Essential Plays / The Sonnets (Second Edition) - Based on the Oxford Edition

It's a great piece, but it's not comfortable to carry-around. The pages are a little thing, but it works as a great composite piece. As a whole, It's great. However, If you're looking for individual pieces, get the individual plays.

Very detailed and fascinating introductions and essays. The single columned format is very legible and easy on the eye. The paper is very thin, but that's understandable considering the number of pages.

Purchased this textbook for my niece in college. She needed it for a class and has
a hard time finding books at a reasonable price, so I try to help her out when I can. We always seem to get a good value on the store.

I owe an apology to the young lady that sold this book to my daughter, Elysse Yulo who did not write the previous review. I said in an early review that we never received the book that we purchased. She did in fact mail the book on time to our home, which was 1/5/11 & we just received the book today 2/22/11! One month & a half later! The book is damaged due to two things: 1) the book was wrapped in thin paper, instead of a box & 2) because is was not wrapped properly, the post office damaged the book & the outer wrapping cut off part of the zip code. the store credited us the full amount of $27.99. I felt the fair thing to do was to pay $20 to the seller since we might not be able to sell it ourselves because it is damaged. Also my daughter's class is half over. So in closing, this was not entirely her fault & I hope she appreciates that I was honest enough to call & report that I did receive the book.

The 2nd edition of the Norton Shakespeare is what it is, a second edition. All be it the foward and play introductions have been updated to reflect what has been learned about Shakespeare and his works since the last publication; it's still a heavy tome at 6 pounds. For those of us using this as a text, which is what the Nortan Shakespeare was meant to be, it's a huge burden. The publisher needs to come out with the e-version soon; save our backs, please!

This was my first experience purchasing my college textbooks online, and I was pleasantly surprised.
Although there was a slight rip in my package, the book and slip case were in fabulous condition, and the package came earlier than I thought it was going to.
Great prices, great service, just great :)

I read the story and it prompted me to go see the play. I loved it! I was one of very few people who actually laughed at the dry jokes. It went over most peoples' heads but I find it delightfully wry. The story plot is truly complex and intricate. It's a great story!

The Oxford Shakespeare, as its name might suggest, seems to have been prepared with the student or scholar in mind. (The RSC Shakespeare, again as its name might suggest, seems to be aimed more at the actor or theatrical director, and the Penguin Shakespeare at the general reader). This Oxford edition of “Richard III” features a very lengthy introduction by John Jowett, almost the length of a short novel in itself, and very copious explanatory and textual notes.

“Richard III” opens where “Henry VI Part 3” left off; the dead body of the murdered Henry is brought onto the stage at the beginning of the play. It is often regarded as forming a tetralogy with the three “Henry VI” plays, but whereas those plays are among Shakespeare’s least known and least performed works, “Richard III” has long been a favourite on the stage. The title role, the longest in Shakespeare apart from Hamlet, is regarded as one of the greatest challenges for a Shakespearean actor. Lines from the play, notably the opening “Now is the winter of our discontent” and “My kingdom for a horse!” have passed into proverbial use.

The play which has most in common with “Richard III“ is “Macbeth”. Both plays are based, albeit loosely, on British history, and both deal with the rise and fall of a usurping tyrant who dies in battle at the end of the play. “Macbeth”, however, is normally classified as a tragedy and “Richard III” as a history play, even though it was originally published under the title “The Most Tragicall History of King Richard III”. The reason, I think, is the difference between the ways in which the two protagonists are presented. Macbeth is a prime example of a tragic hero, a great man brought down by a flaw in his character, in his case ambition reinforced by the promptings of his fiendish wife and the three witches. He is initially presented as a loyal subject of King Duncan and a successful soldier, and even after he has murdered the king and usurped the crown he is still troubled by his conscience, from which he can only escape by a retreat into moral nihilism.

Richard, by contrast, is no tragic hero. He needs no outside promptings to reinforce his monstrous ambition; his wife, Lady Anne, is no Lady Macbeth but a victim of Richard’s cruelty, and there is no supernatural element in the play other than the ghosts of his victims who appear to reproach him for his crimes. Moral nihilism is not something into which he escapes; it is an essential part of his character. He is a ruthless, Machiavellian schemer, motivated only by self-interest; conscience is something wholly alien to him. In his dealings with the other characters in the play he is a hypocrite, hiding his true nature beneath a façade of goodness, but with the audience he is gleefully honest about his villainy.

By any objective standards, Richard was a minor character in English history. His claim to the throne was a weak one, and he was overthrown after only two years as king. (Since the Norman Conquest, only his unfortunate nephew and predecessor Edward V, Edward VIII and the disputed Jane Grey have had shorter reigns). Yet the effect of Shakespeare’s play has been to confer a posthumous fame on Richard which he would not otherwise have enjoyed, something evidenced by the enormous interest in his recent reburial in Leicester Cathedral. Some have criticised Shakespeare for blackening Richard’s character, and there is a certain amount of truth in the accusation as the play attributes crimes to Richard of which he was not historically guilty. (Prince Edward, the son of Henry VI, died in battle, and George Duke of Clarence was executed for treason against Edward IV, but in the play both are murdered by Richard or on his orders).

The “Tudor propaganda” aspect of the play can, however, be over-emphasised. Certainly, it would have been imprudent for Shakespeare to have depicted Richmond, the future Henry VII and grandfather of his patron Elizabeth I, in anything other than a good light, or to have cast any doubt on the legitimacy of the Tudor dynasty. On the other hand, there is no evidence to suggest that the play was written on the instructions of Elizabeth or her government. Shakespeare was writing more than a hundred years after the events he describes, long after any possibility of a Yorkist revival had vanished. Richard had died without legitimate heirs, and although some of Clarence’s direct descendants still survived nobody regarded them as serious candidates for the Crown. The only serious challenge to Elizabeth’s rule had come from partisans of Mary Queen of Scots who was, like her, a descendant of Henry VII.

When Shakespeare departs from historical accuracy he generally does so for the sake of dramatic licence, not because he wanted to slander a good man. (The historical Richard was not a good man, and nobody in Shakespeare’s day believed him to have been one). Another example comes in his treatment of Henry VI’s widow, Queen Margaret. She is an important character in the play, yet by rights she should not appear in it at all; during the earlier events portrayed she was in exile in France, and by the time Richard came to the throne she was actually dead. Here, however, she appears as a sort of personification of vengeance, exulting at the downfall of those who have wronged her.

The play is not primarily an examination of the rights and wrongs of the Wars of the Roses; it has a much deeper political significance than that, which is another reason to explain its continuing popularity. Richmond is not merely Elizabeth’s grandfather in the literal sense; Elizabethans would also have seen him as her spiritual ancestor, bringing peace and reconciliation after a period of bitter division in the same way as Elizabeth attempted to reconcile the conflicting factions after the Reformation. For similar reasons the play was popular after the Restoration as Royalists sought to draw parallels between Henry VII and his distant descendant Charles II, another monarch who took power after the nation had been divided by civil war.

For modern audiences, of course, much of the interest of the play lies in the parallels between Shakespeare’s portrait of tyranny and the dictatorships of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. (The same is also true of “Macbeth”). This explains why many modern productions- notably Richard Loncraine’s film starring Ian McKellen- have sought to portray Richard as a proto-fascist, even a proto-Hitler. Richard’s dictatorship may have different ideological underpinnings to the modern fascist or communist state, but in other respects, especially the all-pervading atmosphere of fear and suspicion, it is essentially the same. Richard’s ruthless treatment of his one-time friend Buckingham, who helped him to seize power, has its parallels in Hitler’s “Night of the Long Knives” and Stalin’s purges in which they turned on their former allies. As in “Henry VI Part 2”, Shakespeare shows that he understood the underlying psychology of fascism and communism long before either ideology actually existed.

To the theater-going public RICHARD III seems to be one of Shakespeare's most famous plays. That no doubt is due to the fact that Richard III is one of Shakespeare's greatest roles. The Machiavellian crookback king dominates the play, and playing him is one of the most prized roles for serious thespians. (Among those who have tackled it are Kenneth Branagh, David Garrick, Ian McKellen, Laurence Olivier, Anthony Sher, and Kevin Spacey.) But for me, reading the play on paper was not a thoroughgoing pleasure. RICHARD III is far too chaotic.

I have been reading Shakespeare's plays in approximate order of their composition. RICHARD III traditionally comes after the three "Henry VI" plays, which cover English history from about 1422 to 1471, the period of the Wars of the Roses. A lot happens in the Henry VI plays, and as I am not very knowledgeable about medieval English history, keeping up with all the players, intrigues, and mayhem was challenging. But somehow I managed to keep my head above water. RICHARD III would have totally swamped me had I not come across a book just before reading it (John Julius Norwich's "Shakespeare's Kings") that provided in accessible fashion the "actual" history of Shakespeare's English histories. Reading Norwich's account of the years 1471 to 1485 -- the years in which Richard Gloucester first schemes against his brother Edward IV and then assumes the throne as Richard III, shunting aside Edward's sons and his own nephews -- gave me enough background to follow the twists and turns of Shakespeare's play. But since Shakespeare gallops through much of that history, omits some important events and fabricates others, and often rearranges or compresses chronology, reading RICHARD III was still a head-spinning experience.

Thus, my advice to newcomers to RICHARD III is to first acquaint yourself with the "true" history of 1471 to 1485, either through a book such as Norwich's or Peter Saccio's "Shakespeare's English Kings" or via an appropriate Introduction to the play. (Judging from the store's "Look Inside" feature, John Jowett's Introduction to this Oxford World's Classics edition does not appear to provide such an historical background.)

Through all the chaos of the play, Richard III as a character stands out. He is inordinately compelling and repulsive. He can be charming, but there is a ruthless egomaniac beneath that thin veneer. And he is violent -- although in RICHARD III (unlike the Henry VI plays) relatively little violence occurs on stage. Indeed, the only on-stage death is the slaying of Richard III himself at the end of the play, at the Battle of Bosworth. (While his brother Clarence is stabbed on stage he presumably does not die until he has been dragged offstage and stuffed and drowned in a butt of malmsey -- an assassination, by the way, that Richard ordered.)

In addition to Richard himself, the other things I am likely to remember about RICHARD III -- and what I am most likely to return to (I can't imagine ever wanting to re-read the play in its entirety) -- are three scenes.

The first is Act I, Scene 2, which opens with Lady Anne accompanying the coffin of Henry VI to its burial. Henry VI had been murdered by Richard Gloucester, as had his son, Prince Edward, who had been Anne's husband. Richard halts the funeral procession and begins to woo Lady Anne. Needless to say, she at first is outraged, calling him a "lump of foul deformity" and "diffused infection of a man". She tells Richard that he is "unfit for any place but hell", to which he counters that, no, there is one place where he is better suited; Anne proposes "Some dungeon", Richard responds "Your bedchamber". It's a marvelous scene. At the end of it, Anne has capitulated to Richard's charms, and Richard gloats with an emphatic "Ha!"

Then there is Act IV, Scene 4, where Richard (now King) verbally jousts with another woman, this time Queen Elizabeth, the widow of King Edward IV and mother of his heirs, two sons and a daughter, who would have been more legitimate successors to the crown than Richard. Richard therefore had ordered that her sons, whom he had imprisoned in the Tower of London, be killed, and now, to consolidate his hold on the throne, he proposes to Queen Elizabeth that she give him her daughter in marriage (Anne having just died, conveniently, probably by poison). In searing and witty fashion, Elizabeth mocks and rebuffs him. Richard has begun to lose his touch.

The third memorable scene is on the eve of the Battle of Bosworth (Act V, Scene 5). As Richard tries to sleep, a pageant of the ghosts of the people he killed, or had killed, parades past him -- Prince Edward, King Henry VI, Clarence, the two young princes from the Tower, Lady Anne, three relatives of Queen Elizabeth (Lord Rivers, Lord Gray, and Sir Vaughan), and two of his own former allies on whom he had turned (Lord Hastings and the Duke of Buckingham). Each enjoins Richard to remember him or her during the morrow's battle:

"Let me sit heavy on thy soul tomorrow", or

"Tomorrow in the battle think on me,
And fall thy edgeless sword. Despair and die.", or

"O in the battle think on Buckingham,
And die in terror of thy guiltiness!
Dream on, dream on, of bloody deeds and death;
Fainting, despair; despairing, yield thy breath."

Powerful stuff.

I found King Richard to be an odd character. At the outset, he seemed to be inept, a hothead, a loose cannon, spoiled, lacking good judgement, and an overall bad judge of character. For example, his decision to banish Bolingbroke and Mowbray was a whim as was his change of the former's exile from 10 to 6 years. Drunk with power or indecisive? When he decided to strip John of Gaunt's estate to fund his war with Ireland, I thought it was further evidence of his foolhardiness. The King had a knack for making enemies and losing friends.

What makes his character puzzling to me, then, was when he became introspective and thoughtful and self-aware. His speeches about himself were beautiful. It's almost as if hearing about his friends' executions threw a bucket of cold water on him and woke him up. I couldn't reconcile these two drastically different parts of his character. Is Shakespeare saying that only when Richard lost his power did he sober up?

At the same time, I was confused as to my emotions about Richard. I didn't like Richard at first, especially when he thought only about John of Gaunt's money rather than about his uncle. But, Richard's speeches were moving towards the end and made me want to sympathize with him. But, did he deserve my sympathy? His loss of power was through his own doing, no?

Bolingbroke came out as the hero of the play. He acted like what a true and competent king should be. He pardoned Aumerle when he had no reason to do so. He rewarded his friends and, when Richard was murdered, expressed genuine remorse. But, King Richard inexplicably remained the most sympathetic character despite his failings.

A major flaw infects the Oxford Shakespeare, from which the Norton Shakespeare is derived: the editing of Shakespeare's texts themselves. The editors seem to have been driven by a desire to make a splash, even if this meant questionable and arbitrary editing of the texts, and so the Oxford/Norton Shakespeare features such oddness as:

* Two versions of King Lear, 90% identical and each missing some familiar lines (the Norton has three versions)
* A Macbeth that has had non-Shakespearean material added in to it, allowing it to be co-credited to Thomas Middleton (one editor is a Middleton fan)
* A Hamlet that has lost some of its most significant passages to an appendix
* Significant, damaging cuts to many of the other plays
* A Pericles with huge chunks of non-Shakespearean material added in, all of it terrible.
* Falstaff renamed to "Oldcastle" in Henry IV Part 1, though not in Part 2
* Wholly new stage directions that have been added in without note
* A horribly inept poem, "Shall I die", near-universally agreed upon not to be by Shakespeare, yet claimed as such

Yes: good Shakespeare material has been removed from the plays, and bad non-Shakespeare material has been added in.

