BigNerds.com

Was Richard III a monster or a victim of history?

Richard the III was a horrible tyrant who would stop at nothing to commit the most unthinkable acts to get what he wanted. He was a man that would kill his own family and children to obtain his one goal, which was to become the king. I know what I should be easy on the guy he couldn’t have been that bad of a guy. Well, you have to forgive me I was really unable to form an opinion of Richard. I saw Shakespeare’s adaptation of his life and I was convinced that he was this terrible man. Then I read The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey. She had a much different perspective on Richard, she explained that in a lot of ways Richard was a good guy. She explains that the events that took place such as the deaths of many of his relatives were just coincidences. In this paper I will explain how we can never trust history and I will use the comparison of these two adaptations of Richard the III.

Was Richard the III a horrible man or just a victim of history? There are two sides to every story, on one hand he was a good king that was misunderstood for his methods of becoming a king. On the other he was a horrible tyrant who would do anything to get to the top. This is why we must be so careful about and can’t take history for granted. We have two stories of Richard; one Shakespeare’s adaptation of the story depicts him as a horrible bloodthirsty maniac. Next we have Josephine Tey’s The Daughter of Time which has a much different account of Richards life. For instances, Shakespeare’s rendition of Richard was one of a tyrant, an evil hunchback. He would step to any level to become king of England; he killed, lied and stole to reach his goal. On one occasion he killed his brother to seek the hand of his brother’s wife. He then went one step further, when she didn’t accept his loving hand in marriage he begged her to slay him with the very sword that cut through her beloved husbands chest. After some dramatics she reluctantly accepted his hand, because she didn’t want to kill him and she thought of this gesture as a testament of his love for her. Richard did a lot of other cruel things: along the way he killed his other brother’s children to move up the chain of inheritance to secure his right as king. Richard was most hated by his people for killing a boy in the tower; his people saw this as a vicious act of a crazy murdering madman. In contrast, Tey’s account of Richard was very different. Richard was described as a victim, turned in to a heathen by the throne. Furthermore, Richard only committed murder only when his personal life had been disrupted. He would kill only in fits of rage, for instance if his wife cheated on him he would kill her for unfaithfulness, or perhaps kill her partner whose action with his wife, had in some way ruined their relationship or the future of his children. Whatever murder he committed would be the result of acute emotion, it wasn’t planned. So one could say that he didn’t poses the ability to kill the boy in the tower. It would have been a silly murder that Richard had nothing to gain from, therefore Richard was incapable of this murder. I am convinced that Tey’s account of Richard’s personality is the correct one, because his ideas and theories are well thought out and logical, and he has evidence to back them up. First of all, up until his the moment of his brother’s death he seems to have been admirable and devoted to his brother. Second, Richard was known as a very good administrator. He governed the North of England as well as it could be governed . And finally Richard wasn’t a hunchback that was a myth, So was the “so called” withered arm. It seems as though, he had no visible deformity, or ones that mattered. So, I feel that because there was no real historian documenting Richards’s personal life, accept for untrue myths and stories. One could disprove many of the horrible stories about Richard. After the dishonest stories are disproved all that remains is the truth. Richard appears to be an up standing citizen and loyal to his family, and though he occasionally had fits of rage ending in blood. He was not a plotting evil man.

Before I read Daughter of Time I had no idea how careful we had to be when choosing what is fact or fiction. It is very scary especially considering that there really was not a whole lot of media back in that day. Now a days we have so many forms of media that any major event could be misconstrued. Often times in the past I would read or see something that appears to be a factual piece of information and accepted it as the truth. Now I will forever wonder what the truth is, and I will be more skeptical about knowledge from potentially unreliable sources and from biased standpoints. Richard was clearly not a crazed lunatic, but merely a trapped heir that got caught up the pressure to sit on the throne of England. But most importantly, we can now clearly see that history is not set in stone and that it is our job as historians to find the truth and not accept history unless its from a credible source with witness or other credible resources.

1. “The tragedy of Richard III lies in the progressive isolation of its protagonist”. Discuss.

From the very opening of the play when Richard III enters “solus”, the protagonist’s isolation is made clear. Richard’s isolation progresses as he separates himself from the other characters and breaks the natural bonds between Man and nature through his efforts to gain power.

The first scene of the play begins with a soliloquy, which emphasizes Richard’s physical isolation as he appears alone as he speaks to the audience. This idea of physical isolation is heightened by his references to his deformity, such as “rudely stamp’d…Cheated of feature by Dissembling Nature, deformed, unfinished. This deformity would be an outward indication to the audience of the disharmony from Nature and viciousness of his spirit. As he hates “the idle pleasures of these days” and speaks of his plots to set one brother against another, Richard seems socially apart from the figures around him, and perhaps regarded as an outsider or ostracized because of his deformity. His separation from is family is emphasized when he says “Dive, thought’s down to my soul” when he sees his brother approaching. He is unable to share his thought with his own family as he is plotting against them. Thus, we are given hints of his physical, social and spiritual isolation which is developed throughout the play. But despite these hints, he still refers to himself as part of the House of York, shown in the repeated use of “Our”.

