In the episode "The The Twilight Zone" "The Purple Testament" (12 February 1960), an American soldier named Lieutenant Colonel Fitzzgerald (William Reynolds) in World War II is suddenly developing the opportunity to see when someone is near death. He can look at his compatriots and see the eerie shine coming from their faces. Since this is a war time, Fitz will have many opportunities to see people shortly before they die. Fitz initially tries to warn the troops that they are fate to be killed, but his statements (as expected) prove harmful to the morale of troops. The story will end when Fitz sees a eerie shine coming from his face. He rides in a jeep with two more soldiers ... whose faces are also shining. On the battlefield, death is inevitable.

Then, Rod Serling seems to deliver its closed monologue, explaining the title of the episode. He says:

"From William Shakespeare, Richard III, a small excerpt. The line reads: "He came to open the purple will for war with bleeding." And for Lieutenant Colonel William Fitzgerald, company, first platoon, the will is closed.

It is really poetic because Serling comes from a generation of scientific writers who were well trained in the classics. He wanted to quote Shakespeare, Shelley and Shaw and find dramatic parallels between the ancient and his modern representations of the fantastic morality.

The only problem: the "purple will" line is not from Richard III. I actually comes from the less celebrated "Richard II", which Bard wrote a few years later. "Richard III" is about the bloody stupidity of the ambition and the death of the hero of the battlefield. "Richard II" is a very, very different kind of game, which details the tragic weaknesses of the title monarch.

"Richard III" is the culmination of a series of four parts of history, called Yorkyorque Tetrology (which included "Henry VI" parts I, II and III) and sees the growth and fall of the tyrant. Meanwhile, "Richard II" was the first part of a completely another series called Plantagnet's Tetralogy (which also included "Henry IV" parts I and II and Henry V), which shows the rise and triumph of savvy and self -conscious boy King, even when he betrayed his old friends to drink in favor of his career. It is likely that English -speaking students had to read or "Richard III" or "Henry against" At some point during their high school years.

The central themes of Richard III and Richard II are, as mentioned, very different. Richard III sees King's title rising in power through a series of Mahiavellian machinations, including killings and betrayals. The play ends during the battle at Bosworth Field, where Richard - thanks to all his evil and stupidity - is betrayed by his troops. As the Wallsids close, Richard shouts that he will give his kingdom for a horse. He is killed by the man who will continue to be King Henry VII. In that play, Richard III's central character failed to be his political ambition, linked to his ultimate lack of a moral center. If he can handle the highest office in the country, then the ends justify the funds.

You can see the war in "Richard III" as a pathetic rise in the ambition of the villain. The play can even be interpreted as anti -war rhetoric, saying that all combat efforts are only produced to calm the ego of the tyrant. If that is one's interpretation, then Serling's quote at the end of the "purple will" makes sense. The phrase "purple will" is made in terms of war. The full quote: "(E) Many steps that make on my country is a dangerous betrayal: it is to open the purple will for war with bleeding."

Meanwhile, the title of King of Richard II is considered a tragic figure whose central moral misses were not related to ambition or military triumph, but indecision and general cowardice. Richard II is trying to resolve a dispute between some of his vassals by holding a fight trial. But instead of allowing the trial to continue, Richard II interrupts and stretches the plaintiffs from England instead. These are not the actions of a clear commander. It also does not help popular perceptions of his character when he inserts the happiness of a recent dead associate, angry at the aristocracy. Richard II is a spoiled king and attracts Henry's anger by Bollingbrock, the man destined to be Henry IV.

"Richard II" is underestimated, by the way. Read or watch the BBC's production.

In the context of Shakespeare's later play, the "purple will" line comes from a man who moves away from struggle. Richard II can speak a big game, but I would rather rely on his laurels. Serling, in the interference of "Richard II" and "Richard III", robbed the title of the meaning of their episode. The way it is, you can only look at the phrase "purple will" as a general allusion of war without further deeper meaning behind it. If it actually comes from Richard III, then there would be a darker, more tragic element to the title. War is a frightening thing that only tyrant brings.

In "Richard II", however, the war is not needed to deposit the king of weight loss. Bollingbrook just waits until Richard left the country and then does not take the throne in his absence. The war is not the main topic of "Richard II".

It's one of the few times that Rod Serling made a mistake.