Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

Richard III
Richard III
Richard III
Ebook262 pages1 hour

Richard III

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

4/5

()

Read preview
LanguageDeutsch
Release dateJan 1, 1
Richard III

Read more from August Wilhelm Von Schlegel

Related to Richard III

Related ebooks

Related articles

Reviews for Richard III

Rating: 3.789473684210526 out of 5 stars
4/5

19 ratings29 reviews

What did you think?

Tap to rate

Review must be at least 10 words

  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    1592-93, enorm populair; flamboyante persoonlijkheid, gezicht van het kwaadPrachtige opening met monoloog door Gloucester waarin hij de innerlijke drijfveer voor zijn slechtheid blootlegt (ik ben niet geschikt voor vrede, rust en hoofse liefde?).Nogal rauw en bloeddorstig, geen spoor van moraal. Confrontatie met dame Anna: vurig, maar snelle ommezwaai na stroperige ode over haar schoonheid. Mengeling van brutale verbale confrontaties en cynische humor (de 2 beulen die een beetje last hebben van hun geweten als ze Clarence moeten doden); subliem woordenspel tussen de jonge prins van York en Gloster en Buckingham (III,1).Verschillende sc?nes met klagende vrouwen. ?s Nachts voor de slag: knagend geweten van RichardSlotpleidooi van Richmond en consecratie van de TudurdynastieImpressie: sterk, ?fierce?, maar de vrouwenstukken zijn het subtielst.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    So how geeky is it to have his'n'hers copies of Richard III? Don't answer that. We saw the Brooklyn Academy of Music production with Kevin Spacey last year and both wanted to read it through again first. The play, by the way, was fun -- a big spectacle, kind of like the circus for grownups without the animal cruelty. But with plenty of scenery chewing. Anyway, the play is bad ass. But you all knew that.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Richard, Duke of Gloucester, plots to kill brothers and nephews on his way to the throne of England.I had a tough time organizing my thoughts after reading this play. Richard is such a rich character. He plots and schemes, but he has some fantastic lines and he's very charismatic. I had a tough time following all the Henry's and Edward's and such, more so than Shakespeare's audience would have, I'm sure. The plotting portion was much more interesting to me than his inevitable downfall, but I think that's at least in part because of how it reads rather than how it would play out on stage. The lines "sword fight and ____ dies," for example, are so quick that I hardly took it in before it was over. I'm not sure that I would read it again, but I'd definitely watch a film version and read up on my English history to learn more about the historical Richard.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Am I the only person who thinks Richard is kind of sympathetic? Seriously, *every* other person in the play is a moron. I've never been comfortable with Nietzsche's whole 'the weak gang up to ruin the world by undermining the strong' nonsense, but as an analysis of this book? Pretty good. Look, everyone in this play is morally repulsive. The difference between them and RIII is that the king's much smarter. He moves the pieces around the board pretty well. And for that he's the greatest villain the world has ever seen? I don't get it.

    As for this edition (most recent Arden), it's got a very well-written introduction that provides a lot of background information; maybe too much background information. I would have liked a bit more interpretation. Same thing with the annotation, which was very heavy on the manuscript-variations but a bit light on historical information. But thankfully no fatuous 'thematic' interpretation stuff at all.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    With the understanding that insulting the ruler's grandfather was a de-earring offense, and that all plays had to be run by the Lord Chamberlain for approval before publication or performance, what do you do? You slag the man the grandfather took the throne from. Safe move, Willy! And I've always been a richardian. I'm glad his corpse will at last come out from under the car park and be properly housed.I keep quoting the play, and have read it....oh, six times from beginning to end.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    This was the most stagey of any Shakespeare play I've ever read--or at least the most stagey I remember. Richard comes out at the start and announces his evil intentions. Later, characters whisper asides to the audience while lying to their interlocutors on stage. And at the end, ghosts.

    It was interesting, but the over-the-top villainry of Richard somehow left me a little cold. A small thing along the way that bugged me was the ease with which Richard won over female characters who hated and excoriated him. A little sweet talk, and they acquiesce. What?! Please. Way to give women a bad name, Bill!
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Killing Frenzy: "Richard III" by William Shakespeare, Burton Raffel, Harold Bloom Published 2008.


    A typical king;
    Killed everybody who got in his way;
    A typical fat slob of a king;
    Out to get his own greedy needs met;
    Uses every individual who crossed his path;
    More often than not, slap happy drunk;
    Seen on numerous occasion dancing amongst the moon lit paths;
    Often times his royal trousers would fall to his ankles causing the King to fall face down.

