve come to expect from him. The closer Richard gets to the throne and the more power he gains once he’s sitting on it, the less he will operate behind the scenes and the less he will rely on the kind of imaginative subterfuge that enabled him to succeed as well as he has up to this point in the play. The more onerous his abuses of power become, the more he will turn others against him. The more others turn against him, the greater the risk for a revolt against his tyranny. For the moment, however, everything is going according to plan.

Act III, Scenes 2, 3, & 4 Overview Scene 2. Hastings is awakened by a messenger. Lord Stanley, Earl of Derby, has had a dream in which a boar—Richard’s heraldic symbol—has beheaded him. He has also learned of the separate meetings that Richard has planned for that day, fears his and Hastings’s lives may be in danger,

66


and wants Hastings to flee with him to safety. Hastings tells the messenger to tell Stanley that he need not worry. They will be at one meeting, and his good friend Catesby will be at the other. Nothing will take place that he and Stanley will not know about. The messenger leaves, and Catesby enters to tell Hastings that Richard has ordered the execution of his rivals on Queen Elizabeth’s side of the family. Will Hastings support a move to make Richard king? Hastings says in no uncertain terms that he will not. Now it’s Stanley’s turn to show up. Hastings teases him about his dream of a threatening boar and tries to quell his fears about the separate meetings: “I know our state secure.” Stanley reminds Hastings that when their adversaries (Rivers, Grey, and Vaughan) were last in London, they too believed their state was secure. Now they’re without their heads. Hastings doesn’t see the connection. That was then and them; this is now and us. Scene 3. At Pomfret Castle, Rivers, Grey, and Vaughan are being led to their deaths. Rivers says their only crimes are telling the truth, doing their duty, and demonstrating their loyalty. Rivers and Grey recall how Queen Margaret cursed them for doing nothing to stop Richard from stabbing her son. Rivers prays that their bloody deaths will induce God to remove the curses Margaret hurled at Queen Elizabeth and the young princes. The three men then embrace in a final farewell. Scene 4. The council is in session in the Tower of London. Hastings and Stanley wish to confirm that the purpose of the meeting is to choose a day for young prince Edward’s coronation. Richard arrives in high spirits and asks the Bishop of Ely to send for some strawberries from his garden. He then quietly informs Buckingham of Catesby’s report: Hastings will die before he allows Richard to become king. Richard and Buckingham exit. When they return, however, Richard is in a very different mood. Pretending to be enraged, he claims the witch Queen Elizabeth and the


67

late King Edward’s mistress, Jane Shore—now romantically involved with Hastings—have cast a spell on his arm, causing it to wither. When Hastings questions whether there is proof of Elizabeth and Shore’s conspiracy, Richard accuses him of treason, announces that he will not eat until Hastings is decapitated, and orders two of his henchmen to carry out the deed. Hastings realizes he should have paid attention to the warning signs: Margaret’s curse, Stanley’s dream about the boar, his horse stumbling three times on their way to the council meeting, even the deaths of his adversaries at Pomfret Castle. “Come, lead me to the block;” he tells his executioners, “bear him my head. / They smile at me who shortly shall be dead.”

Analysis A nalysis Scene 2. Dreams. Did Shakespeare believe in them? How much stock did the Elizabethans put in them? Clarence took his prophetic dream to heart when he woke up from drowning in Act I, Scene 4, and Stanley is disturbed enough about his dream of the warlike boar to send a messenger to Hastings in the early morning. The rational Hastings, on the other hand, does not “trust the mock’ry of unquiet slumbers,” and we see where that leads him. Scene 3. Curses. Since they all come true, there must be something to them, no? Even the rational Hastings realizes how much his fate has been influenced by the venomous and vindictive Margaret. But can they be reversed? Rivers and Grey hope so, but the chances of God intervening in this family feud are nil. Everything Margaret prophesizes will take place. Scene 4. Signs. Greater attention should have been paid to the symbolic boar in Stanley’s dream and to Hastings’s horse stumbling three times on the way to the council meeting—as if “loath to bear me to the slaughter-house”; but Hastings’s fault is not just that he doesn’t believe in dreams, curses, and signs. He believes so much in the fiction of himself as an intelligent, rational being capable of controlling his own fate that he fails to recognize the false sense of security he has created.

68


Before leaving the stage, Hastings’s comparison of the person who lives by false values to a drunken sailor headed for a watery grave may remind us of Clarence’s dream about the jewels that peered out of the eyes of sunken skulls in Act I, Scene 4. Both images convey the same theme: material prosperity is no substitute for God’s grace.

In 2003 an all-female cast performed Richar d III at the d. Globe Theater in London, Englan


69

Act III, Scenes 5, 6, & 7 Overview Scene 5. Richard questions Buckingham about his ability to dissemble. The crony claims he can con with the best and is willing to do whatever he can to help Richard take control of the country. Catesby then enters with the lord mayor of London. Then Hastings’s head is brought to Richard, who promptly weeps and feigns regret. If only Hastings hadn’t planned to murder him and Buckingham at the council meeting! The mayor asks in disbelief, “Had he done so?” Richard cleverly answers the question with one of his own: does the mayor think he and Buckingham would have killed Hastings so quickly if their own lives and the peace of England were not endangered? This is all it takes for the mayor to agree to present the murderers’ version to the people of London and cite Hastings as an example of what will happen to others who plot against the state. But Richard is not through. When the mayor leaves, he instructs Buckingham to spread the rumor that the late King Edward’s sons are not his legitimate children. Scene 6. A scrivener—someone who copies legal documents and letters for people who can’t write—has just completed the announcement of and reasons for Hastings’s execution. It will be read the next day at St. Paul’s Cathedral, but the scrivener doesn’t expect many will believe the charges to which Hastings supposedly confessed. Scene 7. Buckingham reports to Richard that the people of London didn’t respond positively to the idea of him being king. In fact, they turned pale and didn’t say anything at all. Not a single word. Buckingham was forced to accept the cheering of his own men, planted in the audience, as the people’s endorsement. Richard is not pleased, but he can’t dwell on the matter. It’s time for his next public relations gambit. 70


When the lord mayor enters with a crowd of citizens, Buckingham points to a humble, meditative Richard walking between two bishops on a balcony above them. A prayer book is in his hand. Buckingham, pretending to represent the will of the citizens, begs Richard to accept the royal crown. Richard declines through more than one hundred lines of dialogue between him and Buckingham but finally pretends to consent to follow the will of the people. He will be crowned the very next day.

Analysis A nalysis Scene 5. Richard knows how to manipulate others. In front of the lord mayor, the would-be king professes his love for the dead Hastings and lets his cronies argue that his trusted friend is really an “ignoble traitor.” The gullible mayor believes every word he hears and promises to condemn Hastings and cite him as an example of what happens to traitors. Scene 6. The common people, as the scrivener informs us, know hypocrisy when they see it but fear the power Richard is capable of wielding against them should they protest. Their view contrasts with that of the mayor, who doesn’t even recognize the hypocrisy. Scene 7. Richard can manipulate crowds as well as individuals. Instead of announcing his bid to wear the royal crown, he has Buckingham sound out the general populace in a speech intended to gather its support. Just to make sure there are no slipups, Buckingham plants men in the audience to cheer at the suggestion of Richard being named king. And what do you think about Richard being seen with his nose in a prayer book and a bishop walking on either side when Buckingham shows up with the mayor and a group of citizens? Talk about a photo-op before there were photos! What follows is a seemingly interminable dialogue of highly inflated verse during which Buckingham tells Richard some of the reasons why he should be king: his noble lineage, his unblemished stock, his right by birth, his tenderness of heart, and the fact that the nobles will


71

not allow his illegitimate nephews to rule under any circumstances. Richard, in turn, tells Buckingham and the assembled citizens why he should not be king: God doesn’t need his help, and his humility makes him unfit for majesty. Three times Buckingham offers him the royal crown, and three times he refuses it. Is this the behavior of a man who wants to be king? The scene is so blatantly hypocritical, it’s comical.

Act IV, Scenes 1, 2, & 3 Overview Scene 1. Queen Elizabeth, her son Dorset, and Richard’s mother, the Duchess of York, run into Clarence’s daughter and Lady Anne, now Richard’s wife. All are at the Tower of London for the same reason: to visit the young princes. Richard, however, has forbidden anyone to see the boys. Lord Stanley then arrives to summon Lady Anne to Westminster to be crowned queen. She’d rather die. Elizabeth tells Dorset he must flee to France and join the opposing army being raised there by the Earl of Richmond. Scene 2. Back at the palace, Richard’s newly won crown is not resting comfortably on his head. Not as long as those two little princes are alive. He suggests that Buckingham kill them; but for the first time, his closest ally balks. Claiming he needs time to think about what Richard is asking, Buckingham leaves the room. Stanley enters with the news that Elizabeth’s son Dorset has joined Richmond’s forces in France. Richard orders Catesby to spread the rumor that the newly crowned Queen Anne is ill and close to death. Then, in an effort to bolster his claim to the throne, he coldheartedly resolves to marry Queen Elizabeth’s daughter. Never mind that she is his niece and that he will soon murder her brothers: “Tear-falling pity dwells not in this eye.”

72


Believing he is no longer able to depend on Buckingham, Richard hires Tyrrel to kill the children. When Buckingham returns to ask Richard to fulfill his promise to name him Earl of Hereford, he discovers he is no longer a trusted partner in crime. Buckingham knows what this means: he’s got to get out of town while his head is still on his shoulders. Scene 3. Tyrrel reports that the princes have been smothered in their sleep and buried. Though the murderers wept at the scene of their heinous crime, Richard is delighted. Tyrrel leaves with the promise of a rich reward, and Richard gives us an update on his latest activities: Clarence’s daughter has been married off to a commoner, her brother has been imprisoned, and the now dead Queen Anne—supposedly done in by Richard—is no longer an impediment to his marrying Elizabeth’s daughter. Richard’s henchman Ratcliffe enters with bad news. John Morton, the Bishop of Ely, has fled to Richmond’s side, and Buckingham is marching with an army of his own from Wales. There’s no time for delay. “Go muster men,” Richard orders. “We must be brief when traitors brave the field.”

Analysis A nalysis Scene 1. With the young princes locked away in the Tower of London for what Richard has claimed is their own protection, the king has the excuse he needs to prevent anyone, including their own mother, from seeing them. Elilzabeth’s warning to Dorset to join forces with Richmond foreshadows the thinking of many other nobles in Richard’s court. Scene 2. Attaining the royal crown was one kind of challenge for Richard; holding on to it is another. Because of the power he now has at his command, the new king no longer has to deceive and manipulate to the degree that he once did. But deceive and manipulate are what Richard does best. He is not so polished at wielding power. Consequently, his attempts to secure his position are more blunt and bloody.