So be aware that you will be reading versions of the plays that are substantially different than from what most people have read over the last century, or indeed, the last few centuries. And, usually, substantially worse versions. The changes tend to damage the plays, not improve them. The Norton Edition removes some of the most grotesque alterations (like Falstaff/Oldcastle), but hardly enough to undo the damage. It also raises the question of why Norton chose to use Oxford in the first place.

David Bevington's The Complete Works of Shakespeare (6th Edition) is an entirely more reasonable, thoughtful, and better-produced choice. Jonathan Bate's William Shakespeare Complete Works (Modern Library) is similarly sensible and somewhat cheaper.

For evidence on the specifics, I will turn matters over to expert Shakespeareans, who have complained loudly about this edition for the last 25 years:

David Bevington: "Hamlet is another matter, for here we deal primarily not with duplicatory passages but with whole speeches that the Oxford editors remove (or banish to an appendix) on the hypothesis that Shakespeare wished to excise them in his revised (Folio) version of the play. My problem with the adoption of this bold option is in being uncertain that Shakespeare made these particular cuts willingly. Many familiar passages from Richard III are missing from the text now given to us, having been relegated to a supplementary list of additional passages where they are out of context. A note at the head of these additional passages states that they were 'apparently omitted from performances,' but I question whether they were omitted from all performances, and, even if so, whether Shakespeare really preferred things that way. This edition cuts some Q materials from its text of Troilus and Cressida, along with Pandarus's epilogue. The text of Measure for Measure will surprise some of its readers by its omission of certain well-known passages."

Brian Vickers: "The editors' evidence (only published in 1993) for Middleton's hand in Measure for Measure mostly concerns Act One Scene Two, where several stylistic features, and some dramaturgical loose ends, suggest a revision by Middleton in about 1621. While accepting their attribution, I find it perverse that the Oxford-Norton editors should have printed Middleton's revised scene in their text, knowing that it was "made for Shakespeare's company after his death", and consequently relegating Shakespeare's briefer and wittier original to an appendix called "Additional Passages". But this textual waste bin should really be called "Passages Deducted by the Oxford Editors"."

Grace Ioppolo: "Stanley Wells, Gary Taylor, William Montgomery and John Jowett, the editors of William Shakespeare: The Complete Works, constructed their edition from two unsustainable arguments about scribal copy. First, these editors argued that any manuscript copy that contained act notations could not be authorial but must be scribal prior to 1609, when they assume Shakespeare's company moved into the private Blackfriars theatre at which music was played between acts. Second, they argued that scribes routinely introduced `interference' into the manuscripts they were copying, either by extensively adding their own or cutting the author's material."

The new RSC Modern Library editions of the plays are a quality trade paperback edition of the works of Shakespeare.
“Richard II” in this series has an okay Introduction by Jonathan Bate. I did not find it particularly insightful, but there was nothing wrong with it per se.
"Richard II" is a lyrical treat for the reader, and one marvels at the creation of a character as complex as Richard. King Richard is a hopelessly deluded and inept monarch who believes supremely in the divine ordination of kings. He leans on this belief to the exclusion of all of the king's other responsibilities. He makes one poor decision after another, and never reflects on the choice or its consequences before he makes them. However, we still feel a tug at the heart when this monarch is murdered, and this is attributable only to his glorious poetry. Richard speaks in some of Shakespeare's finest verse, and he has the mind for metaphor. In Act 3:2 Shakespeare gives Richard some of the most beautiful verse he ever wrote. The tragedy in this scene is compounded by the fact that what Richard is talking about (God protecting his divine right to rule) is already proven false to the reader. Ultimately the irony of Richard is that he says such wise things (at times), but can’t bring himself to live those things because they conflict with his image of kingship.
I would recommend reading Shakespeare's History plays in order of the king's reign, and one comes to appreciate the complexities and strength of Shakespeare's storytelling.
There really are no exceptional characters in this play other than Richard. His antagonist Henry Bullingbrook is a cold hearted dud (and master politician) who plays to the common man and ruthlessly kills those who oppose him. All the while, telling us, and himself, that all his actions are justified and are the results of other's choices. Really he is no different from Richard, except he lacks the King's sense of poetry and theater.
There are also some good speeches from secondary characters in this text, especially John of Gaunt. Shakespeare's genius is too large to be contained to only the main characters.
"Richard II" is a great read, especially for the extraordinary experience of feeling revulsion AND pity for the title character.
This edition includes an essay on the performance history of the piece, and interviews with two prominent directors will be of special interest to those who enjoy exploring the multitude of interpretations “Richard II” lends itself to. The Modern Library edition also includes a scene by scene analysis, which can help point out an image or symbol you might have missed. The edition also includes a nice “Further Readings” list specifically for “Richard II”
Frankly, all of the extra essays allow you to dive into the world of the play, and it is all included in one text. A personal favorite is the section called “Key Facts” which give all kinds of cool stats specific to that play, which characters have the most lines, % of the text in verse and prose, etc.
The RSC Modern Library editions are a nice new trade paperback with worthwhile extras. They are a good addition to the editions of Shakespeare out there. This and the Pelican Shakespeare are my two favorites.

I was quite interested in this volume, wanting something less bulky and more convenient than the full Norton Shakespeare (which I own), but having the same layout and editorial content. This volume looks ideal, but none of the reviews that I've seen list the contents. How can we decide if we're interested if we don't know what it contains?

After some searching on the internet, I found a copy of the contents hidden away on the Norton site. According to Norton, here is what is contained in "The Norton Shakespeare: Essential Plays / The Sonnets":
----------------------------------------------
List of Illustrations
Preface
Acknowledgments

General Introduction
Stephen Greenblatt
Shakespeare's World
The Playing Field
Shakespeare's Life and Art
The Dream of the Master Text

The Shakespearean Stage, Andrew Gurr

Comedies
Shakespearean Comedy, Katharine Eisaman Maus
The Taming of the Shrew
A Midsummer Night's Dream
The Comical History of the Merchant of Venice, or Otherwise Called the
Jew of Venice
Much Ado About Nothing
As You Like It
Twelfth Night, or What You Will
Measure for Measure

Histories
Shakespearean History, Jean E. Howard
The Tragedy of King Richard the Third
The Tragedy of King Richard the Second
The History of Henry the Fourth (1 Henry IV)
The Life of Henry the Fifth

Tragedies
Shakespearean Tragedy, Stephen Greenblatt
The Most Excellent and Lamentable Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet
The Tragedy of Julius Caesar
The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark
The Tragedy of Othello, the Moor of Venice
The Tragedy of King Lear: A Conflated Text
From The History of King Lear, Scene 8
From The Tragedy of King Lear 3.1
The Tragedy of Macbeth
The Tragedy of Antony and Cleopatra

Romances
Shakespearean Romance, Walter Cohen
The Winter's Tale
The Tempest

The Sonnets

Appendices
MAPS
Early Modern Map Culture, Jean E. Howard
Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and Western France: Places
Important to Shakespeare's Plays
London: Places Important to Shakespeare's Plays and London
Playgoing
The Mediterranean World: Places Important to Shakespeare's Plays
The "Kingdome of Great Britaine and Ireland," from John Speed's The
Theatre of the Empire of Great Britaine (1612)
Printed map of London, from Braun and Hogenberg's atlas of European
cities (1574)
Map of the Holy Land, from the Théodore de Bèze Bible (1592)

DOCUMENTS
Robert Greene on Shakespeare (1592)
Thomas Nashe on 1 Henry VI (1592)
Francis Meres on Shakespeare (1598)
Thomas Platter on Julius Caesar (September 21, 1599)
Gabriel Harvey on Hamlet, Venus and Adonis, and The Rape of
Lucrece (1598-1603)
Contract for the Building of the Fortune Theatre (1600)
Augustine Phillips, Francis Bacon, et al. on Richard II (1601)
John Manningham on Twelfth Night and Richard III (1602)
Letters Patent Formalizing the Adoption of the Lord Chamberlain's Men
as the King's Men (May 19, 1603)
Master of the Wardrobe's Account (March 1604)
Simon Forman on Macbeth, Cymbeline, and The Winter's Tale (1611)
Sir Henry Wotton on All Is True (Henry VIII) and the Burning of the
Globe (1613)
Ben Jonson on The Tempest (and Titus Andronicus) (1614)
Shakespeare's Will (March 25, 1616)
Front Matter from the First Folio of Shakespeare's Plays (1623)
John Milton on Shakespeare (1630)
Ben Jonson on Shakespeare (1623-37)
John Aubrey on Shakespeare (1681)

Timeline
Textual Variants
General Bibliography
Glossary
Index of Sonnets
Index of Songs
Index of Plays
---------------------------------------

I don't quite understand why the currently listed the store price ($70.31) is higher than the complete Norton Shakespeare, and I'll be waiting to order until the price is corrected.

It has been said that of the many casualties in a tragedy’s body count, the “future” is one of them. In Shakespeare’s tragedies, characters may wax upon the coming events, but they are of no importance. Not so in his histories. Therefore, in this story, we can advance the thesis that monarchy is an anti-tragedy.

The king has two bodies, as Kantorowicz famously argued. There is the body of the king, which can die, but the king’s body politic which outlasts his death. Admittedly, Richard is a weak king but Richard’s power and dignity survive his death. Or perhaps, like Charles I later on, he gains dignity in death. The important point is that in Shakespeare’s history, especially in this play, life does go on after Act V.

And life doesn’t end with Richard’s own ending. The reader is very much interested in what happens next--something not usually said about a tragedy.

As far as Shakespeare’s plays go, this is an easier one. The minor plots don’t detract from the story, unlike in other plays. And Shakespeare keeps Richard’s character rather complex. We know he is probably guilty of Gloucester’s murder, or implicated anyway, but he does act nobly towards the end, if somewhat pathetically throughout the play.

They're remarkably similar in their chosen roles, Mick Jagger as rock star and Richard III as power usurper. Jagger loves to leer and to play to the audience and so does Richard. Imagine Jagger as a hunchback and you have Richard III as Shakespeare imagined him. Richard is variously described as a "bottled spider" and a "poisonous hunch-backed toad." He's the villain we love to hate, and we can't wait to find out what he's up to next. To become king, Richard must kill six people and does it with wit and style.

The introduction to the play by Peter Holland (of The Shakespeare Institute, The University of Birmingham, England) is, as you might imagine, informative and illuminating. In my copy I wrote the word, "Excellent." Personally, I prefer the Pelican Shakespeare to all others, because the introductions are always informative, and the page lay-outs simple and the text easy to read.

In the theater, Richard III has been played to the hilt by Lawrence Olivier, George C. Scott, and Al Pacino. A 1995 movie version has the play set in the fascist 1930s, with actor Ian McKellen looking like Adolph Hitler. It seems fitting.

Richard reveals his ambitions in an earlier play, "Henry VI Part 3": "Why, I can smile, and murder whiles I smile . . . I can add colors to the chameleon, / Change shapes with Proteus for advantages, / And set the murderous Machiavelli to school. / Can I do this, and cannot get a crown? / Tut, were it farther off, I'll pluck it down."

"The Tragedy of King Richard III" begins with Richard drawing the audience into his confidence. "Now is the winter of our discontent / made glorious summer by this son of York . . . I, that am curtailed of this fair proportion, / Cheated of features by dissembling Nature, / Deformed, unfinished, 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 see 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."

The body count starts even before the play begins, with Richard's first victim, King Henry VI. Edward IV is then crowned, but he is sickly and dies conveniently of natural causes in Act II. Next to go is Richard's older brother, George, Duke of Clarence. He is arrested and stabbed to death in the Tower of London. Richard meets the bearers of the coffin of Henry VI (the King he murdered), followed by Henry's daughter-in-law, Lady Anne, whose husband he also killed. Over the coffin, he turns on the charm and wins her hand in marriage. Among his many lines: "I had your husband killed so that you would have a better husband--me." Later, we are not too surprised to learn Anne has died. Says Richard with a wink: "Anne, my wife, hath bid this world good night."

Next, Richard is made Lord Protector of King Edward IV's two young sons, which is tantamount to putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. For their safety, he has the two heirs to the throne lodged in the Tower of London. Meanwhile, various men of the Queen's party, are arrested and executed. Richard's partner in crime, the Duke of Buckingham, gets the Lord Mayor and citizens of London to urge an apparently unwilling Richard to accept the throne. Once crowned, (Act IV), Richard goes about consolidating his power, which includes the murder of the two young princes locked away in the tower. With Anne out of the way, Richard pursues Edward IV's daughter Elizabeth, unsuccessfully as it turns out. Instead, she marries Richmond, who is massing an army against Richard.

Once he's King, Richard seems to lose his touch. His quick wit, his ability to control others, his ability to charm the audience, is lost. To use the vernacular, Richard begins "to lose it," and this is brought home the night before he faces Richmond in battle. While asleep, the ghosts of all his victims come to call, one by one, to prophesy his defeat.

Ghost to Richard: "When I was mortal, my anointed body / By thee was punched full of deadly holes. / Think on the Tower, and me. Despair and die." At the same time, they call on Richmond, and prophesy his success: "Be cheerful, Richmond, for the wronged souls / Of butchered princes fight in thy behalf. / Good angels guard thy battle. Live and flourish!"

On the battlefield, Richard's army is soon routed, and Richard is left alone to face Richmond. "A horse, a horse! My kingdom for a horse!" Alas, a horse can't save him. Nothing can. Richmond kills him with the sword, and says: "The day is ours; the bloody dog is dead." Richmond is crowned king and becomes Henry VII. Thus the Hundred Years' War, a.k.a. "The Wars of the Roses," comes to an end.

