Richard III - Full Play

15.07.2023

Richard III is a play by William Shakespeare. It was probably written c. 1592–1594. It is labelled a history in the First Folio, and is usually considered one, but it is sometimes called a tragedy, as in the quarto edition.

Richard III concludes Shakespeare's first tetralogy (also containing Henry VI, Part 1, Henry VI, Part 2, and Henry VI, Part 3) and depicts the Machiavellian rise to power and subsequent short reign of King Richard III of England.

It is the second longest play in the Shakespearean canon and is the longest of the First Folio, whose version of Hamlet, otherwise the longest, is shorter than its quarto counterpart.

The play is often abridged for brevity, and peripheral characters removed. In such cases, extra lines are often invented or added from elsewhere to establish the nature of the characters' relationships. A further reason for abridgment is that Shakespeare assumed his audiences' familiarity with his Henry VI plays, frequently referring to these plays.

Synopsis:
Richard is an ugly hunchback and says " Through a prophecy, that "G of Edward's heirs the murderer shall be", he has contrived to have his brother Clarence conducted to the Tower of London (the king interpreted the prophecy as George of Clarence, but the prophecy could just as easily refer to Richard of Gloucester). Speaking to Clarence en route, Richard blames the queen and says that he will himself try to help Clarence. Richard continues plotting:

I'll marry Warwick's youngest daughter.
What, though I kill'd her husband and her father?

Lady Anne attends the corpse of Henry VI with Trestle and Berkeley going from St Paul's Cathedral. She bids them set down the "honourable load" then laments. Richard appears, and Lady Anne says that "Henry's wounds [...] bleed afresh". He confesses the murder, and she spits at him. He offers himself to her sword, but she drops it. He offers to kill himself at her order, but she accepts his ring. Richard exults at having won her over so and tells the audience that he will discard her once she has served his purpose.

The atmosphere at court is poisonous. The established nobles are at odds with the upwardly mobile relatives of Queen Elizabeth, a hostility fueled by Richard's machinations. Queen Margaret, Henry VI's widow, returns, though banished, and she warns the squabbling nobles about Richard, cursing extensively. The nobles, all Yorkists, unite against this last Lancastrian and ignore the warnings.

Richard orders two murderers to kill Clarence in the tower. Clarence relates a distressing dream to his keeper before going to sleep. The murderers arrive with a warrant, and the keeper relinquishes his office. While the murderers are pondering what to do, Clarence wakes. He recognises their purpose and pleads with them. Presuming that Edward has offered them payment, he tells them to go to Gloucester, who will reward them better for having kept him alive. One of the murderers explains that Gloucester hates him and sent them. Pleading again, he is eventually interrupted by "Look behind you, my lord" and stabbing (1478).

The compacted nobles pledge absent enmities before Edward, and Elizabeth asks Edward to receive Clarence into favour. Richard rebukes her, saying: "Who knows not that the gentle duke is dead?". Edward, who has confessed himself near death, is much upset by this news and led off. Richard blames those attending Edward. Edward IV soon dies (1483), leaving Richard as Protector. Lord Rivers, Lord Grey, and Sir Thomas Vaughan, have been imprisoned. The uncrowned Edward V and his brother are coaxed (by Richard) into an extended stay at the Tower of London.

Assisted by his cousin Buckingham, Richard mounts a campaign to present himself as the true heir to the throne, pretending to be a modest and devout man with no pretensions to greatness. Lord Hastings, who objects to Richard's accession, is arrested and executed on a trumped-up charge of treason. Richard and Buckingham spread the rumour that Edward's two sons are illegitimate and therefore have no rightful claim to the throne, and they are assisted by Catesby, Ratcliffe, and Lovell. The other lords are cajoled into accepting Richard as king despite the continued survival of his nephews (the Princes in the Tower).

Just before the battle of Bosworth Field. His sleep having been haunted by the ghosts of those he has murdered, he wakes to the realisation that he is alone in the world and death is imminent. 

