Tradition and Originality
in Shakespeare’s Richard III
When reading Richard III play, I assume I was reading historical contexts, but wonder how Shakespeare was able to document it in so much detail. It is clear that I’m not the only one. From the title, “originality” refers Shakespeare’s creation of Richard III and time while "tradition" refers to the fact in the drama. “Shakespeare’s new and original treatment of time… frequent allusion to hours and days… creates the effect of a rapid passing of time. (The original material in of the chronicle covered in fact ten years) (Clemen 252)” I did not realize I’ve read 10 years of history, because everything happens quickly together that I thought I’m in the same time just places. Shakespeare originality would be connecting the past, present and future together by announcing it in the play. This is probably a way to move the audience or blind them from the traditional time. Stories, plot and characters in Richard III play are accumulative as the play progress. Clemen shows that Shakespeare creates “motivation, and characters that are never lost in the play but bought up again later as a connection” (249). Shakespeare creates an image of Richard III where he’s devious, powerful, and have a clear intention. This is display in the beginning of the play before it expands through the Acts. Even though, the scene does not include Richard III, it is still somehow about him. The scene on the murder of Clarence needs some justification. I believe Shakespeare originality is accusing Richard III actually hire two murderers to kill his nephew Clarence. I don’t see the relevance of killing his nephew after killing Edward and discrediting his children legitimacy. Richard III knew the crown would be his without killing his nephew. Therefore this scene is probably way off from the traditional value of history. Shakespeare originality of history in drama makes things difficult to see what...