The concept of Richard’s physical isolation is reinforced in his dealings with Anne in Act I scene ii. She calls him “thou lump of foul deformity” and “fouler toad” during their exchange. Despite these insults, she still makes time to talk to Richard, and by the end of their exchange, she has taken his ring and been “woo’d” by him. After Richard has successfully gained the throne, he isolates himself when he asks the crowd to “stand all apart” in Act IV scene ii. And later, when Richard dreams, he is completely alone. Physical isolation in Richard’s deformity wins sympathy from the audience as we pity his condition. But Richard uses his deformity as a tool against the other characters, to portray them as victimizing Richard. Thus the sense of tragedy is lessened by his own actions, even though his isolation may become greater as the play progresses.

Richard’s psychological isolation is conveyed through his lack of conscience in his murderous acts. Nowhere does he feel remorse for his murders, until Act V scene iii when he exclaims “Have mercy Jesu!” and “O coward conscience, how dost thou afflict me!”. In this turning point, Richard’s division from his own self is made clear from “I and I”, and “Is there a murderer here? No. Yes, I am!” He has conflicting views of himself and realizes that “no creature” loves him, not even himself. We also never the “real” mind of Richard, for he is always playing a role, of a loving brother to Clarence, a lover to Anne or a victim to the others. We feel sympathy for Richard as he awakes in a vulnerable position and for the first time acknowledges the evil that he has done. But as he only reveals his feelings of guilt in the last act of the play, we do not see him in internal turmoil and thus the sense of psychological tragedy cannot be built upon.

Socially, Richard is isolated from both the upper and lower classes of society. In Act I scene iii, Richard sarcastically calls Elizabeth “sister”, and she contemptuously calls him “Brother of Gloucester” making a mockery of familial bonds. Margaret calls him “cacodemon” and “devil”, and any unity that the characters have on stage is temporary and superficial. In act III, the citizens are said to be “mum” and “deadly pale”, which gives a sense of quiet opposition to Richard’s activities. Richard is thus separated from all around him. Temporarily, we see Richard and Buckingham share a kind of bond, as Richard calls him “My other self”, “My Oracle” and “My prophet”. But they part when Buckingham hesitates to kill the young princes when Richard says “I wish the bastards dead”. This is the only time the audience sees Richard act with any other man, but we realize that it is for purely political purposes and that the union exists only while Buckingham remains useful to him. Our sympathy for Richard is limited as we see that he has no true friendships, and does not genuinely care for his family or friends. Thus even in his increasing isolation the sense of tragedy upon his death is not really saddening to the audience as there is no real sense of waste at his loss.

Richard isolates himself from God, as he claims to be above God’s law and only uses religion as a tool to appear holy before he is King. But ironically, although he breaks the bonds between man and Nature, he is a tool of Divine Justice as he kill those who were sinners, for example Clarence who recalls his horrible dream and realizes his guilt early in the play. As the murders accumulate so does his separation from God, and the need for his death increases. But being closer to his death brings him closer and closer to being with God. Thus although Richard may not realize it, he is never too far from God.

But Richard does not increasingly isolate himself from the audience. From our omniscient position, we share in Richard’s wit, sarcasm, and the dramatic irony brought about when other characters are not fully aware of the implication of his words. Richard also shares his feelings with us, although he is not always truthful. But the fact that he enjoys his villainy to such a great extent, and feels no remorse for his murders reduces him to a figure of Vice, and is not really seen to be a tragic figure of great proportions.

In his killing, we see the guilt of Clarence, King Edward, Rivers, Hastings Buckingham and Lady Anne exposed before their deaths, along with all those who die. Thus their deaths are necessary and the audience remembers that. Also, the deaths appear off-stage, which lessens the impact of their deaths.

The most poignant part of the play occurs in seeing the young princes talk happily and innocently to their uncle and “Lord Protector”. York says “I shall not sleep quiet in the Tower”, and we pity them, as they are young and afraid, and are forced to go there because, as the Prince says, “My Lord Protector needs will have it so”. The children had appeared happy , and the Prince had shown wit and intelligence in his conversation with his uncle. This appears to be the greatest tragic loss in the play, which is heightened because of their youth and innocence. The tragedy of the protagonist is felt because of his attractiveness as a villain and as someone who is not constrained by the rules of society. However, the audience never forgets that he is wicked and therefore we cannot feel a sense of great loss of potential or waste in his death.