Famous First Lines: Richard III
78
Shakespeare's Bad-Ass King
There is a great deal of twisted biography concerning the person of King Richard III of England (1452-1485), first written by the great diplomat and statesman Thomas More (1478-1535), that, in the manner of blatant pro-Tudor propaganda against the House of York (you know, the kind which can state that someone like John McCain is unpatriotic or that John Kerry did not serve his country well as a Swift Boat commander) portrayed Richard as a malformed, twisted soul of evil intent.
More's version of Richard -- although unfinished (presumably because More was well aware that the project was beneath him) and only found after More's execution -- was widely read and became a standard history for centuries, in the manner of all such spurious sensationalism.
Shakespeare, therefore, had some marvelous material to work with for the concoction of his wonderfully dark-humored "history" play. This kind of drama is a godsend for any playwright, so Shakespeare was able to use the Renaissance concepts of goodness and beauty being almost synonymous (derived from medieval misinterpretation of scriptures) -- and the converse, as here exhibited by the deformed Richard of Gloucester, plotting how to gain the throne. The first version is an adequate reading of the lines, the second is excellent, but the third version is superb -- who else but Ian McKellan would understand Richard so well that he would interrupt his own opening speech in order to piss on the current king's peace?
Three versions: Ron Cook, Jonathan Slinger, Ian McKellen
Gloucester
Now
is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that lour'd upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths;
Our bruised arms hung up for monuments;
Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings,
Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.
Grim-visaged war hath smooth'd his wrinkled front;
And now, instead of mounting barded steeds
To fright the souls of fearful adversaries,
He capers nimbly in a lady's chamber
To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.
But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
I, that am rudely stamp'd, and want love's majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
I, that am curtail'd of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinish'd, sent before my time
Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them;
Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my shadow in the sun
And descant on mine own deformity:
And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days.
Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous,
By drunken prophecies, libels and dreams,
To set my brother Clarence and the king
In deadly hate the one against the other:
And if King Edward be as true and just
As I am subtle, false and treacherous,
This day should Clarence closely be mew'd up,
About a prophecy, which says that 'G'
Of Edward's heirs the murderer shall be.
Dive, thoughts, down to my soul: here
Clarence comes.
About the play
Richard III is an early play -- probably 1591 -- completing the story started in the Henry VI trilogy. The likelihood that it influenced Christopher Marlowe's Edward II (1592) is upheld by the British Library compilers of the online Quartos.
It is unclear who played the part first, but within ten years Richard Burbage would have taken on the role. (The sites stating that Burbage was the first actor to have played the part are unsubstantiated.)
The most famous portrayal of Richard is probably Olivier's 1955 film version. This performance did much to popularize Shakespeare for a new generation -- and to mold the hobbling, hunchback king in the popular imagination. Sadly (given Olivier's superb performances in other Shakespearean vehicles), it also popularized "Shakespearean acting" as being overblown pontification, and was rightfully much parodied.
If you get a chance, watch the Olivier clip below, and then scroll down for Peter Sellers's perfect parody after the comments section.
from Olivier's 1955 Richard III
Monster Mash
Let's look at the speech in context. Shakespeare was always looking for ways to break out of the conventional strictures of drama, and this play is a wonderful example. There is no introduction. No prologue, as was common (c.f. Romeo and Juliet 1594, for example). No first scene with minor characters riffing on the theme or main characters, a scene that would give the audience time to settle down and start listening closely. The play starts with the main character, and it starts NOW.
Brilliant. "NOW is the winter of our discontent/ made glorious summer by this sun of York." The opening lines refer to battles in the Wars of the Roses, and Richard's brother Edward IV, who is now king. "This sun of York" is a pun on "son" of course -- their father was Richard Plantagenet, who was the third Duke of York.
The lines sound celebratory and joyous. They're not. The winter of our discontent -- i.e. war -- might sound bad, but the "truth" for this fictional version of Richard is that the only place he feels at home is on the battlefield, where it does not matter how deformed he is (actors have played Richard variously with the withered arm he mentions, a hunchback, and several different kinds of limp, depending on their whim). Richard knew how to wage war. He knew how to kill. There is no role for him to play in peacetime.