    Was Shakespeare’s Richard any different from some of the politicians we all know so well? The only difference is that they're not allowed to get away with it as much, what with the paparazzi and all.

    I finished reading this, Richard III, prior to go see him in the theatre. Even in Portuguese I felt as if I’d come under a spell. What marvelous language. Everyone knows this. It’s obvious, but does everyone really know it? It’s different to know than to experience. And I’ve experienced, once again, the glory of his language in this story.

    Read on, if you feel so inclined.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Despair and die!, spoken by a ten year old, is the highlight of any performance.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    It wasn't by design, but I managed to save a great play for my final Shakespare (because apocrypha be damned.) Richard III was one definitely one of my favorites.... great story, great dialog and great pacing, what more could you ask for in a play?The play tells the story of the nefarious Richard's rise to the throne and ultimate demise. He's an evil mastermind behind the deaths of kings and princes, and even those who supported his aims fall to his sword. This isn't one of Shakespare's subtler works, but I thoroughly enjoyed it.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    The true tragedy of this piece is that Richard was almost certainly falsely accused of doing away with his nephews. But as theatre, Richard III exudes a charismatic evil. Based on Tudor sources, Shakespeare wrote for the day. And the day required that the Plantagenets be hung out to dry. The depiction of Edward IV as a lecherous, over-eating, self-indulgent monarch was probably valid though. An interesting piece of theatre, but I couldn't help but feel sorry for poor Richard.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Great drama, a somewhat... um... flexible attitude to history, and scarcely a character alive by the end. There are the famous lines ("Now is the winter of our discontent"; "A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!") and some that really ought to be more famous ("fair Saint George,/ Inspire us with the spleen of fiery dragons!"). Very entertaining.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Round after round of scheming, skulking, and stabbing, interspersed with wailing and recriminations. Betrayals, betrothals, beheadings. Part of my dissatisfaction with this play undoubtedly is due to coming to this straight from Henry VI, parts 1, 2, and 3. A little over a year ago, though, I read ?The Henriad? ? Richard II, Henry IV pts 1 and 2, and Henry V, and enjoyed it very much, and it seemed as though this ?set? should be just as good. But it's not. The Henriad offers a lot of variety in characters, types of action, tone, etc. This, not so much. The Henry VI trilogy provides a fairly unvaried menu of murder and mayhem, and Richard III, even with Richard vamping it up as Diabolical Villain Extraordinaire and the ?Greek chorus? of Margaret, Elizabeth, the Duchess of York, and Anne (which is a wonderful touch!), is much of a muchness. Even the most tender-hearted reader gets to the point where the tearful pleas of soon-to-be murder victims leave her unmoved. Which, especially in this play, which lacks any sort of humor except of the ironic variety, or any scenes of love, except for in mourning, or any scenes of nobility, faithful friendship, courage, hope, etc., leaves little else to maintain readerly interest. This reader, at least, was motivated to keep doggedly reading/listening only by anticipation of Richard's profoundly well-deserved end. No matter how unpleasant a person Henry VII may have been in real life, in this play, as Shakespeare intended, he is a blessed ray of sunshine in the ugly world of gloom and corruption these endlessly feuding nobles have created.I read this in the Arden edition of Richard III while listening to the audio recording by Naxos, featuring Kenneth Branagh (as Richard), Geraldine McEwan, etc. It was excellently done, but Branagh's Richard did more giggling and evil chortling than I thought was strictly necessary. The Arden Shakespeare is lovely, with bright white paper and reasonable size print, but I missed the simpler, more useful footnotes which the RSC edition of Henry VI pts 1-3 provided.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    1592-93, enorm populair; flamboyante persoonlijkheid, gezicht van het kwaadPrachtige opening met monoloog door Gloucester waarin hij de innerlijke drijfveer voor zijn slechtheid blootlegt (ik ben niet geschikt voor vrede, rust en hoofse liefde?).Nogal rauw en bloeddorstig, geen spoor van moraal. Confrontatie met dame Anna: vurig, maar snelle ommezwaai na stroperige ode over haar schoonheid. Mengeling van brutale verbale confrontaties en cynische humor (de 2 beulen die een beetje last hebben van hun geweten als ze Clarence moeten doden); subliem woordenspel tussen de jonge prins van York en Gloster en Buckingham (III,1).Verschillende sc?nes met klagende vrouwen. ?s Nachts voor de slag: knagend geweten van RichardSlotpleidooi van Richmond en consecratie van de TudurdynastieImpressie: sterk, ?fierce?, maar de vrouwenstukken zijn het subtielst.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Settling back in my chair to think about what I?ve read . . .Remember when, in Patton, George C. Scott exclaims, ?Rommel, you magnificent bastard. I read your book!??It?s possible to imagine an unnamed candidate exclaiming in admiration after election to presidential office, ?Shakespeare, you magnificent bastard. I did it like Richard III!? (Or possibly he?d say, ?like Richard Three?).What might I mean?To begin with, Shakespeare has made this Richard III fellow so grotesquely grotesque that it?s hard to think how one might endure a play about him, and not a short play either. He hardly needed grotesqueness of body too. He is a pillar of grotesquerie. And it doesn?t help that he suffers from Asinine Distemper Syndrome.