A first attempt to re-arrange these entries (casually posted over a period of several months) into a consistently readable introduction to Evil Incarnate in the Audio Gallery is now in the works.
>>><<<
Frid actor/reader.
Frid amateur historian.
***
Shakespeare dramatist/writer.
Shakespeare amateur historian?
The four episodes of Evil Incarnate clearly illustrate Shakespeare’s version of the life and death of King Richard III. Our fourth and final episode, set shortly before Richard’s death, is pure Shakespearean invention...guided, of course, by the dictates of
Tudor government policy of the time.
As an actor, I play or read the characters more or less as William Shakespeare would have it done...in Richard's case, plainly a villain, although, in Episode 4, the author seems to be almost letting Richard off the hook, given the intensity of his confession.
As a curious amateur historian, however, I can now represent myself as a fledgling member of the world wide Richard III Society whose purpose, if not to completely clear the name of this Plantagenet monarch, it most certainly seeks to give a balanced picture of his character against that of his arch enemy Henry Tudor.
Warfare then was probably a nastier business than now especially when it came to the confusing question of the rules of engagement. Who among the participants wasn’t breaking them? Whatever, Shakespeare was a spokesman for the Tudors during the reign of Elizabeth I…and in his “histories” dealing with the Wars of the Roses only the Tudors could do no wrong.
Ironically, Shakespeare's acount of Richard Plantaganet on the eve of his final battle which eventually will be read by yours truly, endows the king with some redemptive qualities in that Richard finally recognizes his own villainy in terms diametrically at odds with his boastful "I am a villain" of the first scene of the play: Episode 1. It is an interesting deliniation of this uniquely Shakespearean character ( leave us not make judgements on the politics behind the telling of this story). It would seem that Shakespeare, being more the man than his political contempories, at least reveals Richard as a person able to make a full-fledged confession of whatever may have been his "misdeeds" as listed by his accusers.Yes, we get to see...at least for a moment...the man he might have been had he been chronicled in a more open society by others of his contemporaries.
It has been postulated that were it not for Shakespeare's dramatization of his short two year reign, Richard, the last king of that name, would have been past over by history as a minor interval in the long line of crowned royals.
>>><<<
Four "look-sees" at William Shakespeare's politically suspect treatment of the rise and fall of
King Richard lII.
-a work in progress-
- The Reign of Terror - The Wooing of Lady Anne - A Troubled Coronation - Collapse -
Frid's evaluation of Shakespeare's play as pure theater and not history determines once and for all that Richard, Duke of Gloucester can only be played as a monster. This, too, is according to the Tudor view which did not, of course, relate to history either...but to its own twisted concepts of who/what was right and who/what was wrong at the time. How Richard was tragically maligned during and after his reign as king is dealt with in Special Project.
>>><<<
GENERAL NOTES
RICHARD'S FORMATIVE YEARS
The events that take place in the Henry VI plays – Parts 1, 2 and 3 by Wm. Shakespeare are the precursors of every move that Richard of Gloucester takes and twists in Shakespeare’s later chronicle King Richard III. By this time, Richard has been well fed on the horrors of the Wars of the Roses, the chief preoccupation of the tragic reign of King Henry VI. He has certainly proved his mettle over and over again in the fierce fighting of those bloody wars.
A SHORT REIGN
ASSEMBLING THE OPENING
The opening fanfare for Evil Incarnate itself (it comes shortly after the introductory section) and the accompanying visual collage are symbols that we have put together to give the whole spectacle the panache it deserves before we settle down to the less brassy style of a readers’ theatre recital… when we can then open the floodgates of our own imaginations.
Our sources for the pictures have come principally from The Globe Illustrated Shakespeare intermingled with old photos of yours truly in roles that evoked a world of duplicity, militarism and fear.
~~~
A collection of takes by various actors and artists
(including our own Trev Jimenez and Sherlock)
on
~~~
of the play
King Richard III
(A First Printing of Shakespeare's Histories)
THE TRADGEDY OF King Richard the third. Containing, His treacherous Plots against his brother Clarence: the pittiefull murth(d)er of his innocent nephewes: his tyrannicall v(u)surpation: with the whole course of his detested life, and most deseru(v)ed death. As it hath beene lately Acted by the Right honourable the Lord Chamberlaine his seru(v)ants, 1597. Reissued in 1598 (with "William Shake-speare" on the title page).