The rhetoric builds up, layer upon layer, a heavy sarcasm that starts off innocently enough, but that packs a punchline with such force that audiences are left aghast. The set-up involves anaphora (the repeated "now. . . now" and "Our. . .our" at the beginning of the clauses) which posits a bunch of very desirable images (for the rest of us), only to pull the carpet out from under them with his absolute (he's a fictional villain -- he can be absolutely bad if he wants to be) scorn in the image of "Grim-visaged war" now capering like a simpering fool to the music of the Jonas Brothers.
Having delivered this startling and contemptuous tirade, we reach the turning point of the speech and the reason for Richard's wretched rant (sorry for the alliteration, but this play in general, and this character in particular, is so over the top that it's almost obligatory to adopt a similar tone). "But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks/Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass" -- here we get to the key for understanding Shakespeare's creation of this character: Richard has not been "shaped" or "made" to be a normal human being.
Using More's spurious account of Richard's difficult birth and physical deformities, Shakespeare allows Richard to discuss his "creation" both as human and as dramatic character. This guy is not a tennis-playing preppie who is in love with both his own image in the mirror and the reflected smarmy adulation he perceives that others get from fawning courtiers. He is "rudely stamped" -- a rough cut, a crude template lacking finesse and polish.
He lacks "love's majesty" -- an interesting choice of words, since Richard saw his brothers happily married, while he lacked graces to approach the most promiscuous whore. He can see how love reigns supreme, and belongs to kings and nobles -- and that it is something that will be denied to him unless he learn how to take it by force or by seductive deception (which he does, in his scene with Anne).
"I," he continues, his disgust at his own body becoming apparent, "I, that am curtail'd of this fair proportion,/ Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,/ Deformed, unfinish'd, sent before my time/ Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,/ And that so lamely and unfashionable/ That dogs bark at me as I halt by them" -- curtailed; cheated; unfinished; scarce half made up: yes, Richard is bitter; he has been cheated by "dissembling nature" out of the normal, healthy body she has given others.
Do we even suspect self-pity in the (brilliant) image of dogs barking at him as he "halts" by them, the way they would bark at the Terminator? Folklore and conventional wisdom upheld that dogs were able to sense evil that humans can not (for anyone "may smile, and smile, and be a villain," as Hamlet more than ten years later says of Claudius; Richard himself claims that he "can smile, and murder while I smile").
No -- this Richard is way past self-pity; he positively revels in his deformity because it renders him a being outside nature. He is way past singing "Oh poor me" songs when he sees his shadow, and his logical move is clear: since he has been made ugly and deformed, he will act the part.
This is a simple notion with a complex history. Derived from the Medieval teachings of goodness and truth being all that is fair and good to look upon, combined with the tenets of Neoplatonic Aesthetics which holds that life and nature are symmetrical and good (don't shriek in horror at my brash oversimplifications); perfection being the touchstone of the Christian God's desire for the world and humankind; the converse being the mark of the Devil and proof of evil. The logic is simplistic, but not without precedent. Whatever is defective must have been created so for a purpose, and that purpose can not be wholesome and good.
Now throw into the mix the development of the medieval theatre, and we arrive at the character who exemplifies evil in the Mystery and Morality plays in the centuries before Shakespeare's time: the distillation of all evil, the stock character is a symbol, a representative of all that is unholy, and is therefore as ugly as his damned soul. He goes by many names (Mak, Ambidexter, Darth Vader, Dick Cheney), but the main stock appellation is Vice -- from the Latin vitium, which means a blemish or imperfection in both the physical and moral senses. And best of all, the Vice figure was also the comic stock character of any medieval play.