<SPOILER NOTICE: The discussion that follows is partially a synopsis. Several events in the play are revealed.>The action opens with Richard acquainting us with his newest plan: ?I am determined to prove a villain.? In this he does not lie. It?s barely possible for his interest to be captured by any other ambition, whether he is capering in this play or in Shakespeare?s telling of the reign of King Henry VI. We immediately learn that he has laid plots to set his brother Clarence ?in deadly hate? against his other brother who is, for the moment, king. Well, who?d have guessed? Every reader of the Henry VI saga, I?d say. Facing the predictability of it all, one is tempted to cry, ?A hearse, a hearse! What boredom, bring a hearse!?Nonetheless, Richard surprises with how successfully he manipulates others to his ends when he is so minded. Having previously killed Lady Anne?s husband plus her father-in-law (Henry VI), he manufactures from these actions a romantic advantage. What though I killed her husband and her father?The readiest way to make the wench amendsIs to become her husbandIt takes some convincing but somehow the noble ?wench? softens toward his intent and becomes his wife. Next an encounter with Margaret, Henry VI?s widow, who as a jewel of antagonistic behavior is almost a clone of Richard?s soul. Here Richard accomplishes something deft. While Margaret?s spite is obdurate?she resembles Richard greatly in capacity for distemper?Richard scores bonus points with the nobles witnessing their exchange. They go away impressed at his ?virtuous and Christian-like? and prayerful manner. No matter that Richard has won their good opinion by feigning Christian conduct. Appositely, the Editor?s note here cites Milton?s Eikonoklastes: ?The deepest policy of a tyrant hath ever been to counterfeit religious.? The reader can only shake his head.Later, in a scene similar to the wooing of his by now deceased first wife, Richard, having killed Queen Elizabeth?s two young sons, bids her intercede to persuade her daughter to marry him. When she complains, saying her sons are ?Too deep and dead, poor infants, in their graves,? he rebuts ?Harp not on that string, madam; that is past.?Swell guy. Still, the unapologetic Richard sways her. To her protest ?Yet thou didst kill my children,? he replies: But in your daughter?s womb I bury them:Where in the nest of spicery, they will breedSelves of themselves, to your recomfiture.Crass modern translation: ?Yeah, your sons are ****ing dead. You?ll feel better by setting it up so I can **** your daughter too.? So Elizabeth agrees. Give her credit. Richard had to pursue his goal patiently for 174 lines (believe me, that?s a lot of lines) before she gave consent.Just after Elizabeth leaves to bring Daughter the unexpected news, Richard brands her a ?Relentless fool.? Nothing so arouses his contempt as giving in to what he wants. Nothing arouses his ire more than opposing what he wants. Richard, how in good conscience do you do the things you do? He kindly explains:For conscience is a word that cowards use,Devis?d at first to keep the strong in awe:Our strong arms be our conscience, swords our law.One feels sure even Socrates would fail to convince him otherwise.Settling back in my chair to think about what I?ve read . . . Well, perhaps you now imagine an unnamed candidate too. And that?s why you should read Richard III.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Shakespeare may have embellished the historical truth a bit when he wrote Richard III, but he certainly knew a good story when he saw it. The War of the Roses between Lancaster and York from 1455-1485 following over 100 hundred years of warfare with France ripped the country apart and led to cruel murders on both sides. Many vied for the throne or to be an inch closer to it, and blind ambition was the order of the day from women and men alike. One of the horrifying outcomes was the famous ?Princes in the tower?, with Richard III imprisoning his older brother Edward IV?s children to take the throne after Edward had died, and then disposing of them. Shakespeare wrote the play a little over a hundred years later, around the year 1592, and the quality is impressive given its over 400 years old today. He painted Richard a bit blacker than he actually was, most notably making him the killer of middle brother George (Duke of Clarence), when it was actually Edward who had him drowned in a barrel of wine. In this story the will to power is concentrated into the character of Richard, who gains the throne but only after having done so many evil deeds that he is hated and isolated. His ambition starts with ?Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious summer by this sun of York? at the outset of the play, and ends with him tormented with a guilty conscience and then killed at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485 after screaming ?A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!?, thus ushering in Henry VII as the first Tudor king. The tragic irony is that Richard has brought about his own destruction by destroying others.Quotes; just this one on man?s inhumanity:Richard: Lady, you know no rules of charity, which renders good for bad, blessings for curses.Anne: Villain, thou know?st nor law of God nor man. No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity.Richard: But I know none, and therefore am no beast.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Following the deaths of Edward IV and Edward V in 1483, Richard III becomes monarch of England. It is quite a bit into the play before we are introduced to Richard III, but when we are, we see him as a tyrant. What a vivid picture of his wickedness Shakespeare paints! One can't help but wonder if the people of England didn't sing, "Ding, dong, the king is dead, the wicked king is dead" when he died a couple of years after assuming the throne. I really think I'd love to see this one performed live. I may have to settle for a movie version, but I really think that live would be preferable.