Item
Another Take on Richard III
The Incorrigible Sherlock has done it again!
"I'm not all that bad ... Am I?"
~~~
Dickon by Gordon Daviot
The questionable legitamacy of theTudors
The questionable legitimacy of the Tudors is well taken in the following excerpts from Gordon Daviot's "Authors Notes" for his play Dickon, a modern or contemporary drama favourable to the character of Richard III.
"But for the treachery of one man (Stanley), Richard III would have won the battle of Bosworth; and the venomous hunch-backed monster who appears in the pages of Tudor historians would never have been invented. But Bosworth was lost; the dead body of the young king was flung, stripped and bleeding, over the back of a pony and carried from the field; and into the place of the Plantagenets, came a Welsh nobody who by the aid of French money and native impudence had got himself a crown.
Since Henry Tudor achieved by conquest what he could not claim by birth (he was a great grandson of an illegitimate son of John of Gaunt) it was desirable that the man he supplanted should be represented as unworthy to reign: as tryant, a usurper, and if possible a murderer. Henry had several paid historians, but the most effective was Richards greatest enemy John Morton; whom Henry made Archbishop of Canterbury. Morton either wrote or supplied the story now known as Sir Thomas More’s, because it was found among More’s papers. The story is detailed and dramatic and although it is also very silly, it achieved both credence and immortality; the first because Sir Thomas More’s was a name to revere, and the second because William Shakespeare used it as material for a play. And so the best of all the York princes became the villain of Tudor tradition.
As soon as the Tudors had gone, and it was once more safe to publish an opinion, the first doubt of the monstrous figure was expressed (by Buck, in the reign of James I). The caricature had been too gross; it offended the intelligence of thinking men. There was no written history of Richards day with which to refute the Tudor historians, so the doubters had in their search for fact to go back to the records. The truth was to be found not in any man’s account of contemporary events, partial and biased as that must always be, but in the unconsidered mass of contemporary documents: Parliamentary Rolls, patents, proclamations, household accounts, and private letters. And out of these mute witnesses the truth was rebuilt. But alas! For a hundred and fifty years the tudor myth had stood unchallenged, and to this day, in spite of Horace Walpole and all his colleagues in the work of vindication, nine persons out of ten not only think of Richard III as a hunch-backed murderer but are unaware that there is any evidence to the contrary."
~~~
Henry Tudor, after his hard won battle against his great adversary King Richard III at Bosworth Field,was subsequently confronted with the extremely difficult task of establishing any kind of legitimacy for himself and his kindred to the crown of England (other than literally grabbing the crown out of the mud at Bosworth Field in 1485...not an uncommon kind of high jinks in the history of warfare, come to think of it). jf
~~~
Item
Pure Evil
| Pure evil, and foul play inundating every passage of The Tragedy of King Richard III, and by no means excluding those from Jonathan Frid's Shakespearean Odyssey, will be the driving force of our next venture. | ||
 |
 | |
| To the left, an official rendering of King Richard III portrayed in his own time as a rather gentle person. To the right, a photograph of Laurence Olivier playing the title role revealing a sense of evil in a 1950s motion picture which the Tudor dynasty, no doubt, would have preferred though still probably lacking enough evil for them. Shakespeare, in his "Histories" of the last of the Plantagenet kings, was writing virtually as a "spokesman" for the Tudor government during the reign of Elizabeth I at which time King Richard was perceived to have been nothing less than a monster...hence, as history, the plays are wanting in truth and objectivity. Nevertheless, they do have a reality and consistency unto themselves and are gorgeous to listen to as pure entertainment. The first of a four part series of scenes entitled EVIL INCARNATE will be posted on this website sometime around mid-February 2003 in the Audio Gallery. It promises a great improvement in technical dexterity gained from our earlier experiment with Caliban's Island, to say nothing of the vastly different take on the capriciousness of human behaviour. The question of just how evil Richard was, according to historic documentation, or however well these allegations against him have stood the test of time will be examined in one or two essays during the coming weeks. Jonathan Frid Adam Szakacs (Webmaster) | ||
Two More Synopses
#2. "Entry" from the Encyclopedia Britannica of the play, King Richard III
(first performed 1592/93), chronicle play by Shakespeare, the background of which is the conflict between the rival houses of York and Lancaster known as the Wars of the Roses. The play is dominated by the royal hunchback Richard, brother of the Yorkist Edward IV. A Machiavellian plotter and a murderer, Richard is made regent after Edward's death and pursues his twisted course of doing away with his rivals, including Edwar's sons, the young princes, who have been left in his charge. Throughout the play Richard's villainy is protrayed as a clever man's revenge on the world for his deformity. He is finally defeated on Bosworth Field by the future Henry VII, the first Tudor king.