We derive a lot of humor from seeing evil get away with his plans -- as long as it doesn't cross that line between Tom and Jerry cartoon violence and mischief, and a more serious Roman Polanski bloodbath. We can laugh along with Richard, so far. But when we hear about the princes in the Tower, the mood of the drama changes from machination to a falling action toward damnation and defeat at the hands of the Tudor, Henry of Richmond, at the Battle of Bosworth.
But we're not there yet, we're just at the opening lines of the history (second longest Shakespearean play, incidentally, behind Hamlet -- for those of you who are keeping score at home). And therefore, we are willing to be complicit in his plotting and planning, sending his own brother Clarence to prison while sympathizing to his face. After all, since he cannot prove a lover, he is determined, he says, to prove a villain.
Text
|
Richard III (Folger Shakespeare Library)
Price: $2.95
List Price: $5.99 |
|
Richard III (No Fear Shakespeare)
Price: $2.59
List Price: $6.95 |
|
King Richard III: Third Series (Arden Shakespeare)
Price: $12.23
List Price: $17.00 |
on DVD
|
Richard III
Price: $5.59
List Price: $14.98 |
|
Essential Art House: Richard III
Price: $11.87
List Price: $19.95 |
|
Richard III - Criterion Collection
Price: $23.51
List Price: $39.95 |
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Whenever reading Shakespeare one must always consider the political implications of his time...The historical figure of Richard 111 was very important, especially in Elizabethan England...With the defeat of Richard 111 came the end of the War of the Roses, and the beginning of the Tudor Dynasty. .. When one considers the political implications and the influence that Elizabeth, herself a Tudor, had over Shakespeare, how much of Richard's tendency towards evil do you think was hyperbole..? The historical evidence supports Shakespeare's interprtation of Richard, however his relationship with Elizabeth must have influenced his writing of the play... there is evidence that his portrayal of Richard strongly affected the political climate of his day...
Thank you for this engrossing synopsis of Richard 111...to accept ones fate as preordained and then to passively live the lie is a gross subordination to intellectual disengagement...I, for one, cannot accept the profile of Richard as accepting his " fate " because of his deformities, and thusly " reveling " in his vile and evil behavior...Sigmund Freud notwithstanding...
I loved the scholarly insights to Shakespearean pronouncements, but you lost me with the inclusion of Dick Cheney as a symbol of evil...the man has done yeoman work as a public servant, servicing 5 presidents in war and peace....
Shakespeare's version of RIII was far from the historical reality -- see http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/eastmidlands/series for the facts. Shakespeare was playing the Tudor card for all he was worth, and his portrayal of Richard goes beyond More's fictional propagandist libel, which was probably commissioned by Elizabeth's father.
The Cheney/Darth Vader juxtaposition is a nod to Lynn Cheney, who presented Jon Stewart with a D. Vader figure when she visited his show; she had fun alluding to the fact that the comedian usually referred to her husband as D.V.
Teresa...I checked out the site you suggested and remain unconvinced ...the bit ends with the statement that R111 remains an enigma...I'll let it go at that...
"Richard also introduced many reforms and bettered the living standards and liberties of the common people" (BBC).
The enigma referred to at the end of the article is the mystery of his battle tactics at Bosworth.
I am, again, in awe. You give such life to these characters, for me. I've never been a student of historic literature. And to tell the truth, classic literature in general. I have missed out, but I would have missed the point entirely. Thank you Teresa!
Candie -- thank you for visiting, and commenting!
I've been told I'm too stupid for too many years, and bought it. You've made me want to rethink it all and dig in! I get all cranky to remember what I bought in to. So for a novice, what authors would you suggest beginning with?
I can't say when I have enjoyed Shakespeare more. Loved the video clips - specially the last one LOL
What a wonderful hub. I always seem to catch your "First Lines" when I am way too tired for a serious read. I find Shakespeare to be more than fascinating. I will have to come back for a second and third read. Thank you.
I hate to sully such a wonderful piece of work, but once again, my goat has been irked. So with our further ado..
@Mavin- You sir have been duped. Public Servant? Pu leeeeeease. This man has manipulated through 5 presidents for his own agenda. When at peace, he was steering the world towards conflicts. Again, for his agenda.
I apologise Teresa, but I mean really! Darth Vader indeed. That dude was the Emperor.
My favourite film version of Richard III was Ian McKellan's. Well, I should say it's the only one I have seen also :)
It really is a fascinating mystery as to what he was really like.
Okay, this made me want to be back in my Shakespear class. I always loved it. It was my favorite by far. So much in there. I found much humor even in his dramatic and historical plays. Thanks for the memories. I now have to pull out my Norton's and have a bit of a read here over the weekend.
Love the Peter Sellers parody, by the way. I blogged about it once. Ah Peter Sellers. Another genious I'll never get to meet, in person.
Take a bow, Teresa! I'd say this is my favorite of the First Line series yet, and for me to be able to name a favorite... it must be really something! :) A woman that can dissect Shakespeare the way you do, geez, you've got my undying admiration. Besos!
Teresa - The only time I truly read Shakespeare was with the aid of my literature teacher in high school. She was of the mind that young adults couldn't possibly develop any real depth unless they had an understanding of his works, the man he was and the time he lived in.
It took some time to get through - she was so thorough! It was Henry V by the way. I still remember Prince Hal and Falstaff - though I think Falstaff died or already had from another of his works.
I enjoyed reading your article, though I've never (before) read a line from Richard III. Now I have!
Teresa, great hub! While I did some English Lit in High school and college, I didn't find them much relatable/interesting, maybe it was my rebellious state or my lack of interest in politics then. Now I'm finding Shakespeare fascinating and the way you explained about the political context, it makes more sense. Maybe I had rebellious teachers who didn't want to teach Shakespear! I didn't absorb much about the royalies, but I somewhat remember being intrigued reading about Thomas More. I have started to read up on this figure. I can vaguely remember reading the plays As you Like It and Sir Thomas More. I'm can't remember which is which, so I'm going to research it now.
Thanks for peaking my curiosity... I do intend to write historical fictions about that era, even if from the otherside of the world, so I better educate myself.
" One thing is certain - the true Richard III remains an enigma just like the mystery of the battle of Bosworth Field itself."
They were commenting on Richard the man, not the battle...simply place a comma after enigma and you will see it is a comparative statement...
Papermoon... Dick Cheney has my shield anytime...perhaps you would like a verbal duel with facts, not media sound bytes...I remain your loyal fan..
Oh and I did read A Man for All season...
Wonderful! You've got me wanting to read it again. It has been years since I've read it or watched it.
Thanks for this, Teresa. I have to read, hear, see Shakespeare several times before the meaning comes through. There is so much in every sentence, every word-- no wonder there can be so many different interpretations of each scene of each play. I enjoyed each of the videos, and the details each actor employed to add another layer of meaning.
(What a challenge for an actor to deliver the passage while tinkling and washing up one-handed-- a virtuoso performance.)
You did a great job of pulling this together.
Maven101, I am rarely roused to point out the obvious, but were you to read the article in question you would understand that the last, comparative, statement refers to the true identity of the three skulls found near the purported site of the Battle of Bosworth (there is doubt both about the real site of the battle and the real identity of the skulls). The personality of the real Richard is not in question. The misrepresentation of the man's character has been perpetrated and maintained by folk who do not bother to read the materials available to them.
This article is very nice...informative hub.
Candie -- the people to read are those whose work appeals to you. Barnes and Noble have a great section of B&N Classics for around $7 - the best thing to do is look through them and read whichever one you think you'd like -- that's honestly the best way to read. Reading should be fun. A friend of mine once tried to get his son to read Moby Dick -- not a good idea if you're not into it! My mum didn't get to go to highschool, so what she would do was go to the library and look through books in the Literature section until she found some she liked. She is extremely well read and really way more literate than she realizes, because she thinks she was reading for fun. (She never liked romances, so sticking to the Lit. section was easy for her.) I hesitate to suggest titles that you might not respond to favorably.
