with which the play opens; 'the scenes (σrixoμvliai) where the trilogy of the common lamentation of the women (ii. 2 and iv. 1) alternates like a chorus, dramatic truth being sacrificed to the lyric or epic form, and to conceits in the style of the pastoral Italian poetry' (Gervinus); the overstraining of many of the characters; and the analysis of motive sometimes exhibited." Oechelhäuser (Essay über Richard III.) observes that this play marks "the significant boundarystone which separates the works of Shakespeare's youth from the immortal works of the period of his fuller splendour."* II. THE SOURCES OF THE PLOT. Shakespeare found his materials in Holinshed and Hall, who for this portion of English history were chiefly indebted to Sir Thomas More. Dowden (Primer, p. 79) remarks: "Holinshed's account gives two views of Richard's character: one in the portion of history previous to the death of Edward IV., in which Richard is painted in colours not so deeply, so diabolically black; and the second, in which he appears as he does in Shakspere's play. This second and darker representation of Richard was derived by Holinshed from Sir Thomas More's History of Edward IV. and Richard III., and More himself probably derived it from Cardinal Morton, chancellor of Henry VIII. and the enemy of Richard." A Latin tragedy on some of the events of Richard's reign, written by Dr. Legge, was acted at Cambridge before 1583; and an English play, probably written before Shakespeare's, was published in 1594, with the following title-page: "The True Tragedie of Richard the third: Wherein is showne the * See also extract from Furnivall, p. 33 below. In Guesses at Truth, Augustus Hare argues that the fact that Richard boldly acknowledges his deliberate wickedness, instead of endeavouring to palliate or excuse it like Edmund or Iago, shows that Shakespeare wrote this drama in his youth. death of Edward the fourth, with the smothering of the two yoong Princes in the Tower: With a lamentable ende of Shores wife, an example for all wicked women. And lastly, the coniunction and ioyning of the two noble Houses, Lancaster and Yorke. As it was playd by the Queenes Maiesties Players. London Printed by Thomas Creede, and are to be sold by William Barley, at his shop in Newgate Market, neare Christ Church doore. 1594.' "* Shakespeare certainly made no use of the former of these plays, and little, if any, of the latter. With regard to "the degree of dramatic invention to be ascribed to the poet in this brilliant delineation of the most splendid theatrical villain of any stage," Verplanck remarks: "More had given the dramatist nearly all his incidents, and many of those minor details of Richard's person, manner, and character which give life and individuality to his portrait. He, and the subsequent chroniclers who built upon his work, had shown Richard as a bold, able, ambitious, bad man— they had described him as malicious, deceitful, envious, and cruel. The poet has made the usurper a nobler and loftier spirit than the historians had done, while he deepened every dark shadow of guilt they had gathered around his mind or his acts. The mere animal courage of the soldier he has raised into a kindling and animated spirit of daring; he has brought out his wit, his resource, his talent, his mounting ambition, far more vividly than prior history had exhibited them. His deeds of blood are made to appear, not as in the Tudor chronicles, as prompted by gratuitous ferocity or envious malignity, but as the means employed by selfish ambition for its own ends, careless of the misery which it inflicts, or the moral obligations on which it tramples. The Richard of Shakespeare has no communion with his kind-he feels * This play was reprinted by the Shakespeare Society in 1844 from the only perfect copy (now in the collection of the Duke of Devonshire) that has come down to us. Dr. Legge's Latin tragedy is appended to it. himself at once aloof from others and above them - he is 'himself alone;' and he therefore neither partakes in the hatred nor the love or pity of 'men like one another.' Accordingly, every thing that gives the poetic cast and dramatic life and spirit to the character-every thing that elevates Richard above the cruel, artful, cold-blooded tyrant of the old historians-all that mingles a sort of admiring interest with our abhorrence of him, and invests the deformity of his nature with a terrible majesty-is the poet's own conception; and he produces these effects not by the invention of new incident, but by the pervading spirit with which he has animated the language and sentiments, and the vivid colouring he has thus thrown over the old historical representation." III. CRITICAL COMMENTS ON THE PLAY. [From Schlegel's "Dramatic Literature."