Richard asks Buckingham to secure the death of the princes, but Buckingham hesitates. Richard then recruits Sir James Tyrrell who kills both children. When Richard denies Buckingham a promised land grant, Buckingham turns against Richard and defects to the side of Henry, Earl of Richmond, who is currently in exile. Richard has his eye on Elizabeth of York, Edward IV's next remaining heir, and poisons Lady Anne so he can be free to woo the princess. The Duchess of York and Queen Elizabeth mourn the princes' deaths. Queen Margaret meets them. As predicted, Queen Elizabeth asks Queen Margaret for help in cursing. Later, the Duchess applies this lesson and curses her only surviving son before leaving. Richard asks Queen Elizabeth to help him win her daughter's hand in marriage. She is not taken in by his eloquence, and stalls him by saying that she will let him know her daughter's answer in due course.

The increasingly paranoid Richard loses what popularity he had. He faces rebellions, led first by Buckingham and subsequently by the invading Richmond. Buckingham is captured and executed. Both sides arrive for a final battle at Bosworth Field. Prior to the battle, Richard is sleeping and visited by the ghosts of his victims, each telling him to "Despair and die". They likewise attend and wish victory on Richmond. Richard wakes, screaming "Jesus", then realises that he is all alone and cannot even pity himself.

At the Battle of Bosworth Field (1485), Lord Stanley (who is also Richmond's stepfather) and his followers desert Richard, whereupon Richard calls for the execution of George Stanley, hostage and Lord Stanley's son. But this does not happen, as the battle is in full swing, and Richard is at a disadvantage. Richard is unhorsed on the field, and cries out, "A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse". Richmond kills Richard and claims the throne as Henry VII.

Was the real Richard III as villainous as Shakespeare made him out to be?
Child killer’, ‘murderer’, ‘usurper’ are all phrases you would associate with Shakespeare’s greatest villain - Richard III. Thanks largely due to the Shakespearian portrayal, Richard has gone down in history as one of England’s most evil monarchs. 

So, was the real Richard III truly as monstrous as Shakespeare made him out to be? 

Well, the short answer is no. While Richard was no saint, making a number of misjudgements, and at times showing his ruthless streak, Shakespeare’s representation of Richard is largely inaccurate.

When Richard is first introduced by Shakespeare, he is instantly reviled for his appearance, and his physical deformity continues to be addressed throughout the plays. 

Shakespeare notoriously portrayed Richard as a hunchback, with a number of defects like his withered arm, and his full set of teeth at birth. Yet in reality, the body of Richard, discovered in a car park in Leicester, shows that although he suffered from scoliosis, which resulted in one shoulder being slightly higher than the other, these deformities were a myth.

Richard III of England:
Richard III (2 October 1452 – 22 August 1485) was King of England from 26 June 1483 until his death in 1485. He was the last king of the Plantagenet dynasty and its cadet branch the House of York. 

His defeat and death at the Battle of Bosworth Field, the last decisive battle of the Wars of the Roses, marked the end of the Middle Ages in England.

William Shakespeare:
William Shakespeare (1564 - 1616) was an English playwright, poet and actor. He is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist.

He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon" (or simply "the Bard"). His extant works, including collaborations, consist of some 39 plays, 154 sonnets, three long narrative poems, and a few other verses, some of uncertain authorship. His plays have been translated into every major living language and are performed more often than those of any other playwright.[6] Shakespeare remains arguably the most influential writer in the English language, and his works continue to be studied and reinterpreted.

Shakespeare was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire. At the age of 18, he married Anne Hathaway, with whom he had three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith. S

Sometime between 1585 and 1592, he began a successful career in London as an actor, writer, and part-owner of a playing company called the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later known as the King's Men. 

At age 49 (around 1613), he appears to have retired to Stratford, where he died three years later. Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive; this has stimulated considerable speculation about such matters as his physical appearance, his sexuality, his religious beliefs and whether the works attributed to him were written by others.

Did a Man Named William Shakespeare Actually Exist?
William Shakespeare, poet and playwright at the court of Queen Elizabeth I, is one of Britain’s most celebrated national figures. He is widely regarded as the greatest writer and dramatist in the English language, and authored 39 plays and over 150 poems.

However, since the 19th century, conspiracy theorists have been casting doubt over Shakespeare’s legacy.

Is it possible that William Shakespeare was simply a pseudonym adopted by a powerful aristocratic writer who wanted to keep his identity a secret?

he Shakespeare that we think we know may not even have existed at all.

