The History of King Richard the Third: A Reading Edition

by George M. Logan

The History of King Richard the Third is Thomas More's English masterpiece. With the help of Shakespeare, whose Richard the Third took More's work as its principal model, the History determined the historical reputation of an English king and spawned a seemingly endless controversy about the justness of that reputation.

George M. Logan has produced a scholarly yet accessible edition of the History, designed to make More's exhilarating work fully accessible to 21st-century readers. More's text is presented here with modern English spelling and punctuation, and with full annotation of linguistic difficulties and the historical background. The text is preceded by a general introduction, a chronology, and suggestions for further reading. An appendix reprints passages from key sources and analogues, enabling the reader to see how More worked with his English sources and classical models, and finally how Shakespeare worked with More.

Genres: History, Biography, Nonfiction, Royalty, British Literature, Classics, Politics

208 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1518

Reviews

[Siv30 · Rating 3 out of 5]

לסקירה מפורטת בעברית ואנגלית, קישור לבלוג שלי -

https://sivi-the-avid-reader.com/the-...

[Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

From a post I made in the Shakespeare discussion group:

"I thank my god for my humility"

-- Shakespeare's Richard as actor. Richard often copies the character of the person he is with. In general company he goes for a lowest-common-denominator approach, hence these deadly platitudes.

There is a passage about Richard's acting (and acting by politicians generally) in More's History, which must have greatly interested Shakespeare,

"And in a stage play all the people know right wel, that he that playeth the sowdayne is percase a sowter. Yet if one should can so lyttle good, to shewe out of seasonne what acquaintance he hath with him, and calle him by his owne name whyle he standeth in his magestie, one of his tormentors might hap to breake his head, and worthy for marring of the play. And so they said that these matters bee Kynges games, as it were stage playes, and for the more part plaied vpon scafoldes. In which pore men be but the lokers on."

I had better paraphrase this,

"In a stage play, everyone knows perfectly well that the person acting the Sultan is really a shoemaker. But if anyone was so lacking in good sense as to show his acquaintance with the man by inappropriately calling out his real name while he's dressed up as a king, he might be attacked and have his head broken, and serve him right for spoiling the play. Similarly these events were seen as political games, like stage plays, but played out on scaffolds, with the people as onlookers."

More's History is not a history in the conventional sense, but rather a study in political control, persuasion and propaganda. There are long sections in direct speech, rather like a novel. Here, More is looking at the way political rituals are never challenged.

---------------

A significant classic, akin to Machiavelli rather than the English Chroniclers. Also, a good introduction to late 15th/early 16th century English prose. By no means an easy read.

[Jane Griffiths · Rating 2 out of 5]

Yes I know More is a saint and all, but that doesn't make this work worth while. It is a piece of spin, based on hearsay, and intended to contribute to the trashing of the reputation of King Richard III. Yes, that Richard, who reigned for barely two years and who lost the ultimate battle at Bosworth. He LOST, Tommy! So why did you feel the need, so much later, to continue trashing him? Why was it necessary? Answer me that. Maybe, just maybe, there was the memory of Good King Richard. Trial by jury, justice for the poor, laws in English. There would have been much more if Richard had lived. And now Richard has been buried with dignity and honour, and thousands go to pay respect - no one goes to YOUR grave, you twisted old pervert.

[Susan Abernethy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Whether you agree with More's recounting of events or not, it is a joy to read his writing. This edition also has great background infomation from the editor about More's intention in writing this book and his methods. I recommend it.

[Dawn · Rating 2 out of 5]

painful but i have good quotes for my epq

[Jason · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting book given the context of the time. It is a work of propaganda and should seen as that. however, somehow, there things in this book that led me to believed that Thomas More's life as a law maker might have given him access to criminal testimony once thought to be a myth.

[Henriette · Rating 1 out of 5]