Something is rotten in Denmark, oops, I mean London. The Duke of Gloucester is dead, and two leaders in King Richard's court--Henry Bolingbroke and Thomas Mowbray--are accusing each other of the crime. Richard orders Bolingbroke and Mowbray to a trial by combat. As the fight is about to begin, Richard changes his mind. Instead of trial by combat, he banishes both nobles from his kingdom, Mowbray for life, and Bolingbroke for a period of six years.

Thus begins "Richard II." Unlike Shakespeare's flamboyant and charismatic Richard III, Richard II is a subtle introverted character, but equally as compelling. Richard III is outrageous, an explosion of character. Richard II is mysterious and inscrutable, a smoldering fire. What follows is a plot summary.

After their banishment, the truth emerges: it was Richard who ordered Gloucester's death, in order to seize his wealthy estate. In fact, Richard has been bleeding the kingdom dry through heavy taxation of the commoners and enforced loans of the nobility. Having banished Bolingbroke, Richard is now free to seize the estate of Bolingbroke's father, John of Gaunt, who is near death. From his deathbed, John of Gaunt accuses Richard of being "landlord . . . and not king." In one of Shakespeare's most famous speeches, John of Gaunt says of England's plight under Richard II: "This royal throne of kings, this sceptered isle, / This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars . . . This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England . . . Is now leased out . . . That England, that was wont to conquer others, / Hath made a shameful conquest of itself."

Against the advice of his senior staff, including the powerful Lord Northumberland, Richard seizes John of Gaunt's estate in order to finance for his military campaign against Ireland. While he is off fighting the Irish, Bolingbroke returns to England, joins forces with Northumberland, and marches to Berkeley Castle. Sick of heavy taxation, the country rises in his favor. Bolingbroke's avowed purpose of merely reclaiming his father's estate is soon replaced with talk of being king.

When Richard returns, he learns his country has turned against him, and laments: "Let's talk of graves, of worms, and epitaphs, / Make dust our paper and with rainy eyes / Write sorrow on the bosom of the earth . . . let us sit upon the ground / And tell sad stories of the death of kings." Richard is soon arrested by Bolingbroke's men. Back in London, he yields the crown without a fight. Imprisoned, Richard's introverted nature comes to the fore. He counters his loneliness by creating thoughts with which to "people the world." He sees his body as the "prison" for his soul and acknowledges the fragmented nature of his identity, commenting that "Thus play I in one prison many people, / and none contented. Sometimes am I king; / Then treason makes me wish myself a beggar, / And so I am. Then crushing penury / Persuades me I was better when a king. / Then am I kinged again, and by and by / Think am I unkinged by Bolingbroke . . . ." Richard is murdered by Sir Pierce of Exon, a crime mourned by King Henrey IV who may or may not have ordered it. Henry IV's troubles are just beginning, however, and taken up in Shakespeare's next play, "1 Henry IV."

"Richard II" is a very rare example of Shakespeare writing a play entirely in verse. It's a play that's "more admired on page than on stage" (as one critic has it). According to director Claus Peymann, Richard II is a Hamlet come to power. According to actress Fiona Shaw, the play is about Richard's journey to wisdom, who too late realizes the error of his ways and becomes more human and thus wins our sympathy. According to another critic, Richard's biggest mistake was his failure to recognize that the first duty of a king is to make sure he stays in power. Final word: The RSC Shakespeare Edition of Richard II is chuck full of information about the staging of the play. Chapters include: "Richard II in Performance: The RSC and Beyond," plus a Scene-by-Scene Analysis. The introduction by Jonathan Bate is highly recommended. Five stars

Oh my dear Richard, hapless monarch with a poet's soul, where have you been all my life? Your eloquent heartbreak has made me fall in love with Shakespeare all over again.

Richard II is a truly wonderful & thought-provoking play, performed ably & in its entirety by a full cast in the Arkangel Shakespeare version. As I followed along with the written play, this production swept me into Richard's medieval world, complete with sound effects and mood music. (The scene in which Richard shouts from the battlements of Flint Castle his defiance of his cousin Bolingbroke was particularly effective, embellished by a mournful wind and birds' cries.)

Richard, the pompous, spendthrift King of England, has alienated nobles and commoners alike with his heavy taxes and careless management of the realm. He listens to flattering sycophants rather than wiser statesmen like his uncle John of Gaunt, whose son, Henry Bolingbroke, he banishes from England. When Gaunt dies, Richard seizes his lands and riches to fund an Irish war, which brings Bolingbroke back from exile to challenge his authority. While Richard constantly asserts his divine right to rule, his cousin acts - and mere men bring down one of God's anointed who has lost their love and respect.

But Richard is no cardboard villain - he's a weak, self-absorbed man who perhaps had it in him to be great, but only discovers the best in himself through abject defeat. As he loses crown, kingdom and all, he gains nobility and dignity in suffering, expressed in some of Shakespeare's most soaring poetry. The reader weeps with Richard; a bad king he may have been, but only a heart of stone would not pity a man in such pain.

As his power is stripped away, Richard wields the only weapon left to him: the medieval belief in the divine appointment and right of kings. His adversaries never escape doubts about the rightness of their actions. Should men depose those whom God himself has raised to the throne?

With its complex dual protagonists, intricate political plot, and beautifully soaring language, Richard II was a pleasant surprise to me and will perhaps become one of my favorite of Shakespeare's works.

In my quest to read more Shakespeare, I decided to try one of his historical plays. Given the recent rediscovery of the remains of Richard III under a car park in Leicester, I thought that play would be a good one to start with. Result? It's an interesting play, but if you're looking for historical accuracy, don't look here.

The basic story is that of Richard, the Duke of Gloucester, who decides that he wants to be king after his brother, King Edward, dies. He kills off his brother, the Duke of Clarence, and once Edward dies (of natural causes), he schemes with other noble men to kill his nephews so that he is the legitimate heir to the English throne. Earlier in his life, he fought against the House of Lancaster (in the famous Wars of the Roses), where he killed several members of that family at Tewkesbury. The Duke of Richmond has gone to France to recover his misfortune, and after Richard becomes king, he comes back to England to fight to be king. The two meet at the famous Battle of Bosworth Field, where one of them emerges as victor and the other is killed.

The play chronologically comes at the end of Shakespeare's historical works, and, as I found out, it references back to some of his other plays, especially "Henry VI" (all parts). Luckily, the footnotes explained what I was missing, but I do believe it would have been a bit easier if I had read this at the end rather than the beginning. In addition, as is common with royal works, many of the individuals not only have multiple names (Richard is referred to as "Gloucester" at the beginning and "King Richard" later on) but are related to each other in a myriad of ways. This can make things mightily confusing if you don't have some sort of reference to sort out who is who and why various individuals want to kill each other.

Queen Elizabeth, who was reigning at the time Shakespeare wrote this play, was descended from the House of Lancaster, so the play obviously paints that party in a much better light than Richard and the House of York. This means that, while an interesting take on both historical slant and the over-the-top-ness of theater in the 16th century (all players are visited by ghosts the night before the ultimate battle), it is not a good historical record. Did I enjoy it? Absolutely. After a few acts, I didn't feel the need to look things up on other websites, as I felt I was understanding the play correctly. Will I read more historical Shakespeare. Definitely.

A major flaw infects the Oxford Shakespeare, from which the Norton Shakespeare is derived: the editing of Shakespeare's texts themselves. The editors seem to have been driven by a desire to make a splash, even if this meant questionable and arbitrary editing of the texts, and so the Oxford/Norton Shakespeare features such oddness as:

* Two versions of King Lear, 90% identical and each missing some familiar lines (the Norton has three versions)
* A Macbeth that has had non-Shakespearean material added in to it, allowing it to be co-credited to Thomas Middleton (one editor is a Middleton fan)
* A Hamlet that has lost some of its most significant passages to an appendix
* Significant, damaging cuts to many of the other plays
* A Pericles with huge chunks of non-Shakespearean material added in, all of it terrible.
* Falstaff renamed to "Oldcastle" in Henry IV Part 1, though not in Part 2
* Wholly new stage directions that have been added in without note
* A horribly inept poem, "Shall I die", near-universally agreed upon not to be by Shakespeare, yet claimed as such

Yes: good Shakespeare material has been removed from the plays, and bad non-Shakespeare material has been added in.

So be aware that you will be reading versions of the plays that are substantially different than from what most people have read over the last century, or indeed, the last few centuries. And, usually, substantially worse versions. The changes tend to damage the plays, not improve them. The Norton Edition removes some of the most grotesque alterations (like Falstaff/Oldcastle), but hardly enough to undo the damage. It also raises the question of why Norton chose to use Oxford in the first place.

David Bevington's The Complete Works of Shakespeare (6th Edition) is an entirely more reasonable, thoughtful, and better-produced choice. Jonathan Bate's William Shakespeare Complete Works (Modern Library) is similarly sensible and somewhat cheaper.

For evidence on the specifics, I will turn matters over to expert Shakespeareans, who have complained loudly about this edition for the last 25 years:

David Bevington: "Hamlet is another matter, for here we deal primarily not with duplicatory passages but with whole speeches that the Oxford editors remove (or banish to an appendix) on the hypothesis that Shakespeare wished to excise them in his revised (Folio) version of the play. My problem with the adoption of this bold option is in being uncertain that Shakespeare made these particular cuts willingly. Many familiar passages from Richard III are missing from the text now given to us, having been relegated to a supplementary list of additional passages where they are out of context. A note at the head of these additional passages states that they were 'apparently omitted from performances,' but I question whether they were omitted from all performances, and, even if so, whether Shakespeare really preferred things that way. This edition cuts some Q materials from its text of Troilus and Cressida, along with Pandarus's epilogue. The text of Measure for Measure will surprise some of its readers by its omission of certain well-known passages."

Brian Vickers: "The editors' evidence (only published in 1993) for Middleton's hand in Measure for Measure mostly concerns Act One Scene Two, where several stylistic features, and some dramaturgical loose ends, suggest a revision by Middleton in about 1621. While accepting their attribution, I find it perverse that the Oxford-Norton editors should have printed Middleton's revised scene in their text, knowing that it was "made for Shakespeare's company after his death", and consequently relegating Shakespeare's briefer and wittier original to an appendix called "Additional Passages". But this textual waste bin should really be called "Passages Deducted by the Oxford Editors"."

Grace Ioppolo: "Stanley Wells, Gary Taylor, William Montgomery and John Jowett, the editors of William Shakespeare: The Complete Works, constructed their edition from two unsustainable arguments about scribal copy. First, these editors argued that any manuscript copy that contained act notations could not be authorial but must be scribal prior to 1609, when they assume Shakespeare's company moved into the private Blackfriars theatre at which music was played between acts. Second, they argued that scribes routinely introduced `interference' into the manuscripts they were copying, either by extensively adding their own or cutting the author's material."

I have been avoiding reading Shakespeare's Richard III for some time now. I did not want to have this villianized picture of him in my mind, no matter how popular. Preferring the Richard who is loyal, brilliant, loving, and tragic, I kept myself from this portrayal. Maybe neither extreme is completely true, and I quickly discovered that Shakespeare's beautiful dialog makes up for the atrocious level of historical accuracy. I will not delve into the historical missteps. If you know Plantagenet history, you already know what they are. If you don't know and are simply reading Shakespeare for his unequalled language, then you probably don't care.

I found that the characters created in this play were so compelling and their words so well-crafted, that I no longer minded that a true story was not being told. This is no small thing for me to admit, as I normally am peeved by all trails taken from the true road in historical fiction. Richard was written as such a caricature of himself that I found it difficult to be offended by the exaggerations made and timelines shifted. This is clearly fiction, but brilliantly written fiction. It was not until the end when Henry Richmond with his few drops of almost royal blood is lauded by those who had died (supposedly all murdered by Richard) as God's choice of a king to remove the foul Plantagenets that I could feel that sensation of mounting irritation. Painting Henry VII as the savior of England was taking it a little too far for me, but Shakespeare, writing to his Tudor audience, surely did not want to lose his own head, or at least his livelihood, by portraying it any other way.

The strengths of this edition are in areas scholarly. In both the introductory essay and the notes Jowett provides clear and helpful digests of Shakespeare's use of his source material, in several places valuably indicating Shakespeare's inventiveness, as he collapsed or expanded time, aged some characters, and revived others from the dead, in line with his conception of an overall design. "Shakespeare's dramatization of the chronicles introduces major episodes early in the play that are almost entirely fictional, a massive prologue sequence written in an imaginative, poetic, and classically informed style". And again, "despite his debt to the chronicles for historical information, Shakespeare's account of events after the murder of the young princes is organized around two fictional encounters: first Richard's confrontation with the two queens and his mother in IV. iv, and then the ghosts' appearance to Richard and Richmond on the eve of the Battle of Bosworth" (p. 22). In his notes Jowett helpfully points out how "Shakespeare reshapes events to seed Richard's downfall in the moment his reign begins", inventing the interview with Buckingham in IV. ii (p. 285). Where some recent editors would like to abandon the whole concept of a play having an author, Jowett recreates Shakespeare's controlling intelligence behind this expansive version of history.

As for the play itself, it resolutely avoids demonstrations of physical violence; only Richard dies on-stage, while the rest (Clarence, the two princes, Hastings, Brackenbury, Grey, Vaughan, Rivers, Anne, Buckingham, and King Edward) all meet their ends off-stage. Despite the villainous nature of the title character and the grim storyline, Shakespeare infuses the action with comic material, as he does with most of his tragedies. Much of the humor rises from the dichotomy between how Richard's character is known and how Richard tries to appear. Another central theme of "Richard III" is the idea of fate, especially as it is seen through the tension between free will and fatalism in Richard's actions and speech, as well as the reactions to him by other characters. And throughout the play, Richard's character constantly changes and shifts and, in doing so, alters the dramatic structure of the story. Richard immediately establishes a connection with the audience with his opening monologue. In the soliloquy he admits his amorality to the audience but at the same time treats them as if they were co-conspirators in his plotting; one may well be enamored by his rhetoric while being appalled by his actions.

While many of Shakespeare's works play on English pride, we can say patriotism sets two of his plays apart from the others. Obviously there's Henry V with its depiction of the king who delivered England's greatest military victory and that's a winner-take-all heroic epic. The other play is this one, Richard II.

Both plays belong to the same cycle of four histories that also includes Henry IV parts 1 and 2. In Richard II, Shakespeare launches the cycle with a tragedy.

The play starts with Richard presiding over a trial by combat. Henry Bolingbroke (who later becomes King Henry IV) and Thomas Mowbray each accuses the other of treason and are going to fight it out. In a trial by combat, God himself decides the issue by lending strength to the righteous. Whoever wins, though, will put Richard in a delicate position, so he stops the combat and exiles both men; Bolingbroke to a few years of banishment but Mowbray forever.

This is wrong. King though he may be, Richard is not God and by stopping the duel, he usurps divine providence.

Why? Bolingbroke's father and Richard's uncle, John of Gaunt, is a rich man and Richard needs money. In exiling the son from his old and frail father, he hastens the man's end. This gives Richard the opportunity to seize Bolingbroke's inheritance. Bolingbroke returns to reclaim his birthright and wars upon Richard, using as a pretext that his courtiers have given him evil counsel. Bolingbroke wins, seizes the crown and becomes Henry IV. Richard is deposed, imprisoned, and dies.

Shakespeare offers two remarkable soliloquies by dying characters. As he dies, John of Gaunt extols the virtues of England.

"This royal throne of kings, this sceptered isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise
This fortress built by nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war.
This happy breed of men, this little world.
This precious stone set in the silver sea..."

Patriotic stuff! The whole play is about how a king for reasons of personal ambition, through negligence and incompetence, betrayed his duty towards his holy realm. By the end of the play, we witness Richard reaching this conclusion. But thinking it through pains him.

"I cannot do it. Yet I'll hammer it out.
My brain I'll prove the female to my soul,
My soul the father; and these two beget
A generation of still-breeding thoughts..."

Where John of Gaunt dies full of worries over England's fate yet still conscious of her glory, Richard dies in despair. He is at a loss as to what he could have done to avoid his predicament, yet he is conscious the error belongs to him.

Vincent Poirier, Tokyo

Few characters in English literature are as evil, manipulative, and Machiavellian as Shakespeare's Richard III.

The House of York has deposed the House of Lancaster. Edward IV won the crown in Henry VI Part Three. As the play begins, the king's brother Richard of Gloucester appears on stage alone, peace brings him no happiness. He reveals his true character to the audience. A courageous warrior but a poor lover, he has nothing to do under the new reign. So Richard unfolds his plan and outlines the plot of the play. He will remove his brother George from the line of succession, marry well, and orchestrate events so that he can seize the crown for himself.

His royal brother is ill and might die. George, Duke of Clarence, and his nephews stand between Richard and the throne. He arouses in the King suspicions that George wants to seize power and manipulates the King into imprisoning him. Richard later has George killed. When the King dies, Richard makes himself regent. He picks off his enemies one by one. He courts the widow of a rival who spurns him but eventually accepts him simply because no one can protect her. The young princes die. He then turns on his allies and in his paranoia he has them executed. He must deal with rebellions. He is finally killed in battle on Bosworth Field, a wild enraged mad man.

A character needs inner tension to be interesting. It wouldn't do to have a purely evil character so Richard is not without redeeming qualities. From his first appearance in the second part of Henry VI, he has proven himself a courageous and formidable soldier. He fights and he wins. He kills mercilessly and with alacrity. He revels in war because there, unlike in love, his misshapen body does not hinder him.

Richard III is a tragic anti-hero. A classic tragic hero is a great man who because of a single flawed action loses everything. With Richard III we have an ignoble man who could have nevertheless won everything if his one virtue, courage, had been kept in check. Evil blossomed then withered. The War of the Roses ended, the Plantagenet line ended, and Henry VII, first King of the Tudor dynasty came to power.

Vincent Poirier, Tokyo

Many Shakespearean plays (and this one in particular) are especially engaging since they can be interpreted in various ways.

Taking the events at face value, we could accept Richard's explanation that spilling English blood (even the blood of a thief and a traitor) would be unacceptable and preventing it would justify sending both Bolingbroke and Mowbray (at least one of whom is innocent) into exile; that stealing Bolingbroke's inheritance was to cover the expenses of the Irish wars; that in response to Bolingbroke's demands to return his inheritance, Richard had no alternative but to give away the kingdom, or that Bolingbroke needed to be convinced to accept the crown.

We could also engage the historic context to help elucidate the play. Both Bolingbroke and Mowbray were part of the Lords Appellant, a group which in the past plotted to wrestle power from the king, which would make their banishment a bit more consequential. It would also explain why Richard made the two swear that they would not plot against him while abroad. It would add color to the murder of Gloucester, the leader of the group.

Or we could read the play as largely a game of pretense. Throughout the play, Bolingbroke claims allegiance to the king. But in fact he may have always harbored hopes of taking over the kingdom. His loyalty did not prevent him from speaking with the people of England as if he were the king, or from killing Richard's friends, or from accepting the crown. His royal ambition would give another reason for his banishment and would provide another explanation for Richard's usurping his inheritance. In addition, Richard's punishing a rebel son of the loyal Gaunt would provide a contrast to (and an explanation for being used in the play of) Bolingbroke's clemency towards Aumerle, a rebel son of the loyal York.

Bolingbroke accuses Mowbray of Gloucester's murder, theft and all the treasons in England of the past 18 years. In reality, this may be an indirect challenge to the king. Old Gaunt, Bolingbroke's father, knew that Glocester's death was Richard's making. Gaunt's son Bollingbroke may have been privy to this knowledge as well. Alleged Mowbray's theft could be a proxy for Richard's robbing the people of England through excessive taxes.

Bolingbroke's game of pretense at providing rationale for the duel is matched by Richard's game of pretense at providing rationale for Bolingbroke's exile. When Bolingbroke demands his inheritance to be restituted, Richard breaks this game of pretense by giving away the kingdom. He can't pretend to be the king anymore and doesn't want Bolingbroke to pretend that he is not interested in the crown.

At the end of these meanderings, Richard reveals unsettling but fascinating complexity of character, in which crudeness of a tyrant gradually makes room for frailty, sadness and poetry of a human.

I didn't buy it, I got it out of the county library. I gave it 5 stars for W. Shakespeare, not for S. Greenblatt. I am unqualified to judge the quality of this edition compared to any other. The reason I am reviewing it is so that I can reproduce part of the table of contents, the parts written by W. S. himself.

Romances
Pericles Prince of Tyre
The Winter's Tale
Cymbeline
The Tempest
Cardenio: A Brief Account
The Two Noble Kinsmen

Poems
Venus and Adonis
The Rape of Lucrece
The Sonnets and "A Lover's Complaint"
Various Poems

There is a lot more to the table of contents but they are essays and articles written about W. S., not by him.

I received the Norton Shakespeare very soon after ordering it via the store. The book is in perfect condition! Overall I'm very satisfied with the company I ordered it from and it was essentially half the price that it was at my campus bookstore :-)

The play's appeal is disturbing. The self-proclaimed "naked villain", the murderer who knows neither pity nor regret, the conniving and lying viper is by far the most interesting character of the play. Richard's main merit is having Shakespeare speak for him. By virtue of spending more time on stage than any other character, Richard commands disproportionate attention from Shakespeare and enjoys the good fortune of Shakespearean language. From "the winter of our discontent" to "my kingdom for a horse", almost all memorable expressions are Richard's. For all his macabre plots, he is playful with language. He puns (as when he is treating "naught" as "naughty" in response to Brakenbury who is leading Clarence to the Tower). He cleverly finishes Margaret's long diatribe against him with a single "Margaret", sending the volley of her curse right back at her. He shows the widest range of emotion, from self-assured wisecracking to rambling rage.

For all his scheming evil, Richard has some remarkably attractive qualities. He can be disarmingly honest with himself and with the audience: he is surprised that Anne may see in him a "marv'los proper man" (he sees no such thing), he is fully aware that his "all not equals Edward's moiety" and that he "most plays the devil". Such self-reflection adds another dimension to Richard and compares favorably with simple self-involvement of some 20th century villains - certain heads of Communist and Nazi states. He is anything but a coward: at the end of the line, unhorsed, he continues to fight Richmond and despises Catesby's suggestion to withdraw.

The unquestionable evil that finds ways of being attractive creates an unsettling tension and sense of imbalance. Perhaps this is one of the qualities of great literature: it unobtrusively stirs up the embers of the reader's soul using its only poker - art.

My only real complain on this play is that there is a slight inconsistency with the history that preceded it. To make a long story short, Richard II succeeded his grandfather Edward III. (Edward III outlived his son the Black Prince, and of course Richard II's father.) This left a 10 year old Richard II as king. Since Richard II was too young to reign, his uncle John of Gaunt struggled with rival uncle Thomas of Gloucester over control of the young king. While Uncle York is in the play, he was not really involved in the Gaunt/Gloucester struggle. While John of Gaunt (father of Bolingbroke) was honorable, virtuous, and made no attempt to replace King Richard II, Thomas of Gloucester was just the opposite. Time after time Gloucester tried to replace Richard, and time and time again, Richard II forgave him. (At one point, Bolingbroke and Gloucester worked together against Richard II.) Finally, Richard II had had enough, and Gloucester was arrested.

History isn't quite sure how Gloucester died, but along with Shakespeare, it suspects Richard II had him murdered. (Though we don't know for sure.) Now to the play, Richard II is listening to Bolingbroke's accusations against Thomas Mowbray. He accuses Mowbray of Gloucester's death. (We can see that Bolingbroke is not being n outstanding citizen if we know the history. Rather he is making another attempt at the crown.) Richard II agrees to trial by combat with the 2, but stops it at the last moment. We are now moved into sympathy with Mowbray and Bolingbroke who are now banished.

Another complaint I have is that John of Gaunt speaks so well of Gloucester, and this does not make sense. (While protecting Richard II, Gaunt battled long and bitterly with Gloucester, and it does not make sense that he would advocate for him now.) Moving on, John of Gaunt (already sad over the banishment of his son Bolingbroke) dies, and Richard II seizes his wealth. (Here, Richard II loses any sympathy we had for him.)

As Richard II makes the mistake of going to Ireland, Bolingbroke returns with forces supposedly just for reclaiming his rights. Uncle York is quite the politician. He rebukes Bolingbroke for taking actions against Richard II, but we see that Uncle York can be bought and sold. (Perhaps York feels it is ok as long as he is loyal to 1 nephew, whichever nephew that may be.)

Despite Richard II's crimes, we are moved into sympathy with him when he realizes his grim situation, and Shakespeare makes him more poetic, articulate, and human. The undying loyalty Carlisle offers Richard II is quite touching. To make a long story short, Bolingbroke calls Parliament into session with the intent of seizing the crown. With some of the most articulate and sorrowful lines that Shakespeare ever wrote, Richard loses his crown, and Bolingbroke becomes King Henry IV. But Richard II DOES get one small consolation prize. He refuses to admit having done anything wrong, and this causes Henry IV's title to be flawed. (And of course, in history Henry IV's 14 year reign was packed with uprisings and revolts. After all, if one person of royal blood can seize the crown, why not another? Shakespeare's eventual Macbeth words this concept.)

Moving back to the play, the scene where Richard II is parted from his queen is beyond sad. But Shakespeare will make the most of Richard II's consolation prize. Richard II can see that Henry IV will be betrayed by his allies who helped him become king. We need not write this off as a hindsight prophecy. A sharp observer can see it is underway. Richard II gets one last moving speech in 5.5 before Exton and his hired men come to murder Richard.

In his final moments, Richard II explodes with courage and kills the hired hands before being struck down by Exton. Exton manages to kill Richard, but is struck with horror and sorrow. Even Henry IV is far from happy. He is not only guilt struck, but he can sense that Richard II may be more dangerous dead than alive. And we can see this will be somewhat the case in 1 "Henry IV" and 2 "Henry IV."

I'd rather give this 4.5 stars, but I can't. As another reviewer said, one wants to not like this volume. It's expensive and there are some annoying things about it--for example, the paper is soooo thin you can practically read the recto on the verso--but it is all-around the edition I turn to most often. The Riverside (I'd judge it to be the other most commonly used anthology) is absolutely ungainly. Its paper is certainly better, but the thing is absolutely huge. Looks great on the shelf, but horrible to carry with you to class. I also dislike the Riverside's two column layout and system of notation, which puts notes and glosses at the bottom of the page without indicators in the text. The Norton puts glosses in the margin, which I find infinitely less disturbing and more likely to be helpful, and it numbers footnotes. It also uses a single-column layout, which I find much easier to read and allows a smaller paper size (same size as all the other Nortons out there, same Bible paper too) without a smaller font size. The introductions to the individual plays have been farmed out to some of the best in the biz, so it's not just Greenblatt's book. For what it's worth, his job on the introductory material in this volume matches the quality of what you expect from one of the leading figures in the field. What's more, the scholarly material is very readable and generally helpful. Yes, the take of that material is definitely influenced by new historicism and cultural materialism, but anything compiled in the last 20 years is likely to be similarly influenced. There is also some good theater history help here and some good old facts. If you have problems with the Oxford edition, then you'll have problems with this one. If you don't, then it should be fine. For what it's worth, I reallllly like that there are the three Lear texts. This is a volume than can just be read if you want to read Shakespeare. But it's also a book that will get you through the hard stuff and that is fit for scholarly work.

This play by Shakespeare is a fundamental achievement in drama. The main character is shown as evil but at the same time, if one can read properly and see all the details, he is the one who finally establishes the principle that the English king has to be accepted at least if not selected by the representative of the City of London, hence establishing the « constitutional » or « parliamentary » nature of the English Crown. It also establishes the fact that a bad king must give way to a good one, that it is a moral duty for everyone to fight against a bad king. We are miles away from the feudal acceptance of the king as the direct representative of God on earth and against whom all rebellion is unacceptable. The play builds up this moral resistance against the bad king little by little and makes it irreversible. Here we really touch the historical value of this king : he is a complete turning point in the English monarchy : the king has to accept being scrutinized and criticized by all the representatives of civil society, even if, for a time at least, these can be lured and cheated. Sooner or later good will prevail. This is Shakespeare's fundamental belief that tragedy comes from the disruption of a balanced situation by some crime and finds its resolution in the rebalancing of the situation by the elimination of the bad ones and the coming to the front of a new generation of good ones. The value of this belief in our present world is fundamental and essential.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

"Richard III" is a fun play. It has some great lines like "True hope is swift and flies with swallow's wings/Kings it makes gods and meaner creatures kings" (not said by the title character, though) and of course "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!", the line that committed many men to the Richard III ward of Monty Python's Hospital for Overacting. But it also showcases the life and times of one of the meanest men ever to hit the stage: Richard, Duke of Gloucester, unlawful heir to the throne of England.
Richard's outward appearance is unfortunate -- he has a crooked back, is unlucky in love, and dogs bark at him -- but it's his inward personality that makes him unpleasant. He's cruel, selfish, manipulative, hot-tempered -- for dramatic purposes, he makes the perfect villain. Nobody seems to like him except his cronies Catesby and Buckingham, and even Buckingham later turns against him; even his own mother despises him after she figures out what a rat he is. On the other hand, he has all the positive qualities of a fighting underdog: Rather than wallow in self-pity over his deformity, he's decisive, fearless, and motivated. Only in the last act, when he realizes that he does indeed have a "coward conscience," does his confidence begin to falter.
Richard tells the audience in the very first scene what kind of guy he is and what he's planning to do, which is ultimately to become King of England, the office held currently by his brother Edward IV. To do this, he must arrange for the deaths of his brother George the Duke of Clarence, King Edward's sons, the Lord Chamberlain, and Buckingham, done by simply dispatching his henchmen. All the while, he is continually informing the audience of his next vicious scheme, winking at us with a you-know-you-love-me-anyway impudence as though we were accomplices in his dirty deeds.
What makes Richard the perfect dramatic villain, though, is not just his wickedness, but the underhanded ways he deflects censure from the people he most wishes to impress. Watch how he plays the innocent lamb to Lady Anne, whose husband and father-in-law he murdered and whom he is trying to marry; how he rationalizes his evil deeds to Queen Elizabeth, whose sons he ordered killed and whose daughter he would like to marry after Anne dies; how he feigns piety and modesty to appear to the English people all the more deserving of the crown. I think this is the mark of Shakespeare's genius -- creating not just a bad guy, but a guy who's so bad he knows exactly how and when to pretend to be good.

Arkangel have produced a highly listenable edition of 'Richard II', which (along with the Roman plays like 'Coriolanus') contains some of Shakespeare's most powerful political insights.

Arkangel's production never allows the listener to forget the subtle complexities at work. The actors do a marvellous job wringing meaning out of lines which might never have been gleaned from the written text, and the unspoken nuances, for instance, when Mowbray is told of his banishment, are palpable. The opening scene is intensely acted, with Bolingbroke and Norfolk spitting venom at each other before a king whose decadent boredom is obvious. Rupert Graves is excellent as Richard II, with highly expressive delivery (amused condescension, anger etc.) changing as his character's situation changes.

Also worth mentioning (in a play that completely lacks humour) is John Nettleton as the Duke of York, coming across as such a pompous old duffer that I almost laughed out loud each time he opened his mouth. The play's music is highly memorable, too, and was stuck in my head for days.

Shakespeare's age was the high renaissance in England. Most of the plays were performed at the Globe. The date of the writing and the first performance of RICHARD II is 1592. Richard has two roles. They are God's deputy and Adam's heir.

A Machiavellian conflict between the king and his usurper is set forth in the play. Richard exiles Mowbray and Bolingbroke. John of Gaunt is sick and England is sick. England is subject to misrule by Richard, Gaunt asserts.

Following the death of John of Gaunt, traitors, so-called, appear. Many of the nobles in the kingdom go over to the side of Bolingbroke, (Gaunt's son, also known as Henry IV).

It is Act III and Richard lands in Wales. His rule still shows outward splendor. When he learns of Bolingbroke's advance, he loses his air of authority. Richard learns that his uncle, the Duke of York, has joined with Bolingbroke's forces.

Bolingbroke seeks to have his banishment reversed and his lands restored. (At first he did not seek a complete regime shift.) Richard is imprisoned at Pomfret Castle. His queen is sent to France. Sir Pierce Exton slays Richard.

It may not be Hamlet, but Richard III is still one of the finest works of literature ever created, in any medium. It's a classic piece of Shakespearian (and therefore, literary) character development, full of irony, wordplay, nuance, tension, imagery, and jaw-dropping poetic virtuosity. Shakespeare's Richard III is simply one of the most hypnotic and effectively portrayed characters of all time- he's a calculating, ruthless, cooly charismatic megalomaniac with bitter past and a knack for heroic feats of rhetoric. He's the quintessential antihero, a thoroughly despicable human being who is nonetheless incredibly fun to root for. Witnessing his swift, ruthless rise to power is a sheer visceral rush, and his monologues are deftly conceived works that drip with side poetry, cutting humor, and an almost charming sort of egotism. Reading or watching the play, one feels like they're the wicked king's confidante and co-conspirator, being allowed the unique privilege of peering into the amoral genius' twisted soul. The experience is exciting and cathartic. Of course, there's more to this play than one great character- the plot (which offers a seething glimpse of a chaotic post civil war England) is complex and engrossing, and sees Shakespeare hurling satirical darts at the corruption and pretensions of the nation's leaders. By allowing Richard to succeed by appealing to the greed, lust, and folly of those around him, Shakespeare sends a powerful warning about the cyclical nature and bottomless pitfalls of political villainy and oppression. At the same time, he paints a grim portrait of the ultimate outcomes of greed, egotism, selfishness, vengeance, and megalomania that still rings true to this day (and will probably do so until our species is extinct). Classic.

The first of the bard's great Henry tetrology does not have the power or greatness of the its titular character to the extent that the latter plays have, but it still contains some of Shakespeare's greatest soliloquies. Richard II orates famously:

Of comfort no man speak:

Let's talk of graves, of worms, and epitaphs;

Make dust our paper, and with rainy eyes

Write sorrow on the bosom of the earth;

Let's choose executors and talk of wills:

And yet not so -- for what can we bequeath

Save our deposed bodies to the ground?

Our lands, our lives, and all are Bolingbroke's,

And nothing can we call our own but death,

And that small model of the barren earth

Which serves as paste and cover to our bones.

Richard the II is a tragedy about folly, about the farce of monarchical politics. It is clearly ahead of its time, though it falls short of the philosophical depth that Shakespeare would reach in such masterpieces as Hamlet and Macbeth. An indispensable part of the canon all the same.

Richard III is the most well crafted satanic character in all of Shakespeare's writing. What can get frightening is that you see his evil, and yet you like him. The play is dramatically frightening from one scene to the next. To this day, I never could forget the scene where Hastings is sentenced to death or when Richard is haunted by the 11 ghosts. But the virtuous Henry VII also offers captivating passages (especially his passage that announces the end of the War of the Roses.) It is also interesting to see how carefully Shakespeare had to handle Henry VII, seing his granddaughter Elizabeth was in the audience. To be sure, Richard III is blamed for several things he did not do. The dramatic irony is that whatever he was innocent of, all the circumstancial evidence says he murdered his nephews.(Rumors that he killed them continued to spread like fire. Not only did he start losing England's loyalty, but many of his own followers in a rage abandoned him and joined Henry VII. France began to humiliate Richard by broadcasting official accusations and Richard never so much as denied having done it. If he could have produced the princes, his troubles would have been over.)This one vile deed made it possible for Shakespeare to make Richard this monster from hell and convincingly pile a slew of vile deeds upon him of which he was innocent. But all that aside, women such as Richard's furious mother and the raging former Queen Margaret add to the drama and chills. The gradual unfolding of Margaret's curses adds a charming orginizational bonus to this masterpiece. If you want to enjoy this play all the more, make sure you read "3 Henry VI" first. Richard's demonic nature is heavily prepared in this preceeding play.

I confess that after examining 5-6 of the top-selling complete Shakespeares I tried not to like the Norton. There are less expensive editions, there are editions with glossy pages and colored photographs, there are editions that are half the weight and bulk of this leviathan, which is far more Shakespeare than the average reader--perhaps, even scholar, for that matter--would ever require. But despite its bulk and unwieldyness, its 3500 (!) thin, flimsy pages, its sheer excess, I couldn't ignore its advantages. The small print enables the publishers to squeeze in contextual materials--in the introduction and appendixes--that in themselves amount to an encyclopedic companion to Shakespeare's works; the introductions to the plays are written not in "textbook prose" but in an engaging style worthy of their subject; and perhaps, best of all, this is the only edition that places the glosses right alongside the "strange" Elizabethan word instead of in the footnotes. You can read the plays without experiencing vertigo of the eye. So this is the edition, though you may wish to go with the smaller, bound portions that Norton publishes of the same edition--especially if you can't afford the cost of a personal valet to carry this tome from home to office. On the other hand, the complete edition is excellent for doing crunches and other aerobic exercises--activities many of us who read the Bard are abt to ignore.

My only complaint about this play is that Shakespeare should have had some dialogues where the characters discussed crucial history before the play opens. Gloucester (murdered or dead before the play but mentioned several times) had tried to usurp Richard's crown too many times. History itself is not sure if Gloucester died or was murdered. Bolingbroke for a while conspired with Gloucester and now sees another oppurtunity to usurp the crown.The virtuous John of Gaunt served Richard with honor and integrity and eventually moved parliament into arresting Gloucester for treason. This would of made John of Gaunt's rages all the more valid. Otherwise this play is outstanding! Richard shows himself to be capable of ruling at times, but gains our contempt when he seizes his the honorable John of Gaunt's wealth. John of Gaunt's final rage in 2.1 is a passage of immense rageful beauty. Also, Shakespeare moves us into strongly suspecting that Richard had Gloucester murdered. However, despite Richard's crime, Shakespeare masterfully reverses our feelings and moves us into having deep pity for Richard when he is deposed. The Bishop of Carlisle (Richard's true friend) provides some powerful passages of his own. I can not overestimate the grace in which Shakespeare increases our new won pity for Richard when Bolingbroke (Gaunt's rightful heir) regains his wealth and the death of Gloucester is left ambiguous. 5.1, when Richard sadly leaves his queen and can see that Henry IV and his followers will eventually divide is a scene of sorrowful beauty. 5.4 is chilling when Exton plots Richard's murder. 5.5 is chilling and captivating when Richard dies but manages to take two of the thugs down with him. The icing on the cake is that Bolingbroke (Henry IV) can only regret his actions and realize that he has gotten himself into a troublesome situation. But that will be covered in "1 Henry IV" and "2 Henry IV." We can easily argue that it is in "Richard II" where we see Shakespeare's mastery of the language at its finest.

Having never read Richard III, I knew that I would be in for a treat, but nothing quite THIS good. Originally labeled as The Tragedy of Richard III by Shakespeare, one can see, upon reading this enthralling play, why this history/tragedy firmly entrenched itself as one of The Bard's most prolifically performed plays with almost unrivaled longevity due to its immense popularity among the genteel and yeomen alike.
Although the much-maligned humpback King Richard was by no means a saint by any stretch, he was not, however, as wretchedly insidious as Shakespeare might have us believe. In an effort to pander to Queen Elizabeth, Shakespeare cast perhaps an overly morose shadow over the House of York. The play itself, interestingly enough, focuses not so much on the bloody ending of The War of Roses and the ascension to the throne of Henry VII(the grandfather of Elizabeth) as it does on the uncannily cunning connivances of Richard III. Richard's dastardly deeds, the sordid means to his end of usurping the crown, know no limits as he murders any and all who dare get in his way - and even those that don't(I suppose they're guilty by association).
Inextricably, although I by no means empathize with him even remotely, Richard somehow, despite his inordinately decadent reprobate ploys, coupled with his twisted soliloquies pleading to the audience his hopeless case, make him one entirely enigmatic, yet entirely captivating, antagonist that makes this play enticingly enjoyable -- in a most devilish kind of way.
"O coward conscience, how dost thou afflict me!"

Richard is the youngest of three brothers and is determined to have the throne at any price. He has quite a few people to dispatch of before he can reach his goal. Richard never seems to let his conscience get in the way, however, and his rise to the throne is done with very little trouble.

I really enjoyed this play, even though tragedies aren't usually my favorite. Richard is such an evil and devious character, and Shakespeare has him deliver some marvelous speeches. My daughter's professor says the play isn't historically accurate, so I'll be interested to learn more about that as she does.

Richard II was incompetent, wastefully extravagant, overtaxed his nobles and peasants, ignored his senior advisors, and lavished dukedoms on his favorites. His rival, Henry of Bolingbroke (later Henry IV), was popular with the common man and undeservingly suffered banishment and loss of all his property. And yet two centuries later Elizabethans viewed the overthrow of Richard II as fundamentally wrong and ultimately responsible for 100 years of crisis and civil war. Queen Elizabeth's government even censored Shakespeare's play.
Shakespeare masterfully manipulates our feelings and attitude toward Richard II and Bolingbroke. We initially watch Richard II try to reconcile differences between two apparently loyal subjects each challenging the other's loyalty to the king. He seemingly reluctantly approves a trial by combat. But a month later, only minutes before combat begins, he banishes both form England. We begin to question Richard's motivation.
Richard's subsequent behavior, especially his illegal seizure of Bolingbroke's land and title, persuades us that his overthrow is justified. But as King Richard's position declines, a more kingly, more contemplative ruler emerges. He faces overthrow and eventual death with dignity and courage. Meanwhile we see Bolingbroke, now Henry IV, beset with unease, uncertainty, and eventually guilt for his action.
Shakespeare also leaves us in in a state of uncertainty. What is the role of a subject? What are the limits of passive obedience? How do we reconcile the overthrow of an incompetent ruler with the divine right of kings? Will Henry IV, his children, or England itself suffer retribution?
Richard II has elements of a tragedy, but is fundamentally a historical play. I was late coming to Shakespeare's English histories and despite my familiarity with many of his works I found myself somewhat disoriented. I did not appreciate the complex relationships between the aristocratic families, nor what had happened before. Fortunately I was rescued by Peter Saccio, the author of "Shakespeare's English Kings". Saccio's delightful book explores how Shakespeare's imagination and actual history are intertwined.
I hope you enjoy Richard II as much as I have. It is the gateway to Henry IV (Parts 1 and 2) and Henry V, all exceptional plays.