According to the BBC, questions over Shakespeare’s identity first arose in the 19th century, when his plays were undergoing a revival in British society.

Victorian commentators simply could not reconcile the image of the literary genius that emerged from the page with the figure of the historical Shakespeare.

Surely a man of such humble beginnings and apparently little education could not have produced so many literary masterpieces.

hese critics were known as “anti-Stratfordians,” and they argued that the author of the plays attributed to Shakespeare must have been someone of exceptional education and in possession of an extensive vocabulary. He (or she) must also have had intimate knowledge of the law, the royal court and aristocratic politics, in addition to being well-traveled and knowledgeable when it came to foreign affairs.

The historical figure of William Shakespeare, however, does not fit this profile. He was born into a relatively low-status family in Stratford-upon-Avon, and there is no direct evidence that he ever received a proper education. Some scholars have even questioned whether he was literate at all.

According to History magazine, there are only six authenticated documents in which Shakespeare signed his own name, and no manuscripts that have been definitively proved to be in Shakespeare’s own handwriting. His signatures are barely legible, and contain multiple variant spellings of his name. As a result, some theorists have argued that Shakespeare himself was basically illiterate.

If William Shakespeare didn’t write the plays and sonnets that are attributed to his name, then who did? One of the most popular candidates, favored by 19th century theorists, was Sir Francis Bacon, a scientist and philosopher who was a contemporary of Shakespeare.

Some theorists have found patterns between Shakespeare’s plays and Bacon’s writings that may suggest common authorship. For example, the large number of legal references in Shakespeare’s plays points to an author with a strong legal background, such as Bacon.

Other scholars, such as Isaac Hull Platt, have even suggested that Bacon left ciphers and clues in the text of Shakespeare’s plays. For example, the obscure Latin word honorificabilitudinitatibus, which is found in Love’s Labour’s Lost is thought to be an anagram of Hi ludi F. Baconis nati tuiti orbi. This translates as “these plays, the offspring of F. Bacon, are preserved for the world.”

Although this theory was popular in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, another candidate has overtaken Bacon in popularity among anti-Stratfordians. Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, was a keen poet and noted for his patronage of the theater.

He was exceptionally well educated, widely traveled (especially in Italy), and had an intimate knowledge of Jacobean politics. He fit the profile of the Shakespearean author perfectly, and many now believe that he used the figure of Shakespeare as a pseudonym to protect himself from criticism by his aristocratic peers.

Other potential candidates include William Stanley, the 6th Earl of Derby, and Christopher Marlowe, the celebrated poet and playwright who was thought to have died in a bar brawl in 1593.

According to the Guardian, conspiracy theorists suggest that Marlowe’s death was faked, to allow him to escape trial and conviction of being an atheist. He is then thought to have used the figure of Shakespeare to continue writing.

Although these theories offer exciting possibilities, there is no direct evidence to suggest that any of these figures actually wrote the plays we now attribute to Shakespeare.

In contrast, we have an abundance of documentary evidence to suggest that Shakespeare existed, that he lived in London and Stratford-upon-Avon, and that he earned his way as a playwright, actor and businessman. As a result, the vast majority of Shakespeare scholars continue to believe that he was the genuine author of these plays and poems.

Read another story from us: The Fanciful Toilet Humor of Mozart

However, the lack of surviving manuscripts written in Shakespeare’s own hand means that people will continue to ask questions about his authorship. After all, as Shakespeare himself was well aware, everyone loves a good mystery!

This play here's directed by Ms. Saswati Borah and performed at the University of Bahrain during the English Drama Festival 2016.

Martin Parker as Richard, Duke of Gloucester ( Richard III)
Sahresh Shahzad as Lady Anne
Faisal Ashoor as Earl of Richmond
Murtadha Ali as George, Duke of Clarence
Aqeela Mohammed as Queen Elizabeth
Linda Bilton as Duchess of York
Guy Parker as Lord Hastings

The Movie:
1955 film adaptation featuring Academy Award (Laurence Oliver, best actor in a leading role, 1957 and also Golden Globe Award directed by Laurence Oliver and the casting by Laurence Oliver, Cedrick Hardwicke, and Nicholas Hannen.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Your comment is awaiting moderation.