#3. Short Synopsis
This play covers the years 1471 to 1485 and shows how Richard, the infamous Crookback, wades through slaughter to a throne and then to destruction. First he has his own brother Clarence committed to the Tower on a charge of treason, and drowned in a butt of malmsey wine. On the death of his oldest brother Edward IV, Richard sets himself to get rid of all who are loyal to the king’s party, executing Earl Rivers and the Lords Grey and Hastings and then having the boy king Edward V and his brother smothered in the Tower. The Duke of Buckingham, Richard’s accomplice, turns against him, but is captured and executed. Meanwhile, Richard has triumphed over his physical deformity and his evil reputation by wooing and marrying Anne, widow of the dead son of Henry VI, whom he had murdered. Poisoning her after she has served her turn, he starts negotiations for an alliance with Edward IV’s daughter Elizabeth. But retribution at last overtakes him at Bosworth, near Leicester, where Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, defeats and kills Richard to succeed as Henry VII.
What’s not reported between the lines here by cover-up or otherwise, is what makes history (real history) hard to follow.
~~~
Evil Incarnate
Four "look-sees" at William Shakespeare's
King Richard III
THE PROGRAM
1. THE REIGN OF TERROR
(“ Plots have I laid…”)
2. THE WOOING OF THE LADY ANNE
(“…to make the wench amends…”)
3. A TROUBLED CORONATION
(“Tyrrel, I mean those bastards in the tower.”)
4. COLLAPSE
(“…throng to the bar crying all ‘Guilty! Guilty!’”)
~~~
Richard: Henry Tudor's Scapegoat.
Throughout those years of my close connections with Shakespeare’s history plays following the death of Edward III in 1377 (Richard II through Richard III), it was the belief of many historians, past and present, that Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, did not have a sustainable claim to the throne of England, following his defeat of King Richard at Bosworth Field in 1485. He was a Welshman and a minor member of the peerage, with only the remotest of credentials, his strongest being that Henry V’s widow, Catherine of France, married (never confirmed) Richmond’s grandfather. Legitimate or not, Catherine herself was not a Lancastrian, but only married to one, ie. her first. Her only offspring to survive either of her marriages was Henry VI.
Hence, perhaps the greatest and most desperate propagandist sales pitch of the time was to make Richmond look good to the country with the dead corpse of Richard III, minus his horse, as the best possible scapegoat that anyone could wish. It’s always fun to speculate or to wonder, by the way, what England’s history might have been if that final twist of Richard’s sword had done what Richmond’s did.
~~~
Item
PONDERING
As I ponder Richard and his kin,
Or my slick computer and its keys,
…hummm…
The more I try to pin them,
The more they simply tease.
JF masterpiece
~~~
Item
Frid a New Yorker (1954-1994 U.S.),
Frid an Old Yorkist (1377-1485 Eng.)
My theatrical involvement with Richard of Gloucester, the Wars of the Roses and the history of the English Plantagenet Kings turns out to be far more extensive than I had imagined or remembered until recently checking out an official Actors’ Equity pension file in NYC, documenting all the roles I had played in Equity productions while in the U.S.
I can now recall my answer to a long-ago interview in New York City, which led to a brief discussion of contemporary politics. I was being gently prodded as to my political affiliation, were I to vote in the U.S or Canada. My reply? Of course, I would vote for the white rose of the Yorkist party, (Wouldn’t you know that red squiggly line is showing up under ‘Yorkist’...the most frequent warning sign, by the way, to show up on my computer.) but never, never…make no mistake…would I vote for the red rose of the Lancastrians. At the time of the interview, I was steeped in historical research while preparing to play the Duke of York, Richard’s father, in an interesting compilation of scenes from Shakespeare's Histories (King Henry V through King Richard III) called The White Rose and The Red, largely taken up with The Wars of The Roses.
Around that same time, 1965, I was engaged by the Pennsylvania State University, Department of Theatre Arts to play the title role of Richard in The Tragedy of King Richard III.
