Richard III

Overview

About three hundred and thirty pages, Shakespeare’s drama, written around 1592 to 1593. With the Wars of the Roses won by his family, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, tells the audience he is determined to prove a villain and sets out to remove everyone between himself and the throne. He woos Lady Anne over the corpse of the husband he killed.

He has his brother Clarence drowned in a wine butt, and has his young nephews murdered in the Tower after seizing the crown. Haunted by the ghosts of his victims on the eve of Bosworth, he is killed by Richmond, the future Henry VII.

What happens

Richard’s declared villainy. With the Wars of the Roses won by his family, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, tells the audience directly that he is determined to prove a villain, establishing his self-aware and calculated pursuit of the throne.

Wooing Lady Anne. Richard woos Lady Anne over the corpse of the husband he himself killed, a virtuosic display of rhetorical skill succeeding against circumstances that should make such persuasion genuinely impossible.

Clarence’s murder. Richard has his brother Clarence drowned in a wine butt, removing another obstacle between himself and the crown through calculated, personally arranged violence against his own family.

Seizing the crown. Richard continues systematically removing everyone between himself and the throne, eventually seizing the crown through a combination of manipulation, murder and calculated political maneuvering.

Murdering his nephews. After seizing the crown, Richard has his young nephews murdered in the Tower, the play’s darkest single act, giving his accumulated villainy its most morally unambiguous and horrifying expression.

The ghosts and Bosworth. Haunted by the ghosts of his victims on the eve of Bosworth, Richard is killed by Richmond, the future Henry VII, conscience finally asserting itself before his ultimate military defeat.

How to read it

Read Richard’s direct address to the audience, announcing he is determined to prove a villain, as staging evil as genuinely self-aware and articulate rather than self-deceived, giving the play’s central antagonist unsettling intelligence about his own moral status.

Pay close attention to how wooing Lady Anne over the corpse of the husband he himself killed demonstrates Richard’s virtuosic rhetorical skill at its most audacious, persuasion succeeding against circumstances that should make it genuinely impossible.

Notice how his murder of his young nephews in the Tower represents the play’s darkest single act, child-killing giving Richard’s accumulated villainy its most morally unambiguous and horrifying concrete expression beyond any political rationalization.

Consider how the ghosts of his victims haunting him on the eve of Bosworth stage conscience finally asserting itself against a character who had seemed entirely immune to guilt throughout the preceding action.

Read this drama alongside Shakespeare’s own Macbeth to compare two studies of ambition and murder pursued toward the crown, one narrated with Richard’s own knowing, self-aware theatrical relish, the other haunted from the start by Macbeth’s genuine internal moral horror.

Questions it raises

• Does Richard’s direct, self-aware address to the audience about his own villainy make him more sympathetic through this honesty, or does his articulate self-knowledge actually make his crimes more disturbing than a more self-deceived villain’s actions would be?
• How persuasive is Richard’s wooing of Lady Anne over her husband’s corpse as demonstration of his rhetorical power? Does this scene’s success feel psychologically plausible, or does it function primarily as stylized theatrical display of villainous skill?
• What does murdering his young nephews accomplish for the play’s overall moral structure? Does this act finally exceed whatever grim fascination Richard’s earlier crimes had generated, marking a clear turn toward unambiguous horror the audience can no longer find entertaining?
• How should a reader weigh the ghosts’ appearance before Bosworth against Richard’s seemingly complete moral indifference throughout the rest of the play? Does this haunting represent genuine psychological breakthrough, or simply dramatic convention signaling his approaching defeat?
• Given that Richard openly declares his villainous intentions from the outset, what does this transparency suggest about the play’s broader interest in performance and self-presentation, themes running throughout Shakespeare’s history plays more generally?
• What does this play’s continued fascination for audiences and actors suggest about villainy’s peculiar theatrical appeal? Does Richard’s combination of self-awareness, wit and horrifying action explain why this character remains one of Shakespeare’s most performed and analyzed?