The play's about the final years of the Plantagenet dynasty in England and the rise to the throne and two-years rule of Richard the Third.
It's an attempt at a historical play but in reality is nothing more than blatant Tudorist propaganda.

I'm not saying I didn't like it - I did and it has it's peaks and valleys, but when the good writing is so good and the bad so bad, the whole piece loses it's magic a bit.

This bit is more suitable for my review of "Henry VI", but while reading it I was too busy cheering for the Yorks as a whole than giving my full attention to each one as an individual - I don't tend to frequent theatres and only after reading this play I understand what the Chorus in "Henry V" meant about willing suspension of disbelief because, oh boy, only my strong will to suspend it prevented me throwing my hands up in disbelief every time Richard's deformities were mentioned - by the time he was born, his father already had 3 sons and in all about half a dozen children. Had a deformed child been born to such a family, with such royal roots and ambitions, I have no doubt it would have been smothered in birth by the midwife, with or without the parents knowledge, even with the same damp cloth she would have used to wash it. Because such a family, to quote Caesar, must be beyond reproach.
I've found young Richard and the Duchess' conversation to be a lovely disclaimer....

York: Marry, they say my uncle grew so fast
That he could gnaw a crust at two hours old
'Twas full two years ere I could get a tooth.
Grandam, this would have been a biting jest.
The Duchess: I pray thee, pretty York, who told thee this?
York: Grandam, his nurse.
The Duchess: His nurse! why, she was dead ere thou wert born.
York: If 'twere not she, I cannot tell who told me.

...as in "I say thus and thus about one's appearance but where I heard these rumors, I cannot tell".

As for the attempts to present Richard as some bloodthirsty tyrant, I'm sorry to say an objective reader, free of prejudices, will find them failed.
I believe the historic value of this play to be as high as Conn Iggulden's "Emperor" series - just as well researched and as accurate - which means to say, none at all.
I cannot believe that brother George, the ambitious schemer from "Henry VI", did not dig his grave (or well) for himself.
I cannot belive that Anne, after being used as a political instrument, would not rather marry her cousin, whom she must have known since childhood.
And I cannot belive that after proclaiming them doubly bastards the King would find any use in secretly killing his nephews - the Tower is cold, damp place and "natural" illness and a public funeral would have served much better. The reason it could not have worked out like that is for some other potential claimant, with lesser blood claim to the throne, to have ordered the murder and not reveal the location of the corpses.

But that for the history and like I said, the play's grip on that is rather flimsy.
For the play itself, none of the acts comitted by Richard is without a reasonable explanation and dire necessity:
* George is not only a rival higher in seniority but also a proved traitor - he who doesn't honour the bonds of blood, let not expect it honoured in return.
* The brothers of the Queen were a much needed sacrificial lambs to gain loyalty of such as Hastings (even a threescore and two years is not enough time to make the throne secure. The steps to a new throne are always paved with corpses) and they would not have excepted gracefully that their only grip on power has been ploclaimed a bastard.
* In the beginning of a new regime all must be resolute and commited without question - so much for Hastings and Buckingham, and the latter has the gall to request favours following his display of feeble determination and potential disloyalty. It's a shame he was given time to escape - a lovely ambush in a dark alley would have been better.
* Laws can be rewritten and today's bastard is tomorrow's King - the princes had to go, especially as they could have been used by disgruntled Yorkist such as Stanley. Described as such a devillish deed, to me it seemed as nothing but an unavoidable one, and I would rather see two princes murdered, who'd been protected all their life by their royal blood and priviliges and sex and were raised with a sword in their hands, than two female queens who had nothing in their favour but the king's good graces, like the audience's latest King has done. Though I would think even most shameless political propaganda has limits, and I could not view this scene...

Edward: I do not like the Tower, of any place.
Did Julius Caesar build that place, my lord?

Buckingham: He did, my gracious lord, begin that place;
Which, since, succeeding ages have re-edified.

Edward: Is it upon record, or else reported
Successively from age to age, he built it?

Buckingham: Upon record, my gracious lord.

Edward: But say, my lord, it were not register'd,
Methinks the truth should live from age to age,
As 'twere retail'd to all posterity,
Even to the general all-ending day.

...as anything other than a disclaimer in disguise: whatever you hear about the Tower, be it written down or not, the are rumours and there is the truth.
* This isn't Ancient Rome, where a now useless wife can be pensioned off - Anne had to go and better a drop of arsenic, or whatever they used in those days, in a cup than a public humiliation and execution.

I think that if Shakespeare had stopped writing after "Henry VI" and "Richard III", and not followed them with much higher quality plays (and I don't mean "Titus Andronicus", which is basically a parody of the latter), his works would not have reached these days, being so.... "party-political", but the play also have some really inspired writing, which would obviously make it more acceptable to audiences, who would, throughout the ages, swallow every government machination if it has a lovely turn of phrase to it.

I also think that a starting playwriter has audiences to please and pockets to fill and cater to their appetites but it's also clear that Shakespeare liked his Richard - his has some great one-liners and an inspiring speech in "Henry VI" and here also his lines are the best of the play....

Lister: Have you ever read any of it?
Rimmer: I've seen "West Side Story". That's based on one of them.
Lister: Yeah, but have you actually read any?
Rimmer: Not all the way through, no. I can quote some, though.
Lister: Go on, then.
Rimmer: "Now..." .....That's all I can remember.
Lister: Where's that from, then?
Rimmer: "Richard III", you moron. The speech that he does at the beginning. "Now..." something something something. It's brilliant writing. It really is. Unforgettable.

... and he is the only real character (especially if performed properly) in the play - the men are feeble, the women stupid and even the great white hope, Richmond, is shallow and unmemorable.
Sure, Richard in the play is a bastard, but he is a magnificent bastard, and such a character, much like J.K Rowling's Severus Snape, could not have been brought to life by an author who didn't love him.

Recent events have revived unanswered questions regarding England's King Richard III (1452-1485) who ascended to the throne in 1483 and ruled until his death two years later at the Battle of Bosworth, the decisive battle of the War of the Roses.

Now is the time to re-read William Shakespeare's 1591 play about a monarch who purportedly locked his young nephews in the Tower of London. In September of 2012 archeologists unearthed bones thought to be those of the king in a parking lot in Leicester. Did Shakespeare offer a fair accounting of historical record or was the Bard a "spin doctor" for the House of Tudor that assumed power in 1485?

A few contemporary novels and films have kept this historical mystery alive.

In 1951 Josephine Tey wrote a detective novel The Daughter of Time in which a bedridden Scotland Yard inspector, Alan Grant, ponders the king's problems. Did Richard kill his nephews? Or was it all just political propaganda?

In 1974 archeologist Elizabeth Peters wrote Murders of Richard III: A Novel of Suspense. Her American librarian Jacqueline Kirby is invited to an English country mansion for a weekend of literary conversation. The topic quickly turns into a role-playing event of 15th century beheadings, poisonings, and questions about Richard III, the last king of the Plantagenet dynasty.

In 1995 Sir Ian McKellan along with a stellar cast portrayed Richard III in film with a temporal setting complete with military uniforms, gas masks and jeeps. The Bard's words are almost humorous as a uniformed McKellan is stuck in a rut in a jeep: "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!"

Al Pacino portrayed the brooding monarch in a 1996's Looking For Richard, a documentary film about a performance of Shakespeare's play. Pacino and other American actors both in costume and casual attire discuss the play off camera between scenes.

A Washington Post journalist recently posed these questions in an article about the parking lot discovery: Was Richard III a "Tyrant or hero? Rightful monarch or child-killer? Despotic hunchback or brave scoliosis sufferer?"

He suggests in the article: "Now is the winter of our discontent over one of England's most notorious villains: Richard III."

King Richard III is my favourite historical play, but it ranks up there with my all-time favourites of Shakespeare. I read this play for the first time quite a while after I had read some of his better-known comedies and tragedies, but I absolutely love it. I have seen it performed outside under the stars and the theatre was an outdoor park filled with ruins. The play was held in different places throughout the park. It was absolutely breathtaking and something that I will never forget. Richard III is one of the most fascinating villains of history and in literature. Shakespeare's genius portrays Richard III in a way that shows the playgoers his physical deformity, but we also see that he possesses great charm and wit. He is the ultimate manipulator and is totally ruthless in the pursuit of his goals. Shakespeare's has written this play through the mind and actions of his hero, Richard III, so the audience is aware at all times what he is doing and trying to achieve. We see all his deviousness and manipulation. A truly wonderful play about a very memorable man.

This is a review of the Arden Second Series edition of King Richard II -- an edition edited by Peter Ure and now superseded by the Third Series, but still available on the store and lots of other places.

(Why there are people on this site giving their opinions of the play itself is beyond me. Of course it is masterful.)

I love Arden's editions of Shakespeare because the notes are excellent, the introductions thorough, and the quality of the books themselves -- that is, their sturdiness -- extremely high.

But this one falls short. Ure is so fascinated by Shakespeare's sources and his various departures from those sources that the notes are essentially worthless for any other purpose. It is so rare that a note has anything to say other than a remark about the sources that after a while I stopped going to them. The introduction is the same way. I am sure that the question of the sources is very interesting, it just isn't interesting to me, and certainly not in the detail provided here. I would have liked to read about other features of the play too (they are there, just buried in endless discussion of how Shakespeare did or did not use Holingshed for some particular detail).

Lastly, if this review is showing up on the page for the Penguin or Folger or Signet or any other of the fine editions of Shakespeare -- my apologies. the store does this, not me. I've posted this where it belongs, on the Arden 2d Series Richard II page!

Shakespeare portrays King Richard III as a hunchbacked thoroughly evil man. While based upon the historical Richard III, the play is a dramatization. Although classed as a history, remember that Shakespeare's histories aren't historically accurate biographies. Richard is a power-hungry brother of a king who murders, schemes, marries, and plots to usurp the throne from rightful heirs. Richard gets his due when he meets Henry Tudor on the field of battle and the reign of the Yorkist kings comes to an end. Written under the rule of a Tudor monarch (Elizabeth I), the play paints the brutal Richard in an especially unfavorable light. After all, the rise of the Tudors depended upon the death of Richard III. The treatment of women in the play has been criticized, especially the speed under which Anne accepts Richard III -- with her dead father in law in the scene, no less. The play compresses 14 years or so of real history into 5 acts. It is hard to go wrong with Shakespeare. A good but dark read.

I cannot praise this stupendous work highly enough, it's an absolute treasure.
With its background essays, glosses, marginalia it is the gold standard for critical editions of the Bard's complete works.
Sure, there are slight down sides, the flimsy paper for one, but I have only praise for Greenblatt and his collaborators, this really is a kind of successful NASA team effort that is unlikely to be surpassed.
I have no connection whatsoever with anyone who has worked on the book so I can unhesitatingly say that every English speaking person in the world should buy and own this great production of the greatest artist of all time.
First class

Robert - UK

At over 3400 pages, the Norton Shakespeare is not designed for lap reading, but as a single volume collection of Shakespeare's works it has a lot going for it. The page layout is comfortable with only one column per page rather than the two cramped columns of the The Riverside Shakespeare, 2nd Edition. The gloss for single words or short phrases appears near the right margin on the same line in which the troublesome word occurs. This practice allows for quick reference without losing your place in the text. Longer textual notes appear as footnotes at the bottom of the page. Without the clutter of the glosses, these notes can also be referenced quickly.

The support materials are helpful and accessible. Each play is prefaced by an introduction written by one of the four distinguished editors. Stephen Greenblatt's general introduction, though clearly reflecting his critical interests, sticks to the facts and is quite readable. Whether you accept his new historicist approach or not, Greenblatt is a fine writer and knows how to maintain reader interest. One omission in his lengthy introduction is detailed discussion of how Shakespeare could imagine such a rich cast of characters. Greenblatt does not discuss the four temperaments, perhaps because their universality weakens the cultural determinism that Greenblatt favors as an explanation. Nature, nurture, and dumb luck--all three play a part in shaping Shakespeare's characters.

Here is how the editorial duties are divided:

Jean E. Howard: Two Gentleman of Verona, Taming of the Shrew, 2 Henry VI, 3 Henry VI, 1 Henry VI, 1 Henry IV, 2 Henry IV, As You Like It, Winter's Tale, Cymbeline.

Katharine Eisaman Maus: Titus Adronicus, Venus and Adonis, Rape of Lucrece, Richard II, Merchant of Venice, Henry V, Julius Caesar, Measure for Measure, All's Well That Ends Well, Timon of Athens, Coriolanus.

Stephen Greenblatt: Richard III, Comedy of Errors, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Romeo and Juliet, Much Ado About Nothing, Hamlet, Twelfth Night, King Lear, Macbeth, Tempest.

Walter Cohen: Love's Labour's Lost, King John, Merry Wives of Windsor, Troilus and Cressida, Sonnets and Short Poems, Sir Thomas Moore, Othello, Antony and Cleopatra, Pericles, All is True (Henry VIII).

If you want to study a single play in great scholarly detail, you are probably better off using the Norton Critical Edition, the New Cambridge Shakespeare, the Arden Shakespeare paperbacks (not the complete works), or the Folger paperbacks. These have room for more support materials on each play. If you want the collected works, you will not be disappointed with the Norton.

This is Shakespeare's play about the villainous Richard III. It depicts Richard's vaulting ambition to become king and demonstrates the steps that he takes to ensure that, such as the death of his brother the Duke of Clarence and the murder of his cousins, the sons of his brother, Edward IV. His dismissive view of his wife, Anne Neville, too, is a part of his character.

His moves to consolidate his power, though, produce unrest. The play ends with his shouting for a horse and with his death in battle.

This play is one that I have a special feeling for. Many years ago, I had a small role as Brakenbury, the Lieutenant of the Tower. I had one good speech as I led a noble to his execution.

One observation: This play succeeds nicely as drama. However, as later accounts have shown, the Richard III of this play is not the Richard III of history. There are many questions still around, such as the true circumstances of the deaths of Edward's two sons. But the portrayal of Richard in this play simply does not stand up.