But even before that in I959-60 at the Phoenix Theatre in New York City I played in productions of Shakespeare’s Henry IV Parts 1 and 2 in which I played Thomas Percy, Earl of Worcester in the first and Scroop, the Archbishop of York in the second*…two plays that were the precursors of the Wars of the Roses. These two latter characters were indeed staunch supporters of the faction that was gradually to take on a clear Yorkist shape against the Lancastrian dynasty in the early battles that would scar English country-side for the many years ahead.
* Photos of yours truly, playing all these characters, including the one in a modern sports jacket, doing my readers theatre Shakesperean Oddessy show, appear in the fanfare/collage that leads to the opening soliloquy in Evil Incarnate.
~~~
A SUMMING UP
Evil Incarnate: Who really was the instigator?
 |
 |
 |
| Richard of Gloucester? | William Shakespeare? | Henry Tudor? |
My commentaries introducing the various episodes of Evil Incarnate were originally created for the Richard III “scenes” that became a major part of my readers’ theatre program called Jonathan Frid’s Shakespearean Odyssey. That was some twenty years ago…at a time when I was not much interested in the authenticity of the play from an outside political point of view but rather in the play as a glorious celebration of Elizabeth verse drama…including the Bard’s invention of so many fascinating characters.
Just as we in our western political society today tend to take the word of our leaders at face value if not as gospel when it comes to matters of international disarray, so was my tendency twenty years ago to accept this play among the other Shakespearean “histories” as historical fact “revealed”, unbeknownst to me, through the patronage of the Tudor government of the time. In my view ever since, it was clearly a deal between Shakespeare and the Tudors: 'You give me a platform and I’ll chronicle your victories for the ages'. Imagine the greatest writer ever making such an offer. It seems to me no other dynasty in modern history has had it so good.
The more I have delved into England’s history surrounding Shakespeare’s writing of the play King Richard III, the more I find that the protagonist of the play, Richard himself, was perhaps tragically maligned, yes, dare I say…brutalized by his enemies from the House of Lancaster and the succeeding Tudor Dynasty? And so with these new investigatory findings in hand, it is obvious that I have gone through a sort of metamorphosis in my view of Richard these past twenty years, being the amateur sleuth/historian that I am.
Don’t get me wrong, however. I am first and foremost an actor…ever on the lookout for any delicious piece of villainy to perform and there’s absolutely nothing that can beat acting out the title role in William Shakespeare’s daring if not fatuous treatment of King Richard III*. And so I’ll give it a shot like I’ve never done before…Evil Unequivocal...Evil Incarnate. jf
* Some scholars expand the title of the play to “The Tragedy of King Richard III”. Considering the insights expressed above, the implied double entendre seems appropriate indeed. jf
EPISODE 1 THE REIGN OF TERROR
· Richard, Duke of Gloucester, afterwards King Richard III
· King Edward IV, oldest brother to Gloucester
· George, Duke of Clarence, older brother to Gloucester
· Brackenbury, lieutenant in charge of detail guarding Clarence
· Queen Elizabeth, Consort to King Edward IV (a great-grandmother of Elizabeth I of England...scornfully referred to by her brother-in-law, Richard, as “My Lady Grey”, her name and title from a previous marriage )
· Lord Hastings, Lord Chamberlain at the court of Edward IV…zealous Yorkist… respected at first by Gloucester, but later condemned to death.
~~~
Episode 2:
Lady Anne
Halberds
Gentleman
Richard
~~~
The Principal Characters of Episode 3:
~~~~
4. Full Synopsis
Source: Holinshed’s “Chronicles” (which include Sir Thomas More’s “History of King Richard III” and Halle’s “Chronicle”)
During The Wars of the Roses, the House of York wins a decisive battle in March 1461, but only after Richard, duke of York is killed in the fighting; and so his eldest son is declared King Edward IV. Richard (his father’s namesake), Duke of Gloucester, aspires to become king after his brother Edward, despite the fact that there are more direct heirs to the throne. Relying on his lightning intellect, his ruthless will, and his great eloquence, he cunningly sets about to eliminate all obstacles to achieving the crown. Having poisoned King Edward’s mind against their brother Clarence, Richard lays the blame on Edward’s wife Queen Elizabeth and her relatives, the Woodvilles; then, having assured Clarence that he will secure his release, he allows the King’s order for Clarence’s death to remain in effect so that he is secretly murdered in the Tower. Next, he interrupts the funeral procession for HenryVI to woo Henry’s daughter-in-law, Lady Anne, who has been made a widow by Richard’s own hand. He succeeds brilliantly and wins her for his wife. Gravely ill, King Edward hopes to reconcile his wife’s family with the older nobility, but Richard cleverly anticipates the action and convinces the lords – Buckingham, Hastings and Derby – that it has been the Queen and her faction who have stirred dissension in the court.
