Richard III is not useful because it is historically incorre
Richard is difficult to understand psychologically because, while he is clearly pwer-hungry and sadistic, the deep-rooted motivations for his malevolent hatred are hard to pinpoint. Some critics feel that Richard is not really a fully developed character in the way that Shakespeare's later characters, such as Macbeth or Hamlet, are. Such critics argue that Richard does not possess a complex human psychology but instead recalls a stock character from early medieval drama. