Free Shakespeare Richard III papers, essays, and research papers.

58. More's remains astantalizingly elusive as when he first wrote it (almost as muchso as the ). The tremendous controversy surroundingthe figure of Richard III (perhaps the most written-about Englishking with the exception of Henry VIII) is, if nothing else, atribute to the great literary and rhetorical power of More's"brief history", of his portrait or anatomy ofRichard's usurpation and tyranny, which was in turn largely takenover by Shakespeare's However, in More's history, unlike Shakespeare's play, Richardremains mainly behind the scenes, manipulating the othercharacters or figures in this historical "drama" or"dramatic" history. A succession of figures comeforward to speak for Richard: Hastings and Buckingham addressingthe Royal Council, Cardinal Bourchier's debate with the Queen onsanctuary, the sermons preached by Doctor Shaa and Friar Penkerto the citizens of London alleging the bastardy of Edward'schildren (and of Edward himself), Buckingham's speech given tothe citizens of London in the Guildhall, and the "mockisheeleccion" of Richard by Buckingham, and the Mayor andAldermen of London at Baynard's Castle. But thoughout thehistory, Richard himself actually says little.

King Richard III essay | Conscience | Crime & Justice

Lear king lear diaries: shakespeare's richard iii reigned for richard iii critical essays

Documents Similar To King Richard III essay.

The director is ranting at Pacino for offering (threatening?) to bring a Shakespearean scholar into the film: You said you were going to find a scholar to speak directly into the camera and explain what really went down and I'm telling you that is ridiculous, that you know more about Richard III than any fucking scholar at Columbia or Harvard....

King Richard Iii Commentary – Sample Essays

5. A full account of the textual history of is rather complicated; however, some basic familiarity with it isnecessary in order to fully understand More's text. The exists in two separate versions, one Latin andone English, neither of which is a straightforward translation ofor adaptation from the other. Rather, as first convincingly {32}argued by W. A. G. Doyle-Davidson in (1931), Vol. 1,and reiterated by both Yale editors, R. S. Sylvester and DanielKinney, the evidence clearly indicates that More workedindependently on both, sometimes translating and adaptingmaterial from the English to the Latin versions, and sometimesvice versa. The material in some sections of the work evenfollows different arrangements in the two versions. The speechesin the Latin version tend to be longer, and the Duke ofBuckingham is given more prominence in the Latin. Furthermore,the Latin version concludes with Richard III's coronation, andpresents an essentially self-contained account of Richard'ssuccessful usurpation of the throne of England, while the Englishversion continues on, only to break off suddenly at the pointwhere the Bishop of Ely, John Morton, is inciting Buckingham torevolt against Richard.

Richard III was a real king of England, but had been killed in battle, around 100 years prior to when Shakespeare wrote this play.

Shakespeare’s Richard III | Premium Essay Help

9. Throughout most of the sixteenth century, More's authorshipof both versions of the was neverin doubt. However, at the end of the sixteenth century in 1596,Sir John Harrington first suggested that Cardinal Morton was theauthor of the Latin version. This was later taken up by SirGeorge Buck, the author of a partisan defence of Richard III ( 1646),who violently attacked More's account and sought to debunk it byattributing it to the pen of "wily Morton." Doubts about More's authorship were revivedat the turn of the twentieth century, and for a while criticalhistorical opinion swung in favour of Morton's authorship of theLatin version. However, this scholarly canard was decisively laidto rest by R. W. Chambers' introductory essay, "TheAuthorship of the ," in Vol. 1. BothYale editors have strongly confirmed Chambers' arguments forMore's authorship. The case is further strengthened by the manyinterlinear variants in the Paris Manuscript (and the Arundel andHarleian MSS.), which show striking parallels in terms of habitsof composition with those found in the autograph manuscript ofMore's so splendidly edited for theYale edition by Clarence H. Miller. {38}

Shakespeare's Richard III | Shakespeare Help

In William Shakespeare's Richard III, the Duchess of York seemed vague with her responds, She seems very patient also with Richard III at the being of the play; nonetheless She never explore her hatred throughout the play.

Language of Richard III - Nebo Literature Home Page

20. The introduction to More's is, I think, rather confusing to readers who are encountering itfor the first time. Itbegins not with a description of Richard III, but with the deathof Edward IV, Richard's brother, at the end of which Richard isbriefly introduced (, 3--6; ,314--20).After giving a brief encomiastic account of the reign of EdwardIV, the narrator thenquickly describes the deaths of Richard, Duke of York, andGeorge, Duke of Clarence---the father and brother respectively ofboth Edward IV and Richard (Duke of Gloucester, before hiscoronation as Richard III). The narrator implicates Richard inthe death of Clarence, and after giving a brief character sketchof Richard, immediately blames him also for the death of Henry VI(Edward IV's deposed predecessor). The narrator then suggeststhat, given the tender ages of Edward IV's sons (and Richard'snephews)---Edward, Prince of Wales, and Richard, Duke of York---Richard might havealready been plotting to usurp the throne during Edward IV'slifetime, or else, seeing a suitable opportunity with the deathof Edward, he seized it. To that end Richard deliberatelyfostered enmity between the Queen's kindred (including herbrothers and her children by a previous marriage), and the king'srelatives and the more powerful nobles. The introductory sectionconcludes with an account of Edward IV's last illness. One effectof the rather apparently confusing introductory section(undoubtedly authorial since the Latin version follows the sameorder as the English version) is to set up a very deliberatedichotomy between the 'good' King Edward IV, "of happymemory", and the "evil" King Richard III, whosehands are already steeped in blood (Clarence's and Henry VI's),even before he starts plotting his usurpation of the throne.