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    I've just seen the wonderful Kevin Spacey / Sam Mendes production which opened at the Old Vic this year and is on a world tour. An amazing production and a superlative performance by Spacey.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    I really enjoyed this play, and it was only enhanced by the audio version bringing it to life. It was an interesting follow-up to Tey's A Daughter of Time, which presents a very different picture of Richard and his character and motivations. I remember having tickets I couldn't use to McKellen's Richard years ago and I'm sorry I've never seen this play on stage.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    I think that almost everyone knows Shakespeare's verson of the story of the monstrous King Richard III, how he plotted the murder of anyone who stood in the way of his gaining the crown of England. This was certainly not my first encounter with Shakespeare. I've read his work several times before. However, I seem to have missed the history plays, until now.I'm embarrassed to admit, that this is also the first time that I've felt the magic of Shakespeare. It's the first time I've been held in the thrall of the power of his words.I've always enjoyed his work, but I never understood what all the fuss was about. Now I get it.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Richard, literature's greatest monster of indignation? I can't help but compare him to Iago--really can't help it, because the Richard I saw Bob Frazer play at Bard on the Beach the other night and the Iago I saw him play back in 2009 have such suggestive similarities. Iago gets archetypalized, and all too often played, as the moustache-twirling villain--the spider, the blot, the malignancy who fools everyone, inexplicably. But there shouldn't be anything inexplicable about it. He's "honest Iago", and it's in that that his awfulness lies. Frazer plays him that way--the bluff young honest handsome quick-witted hero of the wars against the Turk, the least villainous of all the characters in the play until he ushers you in. You expect him to flush some kid's head down the toilet, maybe, but not destroy lives.Is it too much to posit that the difference between real evil and the "mere" twisted and wrong that is the distillation of human pain is the difference between foulness with a fair face and foulness that looks foul? I've been thinking a lot about the limits of responsibility lately, and toying with the probably extreme but seductive and satisfying viewpoint that nobody's responsible for anything, ever, in a transcendent or a moral way. I don't know if I really believe it, but it leaves us with a principle to be debated when we come back to the question of where we forgive and where we condemn--malice that comes out of success, esteem, trust, handsomeness, camaraderie, triumphs aplenty, like Iago's: that is evil. But it's hard to say what good the principle really is in our practical ethical dilemmas, given that we can never really know anyone well enough to pass that kind of judgment. I guess it leaves us with a theoretical but indeterminate principle of evil, in theory, for now.And that's where Frazer's Richard comes in. He is the malignancy, the blot, the Spider King. Quite literally that, rushing forward on his crutches like a bug up your face and then when you* sweep it frantically away and twist it, crumple and break it without anywise meaning to, that's when he shows you that the ugly and bent is not the weak and broken and jumps down your throat dripping with poison. But nobody is taken in. They hate him because he's ugly, but their desire to seem unafraid causes them to act nonchalant, even to find excuses in his royal blood to treat him as part of the band of brothers.They make him with their horror and hypocrisy, and he kills them all, of course. And of course the logic I've outlined makes this a perfect story for Shakespeare, and this being Shakespeare, Richard is of course doomed as well. He's a magnificent character, one of the all-time gross and great, and let me say again for the record that Frazer played him magnificently, with his liplicking and hatred and glee. I don't think this is a perfect play, by any means; it hangs so crucially on the protagonist (here I've spent this whole review talking about him, well, and Iago, I guess) and everyone else seems window-dressing; it would have been fascinating if the venial lords who convince themselves Richard's just another one of them, to be trusted just as far and no further than they are, had come to quickened threatening life, if this in its first half had been a play about machinations and not inevitable rise, and only then in the second act, as it is, a play about inevitable downfall, it would have been more compelling I think to a 21st-century audience. This leads into a more general discomfort with great-man history from my perspective, but one which again I think a more balanced picture of the political manoeuvrings would have done something to help address, since it is undoubtedly two that back then only the gentry counted, be they great or no. I think the comedic scenes in this one, especially the conscience-searching before the murder of Clarence, are especially good; I think the primes steal the scene in their brief appearance, and if that hammers home the logic of their murder in a grimy way, which is good, it also means they're removed from the stage, which is dramaturgically bad; I think the whole second act, where England descends into fascist dark and then the bullies come back from polo or whatever in France and fight and win, and we're glad that the doofy brute Richmond, and not his opposite number livid broken sad Richard, wins, is not inferior to Lolita in the ways it makes us complicit (while still giving us some sweet fight scenes and brooding-lord pageantry, climaxing in the incredible ghost scene, which I wonder if it's the first instance of the ol' "it was only a dream" cliche, don't you?). But it's imbalanced in the end by the concentrated enmity of the figure at its centre. Not a perfect play; but Richard goes on the long shortlist of literature's most perfectly turned characters.