Na sam początek chcę podkreślić, że jeszcze przed przeczytaniem miałam świadomość, iż nie znajdę tu ani jednego dobrego słowa o Richardzie, chociażby dlatego, że sam Thomas More był osobą ważną na dworze Tudorów, a głównym źródłem jego informacji był prawdopodobnie John Morton, u którego służył i który koordynował opozycję przeciwko Richardowi III we Flandrii. Wiem, że wiele osób się ze mną nie zgodzi, gdyż dla nich Thomas More jest źródłem wiarygodnych informacji i uznają jego dzieło za takie, na jakim mogą w pełni polegać, aczkolwiek zupełnie nie rozumiem powodu ku temu, skoro książka (zatytułowana jako "Historia Króla Richarda III", przypominam) obejmuje jedynie rok wydarzeń, w dodatku niepełny (zaczyna się od śmierci Edwarda IV w kwietniu 1483r. i kończy jeszcze tego samego roku we wrześniu/październiku) a wiadomości o kluczowych momentach w historii Richarda (koronacja, bitwa o Bosworth) są zawarte w jednych akapitach i łatwo można je skrócić do "jego koronacja odbyła się w lipcu" i "zmarł w bitwie o Bosworth, pokonany przez Henry'ego VII". Właściwie to nie nazwałabym tej książki nawet "Historią Króla Richarda III", bo – po przekopiowaniu całości do programu i wyłapaniu fragmentów dotyczących Richarda – samego Króla dotyczy nawet nie połowa tego, co zostało napisane. Już bardziej odpowiednim tytułem byłoby "Wydarzenia z roku 1483". Słowa More'a, kiedy już wspomina o Richardzie, brzmią jak zwyczajna propaganda, celowa próba zniesławienia Króla (która, uwieczniona w sztuce Williama Shakespeare'a, odniosła sukces), a każde zdanie o nim ma okropny wydźwięk i nie ciężko jest zauważyć, że cała ta "historia" została napisana tylko po to, by zarzucić Richardowi niestworzone winy i narzucić taki jego obraz, aby czytelnik sam zaczął traktować go jako książkowy przykład złoczyńcy. Oczywiście More przyjmuje narrację, w której Richard III jest okropnym tyranem, który zabił Henry'ego VI i zlecił morderstwo swoich bratanków (na obie winy nie ma żadnego dowodu), a wszystko to dopełnia wymyślony garb Richarda oraz "withered arm", o którym wspomina się na tyle często, że staje się to nudne. Podejście do jego postaci jest tu zwyczajnie złe, nie ma nawet prób zrozumienia go, usilnie próbuje się odjąć mu wszelkie dobre cechy, spłaszczając całą jego osobę do "urodził się z zębami i włosami, miał garba i skrzywioną osobowość, a już od dziecka był gorszy niż diabeł; zabił niewinnego Króla Henry'ego VI, a później swych bratanków, by uzurpować tron, przez co później miał paranoję" i wciąż byłoby to ociupinkę więcej informacji, niż zapodaje nam autor. Do całości obrazu "króla-złoczyńcy" brakuje jedynie powtórzenia plotek o tym, że sam otruł Anne Neville, swoją żonę, aby móc ożenić się z bratanicą, Elizabeth York, i byłaby to najpiękniejsza, najbardziej wiarygodna biografia. Książka sama w sobie nie jest zbyt dobrze napisana, ma dużo dialogów (których More definitywnie nie był świadkiem, część z nich pewnie sam wymyślił) brzmiących chaotycznie tak bardzo, że niekiedy ciężko jest je zrozumieć. Podobnie jest z przejściem między scenami, wtrąceniami wyjaśnień pozwalających dokładniej zrozumieć dane wydarzenie, jak i ogólnie ułożeniem faktów. Nie jest to moja pierwsza książka związana z Wojną Dwóch Róż (ani stricte z wydarzeniami z 1483r.), w dalszym ciągu jednak często gubiłam się w tekście i musiałam czytać od nowa, gdyż autor postanowił wstawić sobie wyjaśnienie, kim był John Morton pomiędzy dwoma scenami, które zupełnie go nie dotyczą. W dodatku More ciągle wspomina, że wie coś z "wiarygodnych źródeł", lecz ani razu nie wspomina kim/czym one są, co sprawia, że nie wydają się ani odrobinę wiarygodne i raczej stają się coraz większym żartem, ilekroć są wspominane. Głównymi problemami u More'a jest chwalenie każdego oprócz Richarda III – do każdej wspomnianej przez niego postaci można znaleźć dobre słowo jego autorstwa, lecz nie o Richardzie, bo tu nie znajdzie się nawet jednego zdania o jego waleczności podczas Bosworth czy też koronacji, podczas której (prawdopodobnie jako jedyny Król Anglii) złożył przysięgę po angielsku; a także mnóstwo innych błędów, z których jeden pojawił się już w pierwszym zdaniu książki (Edward żył czterdzieści jeden lat, kiedy More notuje, że zmarł w wieku pięćdziesięciu trzech lat). Wiele z tego, co napisał More, brzmi po prostu jak fantastyka (zwłaszcza historia o zleceniu morderstwa Książąt z Tower Sir Jamesowi Tyrrellowi) i ciężko jest uznać jego dzieło za rzeczywiste wiarygodne źródło informacji, nie postrzegając go jako przesiąkniętego tudorowską propagandą i nienawiścią skierowaną ku ostatniemu z Plantagenetów.

