A SELECTIVE AND CRITICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SHAKESPEARE 1 S RICHARD I I I: 1945 TO 1980 By JAMES ALTON ~DORE Bachelor of Science in Education North Texas State University Denton, Texas 1965 Master of Arts North Texas State University Denton, Texas 1967 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May, 1982 Thesis /CJ22D 'Iv; ? c::l;L.5 &sµ-i Copyright by James Alton Moore 1982 A SELECTIVE AND CRITICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SHAKESPEARE'S RICHARD I II: 1945 TO 1980 Thesis App roved: I ~~"(;_ ->:;~ Dean of the Graduate Co 11 ege ii 1137883 PREFACE This bibliography is primarily concerned with the selection and evaluation of criticism written on Shakespeare's Richard I I I from 1945 to 1980, although a few works of the years 1940-1944 are included which help to clarify later critical trends. have also included selective commentary upon the life and reign of the historical Richard I I I, for it seems to me that such information is germane to criticism of Shakespeare's history plays and especially to the play which helped to 11 create11 the historically controversial and enigmatic Richard I I I. Although several editions of Richard 111 provide significant criticism, since they are readily available in both single volumes and collected works, I have ex- cluded them from this study. have also excluded commentary upon stage history, stage and film performances, and reviews in order to concentrate upon criticism and historical commentary more directly concerned with interpretation of the text. Finally, I reluctantly omitted unpublished theses because in the inevitable process of s~lection, the great quantity of published criticism took precedence. This study has three major objectives. First, it is intended to pro­ vide scholars with ready access to a wide range of Richard I I I criticism published in books and journals. Many excellent Shakespeare bibliograph­ ies exist, of course, but sections on Richard II I are often limited by the inclusionary scope of these volumes. Other bibliographical sources for Richard I I I criticism, while abundant, are disseminated among i i i (usually) annual bibliographies in periodical publications or within the documentation of books and articles. A second major objective is to provide scholars with an overview of major trends and directions of Richard I I I criticism since World War I I. The year 1945 not only marks an obvious turning point in world history which has profound implications for literary study, but it also denotes the beginning of 11 Tillyardian'' criticism of Shakespeare's history plays with the publication of E. M. W. Tillyard's The Elizabethan World Picture (1943) and Shakespeare's History Plays (1944). The second of these is particularly relevant to this dissertation, for undoubtedly no other critic since World War 11 more greatly influenced the criticism of the histories, for good or ill. 1 A third objective is to evaluate the quality of Richard II I criti- cism from 1945 to 1980. Therefore Chapter VI is a critical bibliography in which, after identifying the main issues of each reference, I then point o,ut the merits of the work based upon the significance of its con- tribution to Richard I I I criticism, the degree to which it fulfills its stated purpose, and its quality relative to other works within this bib- 1 iography. All documentation in the body of this study is placed in parentheses within the text and refers to Chapter VI by item number and date. This 1Norman Sanders, "American Criticism of Shakespeare's History Plays," Shakespeare Studies, 4 (1976), 11-24. Sanders provides an excellent over­ view of history play criticism since 1778. I find that my format in Chap­ ter I is similar to his, although I have selected general works mainly because they contain substantial criticism specifically on Richard I I I. iv is not an uncommon method, but I was particularly guided by the technique of Larry S. Champion. 2 I would 1 ike to thank the members of my dissertation committee for their patience, accessibility, and invaluable guidance. am especially indebted to Dr. David Shelley Berkeley for suggesting that write a Shakespeare bibliography and then allowing me great latitude in choosing the subject and developing the format. With his consistent good humor and wise counsel, Dr. Berkeley is a model for the academic professional. I am grateful also for the encouragement from my col leagues in the English Department and the cooperation of the administrative officials of East Central Oklahoma State University, where I have been happy to teach since 1967. President Stanley P. Wagner, Vice President Billy Jett Tillman, and Vice President for Academic Affairs Gene Stephenson have granted sabbatical leaves and exceptional courtesies necessary for the completion of this project. I am also deeply grateful to Head Librarian John Walker and Interlibrary Loan personnel of the ECOSU Linscheid Library. They have provided me with access to most of the data in this bibliography and often have exceeded the bounds of their usual duties in doing so. must thank my parents, Mr. and Mrs. H. L. Main, for instilling within me a desire for excellence which has brought me through many a dark hour to this point. Finally, no words can express my loving grati- tude for the thousands of sacrifices, both large and small, to which my wife Jan and our dear children Jeffrey, Jill, and Juliet have submitted in order that I might live out my dream. 