73

Whatever sympathy for or even delight in Richard we might have had quickly dissipates as he murders anyone who can possibly threaten his rule. Even Buckingham is taken aback by the extent of his indifference to cruelty. When Richard asks him to kill the two innocent boys in the Tower, Buckingham can’t bring himself to act immediately. Buckingham’s hesitation marks the beginning of the end for Richard. We will witness a steady decline that starts with our realization of Margaret’s first prophetic curse in Act I, Scene 3: “Thy friends suspect for traitors while thou liv’st, / And take deep traitors for thy dearest friends!” Scene 3. Richard will not go down without a fight, however. Richard plans to marry young Elizabeth, the daughter of Queen Elizabeth and Edward IV. Without her royal lineage bolstering his right to rule, Richard believes he does not have a firm hold on the throne. Shakespeare also uses this scene to show the passage of time and to contrast what is going on inside the court with what is going on outside of it. Messengers report that the forces arrayed against Richard are beginning to swell.

Act IV, Scenes 4 & 5 Overview Scene 4. Queen Margaret listens unseen as Queen Elizabeth and Richard’s mother, the Duchess of York, bewail the loss of all the family members Richard has murdered. Still bitter over the role Richard played in the deaths of her husband, Henry VI, and her son Edward, Margaret tells us in an aside that justice is finally being served. She then steps forward to review with Elizabeth and the duchess a long list of York atrocities. Margaret’s hunger for revenge won’t be satisfied, however, as long as Richard lives. Realizing that Margaret’s prophecies of death and destruction are being fulfilled, Queen Elizabeth asks her former adversary to teach her how to

74


curse others. The old queen replies that the secret is to feel pain deeply even if you have to embellish it; nothing sharpens the tongue faster. Margaret leaves for France, Richard and his retinue enter with a flourish of trumpets, and the duchess proclaims in front of all that she wishes she had been able to strangle her son while he was still in her womb. No sooner does Queen Elizabeth condemn Richard for having murdered her sons and brother than the duchess demands Richard account for the death of Clarence. Stunned by their accusations, Richard tries to drown out the women by striking up a band. But it’s no use. The Duchess of York prays that her curse will weigh more heavily on him than his armor and that the spirits of the two dead princes will bring victory to his enemies: “Bloody thou art, bloody will be thy end.” The duchess leaves, and Richard approaches Queen Elizabeth with a proposal: he wishes to marry her daughter, also named Elizabeth. Does the mother have any suggestions as to the best way to woo her? Horrified and revolted, Elizabeth suggests he send the princess a couple of bleeding hearts with the names of her dead brothers inscribed on them. Richard is undaunted. He says he wants to make amends by providing the young Elizabeth with the crown he denied Edward and Richard. He also wants the princess to know it was his love for her and his desire that she might be queen that drove him to kill her brothers. A marriage between him and Elizabeth, moreover, is the only way to prevent the impending civil war. The queen seems to be swayed by these arguments and promises to speak to her daughter, but after she leaves Richard calls her a “relenting fool” and a “shallow, changing woman!” Now for the latest news: Richmond’s growing army is on its way from France, but all is not lost for Richard. Not yet. Buckingham’s army has been dispersed and its leader captured. Still, it doesn’t look good for the king, who, fearing Lord Stanley will also go over to the other side, orders him to


75

hand over his son George as hostage until the war with Richmond is over. Believing Stanley’s loyalty is now ensured, Richard prepares to gather his forces on the plains of Salisbury. Scene 5. Stanley meets with Sir Christopher Urswick. He tells the priest and ally of Richmond that he would join the rebel army but Richard is holding his son hostage. He also lets it be known that Queen Elizabeth has consented to her daughter marrying Richard. Urswick informs Stanley that Richmond has landed in Wales and is leading a huge army toward London.

Analysis A nalysis Scene 4. The women become united by their desire to topple Richard, and, impressed by the power of Margaret’s curses, Elizabeth and the Duchess of York learn from her. When Richard enters, the Duchess of York lets him have the full brunt of her fury, saying she wishes she’d been able to strangle him while he was still in her womb. These are strong words for even a son like Richard to hear from his own mother. He cannot respond to her demand that he account for his brother Clarence’s death, and he cannot drown her out with drums and trumpets. Nor can he take her curse that he soon be defeated in battle with the same composure with which he withstood Margaret’s prophetic curses in Act I, Scene 3. Richard’s end is in sight, yet he continues to fight against the mounting odds by asking Queen Elizabeth for her daughter’s hand. He’s so confident in his ability to persuade others of his sincerity that he doesn’t even question her response. It never occurs to him that two can play the game of deceit and manipulation. Perhaps if he didn’t hold the same disdain for Elizabeth that he had for Anne, Richard might not think her so gullible, so taken with him, and so willing to sacrifice her daughter on the altar of his despotic rule. Scene 5. Once again, Shakespeare uses a scene to update his audience on events taking place outside of the court. The army of Richard’s once

76


most trusted ally, Buckingham, has been defeated, but more and more nobles are joining the rebels. We also learn while in the rebel camp that Elizabeth has “heartily consented” to Richard marrying her daughter, but her motives are still a mystery. Is she trying to protect her daughter and herself by marrying the young princess to Richard, or is she agreeing to the marriage and hoping they will be rescued by the Earl of Richmond before a wedding can take place?

Act V, Scenes 1 & 2 Overview Scene 1. It’s All Souls’ Day, and Buckingham is being led to his execution. God has heard Margaret’s curse and is splitting Buckingham’s heart with sorrow, regret, and repentance: “Wrong hath but wrong, and blame the due of blame.” Scene 2. Richmond shares with his comrades in arms the news that he’s received in a letter from Lord Stanley: Richard’s forces are only a day away. The men then confirm the righteousness of their cause and are confident that many of Richard’s soldiers will defect once the fighting starts. One battle will be all that’s needed to bring about a lasting peace.

Analysis A nalysis Scene 1. Plot drives most of Richard III from here on, but there is some immediate reflection on the part of Buckingham. He accepts his share of the responsibility in the deaths of Richard’s adversaries and repents his sins. Underscoring Buckingham’s recognition that action is not without consequence is the idea that there really is a God who listens to the pleas of the oppressed and takes an active hand in righting wrongs. Scene 2. We know from the conversation in Richmond’s camp just whose side God is on. Lord Stanley has informed the rebels of the location of Richard’s army, the Earl of Oxford notes that one man’s conscience is worth The Pla y’s th e Thing

77

a thousand men, and Sir Walter Herbert predicts that many of the king’s soldiers will defect once the fighting starts. “He hath no friends but what are friends for fear,” adds Sir James Blunt. And not to put too fine a point on who has the advantage and why, Richmond gives the order to march in God’s name.

Act V, Scene 3 Overview The settings in this scene will switch back and forth no less than seventeen times between the camps of Richard and Richmond at Bosworth Field. In Richard’s the fighting spirit is low, but the king is confident that the size of his forces will result in victory. In Richmond’s camp the beauty of the setting sun is interpreted as a good omen, but the rebel leader is not taking any chances: he’s sent a secret letter to Lord Stanley, who we discover is also his stepfather. Back at Richard’s camp the king also sends a letter to Stanley: if he wants to see his son alive, he’s to bring his army to their fighting location before sunrise. Richard then orders a bowl of wine. Stanley enters Richmond’s tent. He tells the assembled officers that Richard plans to attack in the early morning hours. Stanley will do what he can to help the rebels, but his contribution will be limited because of Richard’s threat to murder his son. When Stanley leaves, Richmond bids his officers good night and prays to God for victory. Richard also has a visitor: the ghost of Henry VI’s son Edward, whom Richard and his brothers slew at Tewksbury. “Despair therefor and die,” he tells the king. No sooner are these words out of his mouth, than the ghost of Edward is in Richmond’s tent: “Be cheerful, Richmond, for the wronged souls / Of butchered princes fight in thy behalf.” What follows is a parade of ghosts, all victims of Richard’s deadly ambition: Henry VI, Clarence, Rivers, Grey, Vaughan, the young princes, Hastings, Lady Anne, and Buckingham. 78


The ghosts appear to each leader with pretty much the same messages: Richard will die and Richmond will be king. Richard awakens with “cold fearful drops” standing on his “trembling flesh.” What follows is his only moment of self-reflection. For the first time he is afraid. Characterizing himself as a liar and murderer that no one could possibly love, he realizes the enormity of his crimes and the fate that awaits him in the upcoming battle. Ratcliffe assures Richard that his troops will remain loyal, but the king disguises himself and eavesdrops on the soldiers to discover for himself any plan to defect. Richmond, of course, has had a very different night before the battle. While Richard tossed and turned in fear and desperation, he enjoyed “the sweetest sleep and fairest-boding dreams / That ever ent’red in a drowsy head.” No need to eavesdrop here. Richmond tells his troops that, with God on their side, they will fight for and be rewarded by their wives, their children, and their countrymen. Richard’s speech to his troops doesn’t mention God and warns his men that Richmond’s soldiers intend to lie with the soldiers’ wives, ravish their daughters, and seize their land. He calls Richmond a “milksop” and his followers “vagabonds, rascals, and runaways,” “stragglers,” the “rags of France,” “famish’d beggars,” “poor rats,” “the heirs of shame,” and more. Then comes the news that Stanley is not advancing his troops as planned. Richard gives orders to decapitate Stanley’s son, but there is no time. The enemy is on the move. George will keep his head until after the battle.

Analysis A nalysis By shifting settings so quickly and so frequently, Shakespeare dramatizes the many differences between Richard and Richmond. The actions taking place within the settings—the preparations for battle, the appearances of the ghosts, the oration to the troops, and so on—run parallel, but the behavior of the two leaders contrasts with each other.