*you are the Lady Anne, you are Elizabeth Woodville, you are the men too, in the unmanned way an Elizabethan blood might have felt when stumbling into a nest of creepy-crawlies, but predominantly, let it be noted, you are the women, whose desire to protect makes them susceptible to Richard in the way that the men's asshole revulsion at the bent makes them not. Men created Richard the monster, perhaps, and women made his success as monster possible. In that light, his relationship with his mother, a hard woman, takes on an interesting light, as well as the fact that it's Queen Margaret's curse that brings him down. I don't endorse the idea of a perversion of women's 'natural role' that I see in this play, Master Will, but I do fear me it's there.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Richard III, the tragedy about the Yorkist G?tterd?mmerung, is Shakespeare's second longest play. Laurence Olivier's 1955 film version clocks in at 161 minutes. Ian McKellen's 1995 film abridges Shakespeare's play too much, at 104 minutes. Richard III is anything but boring: Shakespeare piles murder upon murder at the feet of Richard III, some of which he clearly wasn't remotely responsible for. What is important to remember, though, is that Richard III kills for dynastic and political reasons. While Shakespeare highlights Richard's envy and discontent, the murders are politically necessary to open Richard's path to power. The tragedy not only requires the murders, each murder triggers the next until it is Richard's turn to die.Shakespeare endowed Richard with a wicked charm, memorable physical disabilities and a singular connection to the audience that lets one both roots for and against this evil man. Richard's dominance and centrality in the play is also its weakness: the other actors' light only shines for a few lines at a time. The other actors' roles never develop beyond types (grieving mother, opportunists, ...). The performance rests almost completely upon the central actor's misshapen shoulders and the absence of a medieval get-away car.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Great drama, a somewhat... um... flexible attitude to history, and scarcely a character alive by the end. There are the famous lines ("Now is the winter of our discontent"; "A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!") and some that really ought to be more famous ("fair Saint George,/ Inspire us with the spleen of fiery dragons!"). Very entertaining.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    It took awhile to get into Richard III - it's set during/just after the War of the Roses, and there's a lot of politics going on that are pretty obscure now. However, reading it as a tragedy with a touch of modern thriller makes it awesome. Richard is brother to the sickly king, and a very respected military officer, but he craves more power and admiration than that. He has to work his way through most of his family and acquaintances though, picking them off one by one, to capture the crown. He's a master of manipulation and psychology, yet throughout the play we see Richard's own psyche and facades crumbling beneath the weight of this single-minded obsession. Wonderful, thrilling play that is completely worth the work to get through
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    My first Shakespeare history: I've been avoiding them for years. I care too much about keeping everything straight: the four characters named Richard, the handful of Edwards, the nobility calling each other by their titles sometimes, their Christian names other times. And then titles will change. And I care about the events and the lineages and I manage to get all wound up and muddled and frustrated.Of course it's better if you just read it as a play. And for that, it still has a profoundly different tone than the tragedies or the comedies. There's a lot of vitriol here. Not a lot of subtlety. Strong female characters. A LOT of characters. Children.It wasn't my favorite. It wasn't my least favorite. It was more of another notch in my complete-works-of-the-Bard-read stick.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    I never thought I would enjoy this as much as I did, and the Ian McKellen adaptation of this just makes it even better.
  • Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
    2/5
    Not a big fan of Shakespeare's history plays. See some of the film and stage adaptations of this play...they're more entertaining.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Shakespeare's history of Richard III reads like a tragedy. Of course the tragic thing is that the hero is so despicable, yet it is hard to dislike him too much, he has such good lines. "Now is the winter of our discontent . . ." the play opens and the reader is swept up by the perfidy and creative conniving of Richard. As his plans thicken he seems to be succeeding, only to fail in the end as his apparent allies fail him and turn. Filled with some of the best poetry of the early Shakespeare this play is deservedly one of his most popular creations.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Shakespeare's take on Richard III. Very dark historical play, but just a play. Mostly inaccurate historically though.Very long play, S's 2nd longest just behind Hamlet.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Richard is brother to King Edward and George, Duke of Clarence. Both think he loves them, but Richard has two faces, one of loyalty and sweetness, the other is evil. Having gathered a few ambitious and unethical men around him, Richard is able to order the murder of both brothers, their sons and their loyal followers. He forces the widow of one of his victims to marry him, then chooses his own niece to be his next wife. For a long time, it is only the women in court, including Richard's mother, who recognize that he is evil.Gripping and exciting, Richard III is one of the great villains. I'd love to see this performed.