*] The part of Richard the Third has become highly celebrated in England from its having been filled by excellent performers, and this has naturally had an influence on the admiration of the piece itself, for many readers of Shakspeare stand in want of good interpreters of the poet to understand him properly. This admiration is certainly in every respect well founded, though I cannot help thinking there is an injustice in considering the three parts of Henry the Sixth as of little value compared with Richard the Third. These four plays were undoubtedly composed in succession, as is proved by the style and the spirit in the handling of the subject. The last is definitely announced in the one which precedes it, and is also full of references to it; the same views run through the series; in a word, the whole make together only one single work. Even the deep characterization of Richard is by no means the exclusive property of the piece which bears his name. His character is very distinctly drawn in the two *Lectures on Dramatic Art and Literature, by A. W. Schlegel; Black's translation, revised by Morrison (London, 1846), p. 435 fol. last parts of Henry the Sixth; nay, even his first speeches lead us already to form the most unfavourable anticipations of his future conduct. He lowers obliquely like a dark thundercloud on the horizon, which gradually approaches nearer and nearer, and first pours out the devastating elements with which it is charged when it hangs over the heads of mortals. Two of Richard's most significant soliloquies, which enable us to draw the most important conclusions with regard to his mental temperament, are to be found in the last part of Henry the Sixth. As to the value and the justice of the actions to which passion impels us, we may be blind, but wickedness cannot mistake its own nature. Richard, as well as Iago, is a villain with full consciousness. That they should say this in so many words is not perhaps in human nature; but the poet has the right in soliloquies to lend a voice to the most hidden thoughts, otherwise the form of the monologue would, generally speaking, be censurable. Richard's deformity is the expression of his internal malice, and perhaps, in part, the effect of it; for where is the ugliness that would not be softened by benevolence and openness? He, however, considers it as an iniquitous neglect of nature, which justifies him in taking his revenge on that human society from which it is the means of excluding him. Hence these sublime lines: “And this word love, which greybeards call divine, And not in me; I am myself alone." Wickedness is nothing but selfishness designedly unconscientious; however, it can never do altogether without the form at least of morality, as this is the law of all thinking beingsit must seek to found its depraved way of acting on something like principles. Although Richard is thoroughly acquainted with the blackness of his mind and his hellish mission, he yet endeavours to justify this to himself by a sophism. The happiness of being beloved is denied to him; what then remains to him but the happiness of ruling? All that stands in the way of this must be removed. This envy of the enjoyment of love is so much the more natural in Richard, as his brother Edward, who, besides, preceded him in the possession of the crown, was distinguished by the nobleness and beauty of his figure, and was an almost irresistible conqueror of female hearts. Notwithstanding his pretended renunciation, Richard places his chief vanity in being able to please and win over the women, if not by his figure, at least by his insinuating discourse. Shakspeare here shows us, with his accustomed acuteness of observation, that human nature, even when it is altogether decided in goodness or wickedness, is still subject to petty infirmities. Richard's favourite amusement is to ridicule others, and he possesses an eminent satirical wit. He entertains at bottom a contempt for all mankind; for he is confident of his ability to deceive them, whether as his instruments or his adversaries. In hypocrisy he is particularly fond of using religious forms, as if actuated by a desire of profaning in the service of hell the religion whose blessings he had inwardly abjured. So much for the main features of Richard's character. The play named after him embraces also the latter part of the reign of Edward IV., in the whole a period of eight years. It exhibits all the machinations by which Richard obtained the throne, and the deeds which he perpetrated to secure himself in its possession, which lasted, however, but two years. Shakspeare intended that terror rather than compassion should prevail throughout this tragedy. He has rather avoided than sought the pathetic scenes which he had at command. Of all the sacrifices to Richard's lust of power, Clarence alone is put to death on the stage. His dream excites a deep horror, and proves the omnipotence of the poet's fancy. His conversation with the murderers is powerfully agitating; but the earlier crimes of Clarence merited death, although not from his brother's hand. The most innocent |