79

Richard needs a bowl of wine to raise his spirits, is curt with his officers, worries about defection among his troops, is haunted by the ghosts of the eleven people he’s murdered, and fears his fate. Richmond, on the other hand, believes in the righteousness of his cause, enjoys the camaraderie of his officers, doesn’t question the loyalty of his troops, knows that God is on his side, sleeps with the reassurance that Richard’s victims will undermine their murderer, and is confident of victory. Whereas Richmond’s address before the battle is intended to inspire his troops by calling on them to fight in the name of justice for their families and their country, Richard’s speech plays on his troops’ fears of what might happen if they are defeated and attempts to boost their confidence by showing no respect for the enemy. There is one scene in Richard’s camp that has no parallel in Richmond’s: the king’s single moment of self-reflection. For twenty-seven lines in a play with more than three thousand, Richard looks into the depths of his soul and is terrified by what he sees: “What do I fear? Myself? There’s none else by. / Richard loves Richard; that is, I am I.” But there is someone else: the murderer inside Richard that he has until now been incapable of recognizing: “Is there a murderer here? No. Yes, I am.” A very different sort of person than he imagined himself to be, Richard wonders if he should fear himself. Might his conscience-stricken part take revenge on the liar and the murderer? Richard claims to love himself and so wouldn’t take his own life; on the other hand, he says he hates himself and despairs at the thought that no creature could possibly love him or pity him when he dies. He can’t even pity himself. But whether he cares enough about himself to live or decides to allow the ghosts of his murdered victims to take their revenge on the battlefield, Richard is no longer Vice, the one-dimensional, allegorical character of medieval morality plays. He’s a real human being with complicated,

80


– –—–—–—–——–— –—–— —–— —–— –—–— —–— –— — – –— — – –— — –— –— –— –— –— –—–—

–—–—–—––

–—–—–—––

” “ –—

to take is n o t . ––—–—–—–——–—–— e–— g t –— — —–— ––— –—iv –— —– — —–— –— —o –—– —––— –—–—–—–—–—–— contrasting, conflicting emotions. We can no longer find delight in his amoral behavior, but we can’t totally condemn him either. We are almost forced by Shakespeare to admire his courage to keep fighting despite who he is.

Act V, Scene 4 Overview

The two armies are pitched in battle. Richard’s horse has been slain, and the king is knocking off rebels as if he were an invincible killing machine. He’s already ended the lives of five Richmond decoys. The enemy is closing in, however, and Richard needs to think about saving himself. “A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!” he cries to anyone who will listen. Catesby offers rescue, but Richard refuses. He says he has cast his die and is determined to live by the consequences. Then he shows his true colors by calling again for a horse.

Analysis A nalysis Richard is once again looking out only for himself. So desperate are his circumstances, however, he is willing to trade his entire kingdom for the horse that might preserve his life. His refusal of Catesby’s offer is only a façade to keep up appearances for the sake of the troops. His real intention is to survive. This is why he repeats his call for a horse.


81

Richard III (Antony Sher) rides his horse into battle at Bosworth Field.

82


Act V, Scene 5 Overview Richard finally meets the real Richmond. They fight, and Richard is slain. The battle is soon over, and Lord Stanley appears with the royal crown. He tells Richmond: “Wear it, enjoy it, and make much of it.” Pleased to hear that few have died and Stanley’s son is safe, Richmond pardons all who fought on Richard’s side, declares an end to the War of the Roses, and announces his intention to marry Princess Elizabeth.

Analysis A nalysis Richard dies an ignoble death, the kind befitting a leader who would rather save his own skin than die fighting for a cause in which he believes. He is given no famous last words and barely an acknowledgment by Richmond: “The bloody dog is dead.” All of Queen Margaret’s curses, including that of Richard being gnawed by his conscience, have come true; the deaths of all of Richard’s victims have been avenged; and the warring families of Lancaster and York will be united in the marriage of Richmond and Elizabeth. Richmond will become Henry VII, and the period of peace and prosperity he establishes will be continued and extended in the four-decade rule of his granddaughter Elizabeth I—Shakespeare’s most important patron.

–—–—–—––

— — —– –—— —–— —–— –—–— –—–— –—–— –—–— —–— —–—–— —–— —–— –—–— –—–— –—–— —–— —––— — —––— — –—–—

–—–—–—––

m a d a m , b et hi n k yo u li k e a ca r ef ul .–— er th o m – –—–—––——–—–— –— —–— ––— –— —–— –— –— —–— —–— –— — —–— –—–—–—–—–—–—


83

List of Characters Richard Plantagenet: Duke of Gloucester, later Richard III Duke of Buckingham: Richard’s right-hand man Lady Anne: Wife of the slain Prince Edward, daughter-in-law of the slain Henry VI, and later wife of Richard III Queen Margaret: Widow of Henry VI and mother of the slain Prince Edward Queen Elizabeth: Widow of Edward IV and mother of the two young princes in line to inherit the throne Duchess of York: Widowed mother of Richard, Clarence, and Edward IV Henry, Earl of Richmond: Later Henry VII, leads army against Richard George, Duke of Clarence: Older brother of Richard and younger brother of Edward IV King Edward IV: Older brother of Richard and Clarence The young princes Edward (Prince of Wales) and Richard (Duke of York): Sons of Queen Elizabeth and heirs to the throne Richard covets Lord Hastings: Loyal to Edward IV, mistakenly trusts Richard Lord Stanley, Earl of Derby: Loyal to Hastings, informs rebels of the location of Richard’s army; his son is held hostage by Richard Rivers, Grey, and Dorset: Brother and sons of Queen Elizabeth; all are adversaries of Richard, and Rivers and Grey are beheaded for it, while Dorset flees to join Richmond’s army Sir Thomas Vaughan: Adversary of Richard, beheaded with Rivers and Grey Sir James Tyrrel: Murderer hired by Richard to kill the two princes Sir Walter Herbert and Sir James Blunt: Adversaries of Richard Sir Christopher Urswick: Chaplain and ally of Richmond Sir Robert Brakenbury: Lieutenant of the Tower Ratcliffe and Catesby: Richard’s lackies Children (Edward and Margaret) of Clarence

84


Analysis of Major Characters Richard III Richard is onstage more than any of Shakespeare’s other characters. Not an easy feat when you consider that the actor playing the role has to bend sideways, walk with a limp, and still keep our attention. And Richard III is Shakespeare’s second longest play! Only Hamlet runs longer. Richard wasn’t through his first forty lines when the Elizabethans recognized him as Vice, a stock figure in the medieval morality plays with which they were familiar. In these plays, the main character, Everyman, was seduced by an attractively packaged sin and learned a moral lesson the hard way, ultimately becoming a virtuous man. Both sins and virtues were personified as characters. One of the most attractive of these allegorical characters was Vice. He was recognizable by any audience because he was always portrayed as smart, funny, and resoundingly evil—a character who enjoyed being bad. Shakespeare crafts Richard much in the vein of Vice. Richard’s cleverness and evil ways make him an entertaining character. When Richard finally realizes the enormity of his crimes, we come to understand him as a human being and appreciate the psychologically complex character Shakespeare has created. The Elizabethans also knew the historical Richard from Shakespeare’s three plays about Henry VI, all of which he wrote before Richard III. In Henry VI Part 3, Richard tells us he can murder while smiling, cry artificial tears, and wear whatever face any occasion requires. Blatantly theatrical, this consummate hypocrite adheres to no moral value. And because there Th e Pla y’s the Th ing

85

is no love in his heart for anyone but himself, he is alienated, resentful, and capable of immense cruelty. When we first meet Shakespeare’s antihero in Richard III, he’s at the top of his game. Confident in his ability to deceive and manipulate, he tells us he’s determined to play the villain. Already he’s connived to set his brothers, Edward IV and Clarence, against each other. Then, when Clarence bemoans the reason for his being led to the Tower of London, Richard informs him that the fault is not Edward’s but his meddling wife’s. Why would one brother desire to turn his other two brothers against each other? Richard claims that because he was born deformed he is unloved, and because he cannot play the lover he will prove the villain. But can we believe him? He says he’s not shaped for sports, but we discover he’s more than capable with a sword. He says he’s not handsome enough to woo, but we see him easily seduce a woman who knows he’s evil and hates him for killing her husband and father-in-law. Richard claims he’s so physically unattractive that no one could possibly love him. Even dogs bark at him. Richard cleverly presents himself in a sympathetic light so that the audience is inclined to see his intended victims as bad guys. We forget that there are at least two sides to every story. We think Richard’s victims somehow deserve the punishment they get for mistreating Richard because of the birth defects he can do nothing about. And if we’re not careful, we may even be seduced into seeing Richard’s trusting brother Clarence as a gullible fool and the vulnerable widow Anne as someone who couldn’t have loved her husband very much if she so quickly fell in love with his hated murderer. Richard’s view of himself also changes as the play evolves. After he becomes king, he is no longer willing to share with the audience the murders he plans, and he no longer takes the delight in killing that he did earlier in the play. When he wants Buckingham to murder the two young heirs held

86


prisoner in the Tower of London, for example, he can’t even say the word that describes the act he wants his closest ally to commit. “Think now what I would speak” (IV.2), Richard tells Buckingham, but he won’t say the word either. Richard then accuses the duke of being dull, tells him outright that he wants the children killed, and asks him, “Have I thy consent that they shall die?” (IV.2). Buckingham doesn’t have to kill the children himself, just approve of Richard’s decision. But the ally can’t do it, and we see for the first time that for Richard, murder is no longer something in which he takes delight. “The king is angry,” Catsby tells us in an aside, “see, he gnaws his lip” (IV.2). Frustrated by Buckingham’s reluctance to murder children, Richard decides to hire murderers to do the job. But surrounding himself with people who aren’t going to think twice about what he wants them to do isn’t enough to quell what may be the dawning of a conscience in Richard’s mind. He also rationalizes his behavior: “But I am in / So far in blood that sin will pluck on sin” (IV.2). In other words, Richard’s initial sins have set off a chain reaction of so many other unjustified murders that he can never be forgiven for them. And still more will have to die if he wants to hold on to the crown he strove so hard to wear. No longer able to find pleasure in his despicable behavior, Richard stops sharing his “inductions dangerous” (I.1) with anyone. His conscience will not let him. The night before he dies, he is haunted not just by the ghosts of all whom he has killed, but by the enormity of his crimes: Is there a murderer here? No. Yes, I am. Then fly. What from myself? Great reason: why? Lest I revenge. What, myself upon myself? (V.3)

If only it were that easy. Narcissistic Richard loves himself too much to take his own life, but he can’t forgive himself for what he’s done either.


87

Nor is there any room in his heart for self-pity. Conscience, a word Richard continually associates with cowardice, has provided him with a sense of moral awareness. He won’t delve deeply into this chasm of selfdiscovery or wrestle for long with the consequences of his behavior—that would be too much to expect of Shakespeare’s villain; but he is no longer just the allegorical character Vice who introduced himself to us at the beginning of the play. A more fully rounded human being with a newfound understanding of himself, Richard is aware of his own moral depravity when he dies.