To those, like myself, who may be somewhat daunted by reading Shakespeare, the newly-issued Folger Library editions of the plays are an excellent resource. These versions make the assumption that not just words but phrases may seem somewhat arcane and difficult to comprehend. The left-page notes are terrifically helpful in not only explaining meaning, but spelling out the context of the scenes as well. In the back of each of these volumes are longer notes which can help the reader delve even deeper into historical context. Most of the left-hand pages include illustrations and woodcuts from the era. For those who read Shakespeare somewhat infrequently, these are probably the best versions on the market.

This is typical of many of the Arkangel series of Shakespeare productions: an atmospheric and overall fine rendition of the play marred by a weak performance in the major role. Unfortunately, Rupert Graves gives a bloodless reading of the Richard II part, with a generally flat and arhythmical delivery of the glorious lines. It sounds as if he doesn't understand what he's saying and so he tries to kick the lines into life with melodramatic emphases but these sound forced and unconvincing. However, the supporting cast is far superior on the whole, the sound-effects and pacing are arresting, and Dominique Le Gendre's music is, as usual in this series, ravishing.

I'm a Ricardian, but I love this play--it's Shakespare at his finest. He manipulates the historical characters beautifully, especially Richard himself (and Richard then manipulates most of the other characters). The play opens with Richard, then Duke of Gloucester, who gives a poetic list of all the nasty things that he will do...why? Because he wants to be king? Partly. But there are plenty of psychological reasons as well (for instance, does anyone notice that once Richard does become king, he isn't as happy as he thought he'd be?).
Slowly, Old Crookback's conscience begins to tug (forget the Sixth Sense, *he* sees plenty of dead people himself!). Some of my favorite quotes are to be found here, for instance:
Anne Neville, to Richard, before accepting his proposal of marriage: "Never hung poison on a fouler toad. Out of my sight! Thou dost infect mine eyes."
or
"Off with his son George's head!" And of course "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!" and the very nifty little pun at the beginning of the play. (Richard's lines, of course.)
You *do* begin to like him, that that *is* rather frightening!

Shakespeare got away with this play because he is critical of two monastic houses that were no longer in power when he lived. The ultimate nod to the Tudors and Stuarts for whom Shakespeare worked, this play paints a picture of the York and Lancastrian dynasties as petty and foolish--as inbred buffoons. One of the most comic scenes (yes, I said comic) comes in Act II when the Duchess gets together with the wife of Clarence and his children and they all argue over who has the most to mourn.
This play is a good sketch of human self-centeredness, and we like Richard perhaps because he is the only character willing to admit he's a hypocrite.
By the way, I always recommend that students buy the Folger edition--this version eliminates the side-by-side in lieu of a comprehensive glossary parallel to each page of text.

Let's get one thing clear from the start: when I rate Shakespeare, I rate it against other Shakespeare; otherwise, the consistently high ratings would not be very informative. If I was rating this against the general run of literature available, it would unquestionably rate 5 stars.
So what brings it down to 4, as compared to other Shakespeare? Primarily a few places where it demands a bit too much suspension of disbelief; the language is some of Shakespeare's best, and is comparatively easy for a modern reader (I found most of the footnotes to be sufficiently unnecessary to be actually more distraction than help). But for one thing, if Richard is withered, hunchbacked, and deformed, how is it that he has been able to kill so many of his victims in battle? For another thing, is it REALLY plausible that Princess Anne would be persuaded as she was by someone with nothing more going for him than Richard? To paraphrase the scene,
Anne: You killed my husband and his father! I hate you I hate you I hate you!
Richard: But I only did it 'cause I'm hot for you, babe! Wanna marry me?
Anne: Welll...maybe. Let me think about it.
(And, in fact, she marries him. Just like that.)
Also, there are virtually NO characters in this play that are sympathetic, save perhaps for the two murdered children and Richmond, and we really don't see enough of them to feel much connection; it dilutes the effectiveness of the portrayal of Richard's evil when almost all of the other characters are, if not just as bad, certainly bad enough.

This review will focus mainly on the play itself, but firstly I will make a brief comment about this particular edition. These Oxford editions of the Shakespeare plays for me have one bad point and one good point. On the negative side, I consider the introductions to be over-academic for the general reader. On the positive side, the explanatory notes are generally good and are placed at the foot of each page for easy reference. The five stars I have given are for Shakespeare: I would give Oxford four.

Richard III is a long play, and perhaps a little drawn out in places. Nevertheless it is one of my favourite Shakespeares. There are some brilliant scenes, such as the opening monologue; the scene where Richard woos Anne; the Council Meeting where Richard turns on Hastings; and the scene where Clarence describes his dream and is then murdered.

The scene with Clarence's dream also contains one of my favourite pieces of Shakespeare's poetry, the passage which starts: "O Lord, methought what pain it was to drown..."

There has been a lot of analysis of the character of Richard. He clearly represents a typical feudal gangster-lord. Some also see him as personifying the ruthlessly individualistic rising bourgeoisie of Shakespeare's time. Others have pointed to the similarities between Richard and the character of "Vice" in the medieval morality plays.

The play is also often said to bring out the conflict between fate and determinism on the one hand, and free will and choice on the other. For example, when Richard says, "I am determinèd to prove a villain", he seems to be asserting his individual will. But "determined" can also mean "fated".

But leaving the analysis aside, this is an enjoyable play. It is a history/tragedy, but it is done with humour. Richard is amusing as well as evil. We are almost made to admire him. (The late medieval "Vice" character was also apparently often portrayed with humour.) I agree with what one Shakespeare expert (J.D. Wilson) once wrote: "Only by realising that Shakespeare expects us to at once enjoy and detest the monstrous Richard can we fully appreciate the play..."

Incidentally, this is why I can't go along with the idea of portraying Richard as a 1930s-style fascist (as has been done in recent years). Someone murdering their way to the top can be done with humour. Nazi genocide can NOT.

Richard is ruthless and amusing while he is on the rise. Once in power he is overcome by fear, mistrust and guilt. But he bounces back to a brave end.

I'll conclude with a point about the history that the play is based on. The complaints by fans of the real Richard III, that Shakespeare paints an unfair picture of Richard, don't hold water as far as I'm concerned. Firstly, we're talking about a play here, not history. Secondly, even if there is an element of Tudor propaganda in the play, the real Richard probably did kill the princes in the Tower. And thirdly, in any case, there was no such thing as a "good" medieval monarch!

Phil Webster.
(England)

Shakepeare's Richard is evil and manipulative to such an extreme degree that even his physical deformity cannot match up to the inner deformity that is revealed to the reader/audience in his private soliloquies. Having been portrayed as a conniving usurper to power by Thomas More during the early Tudor era he is actually savaged by Shakespeare and his legacy in historical terms has become one with the characterization that the bard gave us.

Richard is a muderous liar who kills anyone who gets in his way and he is contrasted with the righteously portrayed young Henry VII who returns from France to set things right.

The play is a wonderful read and study in Machiavellian manuevering for powers sake.

From the setting up of his brother Clarence to the murder of the young Princes in the Tower Richard who takes the audience into his confidence gradually becomes as appalling a character as Shakespeare ever created.

Much of what is later revealed of the capacity for people to scheme against their fellows in Claudius and Iago in the respective tragedies of Hamlet and Othello is begun here in Richard III.

In one of my literature classes I had the option to get the paperback edition or the hardcover edition. I already loved Shakespeare and I knew it would have a permanent place in my library so I bought the hardcover. Sure it is a big beast, but it is an excellent collection of The Bard's works. The annotations in this tome--though the book is not alone in this regard--makes these plays and sonnets more accessible to readers. This is a definitive collection of some of the greatest literature ever written.

As a fervent admirer of Shakespeare, this complete collection, comprising excellent introductions to each play and helpful textual notes as well as informative writings on the history of both England and the art of acting that shaped Shakespeare's writing, was like a dream come true. While before I had to walk around trying to find a good edition of the play I wanted to read, now I can open the Norton Shakespeare and read without being afraid of not understanding words or missing the point of the play. This book's obvious drawbacks are its heft and, as mentioned, its delicate pages, but these are easily outweighed by the abovementioned advantages! Buy it and read!

This historical drama, not exactly accurate for all I know (but who cares, it's Billy) depicts one of the best bad guys in all literature, to the point of caricature (and this rhymes!). Richard III is the impersonation of ugliness and pure evil: he is a man both morally and physically malformed, who gives everything for the sake of a vain and insignificant moment of power. He is pure rancour enveloped in hypocrisy and treason. He kills his relatives, including his two child nephews, then he marries his rival's widow, and finally he gets what he deserves screaming: "A horse! My kingdom for a horse!"
"Richard III" is a wonderful satire; as always with WS, the dialogues are perfect and the action supreme. It is not intended to be real history, but a satire of ambition run amok, of the lonely obsession for power and of the depths of evil which humans can reach. It has humorous moments and it was, in its times, good politics, since Richard belonged to the predecessors in power of Queen Elizabeth's family . Another masterpiece by the Bard.

..the winter of our discontent, made glorious summer by this son of York."
Richard's soliloquy is quite draconian from the beginning and sets the stage for a tragedy only Shakspear can pull off.
This play, focuses on Richard III's Machiavelli pursuits and determination to crop the crown from all who stands in his way- kin, no exception.
He prose is superb, and his timing excellent. He is able to woo lady Anne moments after killing her husband - his brother - and build alliances only to depredate them, for his selfish gains.
Quite stirring, and at the same time quite revulsive.
What better recipe can you want?

This book is clearly meant to "compete" with David Bevington's _The Necessary Shakespeare._ Both books cover the same 21 plays and the complete sonnets...which can hardly be a coincidence. Both include background and performance material that is meant to contextualize the material for the intended audience (primarily students in undergraduate Shakespeare courses).

The Bevington book is superior. The prefatory material is better and more wide-ranging (the section on Shakespeare in performance is particularly good), the accompanying illustrations are far superior, and the plays themselves are better annotated. Even functional details lean toward the Bevington...the book is more bulky, but easier to read, with far higher quality paper and binding. Part of this is certainly because the Bevington book is now in its third edition and has been gradually improved in each subsequent edition.

My main problem with all volumes/editions of the Norton Shakespeare is the average (at best) editing of Stephen Greenblatt at this time. Dr. Greenblatt is certainly a gifted theorist and commentator; he does not, however, edit these plays in a consistent manner. His work on King Lear is particularly spotty. The distinctions and differences between Quarto 1 and Quarto 2 of Lear are known to every serious Shakespearean scholar. The way that an individual editor chooses to combine or edit or disregard these works could, indeed, be interesting and informative to students . Greenblatt reprints extra material from Q1 without indicating that the rest of his play has several passages from and emendations resulting from Q1. He goes into depth to "show" the non-standard material in some places without indicating how, in other places, it is used (and useful). It is puzzling and, unfortunately, somewhat typical of the haphazard way the plays have been edited here.

Which is not to say that this (or any) version of the Norton Shakespeare is completely ruined by these issues. But the problem is that there are several very good Shakespeare compilations the Norton(s) compete with...and this edition, in particular, is obviously a response to a single edition from another publisher/editor. And in this case, the Norton edition is inferior to the Bevington.

Shakespeare can be tough--tough, but well worthwhile---and this book does a good job of presenting Shakespeare in a manner and form that is not overpowering to the reader....

Provides just enough insight and history to aid the reader in understanding, but doesn't overpower the reader with unnecessary "book learning." The real impact of Shakespeare, however, is in the play itself...this book adds to the play and doesn't detract from it by an overpowering explanation or presentation.

Good effort. Barbara Mowat's work is always good.

If you are a college, student carrying this book around will be dreadful. I am almost done with my college career and I do not regret one bit having to buy this book. It is much more costly that the various other editions that exist. The Oxford edition is the best for any shakespeare course. The footnotes are exceedingly informative. It's as if you have an entire history lesson in each play. It greatly helped me in my shakepeare course. The pages are super thin and almost transparent so it's difficult to highlight or make marks in it. Although it is inconvenient to carry this book around it makes up for its burdensome structure by the knowledge you will attain from using this particular edition. Most editions don't have the proper footnotes, leaving its readers confused and learning nothing. I highly recomend this edition especially if you are an English or literature major. You could also try to buy indiviual "Folger Edition" plays or sonnets. Those are the best to use for a course as well.

Having the last word is often an advantage and this Oxford edition of Richard II, coming after its main rivals (Cambridge, 1984) and Arden (Arden, 2002), is consequently able to draw upon more recent research and performance. Its mention of a 2009 Vancouver production of the play (in the Commentary) and its discussion of recent books and articles (in the Introduction) make this volume very much up-to-the-minute. (Interestingly, one such book mentioned, by James Siemon, includes an ingenious interpretation of the allegorical 'garden scene', in which 'bushy' and 'green' excrescences are cut off! Two of Richard's favourites, Bushy and Green, of course, meet a similar fate under Bolingbroke.)

This Introduction is especially strong on the study of history and on Shakespeare's contribution to it. Shakespeare's Richard II is often noted for its conservatism - citizens are called 'subjects' throughout and commoners are much less conspicuous than in source texts. To the Oxford authors, however, Shakespeare's play is radical. As well as being encouraged to judge sceptically for themselves, spectators are made to feel involved in England's past and, from their vantage-point in the playhouse, part of a political community. (But to suggest that the play 'makes the audience a party to the regicide' is, perhaps, to overstate the extent of audience involvement.)

Section headings on, for example, language, character and stage history, make for a more conventional approach than some, but there is rewarding material in each: how the play's supposed 'stylistic unity' needs careful qualification; and how John Barton's 1973 RSC production, although 'one of the defining productions of the play of the twentieth century', continues a long tradition of rewriting and adapting - initiated by the same Nahum Tate that gave King Lear a happy ending. Several pages are devoted to Barton's often controversial interpretation which, like the Introduction itself, is concerned with how the dual identity of individual and role creates 'twinning'.

In the Commentary, the authors provide accessible notes. With refreshing candour, they occasionally show that some of Richard's more extravagant metaphors are beyond the comprehension even of scholars - as with the well and two buckets image (in IV.1), described as 'somewhat confused'.

I am currently using this edition for my University undergraduate course. It is simply the most comprehensive edition available in one volume. The introductions to each play offer stimulating views using modern, contemporary criticism and the 'scene-setting' introduction to the collection, by Greenblatt, is highly informative. The text is wonderfully readable and actually makes you want to pick it up (or lay it on a table given its size) and just read. I like the thin pages, although they are susceptible to creasing, as it makes it feel as though you're reading a Bible - a suitable analogy I think. Recommendable to anyone interested in Shakespeare - this is an edition which does justice to his greatness (anyway I'd better stop wasting time on the 'Net and get back to my essay on 'Othello'!).