2compiler, 11 King Lear11 : An Annotated Bibliography. 2 volumes. The Garland Shakespeare Bibliographies. General Ed., William Godshalk (New York, 1980). v TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I • INTRODUCTION I I. TEXT AND SOURCES 8 I II. STRUCTURE AND THEME 14 IV. CHARACTERIZATION . 20 V. LANGUAGE AND IMAGE 25 VI. RICHARD I II: A CRITICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY FROM 1945 TO 1980 31 INDEX 191 vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The end of World War I I marked the appearance of a number of impor­ tant works of criticism which treated Shakespeare 1 s history plays in general and which had profound and lasting effects upon the direction of such criticism for decades to come. Perhaps the most influential of these early critical ideas has been E. M. W. Tillyard's formulation of the Tudor Myth (I tern 7, 1944), a scheme of orthodox po 1itica1 and re 1 i - gious doctrine promoted by the Tudor monarchs to justify their claim to the throne. In Shakespeare's history plays Tillyard found that this scheme influenced Shakespeare's historical interpretation as well as in his dramatic tendencies, for his major sources (in the First Tetralogy primarily Edward Hall's The Union of the Noble and lllustre Famelies of Lancastre and Yorke, 1548, and Raphael Holinshed's second edition of The Chronicles of England, Scotlande, and lrelande, 1587, among others) glorify the Tudor monarchs; whose dynasty was providentially established by Henry VI I. By the grace and design of God, according to the Tudor Myth, Henry delivered England from the monstrous tyrant, King Richard I II, by defeating him at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485. The hos­ tile image of Richard I I I Shakespeare acquired ultimately from Polydore Vergil's Anglica Historia (1534) and Sir Thomas More's The History of King Richard I I I (1513). Vergil's work is unabashed Tudor propaganda, while More's has come to be viewed as a genuine work of art, but they 2 both represent Richard II I not only as the standard tyrant~ but also as an instrument of God's punishment of England in retribution for the unlawful deposing of the anointed King Richard I I in 1399. With Richard I ll 1 s death and the Lancastrian Henry's marriage to Elizabeth York, the agonizing punishment of the internecine Wars of the Roses ends, and a chastised England enters into the new Tudor era of national unity, peace, and prosperity. (For commentary upon Richard I I l's historical person as opposed to his image in Shakespeare's Richard_l_l_I, see the fol­ lowing entries in Chapter VI: Items 22, 1951; 39, 1954; 46, 1955; 82, 1959; 90, 1961; 100, 1962; 106, 1963; 111' 1964; 118, 1965; 125, 1966; 128, 1965; 142, 1968; 144, 1968; 157, 1971; 165, 1972; 176, 1973; 190, 1975; 192, 1975; 209, 1977; 210, 1977; 211' 1977; 212, 1977; 214, 1977; 219, 1977; 222, 1978; 225, 1978; 233, 1978; 236, 1979.) Such is the overriding theme, indeed, the informing vision, which Tillyard established as central to all other considerations in Shake­ speare's history plays, and in none of the plays is this historical scheme more significant than in Shakespeare's Richard I I I. For the rise and fall of Richard, occurring as it does at this particular historical juncture and taking this particular form, was viewed by Shakespeare's contemporaries as having nothing less than apocalyptic overtones. Of course critics have disputed the prominence of this scheme in Shake­ speare's histories, but Tillyard 1 s work remains a catalyst and a con­ stant referent for history play criticism. Closely following Tillard 1 s lead, John Palmer (Item 8, 1945) admits the prominence of the Tudor Myth in Shakespeare's history plays, but more closely limits Richard Ill's motives to psychological realism and political expediency than to Providence or Fortune. Another standard 3 work in the Tillyardian mold is Lily B. Campbell's study (Item 11, 1947) of the history plays. She strongly emphasizes Shakespeare's primary con­ cern with history and politics and his secondary concern with the plot­ ting of the story, but Hardin Craig (Item 13, 1948) was one of the first to concern himself with the relationship between the history plays and the great tragedies.