The dying Edward seemingly makes peace among his official family. His death following that of Clarence now leaves the King’s two young sons as the main obstacles to Richard’s aspiration. Richard and Buckingham, together with the Queen’s relatives, set off for Ludlow to bring back the older Prince to be crowned Edward V. Soon the mourning Queen hears that her supporters have been arrested and imprisoned at Pomfret Castle. Fearfully taking her younger son the Duke of York with her, she goes into sanctuary.
When Richard and Buckingham arrive in London, they immediately demand that the Duke of York be brought from sanctuary to provide company for Prince Edward who is to stay in the Tower until his coronation. Wishing to sound out the Lords about his claim to the throne, Richard sends Catesby to the Lord Hastings and learns that he staunchly supports Prince Edward. He contrives at the Council meeting that follows to arrest Hastings on flimsy charges and orders his immediate execution. At Richard’s prompting, Buckingham next addresses the Lord Mayor and a group of citizens, suggesting that not only are Edward’s children illegitimate but also that King Edward himself had been. As a result the citizens are moved by Buckingham to offer Richard the crown. Pretending to be absorbed in religious meditation, Richard at first refuses to receive them. At last he appears, holding a prayer book and in the company of two bishops, and allows the people to persuade him to accept the crown for which he has been for so long ruthlessly conniving.
Queen Elizabeth and Lady Anne learn that Richard is King when she is denied permission to visit her sons in the Tower and Lady Anne is summoned to Westminster for the coronation. One by one important courtiers, among them, the Queen’s brother, Marquis of Dorset, prepare to flee to Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, in Brittany. As King, Richard tests the loyalty of his closest advisor at this stage, the duke of Buckingham, saying he wishes the princes were dead. When Buckingham seems to hesitate, Richard becomes cold toward him and denies him the earldom he had promised him in return for his support. He then employs Sir Thomas Tyrrel to murder the princes. To counteract public disaffection with his reign, Richard resolves to marry the Lady Elizabeth, daughter of his brother Edward, but to do this he must be rid of his wife, the Lady Anne. Rumours of her illness are shortly followed by news of her death; then Richard persuades the Queen Mother to support his suit for the hand of her daughter. His success in this is offset by news that Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond is hastening toward England with a powerful navy and that Buckingham and other nobles are flocking to his support. As Richard hastily prepares for battle, he learns that Buckingham has been captured; immediately he orders his execution.
Richard directs his camp be set up at Bosworth Field while that of Richmond is nearby. That night, as the rival leaders are sleeping, the ghosts of Richard’s murdered victims appear in the dreams of both men – to curse Richard and bless Richmond. Awakening from his fearful sleep, Richard eavesdrops on his soldiers to see if any intend to defect, and, then regaining courage, he delivers a vigorous oration to his men. Richmond, confident that God is on his side, encourages his supporters to slay the tyrant and usurper. In the fierce battle that follows, Richard is slain. Richmond accepts the crown and resolves to prevent further strife by uniting the White Rose and the Red through his marriage with the Lady Elizabeth.
A deja vue recollection of Jonathan Frid's pre Dark Shadows engagment with King Richard III.
Frid Remembered as Richard in 1965
"Kay" recalls:
I should preface this with - I went to high school with a strange bunch of friends, we used to commandeer the auditorium during the lunch break and perform whatever play we were studying in literature. For some reason we preferred Shakespeare. I was a musician and not into acting but this was fun.
Anyway, I was doing some graduate work at Ohio State when one of my old friends called and told me I had to get over to Penn State to see this guy doing Richard III. I ditched a couple of classes and drove over to see him. I wish I could remember more, I do remember it reignited my love of Shakespeare and every performance of Richard since then is compared to Jonathan. We went backstage after the performance and mostly I just remember a really nice guy with a great laugh. It wasn't until a couple of months ago when I visited his website & saw a picture of him as Richard that I knew where I'd seen that vampire before (I had to search around the website to confirm it).
~~~
Item
The Lady Anne makes news in the Toronto Star