Up until recently, the only Shakespeare I ever read was in school. Ten years later, I decided to reacquaint myself with his works. I checked this version out from the library and because it is so comprehensive, I eventually bought it.
With over 3,400 pages and all Shakespeare's known plays and poems, the high price of this book is well worth it. You'll probably never need another book of his works. The only downside is that it is very heavy (about the thickness of two hardcover novels) and the pages are extremely thin (and wrinkle easily).
Intended as a textbook, the editors of this edition add biographical information, glossaries, period illustrations and footnotes. If you're reading Shakespeare for pleasure, I would recommend reading the intro to each play after you have read it through once. The intros tend to give away a bit much of the story (this can be a plus if you're reading this for a class). I'm not suggesting that you skip them altogether, as they do add helpful insight and perspective to each play.
I haven't read all the plays yet, but my favorite so far is The Taming of the Shrew. This is the best play I've read in a long time. I laughed out loud in several places. I told the story to my 7 year old son and he even laughed! I also discovered that there is another play called The Taming of a Shrew that is similar to The Taming of the Shrew but with additional passages. These extra passages are also included in this edition.
The editors always let you know when more than one version of a play has been found. They include three known versions of King Lear. Two are presented on facing pages so that you can easily see the differences. They also include a conflated version, often used in actual productions.
I recommend this book to anyone wanting to read a little or a lot of Shakespeare.

I'm not terribly fond of this publisher's edition. The first thing I noticed was that the book is bulky and cumbersome; it is far too thick for a book of its size, rendering one-handed reading highly difficult. The notes and supplemental material cover as thick a section as the text itself--which isn't inherently a bad thing--but it makes keeping the book open wide enough to read without cracking the spine almost impossible.

In addition to the book's width being too short to comfortably hold, it also means numerous lines must carry over into the next line. While this is annoying, it would not be an issue, except the line numberings appear to be done automatically and so include these one- or two-word spillovers as a separate line. This means that when my professor references a certain line number from his edition, I have to hunt around to find the corresponding section. I feel that a work such as this, with distinctive, predetermined lines, should not undergo different numbering conventions.

Finally, I believe the annotations are poorly done. I have read many different publishers' versions of Shakespeare, and I have to say this is one of the few times I've ever wished more information were provided. Often I feel books annotate more than necessary with commonly recognized definitions or explaining easily understood syntax. However, I have found myself repeatedly looking to the annotations for a definition to some archaic word or unclear usage only to be disappointed. Also, --and this is more just a pet peeve-- the annotated words do not have any sort of textual indication, such as a number or bubble. I used to think that was distracting and wished it gone; well, now I have an edition without it and it is even more inconvenient, as I have to check the annotations page to see whether a word even has an explanation. The annotations also often spill over onto the next page, causing the reader to have to flip back and forth.

Overall, I feel the text and annotations of this edition were poorly organized, resulting in difficulty for the reader.

Written in the middle of the 19th century, one should not expect too much from Mr. Abbott's work; not just because it is representative of the worst sort of broad-strokes, devil-in-the-details-be-d*mned Victorian literature, but because of the fabrications supplied by the author to fill gaps in the narrative and the projected pseudo-Freudian analysis undercutting most of his works. I'd recommend picking up something written within the last hundred years, and sparing yourself the trouble of parsing truth from the menagerie of falsehoods herein presented.

I was amazed at how familiar the play about Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, was when I started reading it. The womanizing influences in philosophy and psychology would have been in favor of a version based on the point of view of Gertrude as mother faux king of political struggles and family squabbles. Shakespeare did not have to worry about a suitcase weapon causing an American Hiroshima when our tipping point became the end of life as we know it on the whole planet.

There was no introduction or notes to help with understanding words or characters. Fortunately I had recently read his previous plays about Richard's predecessors, so I didn't need many notes. If your new at reading Shakespeare I wouldn't recommend this edition of the book.

I recently purchased this Richard II audio play. It is superb and one of the best Arkangel productions, and I have many. The cast and crew did such a fine job, this history rose to be one of my favorite Shakespeare works. You will be enthralled by the drama of one all-powerful monarch being swept away by another. A wonderful Rupert Graves as Richard brings the king's complex character to life. He will move you from early detest of King Richard's selfish and petty evils and arrogance, to pity as Richard tumbles from the heights of power and glory to a lonely and violent end. The production quality is so high one feels like an eavesdropper on the real historical events as they are happening. You will not be disappointed with this purchase.

There was no introduction or notes to help with understanding words or characters. Fortunately I had recently read his previous plays about Richard's predecessors, so I didn't need many notes. If your new at reading Shakespeare I wouldn't recommend this edition of the book.

was difficult to translate into simple modern day english. are there other books that can be or simplified into modern day english for me to follow and understand? ie. pbs version of the Hollow Crown and Al Pacino's Looking for Richard.

This is an excellent collection of all the works by William Shakespeare. Each work features a fabulous introduction by one of the editors focusing on the play itself and its zeitgeist. Obsolete vocabulary is not indicated as a footnote but in the margin, which makes reading far more fluently. Additional and comprehensive explanations to certain passages are given in the footnotes. Even though the pages are very thin, a marker does normally not shimmer through the pages, which makes this book excellent for literature studies. However, it is to cumbersome for everyday use at school/university. The only drawback I encountered so far was the fact that the release date was set to January 1, 2008 and I got it in mid April.

This edition continues the tradition of excellence from Norton. This book was designed primarily for college students, but as an older amature Shakespearian, I appreciate the background essays and the academic notes. The paper quality and font are very readable despite the size, and having all of the works in one volume is fantastic. This it the one Shakespeare i carry with me when I travel. It's notes serve very well if you are going to see a performance of a play you have not seen in a while or are not familiar with.

Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of this book is how, despite how evil and violent Richard is, you root for him the whole way. He is such a charismatic villain that he endears you over to his side (as he does his victims in the play). Absolutely superb.

A perfect collection of the bard's entire works! With good formatting that is lends itself to easy reading, your eyes will never tire of Elizabethan english again! A must for the lover of Master Shakespeare, or a perfect and indomitable addition to any bookshelf. Impress your friends and impress your mind! Nifty slipcase for the hardy reader and sumptuous red hard cover dictates a sylish and subtle treatment of the text that ensures return reading again and again and with editor Stephen Greenblatt at the helm this Norton Edition is at the peak of academic scrutiny and reputation. Great playwright. Great editors. GREAT BUY!

This edition has one of the best introductions I've read: informative, well-written and with photos from productions of R III. Just the section on Macbeth and Richard makes this top-notch. Even the Folio/Quarto stuff is interesting -- short and not pedantic. This is my choice for Richard III edition.

Yes, Mr or Ms Reader, this is a hidden gem of Shakespeare's. Perhaps it is a bit too weighed down with history to ever attract Mr Di Caprio, but the story is intriguing and one's opinion of Richard changes scene by scene. Wonderful wordplay and nobility in abundance make this one to turn too immediately should you wish to delve beyond the traditional canon of the Bard's works.

I would in fact prefer to award this 3.5 stars, but the the store system seems to compel one to choose between 3 and 4, and I think 4 is too generous. To begin with the text, there is no doubt that this is not the best Shakespeare to buy. It is to a large extent based on the Oxford Shakespeare, which - quite rightly, in my view - has attracted a lot of criticism for some of its peculiarities. Thus, for example, Oxford prints TWO versions of *King Lear*, the quarto text and that of the folio. Norton rightly takes issue with this, and produces the kind of conflated text that most readers would want, but adds the other two AS WELL (so we are offered THREE versions!). This kind of thing is, in truth, academic self-indulgence - it shows an undue respect for academic concerns which to most readers are not of the slightest interest. There is a similar tendency to pay scant regard to what most readers really want and need in the Introduction: that tells us a good deal about Shakespeare's time, and the material is interesting, but it is not often shown to be relevant, or necessary, to an understanding of what Shakespeare writes. The explanatory annotation accompanying the texts is not bad, but often inferior to that of comparable editions, notably Bevington's. The introductions to individual plays are usually stimulating, but not necessarily convincing. Thus Greenblatt on the one hand says about Macbeth's murder of Duncan, "That he does so without adequate motivation, that he murders a man toward whom he should be grateful and protective, deepens the mystery ..." (p. 2558), yet adds a few lines later: "Macbeth and Lady Macbeth act on ambition ...". Precisely, that IS Macbeth's motivation for the murder, as Macbeth himself points out unequivocally in 1.7.25-7 - there is, therefore, absolutely nothing mysterious about his motivation. The edition does, however, offer a number of good references to other writings about Shakespeare. All in all, I do consider 3.5 stars is a fair "grade", in seeking to assess this for the benefit of the majority of readers looking for a complete Shakespeare to buy; but I consider David Bevington's by far the best edition of the complete works, then the Riverside, and only then this one - though, with its annotations, it is certainly more useful than the Oxford edition on which it is based. - Joost Daalder, Professor of English, Flinders University, South Australia

The actors in this production are superb. Stella Gonet as Lady Anne is exceptional. Even without seeing the play, it is easy to understand because the actors read with such expression that the listener becomes totally immersed in the story. I loved it.

I would in fact prefer to award this 3.5 stars, but the the store system seems to compel one to choose between 3 and 4, and I think 4 is too generous. To begin with the text, there is no doubt that this is not the best Shakespeare to buy. It is to a large extent based on the Oxford Shakespeare, which - quite rightly, in my view - has attracted a lot of criticism for some of its peculiarities. Thus, for example, Oxford prints TWO versions of *King Lear*, the quarto text and that of the folio. Norton rightly takes issue with this, and produces the kind of conflated text that most readers would want, but adds the other two AS WELL (so we are offered THREE versions!). This kind of thing is, in truth, academic self-indulgence - it shows an undue respect for academic concerns which to most readers are not of the slightest interest. There is a similar tendency to pay scant regard to what most readers really want and need in the Introduction: that tells us a good deal about Shakespeare's time, and the material is interesting, but it is not often shown to be relevant, or necessary, to an understanding of what Shakespeare writes. The explanatory annotation accompanying the texts is not bad, but often inferior to that of comparable editions, notably Bevington's. The introductions to individual plays are usually stimulating, but not necessarily convincing. Thus Greenblatt on the one hand says about Macbeth's murder of Duncan, "That he does so without adequate motivation, that he murders a man toward whom he should be grateful and protective, deepens the mystery ..." (p. 2558), yet adds a few lines later: "Macbeth and Lady Macbeth act on ambition ...". Precisely, that IS Macbeth's motivation for the murder, as Macbeth himself points out unequivocally in 1.7.25-7 - there is, therefore, absolutely nothing mysterious about his motivation. The edition does, however, offer a number of good references to other writings about Shakespeare. All in all, I do consider 3.5 stars is a fair "grade", in seeking to assess this for the benefit of the majority of readers looking for a complete Shakespeare to buy; but I consider David Bevington's by far the best edition of the complete works, then the Riverside, and only then this one - though, with its annotations, it is certainly more useful than the Oxford edition on which it is based. - Joost Daalder, Professor of English, Flinders University, South Australia

The actors in this production are superb. Stella Gonet as Lady Anne is exceptional. Even without seeing the play, it is easy to understand because the actors read with such expression that the listener becomes totally immersed in the story. I loved it.

For better or worse, Richard III's enduring image of the cunning, hunchbacked usurper, more monster than man, is immortalized in Will's tragic history of his bloody rise and fall. This version contains good notes, a superb intro, and even illustrations to liven the text!

Richard II is most likely Shakespeare's dullest and most obscured play. Of course, this is only the perspective of a sixteen year old student. It does seem however to be a common trend among many of the readers. This was just one of six required summer readings for my Advance Placement Literature course, and let me just state that under no other circumstances would I have read this book. And to tell you the truth, I didn't read the book. I purchased the audio cassette from "the store.com." After completing the tape for a second time, and only understanding a few words, I decided to get my hands on the book itself. The only difference that I could notice was my ability to distinguish who was saying what. I do not recommend this book to anyone without a Ph. D. Even to all of you literary geniuses, good luck! You will certainly need it to stay awake. I hope I was able to deliver a delightful and ever so typical sixteen year old's response.

Most students who have taken any college course on Shakespeare have purchased this book. I purchased one for my Shakespeare class and found myself reading the plays included in the book that weren't even assigned. If you want to get a concise book of Shakespeare's work, this Norton version is the way to go.

Perhaps it is because I don't really like Shakespeare and took this class, but this book is just too long. It should have been broken up in to several volumes instead of jammed together in this 15 pound monstrosity that makes even reading it awkward at best. The best part? This is assigned to students who have to lug it around all day long. So, students, if you are assigned this book, I recommend going to class the first day, getting your syllabus and buying each individual play. Most sonnets you can find free online.

If you aren't a student and are buying this for fun, even if you like Shakespeare, this book just takes up a ton of space that isn't worth it AT ALL!

If you are an instructor thinking of assigning this book... I implore you, think of your poor students and just let them buy Hamlet.

...or at least the Sparknotes.

This book arrived in a timely fashion. There was damage to the dust cover over the spine of the book. It look like an exacto knife had cut a slice in it, which was slightly disappointing. However, the condition of the book itself was excellent.

After researching the editions available, this is absolutely the one I'd like to buy, but I just can't get past the horrible cover (strange jester-like head). I know, I know--don't judge a book and all that, but for this much money I figure I'll have it forever. A book this expensive should be 100% enjoyable to take of the shelf and read, so until they recover or issue a new edition, I'll wait.

This book is the worst book i have ever read in my life. It was only good for making me fall asleep. And we hade to resite the first 41 lines, Now is the winter of our discontent? Made glorious summer by this son of york? here's what And all the clouds that loured upon our house in the deep bosom of the ocean burried. Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths? ( i used the book for this) Heres what i would say to Shakespear... Welcome to America Now speak english

This is a really good book. It was everything from Shakespeare. And the plays, poems, sonnets are in the order that they were released. Only negative is that the book is huge. hard to luge it around campus, but over all a complete book.