Book preview

Richard III - August Wilhelm von Schlegel

The Project Gutenberg EBook of Richard III, by William Shakespeare (#04 in our series by William Shakespeare)

Copyright laws are changing all over the world. Be sure to check the copyright laws for your country before downloading or redistributing this or any other Project Gutenberg eBook.

This header should be the first thing seen when viewing this Project Gutenberg file. Please do not remove it. Do not change or edit the header without written permission.

Please read the legal small print, and other information about the eBook and Project Gutenberg at the bottom of this file. Included is important information about your specific rights and restrictions in how the file may be used. You can also find out about how to make a donation to Project Gutenberg, and how to get involved.

**Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts**

**eBooks Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971**

*****These eBooks Were Prepared By Thousands of Volunteers!*****

Title: Richard III

Author: William Shakespeare

Release Date: November, 2004 [EBook #6924] [This file was first posted on February 11, 2003]

Edition: 10

Language: German

Character set encoding: ISO Latin-1

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK, RICHARD III ***

Thanks are given to Delphine Lettau for finding a huge collection of ancient

German books in London.

This Etext is in German.

We are releasing two versions of this Etext, one in 7-bit format, known as Plain Vanilla ASCII, which can be sent via plain email— and one in 8-bit format, which includes higher order characters— which requires a binary transfer, or sent as email attachment and may require more specialized programs to display the accents. This is the 8-bit version.

This book content was graciously contributed by the Gutenberg Projekt-DE.

That project is reachable at the web site http://gutenberg2000.de.

Dieses Buch wurde uns freundlicherweise vom Gutenberg Projekt-DE zur Verfügung gestellt. Das Projekt ist unter der Internet-Adresse http://gutenberg2000.de erreichbar.

RICHARD III

William Shakespeare

Entstanden wahrscheinlich 1592/93

Übersetzt von August Wilhelm von Schlegel

PERSONEN:

König Eduard der Vierte

Eduard, Prinz von Wales, nachmals König Eduard der Fünfte

Söhne des Königs

George, Herzog von Clarence

Richard, Herzog von Gloster, nachmals König Richard der Dritte

Brüder des Königs

Eduard Plantagenet, ein junger Sohn des Clarence

Heinrich, Graf von Richmond, nachmals König Heinrich der Siebente

Kardinal Bourchier, Erzbischof von Canterbury

Thomas Rotherham, Erzbischof von York

John Morton, Bischof von Ely

Herzog von Buckingham

Herzog John von Norfolk

Graf Thomas von Surrey, sein Sohn

Graf Rivers, vormals Sir Anton Woodville,

  Bruder der Gemahlin König Eduards

Marquis von Dorset und Lord Grey, ihre Söhne aus erster Ehe

Lord Scales, des Grafen Rivers ältester Sohn

Graf von Oxford

Sir William Brandon

Lord William Hastings

Lord Stanley

Lord Lovel

Sir Thomas Vaughan

Sir Richard Ratcliff

Sir William Catesby

Sir James Tyrrel

Sir James Blunt

Sir Walter Herbert

Sir Robert Brakenbury, Kommandant des Towers

Tressel und Berkeley, Edelleute im Gefolge der Prinzessin Anna

Christopher Urswick und Sir John, Priester

Zwei Bischöfe

Der Lord Mayor von London

Der Sheriff von Wiltshire

Elisabeth, Gemahlin König Eduards des Vierten

Margaretha, Witwe König Heinrichs des Sechsten

Herzogin von York, Mutter König Eduards des Vierten,

  Clarences und Glosters

Anna, Witwe Eduards, des Prinzen von Wales,

  Sohnes König Heinrich des Sechsten; nachmals mit Gloster vermählt

Margaretha Plantagenet, eine junge Tochter des Clarence

ERSTER AUFZUG

ERSTE SZENE

London. Eine Straße.