Annette Bening played Queen Elizabeth in a 19 95 version of R ic har d III set in the 1930s. 88


The Wailing Widows Richard sees Anne, Margaret, Elizabeth, and the Duchess of York solely as objects to advance his own ambition. Shakespeare sees them in another way, however. Anne and Elizabeth are the first people to appear in the play who have wised up to Richard and who protest against what he’s doing to their families. When Elizabeth and the Duchess of York discover the extent to which Margaret’s curses can change the course of history, they reconcile their differences with her and act together to help bring about Richard’s fall. In addition to being the only characters in the play with the courage to confront Richard, call him names, accuse him of crimes, pray for justice, and curse him for vengeance, the wailing widows give voice to the evil king’s many other victims. The women’s eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth mentality, however, is part of the cancer infecting the York and Lancaster houses. Anne, Margaret, Elizabeth, and the Duchess of York contrast with Richard’s evil nature, but they also contrast with the Earl of Richmond’s forgiving nature. If it wasn’t for him, the entire nation would eventually be blind and toothless. Whereas the women understandably cry out for justice and punishment, the Lancaster cousin Richmond forgives those who have fought on Richard’s side and, as a symbol of his intention to restore peace and prosperity to England, vows to wed the York princess Elizabeth.

Lady Anne Edward, her husband and the heir to the throne, as well as her father-inlaw, King Henry VI, have been killed by Richard and his brothers. Before the late king is buried, Richard pretends he is in love with Anne because, with her as his wife, he can strengthen his claim to be named king. She calls him a “minister of hell,” a “foul devil,” a “villain,” and a “devilish slave” (I.2) and spits in his face; but she can’t bring herself to avenge the deaths of her husband and father-in-law even when Richard kneels before her and places his sword in her hands.


89

Anne caves in to Richard’s absurdly convincing entreaties and agrees to marry him. Ironically, her curse that “If ever he have wife, let her be made / More miserable by the life of him” (I.2) comes true—but she’s his wife.

Queen Margaret Richard and his brothers have killed Margaret’s husband, Henry VI, and their son Edward. She was banished from the court for life, but now she’s back to inform us in an aside of the Yorks’ murderous history and to cry out for revenge against the injustices done to her and her family. She calls Richard a “devil,” a “villain,” a “dog,” an “abortive, rooting hog” (an allusion to the York family symbol), the “son of hell,” a “rag of honor,” a “bottled spider,” and a “poisonous bunch-back’d toad” (I.3). Her revenge is to inflict curses. She reserves her most vindictive forms of retribution, however, for Richard: the worm of conscience will gnaw at his soul, and he will not be able to tell his friends from his foes.

Queen Elizabeth The widow of Edward IV and mother of the young princes who stand in line to inherit the throne, Elizabeth discovers too late that her early misgivings about Richard are true: he’s turned nobles in the court against her by falsely accusing her of playing a part in the death of his brother Clarence; forced her to seek sanctuary in a church; and murdered her brother, her son from an earlier marriage, and her two young boys. The lesson of Margaret’s prophecies is not lost on her, and she asks the former queen to teach her to curse. United by their losses at Richard’s hands, Margaret agrees.

The Duchess of York Richard’s own mother, the Duchess of York, is horrified by her son’s evilness. She hopes that Margaret’s most grievous curse—victory for the rebel forces—weigh more heavily on Richard than all his armor.

90


—––——–— – –— —–— –—–— —–— —–— —––— —––— —––— –—–— –—–— —–— –—– –—–— —–— —– —––— —––— –—–—–—

–—–—–—––

” “

–—–—–—––

f u l l o f w is e c a r e is y o u r a–— — —–— –—.—– —–— ,–— –m l –— –—–— e –— –—a s –—d n — u o –— –—–— c —m –— –— — –— — –— — –— — –— – —– — –— – —– — –— — –— –—–— Henry, Earl of Richmond

Richmond seems pretty tame—some would say dull—compared with evil Richard and the feisty women Richard has victimized. Shakespeare doesn’t give the future king many lines, but the role Richmond plays at the end of Richard III is important for several reasons. We see the sane and egalitarian usurper quelling chaos, restoring order, and paving the way for peace through his marriage to Princess Elizabeth. His ascension to the throne as Henry VII, moreover, carries a subtext that doesn’t have to be spoken to say what Shakespeare wants the people in his audience to hear: namely, that the reigning queen, Elizabeth I, is the rightful heir to the throne. Henry VII’s granddaughter and the monarch in power when Richard III was first performed in 1592, she also needed the support of her people against Catholic Europe. The pope had excommunicated her for heresy, Jesuit priests were forming cells in Europe with the intention of secreting spies into England and undermining her authority, and though the Spanish Armada was destroyed in a storm in 1588—only a few years before Elizabethans saw Richard III—Spain was still a force to be reckoned with. If these enemies succeed in wresting Elizabeth’s crown, England could be plunged into a civil war that might again bring about the moral decay and widespread destruction that the country experienced under Richard III.


91

A Closer Look • Themes • Motifs • Symbols • Language • Interpreting the Play• Ian McKellen as Richard III in Richard Loncraine’s movie adaptation.

ch ap te r th re e –—–—–—–—–—–—–—

A Cl Look

––—–—–—–—–—–— —–—–—–—–—–—–—–—

–—–—–—–—–—–—

themes Cowardly Conscience Conscience makes its first appearance when one of the two murderers Richard has sent to kill Clarence feels a “kind of remorse” (I.4) as he enters the victim’s cell. The other murderer’s first response is “What? art thou afraid?” (I.4). A darkly comical discussion follows in which the hesitant murderer claims that he can’t kill Clarence while “dregs of conscience” (I.4) run through his mind. Perhaps if he counts to twenty the dregs will go away. The promise of the money that waits for them in Richard’s purse proves to be more effective than counting, however, and he vows not to listen to his conscience because “it makes a man a coward” (I.4). Nevertheless, this would-be murderer can’t stab Clarence at the first opportunity. The other one also balks as a result.

94


–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—–—––

–—–— –— —–— – –—–—–—–—–—–—––

––— —–— —–— –—–—–—–—–—–—–—––

–—–—–—–—–—–— –— —–— –—–—–—–—–—–—

Seizing the chance to plead for his life, Clarence tells the two men they don’t have the heart to murder, and they should think about what will happen to their souls when they die. The mind of the more hardened killer is swayed, but only for a few moments. Claiming it would be “cowardly” and “womanish” (I.4) not to kill Clarence, he stabs the duke and tosses him headfirst to drown in a cask of malmsey wine. He then demands an explanation from his partner: “what mean’st thou, that thou help’st me not?” (I.4). When the man replies he wishes they had spared Clarence and insists Richard keep his share of the payment for the murder, the first assassin calls him a “coward” (I.4). The debate between the two murderers is more than an exchange of ideas about conscience and cowardice, however. Both know that what they are doing is wrong. When the first murderer loses his nerve to strike Clarence after being commanded, the second murderer doesn’t strike their intended victim either, choosing instead to “reason with him” (I.4). Had the murderers been able to stab without listening to their consciences, Clarence wouldn’t have been able to plead for his life. Taking advantage of his opportunity, he challenges the murderers’ weak legal position—a warrant from Richard—with an appeal to a the law of God. When the murderers respond with an allusion to the role he played in the deaths of Henry VI and the king’s son, the fearful Clarence can’t stay focused on tapping into the murderers’ moral sensibilities. “Alas!” he cries out in desperation, “for whose sake did I that ill deed? / For Edward, for my brother” (I.4). Clarence, it turns out, has a guilty conscience for the murders he committed so his brother could be king. How, then, can he claim a right to live when he denied that right to others? His defense shattered, Clarence sees that in the minds of the murderers, he is only getting what he deserves. Clarence is right when he says the murderers have no right to kill him, but the murderers believe they are right when they say he has forfeited

a clos er look

95

his right to live. Nevertheless, the hesitant murderer cannot escape his accusing conscience even if he didn’t stab or help drown Clarence. Conscience doesn’t stop the two murderers Tyrrel hires at the behest of Richard to kill the young princes; but one of them does hesitate, and all three feel guilty about what they’ve done. Tyrrel calls the murder of the children a “tyrannous and bloody act,” an “arch deed of piteous massacre,” and a “piece of ruthless butchery” (IV.2). What does it say about Richard if a professional murderer calls a murder ruthless and a massacre? He also reports that the experienced “bloody dogs” he hired “melted with tenderness and kind compassion” as they smothered the children. Both, Tyrrel tells us, “are gone with conscience and remorse” (IV.2). Richard, of course, has a conscience, but it does not stop him from committing murder. He doesn’t even hesitate. And he certainly has no remorse for anything he has done. Momentarily shaken by the ghosts of all the people he has killed, Richard asks, “Is there a murderer here? No. Yes, I am” (V.3). Might he take revenge on this murderer that is himself? Not a chance. “Alack, I love myself” (V.3), he tells us in a tone of voice that might at first come off as almost comical or even cynical. Nevertheless, he admits, “My conscience . . . condemns me for a villain” (V.3). Richard seems about to enter into the world of his conscience. Knowing what he has done is wrong, perhaps he hopes to discover what—beyond his physical appearance and lust for power—drove him to kill so many people. But conscience is not the coward; Richard is. Afraid of what he might find on the other side of the threshold of self-awareness, he shifts the focus of his thoughts to who will pity him when he dies. The answer, of course, is no one. And why should anyone feel sorry for him? He can’t even pity himself. Richard enters his final moments in the battle at Bosworth Field alone and alienated yet still so in love with himself that he’s willing to trade

96


night Richard is visited by ghosts the ion by before battle in this product the Utah Shakespeare Festival.

his kingdom for a horse. That there is no cause for which he is willing to die should come as no surprise. A character whose only delight besides murder and manipulation has been the contemplation of his own deformed shadow, Richard has never cared about anyone y but himself.