Everyone else: wow -- thank you all for reading. I didn't think Shakespeare would be so popular, so I'm really gratified you all stopped by. Shakespeare rocks for many reasons, and of course I love gabbing on about him. . .
Wow. God, you are smart. I dated a history professor briefly who was more than obsessed with Richard III--the play, the person, everything. He studied under some fellow at Cambridge and was kind of expert on Richard, and what was weird was, I often perceived him as walking with a limp and having a deformity himself--but then I'd see him actually walking and it was clear he was just fine. It was as though he was on some emotional/subtle level BECOMING Richard III by identification, and he definitely had the personality in terms of his academic career and ruthlessness.
Now I want to see the play. I always avoid the Shakepeare plays about all the kings. I don't know why. Love MacBeth, Love Hamlet. Thank you for this. I'm inspired now to improve myself, get a little 'culcha'!
This is an awesome Hub! You are a brilliant person with a keen perception of medieval history—and of Shakespeare. I enjoyed reading this thoroughly. Thank you for the eloquent writing.
I saved tis for my Sunday morning read - and it was well worth the wait. I read it three times and you gave me something new each time. Your hub is as layered as R III's speech itself.
The video of 3 versions of the speech was a treat - at first I thought McKellen's would be my favourite - but there were some unfortunate cuts in his version of te speech, so thumbs down for him. The Slinger one gets my vote. After Peter Sellers of course.
Yep, Peter Sellars was a genius. I suppose he was the Robin Williams of his day -- this kind of comedy is the domain of a consumate actor.
Anyone remember the movie The Goodbye Girl? Richard Dreyfus is playing in an off-off-off Broadway production of Richard III? hilarious -- your professor, Grundy-Girl, reminded me of him. That must have been quite an experience.
Thanks, James, for coming by and reading. I do enjoy the history behind the literature.
Yeah -- the cuts in the McKellan are disconcerting, when you're expecting the whole thing. In fact, I was ultimately dissatisfied with the overall impact of the movie, although it had some brilliant moments (Richard wooing Anne in a morgue). But you gotta hand it to the guy -- he knows how to speak Shakespeare. The Slinger was a great staged version. I would like to see more of that one.
Oh Boy..! I guess we will have to agree to disagree...I, too, am rarely roused to provide semantic clarification, and in this instance, do so reluctantly...
" The true Richard " as inferred by the comparative statement in no way relates to the three skulls, which are a mystery unresolved, not an enigma....the piece baldly asserts that the third Dick, as portrayed by Shakespeare, is a Tudor inspired work of fantasy, and further, that indeed the third Dick was a wonderful human being, without physical blemish or encumberment...and then refutes itself with the closing statement that the " true Richard " remains an enigma...I see no tie-in to skulls or battles with this comparative statement...
Hey, Maven -- I think perhaps we can agree that the last sentence is a sloppy way to end the article? Your point about the mystery/enigma distinction is unclear, since an enigma is simply a puzzle or riddle; however, given the evidence that the author is citing from historians I am assuming that he is ranking the identity of the third skull as part of the overall "Richard question." It all boils down to what we believe the author means by the words "the true Richard" -- you are taking them to mean his personality; I am interpreting them as meaning everything-the-author-has-raised-in-the-article-so-that-he-can-provide-a-conclusion-to-the-piece: both personality and physical identity. A better way to end the article would have been to state that, while the weight of historical evidence shows that Richard was not the tyrant described by Tudor propaganda, there is still some uncertainty concerning the physical location of the actual Battle of Bosworth and the identity of the skull reportedly belonging to Richard. But that's a dull sentence, and not as neat or as dismissive as the original.
I actually did a fair amount of study on Richard III and of the black, grey and white Richards, I tend toward grey. I don't think he was evil nor hunch-backed nor do I think he killed the princes in the tower. I think he was an average man for his age/era which doesn't exactly make him kind, but I don't think he was a monster. Yes, even Shakespeare did him poorly. He was beloved in his home area of Wales even after death.