[Ira · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an interesting history, in that More does not so much write a historical account of the rule of King Richard III, but shows how thirst for power develops into tyranny, something the author detested. Written by a young More, it points to themes that recur in his later writings, but it is also fresh, intimate and reads like a short novel. The book inspired Shakespeare to write his famous play.

[Miriam · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this for a seminar, but I must say that I really enjoyed it. I don't quite agree with how More presents some events here, but I can really appreciate this book for what it is. I especially liked the narrator, full of sarcasm and intelligent comments on life, as well as More's editorializing comments on historiography.

[Lucy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thomas More's history has established much of the narrative around Richard III. It remained unpublished for decades but perfectly captures the Tudor propaganda of the day. 
Richard III is a crook-backed villain to a ridiculous degree (even praising his brother the Duke of Clarence who was dishonourably executed for treason). It is easy to read and a fascinating picture of the sixteenth century. 

[J.P. Harker · Rating 2 out of 5]

Well, it's a lot more fiction than non, but still interesting stuff!

[Cassie]

Not rated. Read for school.

[KAdelaide · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thomas Mores account of Richard III. Some glaring errors and inconsistencies.
About half way through- someone else finishes the book.

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

Most people, if they think of anything involving the English king Richard III, assume he was an evil hunchback who had his young royal nephews killed to ensure he would be king as depicted by William Shakespeare.

While it is highly likely that yes, Richard did have his nephews killed, the truth is Shakespeare's monarch is a monster of the highest order. Futhermore, Shakespeare didn't invent his stories, so where did he get his version of Richard from?

Well, he got it from Thomas More.

More wrote his history, and knowing Shakespeare's play will probably add a new level of appreciation for what More has here. Richard is every bit as twisted as Shakespeare would depict him as, but likewise nothing but praise is heaped upon Henry VII and Edward IV, also known as Henry VIII's (More's king) father and maternal grandfather respectively. More managed to shape history and personal opinion on his ruler's father's political enemy for decades to come, while sprinkling his narrative with humanist conversations and providing a basic framework for a biography. Though mostly of interest to scholars, this reading edition is highly accessible and worth a look for anyone looking into Shakespeare's own sources, or perhaps interested in more of More's work outside Utopia.

[Robert · Rating 3 out of 5]

It could be that the flow of the book was greatly diminished by the constant need for footnotes, but even accounting for that I did not come away awed by this moralizing history of a tyrant. Perhaps I was not overly impressed because tyrants have gotten so much more foul and crazed since then, and their biographies so much more graphic and invasive.

However, my hat is off to the Duke of Buckingham, who is a slimy sophist and career politician in the worst of ways, with excellent re-workings of logic till you almost believe that day is night and night is day.

[Chris · Rating 1 out of 5]

I found this book incredibly unstimulating and completely boring. I hardly ever find a book as boring as this one. The history itself should actually be interesting but I got lost in More's description of Richard III's life and events that occured during his life. He didnt site his sources all that often and frankly I just didnt like it.

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

This text has all the strengths - and all the shortcomings - of a work of literature and a work of history. Interesting to look at one of Shakespeare's sources for *his* play, but on its own, falls quite short of Thomas More's usual faire.

[Joti · Rating 3 out of 5]

After having read Richard the Third, it was interesting to see Thomas More's 'History' of him, but hardly as interesting as Shakespeare's play - probably because it's like this long recitation of events instead of characters acting on-stage.

[Xenia0201 · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was very difficult to read as it was in Old English and therefore painstakingly hard to translate and decipher.

[Veronica · Rating 5 out of 5]

I fell in love with this book. One of the best history books I've read. A little hard to get through the archaic language, but once you get used to it, the things More is doing are brilliant.

[Helen Mears · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not easy to read, but worth persevering with just to hear Thomas More's voice. This was the source text for Shakespeare's play and the origin of the dark myth of Richard.

[Sophie Murray-Morris · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is a difficult read but pretty essential reading if you're looking to study Shakespeare's Richard III. More is witty but the factual errors let the text down a little.

[Jen · Rating 5 out of 5]

A hard read; but what great content from the view from a man that lived in that time!

[Laura Parry · Rating 3 out of 5]

Difficult read, but worth it- especially now that a lot of what More said about King Richard III has been confirmed.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

An interesting document. Certainly one that would not appeal to the Ricardians!

[Eleonora]

Fake news in Modern Age England. As an historian it's quite interesting to see how much this idea of Richard being a bad king shaped our minds, to the point in which today you can still find in some Encyclopaedias this kind of narration! Impressive. I guess More goes hand in hand with Shakespeare.