Monstrous Misogyny Richard’s nephew and second in line to inherit the throne—also named Richard—repeats a rumor that because his uncle was born with teeth in his mouth: “He could gnaw a crust at two hours old” (II.3). For the

a clos er look

97

Elizabethans, this birth is a sure sign of Richard’s character: he is morally as well as physically unnatural. Shifting the focus away from himself, Richard blames his mother, claiming that she delivered him “Deform’d, unfinish’d, /. . . scarce half made up” (I.1). In other words, it’s her fault, not his. She’s the one who was deficient. Pity him; hate her. By proclaiming himself a victim, Richard gives himself license to despise and fear all women, an attitude that is reinforced by the behavior of the women toward Richard in the play. They see him for the evil person he is, call him the worst names, and pray for his ruin. Richard often tries to undermine or preempt their criticism by mounting offensives against them. He blames Clarence’s imprisonment on Queen Elizabeth, whom he calls a “relenting fool and shallow” (III.4) and refers to Queen Margaret as a “with’red hag” (I.3). He doesn’t call Lady Anne any names, but he would not offer her his sword to slay him if he didn’t think she conformed to the stereotype of women as passive and feminine. Can you imagine Richard offering his sword to Margaret? She’d run him through without a second thought. Against the late king’s wife, Elizabeth, and his mistress, Jane Shore, Richard uses a more traditional misogynist tactic: he informs the royal court that the two women are witches and responsible for his withered arm. In this instance, he is the victim of women’s hatred and not his own misfortune, and any man who dares to challenge his assertion that he was not born with his deformity also becomes his enemy. It’s all very clever. By blaming women for what makes him different from other men—his physical appearance—Richard bonds with the men through the traditional male view of women as deceitful and dangerous. They are the enemies of whom the men need to be wary, not him. Finally, Richard plays on the male stereotype of women as being inconstant and untrustworthy when he instructs Buckingham to spread

98


the rumor that Queen Elizabeth’s young heirs to the throne are illegitimate, thus insinuating that Elizabeth was unfaithful to the king and that her sons are a result of her improper liaisons. With his brother Clarence dead and the two young princes soon to be out of the picture, Richard is the logical choice to rule England. If only the women would shut up and go away. Elizabeth, Margaret, and the Duchess of York are among the most politically powerless people in the play, yet they continually remind Richard of his crimes and address through their moral prophecies what he fears most: the loss of his power. Unlike the male characters, the women do not shy away from calling attention to Richard’s withered arm, which was understood as a symbol of sinfulness. And, try as he might, Richard can neither discredit nor silence them.

Motifs Dreams D reams Shakespeare’s recurring use of prophetic dreams is the most easily recognizable motif in Richard III. The first, and perhaps the most interesting, is Clarence’s dream of escaping to France from the Tower of London on a ship with his brother Richard. Ironically, it is Richard who is responsible for Clarence’s imprisonment in the first place. It’s also ironic that when Richard knocks him overboard, Clarence never suspects that his brother’s stumble might not be accidental. As Clarence sinks into the sea—without Richard diving in to rescue him—he sees among piles of gold, pearls, and other jewels the skeletons of thousands of men. The pain of drowning is so awful, Clarence tries to will himself to die, but his dream “lengthen’d after life” (I.4). Then he is visited by the ghosts of Henry VI and his son, people Clarence helped murder so his brother Edward could be king. The torment of guilt for these deaths, coupled with the realization that he has traded his soul for false

a clos er look

99

riches, is so great that Clarence exclaims, “I was in hell” (I.4). It isn’t long after prophetically dreaming of his own death by drowning that Clarence actually drowns in a vat of wine. If Lord Hastings had attached as much significance to Lord Stanley’s prophetic dream about a threatening boar as Clarence did to his about drowning, he might have saved his own life. When a messenger tells him that Lord Stanley has had a prophetic dream about a threatening boar (Richard, of course) and wants to flee, Hastings refuses to take heed. Moreover, the rational, confident, and trusting Hastings believes that because the apparently friendly Richard cannot disguise his thoughts and feelings, “the boar will use us kindly.” Talk about a dream! Two scenes later, Hastings is on his way to have his head removed at the Tower of London: “Stanley did dream the boar,” he regretfully admits, “And I did scorn it and disdain to fly” (III.4). We know from Lady Anne that Richard’s “timorous dreams” (IV.1) keep her from getting a good night’s sleep, but nothing disturbs Richard like the one that awakens his conscience the night before his battle with Richmond. The ghosts of the eleven people he has murdered parade before him with the same message: “Despair and die” (V.3). Richard doesn’t despair, but as his dream foretold, he does die.

Curses C urses Curses in Richard III serve the same prophetic purpose as dreams. Grieving for the deaths of her husband and father-in-law at the hands of Richard and his brothers, Lady Anne curses “the hand that made these holes” (I.2). She prays that the murderer will make miserable the woman who weds him. This curse, ironically, comes back to haunt Anne when she marries Richard. She tells the other female victims that because of Richard’s lust for power, “For never yet one hour in his bed / Did I enjoy the golden dew of sleep” (IV.1).

100


Perhaps the most important, engaging, and memorable character aside from Richard, the aged Queen Margaret is also the play’s most imaginative, prophetic, and successful curser. She is the perfect voice through which Shakespeare could express the pain, rage, and desire for vengeance felt by all Richard’s victims.

Margaret teach es Queen Elizabeth and t he Duchess of York how to cu rse.

a clos er look

101

Margaret’s curses are so powerfully stated, they not only foreshadow the action to come, they seem to determine it. Every curse she levels at the Lancasters and Yorks comes true: her usurper, Queen Elizabeth, dies with neither her crown nor her two sons; and those responsible for the murder of her husband, Henry VI, and their son Prince Edward all suffer premature deaths. Margaret’s best work, of course, is reserved for Richard. What could trouble him more than a conscience that gnaws at his soul? What could undermine him more than the inability to tell friend from foe? And just to make sure the evil king gets his due, Margaret passes on her power to Elizabeth and to Richard’s mother, the Duchess of York, who levels at her son the most grievous curse she can imagine—namely, that he die in defeat: “Bloody thou art, bloody will be thy end; / Shame serves thy life and doth thy death attend” (IV.4). You have to be a pretty bad son to have your own mother wish that on you.

Symbols Richard’s Body Before Richard speaks his first lines, the audience sees the deformed shape of his body. For the Elizabethans, his hunched back and withered arm immediately symbolized that something was wrong. They knew without having to be told that he is as deformed on the inside as he is on the outside. Forty lines later, after Richard has revealed to us the first part of his plan “to prove a villain” (I.1), we begin to reach the same conclusion. Richard tells us in his opening soliloquy that he is not “shap’d for sportive tricks” nor “made to court an amorous looking-glass” (I.1). Because he was born prematurely, he is “rudely stamp’d,” “Cheated of feature,” “Deform’d” and “unfinish’d” (I.1)—so lame and unfashionable in appearance, in fact, that no one could possibly love him. Even dogs bark at him. 102


But Richard isn’t telling the whole story. He is rumored to have been born with teeth in his mouth, an unnatural occurrence noted by his young nephew: “He could gnaw a crust at two hours old” (II.4). The Elizabethans knew what this meant: Richard was born to bite. His deformity is nothing less than a symbol of prophetic, monstrous significance. “Subtle, false, and treacherous” (I.1), as he says of himself, nothing good can come for England as long as he wields power. Nor is Richard’s physical deformity limited to his outward appearance. When he tells Lady Anne that he could not cry over his father’s death, the audience is being told that there is something not right with Richard’s emotions. His lust for power and his lack of emotion indicates that Richard is as internally monstrous—a word the Elizabethans interpreted as meaning “unnatural”—as he is externally misshapen. He is as socially monstrous as he is physically deformed.

The Boar The wild boar, Richard’s heraldic symbol, was commonly used on shields and flags because it represented courage and fierceness in battle—both masculine ideals. Shakespeare exploits these connotations to convey Richard’s aggressive masculinity, his unrestrained ambition, and his unconscionable willingness to murder. Shakespeare’s image of the boar as a dangerous, uncontrollable beast appears in Stanley’s dream, but Hastings doesn’t take the lord’s prophetic warning seriously and declines to flee with him on horseback. He even teases Stanley when the threat posed by Richard seems never to have existed: “Come on, come on, where is your boar-spear, man? / Fear you the boar, and go so unprovided?” (III.2). Not long afterward, Stanley realizes he should have heeded the warning in his dream, and Hastings realizes he should have heeded the warning of his friend. Richmond gets his rival right when he describes Richard as the “bloody,

a clos er look

103

and usurping boar” who spoils England’s “summer fields and fruitful vines” and “makes his trough” in the “embowell’d bosoms” of his victims (V.2). Like that of a boar gone gore-raving mad, Richard’s violence is unlimited, and the extent of his aggression is beyond his control. He too must be hunted down and killed like the animal he is perceived to be.

Language Shakespeare is all about language. He almost without a doubt has the largest English vocabulary of anyone who has ever lived—more than 25,000 words. The closest to him is John Milton—no slouch when it comes to articulating thought on paper—at approximately 12,000. No single person has contributed as many words and expressions to popular use today: more than 400. Any meaningful understanding and appreciation of Richard III has to include Shakespeare’s language as well as his plot, an analysis of his characters, and a discussion of his main ideas. The thousands of Elizabethans who flocked to his plays came to hear as well as to see. Because there was no scenery, no lighting, and only a few props, Shakespeare had to use his audience’s ears to create in their imaginations what could not be physically represented onstage. The same is true for us today. The words we read cannot just be a series of statements. They must be vivid representations of thoughts that we see as clearly as Richard sees in his dream the ghosts of all the people he has killed. When Lady Anne accompanies the hearse containing the dead King Henry VI and the corpse starts bleeding at the approach of Richard, we need to see in our minds “dead Henry’s wounds / Open their congeal’d mouths and bleed afresh” (I.2) as sensationally as if we were watching the latest horror flick. We need to appreciate in a vivid way that only “deeds inhuman and unnatural” could produce “this deluge most unnatural” (I.2).