I became interested in Richard following a book by Josephine Tey called "The Daughter of Time" and spent two years after reading up all fiction and non-fiction on Richard and basically the entire Plantagenet line.
I have the Tey book somewhere in storage (my life is in storage, long story) -- I'll have to see if I can dig it out now, and read it. Thanks for stopping by, Iðunn, and reading.
I envy your book storage. I have a lot of books, but I still envy others who have different ones or more, lol! You'll love this one. Tey is a grand author and she is quite readable, but moreso, this particular one of hers leads to all kinds of hints and questions about the history of Richard III.
Oddly, I foumd that University of Texas has a Richard III library of papers and information on Richard's real history, while studying the subject.
Shakespeare is always a tricky one. I had to study the Tempest at school and ultimately loved it but it took time. Pity you could not find the old Peter Sellers spoof of Richard the 3rd:) Excellent hub though
Yeah -- there are a couple of societies, at least, dedicated to his history, too. I had no idea, either. It's really fascinating what captures people's attention and imagination -- and there's much in Shakespeare's portrayal, for example, that would lead one to try to find out if Richard really could have been so wicked. An actor friend will do this opening speech any chance he gets, he loves it so much, as there's some great opportunity in it for the imagination.
Ethel -- the Peter Sellers is below, after the comments --
Another wholly satisfying discussion, glad I showed up for class. Yeah deformed, ever bitter and conniving - he puts the bad in badass! Say, when's your first line coming? :D
Your research on your hubs is always top notch!! You never fail to teach me something.
As always, a great and thought-provking hub.
""This sun of York" is a pun on "son" of course" I don't think I entirely agree with that. Surely it's also, and perhaps mainly, a reference to the "Sunne in Splendour" banner or arms of the house of York?
Hey Cris, Hey Camping -- thank you, guys, for coming by to read.
London -- yep, it's a reference to the sunne; but Shakespeare in the history plays used this pun heavily as an image for the ruler -- it's all through the Henry VI nd Henry IV plays, too. Thank you for mentioning this lovely detail; another one that I was loath to leave out was Richard's insignia of the wild boar, as he's such a pig himself. . . Hey -- there's an idea for some hubs: on the history and development of coats of arms -- you'd do that so well. It would be fascinating, too.
Should have known better than to suggest it - your knowledge of the plays is better than mine my 10 to the power n!
I've just been reading them constantly to teach from, and picked up a lot along the way. No big deal.
Great disection! You're right about this play being long. When I was in college, we weren't able to cover this play due to it's length and few other things such as the end of term. We did however cover Henry IV part I and II. If and when I go back to college to attain my M.F.A., I'm sure we'll cover this play. I think you like Shakespeare almost as much as I do, haha!
Just re-read this, and it really is wonderful. Thanks for sharing it with us.
Shakespeare certainly knew which side his Tudor bread was buttered on - fair enough, really. "The Innocence of Richard III" would've gone down like a tonne of bricks.
I still think some hubs on coats of arms and their history and development would be a great topic for you -- and for your history website (which is excellent, by the way).
It's in my ideas list - thanks for the suggestion, and I'm glad you like the hub.
I greatly enjoyed this hub, Teresa. When I retired in 2000 I began reading "The Complete Works of Shakespeare," but the print was so small I couldn't get too far. You've inspired me to re-read my favorite, "Hamlet," and catch up with all the plays I've missed, including Richard III.
You'll love them -- and you can read them online at Open Source Shakespeare and magnify the text as much as you want to! Thanks for coming by.
Thanks for the tip, Teresa. I just read Act 1, Scene 1, of "Hamlet" in nice large type. Wonderful.
Oh, great! They have good search and concordance features on that site, too. Glad you found it useful (I use it all the time now!).
. . .and Peter Sellers's superb parody
Pete Maida says:
6 months ago
I learned something as I always do when you delve in the first lines of classics. I love the addition of Dick Cheney; he would be a villian in any play.