(Gloster tritt auf.)

Gloster.

Nun ward der Winter unsers Mißvergnügens

Glorreicher Sommer durch die Sonne Yorks;

Die Wolken all, die unser Haus bedräut,

Sind in des Weltmeers tiefem Schoß begraben.

Nun zieren unsre Brauen Siegeskränze,

Die schart'gen Waffen hängen als Trophä'n;

Aus rauhem Feldlärm wurden muntre Feste,

Aus furchtbarn Märschen holde Tanzmusiken.

Der grimm'ge Krieg hat seine Stirn entrunzelt,

Und statt zu reiten das geharn'schte Roß,

Um drohnder Gegner Seelen zu erschrecken,

Hüpft er behend in einer Dame Zimmer

Nach üppigem Gefallen einer Laute.

Doch ich, zu Possenspielen nicht gemacht,

Noch um zu buhlen mit verliebten Spiegeln;

Ich, roh geprägt, entblößt von Liebesmajestät

Vor leicht sich dreh'nden Nymphen mich zu brüsten;

Ich, um dies schöne Ebenmaß verkürzt,

Von der Natur um Bildung falsch betrogen,

Entstellt, verwahrlost, vor der Zeit gesandt

In diese Welt des Atmens, halb kaum fertig

Gemacht, und zwar so lahm und ungeziemend,

Daß Hunde bellen, hink ich wo vorbei;

Ich nun, in dieser schlaffen Friedenszeit,

Weiß keine Lust, die Zeit mir zu vertreiben,

Als meinen Schatten in der Sonne spähn

Und meine eigne Mißgestalt erörtern;

Und darum, weil ich nicht als ein Verliebter

Kann kürzen diese fein beredten Tage,

Bin ich gewillt, ein Bösewicht zu werden

Und feind den eitlen Freuden dieser Tage.

Anschläge macht' ich, schlimme Einleitungen,

Durch trunkne Weissagungen, Schriften, Träume,

Um meinen Bruder Clarence und den König

In Todfeindschaft einander zu verhetzen.

Und ist nur König Eduard treu und echt,

Wie ich verschmitzt, falsch und verräterisch,

So muß heut Clarence eng verhaftet werden,

Für eine Weissagung, die sagt, daß G

Den Erben Eduards nach dem Leben steh'.

Taucht unter, ihr Gedanken! Clarence kommt.

(Clarence kommt mit Wache und Brakenbury.)

Mein Bruder, guten Tag! Was soll die Wache

Bei Euer Gnaden?

Clarence.

Seine Majestät, Besorgt um meine Sicherheit, verordnet

Mir dies Geleit, mich nach dem Turm zu schaffen.

Gloster.

Aus welchem Grund?

Clarence.

Weil man mich George nennt.

Gloster.

Ach, Mylord, das ist Euer Fehler nicht,

Verhaften sollt' er darum Eure Paten.

Oh, vielleicht hat Seine Majestät im Sinn,

Umtaufen Euch zu lassen dort im Turm.

Doch was bedeutet's, Clarence? Darf ich's wissen?

Clarence.

Ja, Richard, wann ich's weiß: denn ich beteure,

Noch weiß ich's nicht; nur dies hab ich gehört,

Er horcht auf Weissagungen und auf Träume,

Streicht aus dem Alphabet den Buchstab G

Und spricht, ein Deuter sagt' ihm, daß durch G

Enterbung über seinen Stamm ergeh';

Und weil mein Name George anfängt mit G,

So denkt er, folgt, daß es durch mich gescheh'.

Dies, wie ich hör, und Grillen, diesen gleich,

Bewogen Seine Hoheit zum Verhaft.

Gloster.

So geht's, wenn Weiber einen Mann regieren.

s ist Eduard nicht, der in den Turm Euch schickt;

Mylady Grey, sein Weib, Clarence, nur sie

Reizt ihn zu diesem harten Äußersten.