104


So when Lady Anne curses the morally and physically deformed Richard, we can feel the intensity in her prayer that God, who made the blood that flows so heavily from where there can’t be much left to begin with, take his revenge on the “hell-governed arm” that “butchered” her father-in-law (I.2). When we discover how God answers Lady Anne’s prayer that whomever Richard marries “be made / More miserable by the life of him” (I.2), we come to appreciate the irony that oozes like blood from Shakespeare’s verbal portrait. In other words, it’s Shakespeare’s language that prevents Richard III from becoming a relic of the past. It’s the language that makes Richard III come alive and continue to live on the imaginative stages of people’s minds all over the world. Shakespeare’s language—including metaphors, imagery, rhyme, repetition, and alliteration—does not just relate information; it also communicates the feelings and intelligence of the speaker. So when Lady Anne says about Richard, “O, cursed be the hand that made these holes! / Cursed the heart that had the heart to do it! / Cursed the blood that let this blood from hence!” (I.2), we need to understand not just the literal interpretation of her words. We also want to appreciate her emotional intelligence as Shakespeare reveals it through the poetic construction of the lines she speaks. And we have to do this without falling into the old trap of first talking about what a character says and then talking about how he or she says it. The way in which Lady Anne expresses herself in any line is as much a part of what she is saying as any information she may be conveying. To try to rephrase what she says is to say something other than what she speaks. There is no separation of style and substance. Shakespeare uses blank verse to convey his characters’ thoughts and emotions. Less monotonously structured than lines that rhyme, blank verse uses internal rhythms, the juxtaposition of images, and other stylistic devices to express thoughts and feelings in more engaging and

a clos er look

105

emotionally charged ways. Look, for example, at the opening lines of the play: Now is the winter of our discontent Made glorious summer by this sun of York; And all the clouds that loured [lowered] upon our house In the deep bosom of the ocean buried. Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths. (I.1)

Y

The fighting between Lancasters and Yorks—“the winter of our discontent”— has ended, and England has been made “glorious summer by this sun of York.” “Sun” is the key word here. Shakespeare is making a pun that everyone in his audience recognized without his having to point it out: the old king Henry VI is dead, and the new king Edward IV, whose heraldic symbol is the sun, has initiated a “glorious summer” of peace. The contrasting images of the seasons and nature are followed by the personification of a smoothed-brow god of war making love to a lady in her chamber with lute music in the background, but the message is the same: the world has finally been put right. Richard cannot justify what he is about to do. England is no longer at war, his brother wears the royal crown, and all—underscored by the repetition of the word “our”—are to enjoy, celebrate, and prosper from the peace that now reigns. That is, all but Richard: I . . . Have no delight to pass away the time, Unless to see 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. (I.1)

106


Y

The only delight Richard can find in the glorious sun of peace is the shadow it casts on his own deformity. He uses his deformity to evoke our sympathy, but because it is such a lame excuse for his villainy, he only reveals himself to be as monstrous on the inside as he is on the outside. What he doesn’t reveal, of course, is the true nature of his monstrosity. The closest Richard comes to any personal revelation occurs in the selfreflective lines of blank verse spoken on the night before his battle with Richmond. These lines, along with the opening soliloquy, are among the best written in the play:

Y

Cold fearful drops stand on my trembling flesh. What do I fear? Myself? There’s none else by. Richard loves Richard, that is, I am I. Then fly. What, from myself? Great reason why— Lest I revenge. What, myself upon myself? Alack, I love myself. Wherefore? For any good That I myself have done unto myself? O no! Alas, I rather hate myself For hateful deeds committed by myself. I am a villain. (V.3)

Because he briefly entertains the idea of revenging the murders for which he is responsible, Richard fears being alone. But he dismisses suicide on the grounds that he loves himself too much to take his own life. Then, realizing he has no reason to love himself, he admits he hates himself for the murders he has committed. In short, Richard is the villain he promised to prove himself to be when he introduced himself to us in the play’s opening scene. Every word in this relatively short passage is crucial for understanding as much about Richard as he is capable or willing to understand about himself. Nothing is superfluous or overly detailed. What matters, then, is not just the literal meaning of the lines but the emotional power conveyed by the brilliant construction of the words. a clos er look

107

—–——–— —–— –—– –—–— –—–— –—–— —–— —–— —–— —–— –—– —–— –— —– –— –—–— –—–— —–— –— —– –—–—–—–—

–—–—–—––

” “

–—–—–—––

fo r i m ys el f ha ve m a n y w to s –.——–—–— r –—–— a –— –—–— –— –—sh te —a —–— –— –— – — –— — –— — –— – — –— – —– — –— – —– — –— —– — –— —– — –— —– –—–—–— Shakespeare may have used conventional imagery, unimaginative personification, and excessive repetition, but there’s also no denying the energy he created in the specific words he chose to convey the emotional attitudes of his characters. Nowhere is this truer than in his portrait of Richard. In his opening lines Shakespeare’s villainous protagonist says he is “rudely stamp’d,” cannot “strut before a wanton ambling nymph,” has been “Cheated of feature,” and was sent into the world so “half made up” that dogs now bark at his “unfashionable” appearance (I.1). Imagine what the difference would be if Shakespeare had written that Richard “is not very attractive, cannot show off his body before a pretty woman, isn’t handsome, and so misshapen that dogs bark at him.” Now read Shakespeare’s words out loud. Can you hear all the strongsounding letters, such as r, st, c, w, ch, and f, coming together in so few words? The words not only create powerful images, they’re sounded with a force that other words can’t approach. Shakespeare gives Clarence some powerful images for describing the sunken jewels and skulls in his drowning scene, Lady Anne dramatically communicates her loathing of Richard, and there’s much to be admired in Margaret’s flare for cursing, but none of these characters’ vocabulary approaches the quality and consistency found in Richard’s command of the language—one measurement of the extent to which Shakespeare was imaginatively engaged by him. Richmond’s speech to his troops, for example, is devoid of the verbal power we find in Richard’s speech:

108


Let’s whip these stragglers o’er the seas again; Lash hence these overweening rags of France, These famish’d beggars weary of their lives, Who (but for dreaming on this fond exploit) For want of means, poor rats, had hang’d themselves. If we be conquered, let men conquer us, And not these bastard Britains, whom our fathers Have in their own land beaten, bobb’d, and thump’d, And in record left them the heirs of shame. (V.3)

Y

Notice how the short, powerful words—“whip,” “rags,” “beggars,” “rats,”—leap from the page almost like punches thrown in a fight. By the time we’ve absorbed the force of their blows, is it any wonder we might feel “beaten, bobb’d and thump’d”?

Interpreting the Play Shakespeare’s version of Richard III could easily run for more than four hours if staged in its entirety. It’s not surprising, then, that in 1700 British actor and playwright Colley Cibber rewrote the play and shortened it significantly. Since then, interpreting Richard III for performances can be summed up in a single word: CUT. The result: SUCCESS. Interestingly, one of the lines that Cibber added to the play—“Off with his head. So much for Buckingham”—has since appeared in so many productions of Richard III, and is probably the most famous Shakespearean line never written by Shakespeare.

a clos er look

109

The most famous and certainly one of the best Richards, of course, is Laurence Olivier. He won wide critical praise for his 1948 stage performance in London and again for the 1955 film version that was heavily indebted to Cibber’s shortened version of the play. Olivier, who also directed the movie and cowrote the screenplay, made even more cuts from Shakespeare’s original. Like most ambitious actors with directorial control, Olivier kept whatever made him and his character look best. Though he cut the drama roughly in half, he managed to keep approximately 65 percent of Richard’s lines. He eliminated several scenes and manipulated others to emphasize his own character’s intelligence, courage, and willingness to fight to the end. Olivier further downplayed Richard’s evilness by reducing the roles of the women by more than 45 percent, thus eliminating all their foreshadowing curses. Cutting scenes and characters, altering lines, and directing the camera’s viewpoint enabled Olivier to turn Shakespeare’s villain/monster into a witty, entertaining villain/hero. And his performance as Richard turned both the character and the actor into pop legends: an estimated 50 million people viewed the play when it premiered on American television in 1956. That’s more than the combined number of people who saw a performance of Richard III in the previous four hundred years. Almost overnight, every actor wanted to play Richard III. Ian McKellen was one of the few who succeeded without being heavily influenced by Olivier; he set the play in the 1930s and portrayed Richard as a rising fascist who could be immediately likened to Adolf Hitler. Al Pacino appeared in Richard III on Broadway, but the poor reviews may have been what inspired him to make a documentary of the production rather than a film about the play with himself in the lead role. Other twentieth-century actors who have played Richard III include Kenneth Branagh and Denzel Washington. An allfemale cast performing the play at London’s Globe Theater in 2003 raised

110


for the first time the question of whether Richard was inherently evil or the innocent victim of an unloving family. Because of Richard’s widespread cultural popularity as a caricature of evil, he may seem more of our time than of Shakespeare’s. Perhaps this is the reason why the discourse taking place in schools today sometimes centers as much on the interpretation of the actor playing Richard as it does on the historical context in which the play was written. The play can be viewed as a confirmation of the Elizabethan ideology that championed the divine right of kings and as a propaganda piece through which Shakespeare hoped to ingratiate himself with the reigning monarch of his time. However, it is also an examination of Richard as a human being whose primary concern is increasing his personal power regardless of the cost to others. Is his wickedness, then, really a response to his own deformity as he claims? Or is it a natural reaction to the deformed world in which he lives? Does Richard really have no compassion for others? Or is his contempt a sign of self-hatred rooted in his inability to be loved? Was he born evil, or was he made evil by a life of murder and war? The answers to these questions are up for debate. And what does our current fascination with Richard say about us? When the actor playing the king comes out for his curtain call, why don’t we regret having reveled in Richard’s evilness? Could it be that, in a way neither the actor nor any of us may realize, we may be condoning Richard’s manipulations and murders? How do we know we’re not to some degree applauding the character as well as the actor who played him? How much of Richard is a part of us, and how much of us has become a part of Richard?

a clos er look

111

Chronology 1564 1578-1582 1582 1583 1584 1585-1592 1587 1593-1594 1594-1596 1596

112

William Shakespeare is born on April 23 in Stratford-upon-Avon, England Span of Shakespeare’s “Lost Years,” covering the time between leaving school and marrying Anne Hathaway of Stratford At age eighteen Shakespeare marries Anne Hathaway, age twenty-six, on November 28 Susanna Shakespeare, William and Anne’s first child, is born in May, six months after the wedding Birth of twins Hamnet and Judith Shakespeare Shakespeare leaves his family in Stratford to become an actor and playwright in a London theater company Public beheading of Mary, Queen of Scots The Bubonic (Black) Plague closes theaters in London As a leading playwright, Shakespeare creates some of his most popular work, including A Midsummer Night’s Dream and Romeo and Juliet Hamnet Shakespeare dies in August at age eleven, possibly of plague


1596-1597 1599 1600 1600-1601 1601-1602 1603 1604 1605 1608-1610 1611 1613 1614 1616 1623

The Merchant of Venice and Henry IV, Part One, most likely are written The Globe Theater opens Julius Caesar is first performed at the Globe Hamlet is believed to have been written Twelfth Night is probably composed Queen Elizabeth dies; Scottish king James VI succeeds her and becomes England’s James I Shakespeare pens Othello Macbeth is composed London’s theaters are forced to close when the plague returns and kills an estimated 33,000 people The Tempest is written The Globe Theater is destroyed by fire Reopening of the Globe Shakespeare dies on April 23 Anne Hathaway, Shakespeare’s widow, dies; a collection of Shakespeare’s plays, known as the First Folio, is published

Chr onology

113

Source Notes p. 41, pars. 2–3, “History, Background, and Family Lines,” in Richard III. SparkNotes Literature Guide (New York: Spark/Barnes and Noble, 2002), 3–4. p. 48, par. 2, E. Pearlman, “The Invention of Richard of Gloucester,” in Richard III, ed. Thomas Cartelli (New York: Norton, 2009), 325, 338–339. p. 48, par. 4–p. 50, par. 1, Katherine Maus, “Myself Alone: Richard III as Stage Machiavel,” in Richard III, ed. Thomas Cartelli (New York: Norton, 2009), 376. p. 50, par. 2, William Shakespeare, “Richard III,” in The Riverside Shakespeare, ed. Herschel Baker (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2nd ed., 1997), 755. In a footnote Baker notes that though Anne’s presence at Henry VI’s funeral may not be factual, the historian Raphael Holinshed mentions the king’s corpse bleeding when it was exposed at St. Paul’s Cathedral. p. 54, par. 2, Herschel Baker, ed., The Riverside Shakespeare, 2nd ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997), 758. p. 67, par. 5, For a discussion of Shakespeare’s use of strawberries as a symbol of innocence, see Norman Holland, The Shakespearean Imagination (New York: Macmillan, 1964), 212. Bishop Ely was St. Thomas More’s mentor and may have been the Latin translator for More’s biography of Richard III. Almost certainly Ely was a resource for More, whose biography was a major resource for Shakespeare when he wrote Richard III. And it’s no coincidence that Ely shows up at the battle of Bosworth Field to fight on the side of Richmond. For more information on More, see Wilbur Sanders, “Providence and Policy in Richard III,” in Richard III, ed. Thomas Cartelli (New York: Norton, 2009), 316–317.

114


p. 85, par. 1, Thomas Cartelli, ed., “Preface,” in Richard III (New York: Norton, 2009), x. p. 103, par. 2, Ian Moulton, “‘A Monster Great Deformed’: The Unruly Masculinity of Richard III,” in Richard III, ed. Thomas Cartelli (New York: Norton, 2009), 391–392. p. 103, par. 5–p. 104, par. 1, Ian Johnson, “Some Observations on Shakespeare’s Dramatic Verse in Richard III and Macbeth” (lecture, Vancouver Island University, formerly Malaspina University-College, Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada, released July 1999). http://records. viu.ca/~johnstoi/eng366/lectures/poetry.htm (October 28, 2009). p. 109, par. 2–p. 110, par. 2, Saskia Kossak, “Richard III in the Cinema,” in Richard III, ed. Thomas Cartelli (New York: Norton, 2009), 246. p. 110, par. 3, Kossak, 255.

s our ce notes

115

A Shakespeare Glsary The student should not try to memorize these, but only refer to them as needed. We can never stress enough that the best way to learn Shakespeare’s language is simply to hear it—to hear it spoken well by good actors. After all, small children master every language on Earth through their ears, without studying dictionaries, and we should master Shakespeare, as much as possible, the same way. addition — a name or title (knight, duke, duchess, king, etc.) admire — to marvel affect — to like or love; to be attracted to an — if (“An I tell you that, I’ll be hanged.”) approve — to prove or confirm attend — to pay attention belike — probably beseech — to beg or request betimes — soon; early bondman — a slave bootless — futile; useless; in vain broil — a battle charge — expense, responsibility; to command or accuse clepe, clept — to name; named common — of the common people; below the nobility conceit — imagination condition — social rank; quality countenance — face; appearance; favor cousin — a relative cry you mercy — beg your pardon curious — careful; attentive to detail dear — expensive discourse — to converse; conversation discover — to reveal or uncover dispatch — to speed or hurry; to send; to kill doubt — to suspect 116


116

entreat — to beg or appeal envy — to hate or resent; hatred; resentment ere — before ever, e’er — always eyne — eyes fain — gladly fare — to eat; to prosper favor — face, privilege fellow — a peer or equal filial — of a child toward his or her parent fine — an end; “in fine” = in sum fond — foolish fool — a darling genius — a good or evil spirit gentle — well-bred; not common gentleman — one whose labor was done by servants (Note: to call someone a gentleman was not a mere compliment on his manners; it meant that he was above the common people.) gentles — people of quality get — to beget (a child) go to — “go on”; “come off it” go we — let us go haply — perhaps happily — by chance; fortunately hard by — nearby heavy — sad or serious husbandry — thrift; economy instant — immediate kind — one’s nature; species knave — a villain; a poor man lady — a woman of high social rank (Note: lady was not a synonym for woman or polite woman; it was not a compliment, but, like gentleman, simply a word referring to one’s actual legal status in society.) leave — permission; “take my leave” = depart (with permission) lief, lieve — “I had as lief” = I would just as soon; I would rather like — to please; “it likes me not” = it is disagreeable to me

Glos s a r y

117

livery — the uniform of a nobleman’s servants; emblem mark — notice; pay attention morrow — morning needs — necessarily nice — too fussy or fastidious owe — to own passing — very peculiar — individual; exclusive privy — private; secret proper — handsome; one’s very own (“his proper son”) protest — to insist or declare quite — completely require — request several — different; various severally — separately sirrah — a term used to address social inferiors sooth — truth state — condition; social rank still — always; persistently success — result(s) surfeit — fullness touching — concerning; about; as for translate — to transform unfold — to disclose villain — a low or evil person; originally, a peasant voice — a vote; consent; approval vouchsafe — to confide or grant vulgar — common want — to lack weeds — clothing what ho — “hello, there!” wherefore — why wit — intelligence; sanity withal — moreover; nevertheless without — outside would — wish

118


118

Suggested Essay Topics 1.

Richard is obviously a villain, but Shakespeare chose him and not Richmond to be the protagonist of his play. Why? What is it about the evil Richard that makes him so engaging and at times even likable? Does he have any heroic qualities?

2.

What role does conscience play in Richard III? Why is it associated early in the play with cowardice by Clarence’s murderers and later by Richard on the night before his battle with Richmond? Do you think Clarence and Richard feel any remorse for the roles they played in the deaths of others?

3.

What roles do men and women seem to play in Elizabethan royal society? What does Shakespeare’s drama say about what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman? In what ways have gender roles changed since Elizabethan times? In what ways have they remained the same?

4.

How would you explain Richard’s attitude toward women? Why do you think he fears and hates them so much?

5.

What are your thoughts about the dreams that occur in Richard III? Think about Clarence’s dream of drowning just before he dies, Lord Stanley’s dream of a boar threatening to harm him and Lord Hastings, and Richard’s dream of being visited by the ghosts of the people he killed. Do you think these dreams might be messages from their unconscious minds? What could they be telling these characters about themselves? What are they telling us about the characters?

6.

What is your reaction to the prophetic curses leveled at Richard by Lady Anne and Queen Margaret? Do they predict the future, or do they also in some way control it? Is there a difference?

7.

What do Richard’s deformities symbolize? In what ways is he as deformed mentally as he is deformed physically?

S ugges ted Es s a y Topics

119

Testing Your Memy 1. Whose reign is called a “glorious summer”? a) Edward IV’s; b) Buckingham’s; c.) Richard III’s; d) Henry VIII’s 2. The war that’s been taking place between the Yorks and the Lancasters for more than thirty years is known as a) the War between the Yorks and the Lancasters; b) the Bosworth War; c) the War of the Roses; d) Family Feud. 3. The Elizabethans knew Richard was born a monster because a) he wasn’t born of a woman; b) his mother died during childbirth; c) he was born with teeth in his mouth; d) he was the middle son. 4. Which of the following lines does Richard III not say? a) “Now is the winter of our discontent”; b) “I am a villain”; c) “Was ever woman in this humour wooed?”; d) “Thou elvish-marked, abortive, rooting hog.” 5. How does Clarence die? a) He drowns in a wine barrel. b) He falls on his sword. c) He is beheaded. d) He is smothered with a pillow. 6. Which of the prophecies Lady Anne and Queen Margaret hurl at Richard does not come true? a) His conscience will gnaw at his soul; b) He will not be able to tell friend from foe; c) His children will be die before they are born; d) He’ll never make happy any woman he weds. 7. Richard is referred to as a “rooting hog,” a “hedgehog,” and a “boar” because a) he’s a male chauvinist pig; b) Elizabethans considered pigs the lowest form of animal life; c) Richard is wild like a boar; d) Richard’s heraldic symbol is a boar. 8. Lady Anne agrees to marry Richard because a) he did her a favor when he killed her husband; b) he convinces her that he loves her; c) her dead father-in-law bleeds at the sight of him; d) she didn’t have the courage to kill him when she had the chance. 9. Richard orders his brother’s murder because a) Clarence is next in line to become king; b) Clarence tried to seduce Lady Anne, and Richard wanted her for himself; c) their mother always liked Clarence better; d) Clarence is in league with the House of Lancaster. 120


120

10. When Richard says “I am I,” he means: a) he lacks what it takes to be king; b) no one could mistake him for anyone else; c) he can’t run away from his own evil nature; d) he tried and failed to mend his ways. 11. Richard blames his deformed arm on a) Queen Elizabeth’s witchcraft; b) God; c) Queen Margaret’s curse; d) his mother. 12. Richard wants to marry the young Princess Elizabeth because a) he wants to get back at her mother for refusing his hand in marriage; b) he wants to strengthen his claim to the throne; c) he’s had a crush on her since she was a child; d) he wants someone who will care for him as he ages. 13. Which name wasn’t Richard called? a) devil; b) villain; c) beast; d) dog; e) slave of nature; f) son of hell; g) rag of honor; h) bottled spider; i) poisonous bunch-backed toad; j) none of the above. 14. Richard orders the removal of Buckingham’s head because the nobleman a) stopped using it; b) tried to seduce Mistress Shore behind Hastings’s back; c) was caught sending Richard’s battle plans to Richmond; d) balked at killing the two young princes in the Tower of London. 15. Richard orders the removal of Hastings’s head because a) Hastings stopped using it; b) Hastings was loyal to the two young princes in the Tower of London; c) Hastings was competing with Richard for the throne; d) Mistress Shore became Hastings’s lover too soon after the death of her husband, who also happened to be Richard’s brother. 16. Rivers, Grey, and Vaughan a) fight on the side of Richard in the battle of Bosworth Field; b) are beheaded by Richard because they are allies of Queen Elizabeth; c) hold Lord Stanley’s son hostage at Pomfret Castle; d) experiment in the Tower of London to see who can brew the best cup of tea.

Answ Key 1. a; 2. c; 3. c; 4. d; 5. a; 6. c; 7. d; 8. b; 9. a; 10. c; 11. a; 12. b; 13. j; 14. d; 15. b; 16. b tes ting your memor y

121

Fur Infmation Books Shakespeare, William. “Richard III,” In The Riverside Shakespeare, 2nd ed., edited by G. Blakemore Evans and F. F. F. Tobin. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1997. All quotations in the text are taken from this edition. Shakespeare, William. Richard III, edited by Thomas Cartelli. New York: Norton & Company, 2009.