War sie es nicht und jener Mann der Ehren,

Ihr guter Bruder, Anton Wondeville,

Die in den Turm Lord Hastings schicken ließen,

Von wo er eben heute losgekommen?

Wir sind nicht sicher, Clarence, sind nicht sicher.

Clarence.

Beim Himmel, niemand ist es, als die Sippschaft

Der Königin und nächtliche Herolde,

Des Königs Botenläufer zu Frau Shore.

Hörtet Ihr nicht, wie sich demütig flehend

Lord Hastings um Befreiung an sie wandte?

Gloster.

Demütig klagend ihrer Göttlichkeit

Ward der Herr Oberkämmerer befreit.

Hört an, ich denk, es wär' die beste Art,

Wenn wir in Gunst beim König bleiben wollen,

Bei ihr zu dienen und Livrei zu tragen.

Die eifersücht'ge abgenutzte Witwe

Und jene, seit mein Bruder sie geadelt,

Sind mächtige Gevatterfrau'n im Reich.

Brakenbury.

Ich ersuch Eu'r Gnaden beide zu verzeihn,

Doch Seine Majestät hat streng befohlen,

Daß niemand, welches Standes er auch sei,

Soll sprechen insgeheim mit seinem Bruder.

Gloster.

Ja so! Beliebt's Eu'r Edeln, Brakenbury,

So hört nur allem, was wir sagen, zu:

Es ist kein Hochverrat, mein Freund. Wir sagen,

Der König sei so weis' als tugendsam,

Und sein verehrtes Ehgemahl an Jahren

Ansehnlich, schön und ohne Eifersucht;

Wir sagen, Shores Weib hab' ein hübsches Füßchen,

Ein Kirschenmündchen, Äugelein und wundersüße Zunge,

Und daß der Kön'gin Sippschaft adlig worden.

Was sagt Ihr, Herr? ist alles das nicht wahr?

Brakenbury.

Mylord, ich bin bei allem dem nichts nutz.

Gloster.

Nichtsnutzig bei Frau Shore? Hör an, Gesell:

Ist wer bei ihr nichtsnutzig, als der eine,

Der tät' es besser insgeheim, alleine.

Brakenbury.

Als welcher eine, Mylord?

Gloster.

Ihr Mann, du Schuft; willst du mich fangen?

Brakenbury.

Ich ersuch Eu'r Gnaden zu verzeihn, wie auch

Nicht mehr zu sprechen mit dem edlen Herzog.

Clarence.

Wir kennen deinen Auftrag, Brakenbury,

Und wolln gehorchen.

Gloster.

Wir sind die Verworfnen

Der Königin und müssen schon gehorchen.

Bruder, lebt wohl! Ich will zum König gehn,

Und wozu irgend Ihr mich brauchen wollt,

Müßt' ich auch Eduards Witwe Schwester nennen,

Ich will's vollbringen, um Euch zu befrein.

Doch diese tiefe Schmach der Brüderschaft

Rührt tiefer mich, als Ihr Euch denken könnt.

Clarence.

Ich weiß es, sie gefällt uns beiden nicht.

Gloster.

Wohl, Eu'r Verhaft wird nicht von Dauer sein:

Ich mach Euch frei, sonst lieg ich selbst für Euch.

Indessen habt Geduld.

Clarence.

Ich muß; leb wohl!

(Clarence mit Brakenbury und der Wache ab.)

Gloster.

Geh nur des Wegs, den du nie wiederkehrst,

Einfält'ger Clarence! So sehr lieb ich dich,

Ich sende bald dem Himmel deine Seele,

Wenn er die Gab' aus unsrer Hand will nehmen.

Doch wer kommt da? der neubefreite Hastings?

(Hastings tritt auf.)

Hastings.

Vergnügten Morgen meinem gnäd'gen Herrn!

Gloster.

Das gleiche meinem lieben Kämmerer!

Seid sehr willkommen in der freien Luft.

Wie fand Eu'r Gnaden sich in den Verhaft?

Hastings.

Geduldig, edler Herr, wie man wohl muß;

Doch hoff ich denen Dank einst abzustatten,

Die schuld gewesen sind an dem Verhaft.

Gloster.

Gewiß, gewiß! und das wird Clarence auch:

Die Eure Feinde waren, sind die seinen

Und haben Gleiches wider ihn vermocht.

Hastings.

Ja, leider wird der Adler eingesperrt,

Und Gei'r und Habicht rauben frei indes.

Gloster.

Was gibt es Neues draußen?

Hastings.

So

Enjoying the preview?
Page 1 of 1