Websites www.absoluteshakespeare.com Absolute Shakespeare is a resource for the Bard’s plays, sonnets, and poems. It includes summaries, quotations, films, trivia, and more. www.shakespeare-online.com Shakespeare Online includes the text of the play, with resources including essays on diverse topics. www.playshakespeare.com Play Shakespeare is the ultimate free Shakespeare resource. It features all the play texts with an online glossary, reviews, a discussion forum, and links to festivals worldwide.

films Richard III. London Film Productions (1955) with Laurence Olivier, John Gielgud, Ralph Richardson, and Claire Bloom. Directed by Laurence Olivier. Richard III. United Artists (1996) with Ian McKellen, Robert Downey Jr., Kristin Scott Thomas, and Maggie Smith. Directed by Richard Loncraine.

122


Bibliography Berger, Harry Jr. “Conscience and Complicity in Richard III,” in Richard III, edited by Thomas Cartelli. New York: Norton, 2009. Bloom, Harold. Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. New York: Riverhead Books, 1998. Boris, Edna Z. Shakespeare’s English Kings: The People and the Law. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1978. Cartelli, Thomas, ed. Richard III. Norton Critical Edition. New York: Norton, 2009. Charnes, Linda. “Belaboring the Obvious: Reading the Monstrous Body in King Richard III,” in Richard III, edited by Thomas Cartelli. New York: Norton, 2009. Holland, Norman. The Shakespearean Imagination. New York: Macmillan, 1964. Ian Johnson, “Some Observations on Shakespeare’s Dramatic Verse in Richard III and Macbeth” (lecture, Vancouver Island University, formerly Malaspina University-College, Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada, released July 1999). http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/eng366/lectures/ poetry.htm (October 28, 2009). Kossak, Saskia. “Richard III in the Cinema,” in Richard III, edited by Thomas Cartelli. New York: Norton, 2009. Maus, Katherine. “Myself Alone: Richard III as Stage Machiavel,” in Richard III, edited by Thomas Cartelli. New York: Norton, 2009. McDonald, Russ. The Bedford Companion Guide to Shakespeare: An Introduction with Documents. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001. More, Sir Thomas. History of King Richard III. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1976. Moulton, Ian. “‘A Monster Great Deformed’: The Unruly Masculinity of Richard III,” in Richard III, edited by Thomas Cartelli. New York: Norton, 2009. Pearlman, E. “The Invention of Richard Gloucester,” in Richard III, edited by Thomas Cartelli. New York: Norton, 2009. Ross, Charles D. Richard III. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981. Sanders, Wilbur. “Providence and Policy in Richard III,” in Richard III, edited by Thomas Cartelli. New York: Norton, 2009.

Bibliogr a phy

123

Index

Page numbers in boldface are illustrations. Antony and Cleopatra, 31

A act I

As You Like It, 28

scene 1, 46–49

As You Like It (movie), 13

scene 2, 50–51

B

scene 3, 51–54

Bacon, Francis, 26

scene 4, 55–58

bearbaiting, 21

act II

Bening, Annette, 88

scenes 1 & 2, 58–61

Bishop of Ely (character) 67, 73

scenes 3 & 4, 62–64

blank verse, 105–107

act III scene 1, 64–66 scenes 2, 3, & 4, 66–69 scenes 5, 6, & 7, 70–72

Branagh, Kenneth, 13, 17, 110 Burbage, Richard, 12

C censorship, 23

act IV characters, 5, 84–91 scenes 1, 2, & 3, 72–74 Cibber, Colley, 109–110 scenes 4 & 5, 74–77 Coriolanus, 31 act V scenes 1 & 2, 77–78

D

scene 3, 78–81

de Vere, Edward, Earl of Oxford, 27

scene 4, 81

Duchess of York (character), 90, 101

scene 5, 83

E

actors, 23

Edwards, Christopher V., 49

advertising poster (1884), 39

Elizabeth I, 11, 20, 20–21, 25, 30

all-female cast, 69

entertainment, 21

A Midsummer Night’s Dream, 5 A Midsummer Night’s Dream (movie), 16

F Fiennes, Joseph, 29

124


films, 13–19, 110

King’s Men, 30–31

folio, 33

L

G

Lady Anne (character), 55, 89–90

Globe Theater, 22, 22

language

groundlings, 21

famous quotes, 5, 9

H

literary terms, 34–37

Hamlet, 5 Hamlet, 30, 31 Hamlet (movie), 13–14 Hathaway, Anne, 12

Richard III, 104–109 Shakespeare glossary, 116–118 Shakespeare’s, 6–10 Lord Chamberlain’s Men, 12, 30–31

health issues, 20

M

Henry, Earl of Richmond (character), 91

Macbeth, 31

Henry IV, 28

Macbeth (movie), 15

Henry IV, Part One (movie), 14

Marlowe, Christopher, 27

Henry VIII, 11

McKellen, Ian, 17, 93, 110

I

The Merchant of Venice (movie), 16

interpretation, 109–111

Meres, Francis, 28–29 Milton, John, 104

J

motifs

James I, 30

curses, 100–102

James VI, 30

dreams, 99–100

Jonson, Ben, 33

movies, 13–19

Julius Caesar, 29–30

Mr. William Shakespeares Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies (folio), 33

Julius Caesar (movie), 15

K

Much Ado About Nothing, 28

Keene, Thomas, 39

O

King Henry VI, 25 King Lear, 31

Olivier, Laurence, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 45, 60, 110

King Lear (movie), 15

Othello, 31

index

125

Othello (movie), 16–17

childhood home, 11 children, 12, 28

P Pacino, Al, 110 personification, 36, 106, 108 plays, 25–30 Puritans, 21, 23–24

chronology, 112–113 death, 31–32 doubts about authorship, 26–27 early life, 10–12 marriage, 12

Q

reputation, 4, 30–31, 33

Queen Elizabeth (character), 88, 90, 101

retirement, 31–32

Queen Margaret (character), 90, 101

tombstone, 32, 32

R

Shakespeare In Love, 29

The Rape of Lucrece, 12

Sher, Antony, 82

religious conflict, 10–11, 20–21, 23–24

society, Shakespeare’s, 20–24

Richard II, 28

sonnets, 31

Richard III, 40–42

symbols, 102–104

Richard III, 25 films of, 17, 45, 60, 88, 93, 109–110 historical basis, 40–43

boar, 54, 60, 66, 67, 68, 100, 103–104 Richard’s body, 46, 48–49, 54, 86, 97–98, 102–103, 107, 111

overview, 40–43

T

productions of, 39, 49, 55, 82, 97, 101, 109–110

The Taming of the Shrew, 25, 28

Richard III (character), 49, 55, 82, 85–88, 93, 97

The Taming of the Shrew (movie), 18 The Tempest, 31 The Tempest (movie), 18

Richard III (movie), 17, 45, 60, 93

126

Romeo and Juliet, 28

Ten Things I Hate About You (movie), 25, 28

Romeo and Juliet (movie), 17–18

theater productions, 21–25, 104

Royal Shakespeare Theater, 24

theaters, 21–22, 22, 24

S

themes

Shakespeare, John (father), 10

misogyny, 97–99

Shakespeare, William

conscience, 94–97


Twelfth Night, 28 Twelfth Night (movie), 19

U Utah Shakespeare Festival, 97

V Venus and Adonis, 12 Vice (character), 48–49, 80, 85

W Wailing Widows, 89–90 Duchess of York, 90 Lady Anne, 89–90 Queen Elizabeth, 90 Queen Margaret, 90 Wars of the Roses, 25 Washington, Denzel, 110 West Side Story (movie), 28 Wriothesley, Henry, Earl of Southampton, 12

index

127

About e Au Richard Andersen is a former Fulbright Professor of American Literature, James Thurber Writer in Residence, and Karolyi Foundation Fellow. His twenty-five books include books on writing, novels, critical studies of well-known authors, a biography, a children’s book, and Arranging Deck Chairs on the Titanic: Crises in Education. His book on success skills, Getting Ahead, has been translated into three languages. For Marshall Cavendish, Dr. Andersen has written Macbeth in this series, as well as Toni Morrison: The Bluest Eye and Sula, Arthur Miller: Death of a Salesman and The Crucible, and Abraham Rodriguez. Dr. Andersen teaches writing and literature at Springfield College, where he was nominated for the Carnegie Foundation’s United States Professor of the Year Award. 128


Richard III (Shakespeare Explained)

Richard III (The Annotated Shakespeare)

Richard III (Bloom's Shakespeare Through the Ages)

Richard III

Richard III

Richard III

Richard III

The Tempest (Shakespeare Explained)

Richard II (Oxford Shakespeare)

Richard III: notes

King Richard III

King Richard III

The Murders of Richard III

The Murders of Richard III

The Murders of Richard III

Richard III (Webster's Thesaurus Edition)

The Murders of Richard III

The Murders of Richard III

The Murders of Richard III

Richard II (Shakespeare, the Critical Tradition)

Richard II (Shakespeare, the Critical Tradition)

The Tragedy Of King Richard III

Richard III (Webster's Chinese-Traditional Thesaurus Edition)

Cardiology Explained (Remedica Explained)

Anne Neville: Queen to Richard III

Richard III: The Cambridge Dover Wilson Shakespeare (Cambridge Library Collection - Literary Studies)

Shakespeare

Shakespeare

Genius Explained

PDF Explained

Extramural Shakespeare (Reproducing Shakespeare)

Richard III (Shakespeare Explained)

Richard III (The Annotated Shakespeare)

Richard III (Bloom's Shakespeare Through the Ages)

Richard III

Richard III

Richard III

Richard III

The Tempest (Shakespeare Explained)

Richard II (Oxford Shakespeare)

Richard III: notes

King Richard III

King Richard III

The Murders of Richard III

The Murders of Richard III

The Murders of Richard III

Richard III (Webster's Thesaurus Edition)

The Murders of Richard III

The Murders of Richard III

The Murders of Richard III

Richard II (Shakespeare, the Critical Tradition)

Richard II (Shakespeare, the Critical Tradition)

The Tragedy Of King Richard III

Richard III (Webster's Chinese-Traditional Thesaurus Edition)

Cardiology Explained (Remedica Explained)

Anne Neville: Queen to Richard III

Richard III: The Cambridge Dover Wilson Shakespeare (Cambridge Library Collection - Literary Studies)

Shakespeare

Shakespeare

Genius Explained

PDF Explained

Extramural Shakespeare (Reproducing Shakespeare)

Recommend Documents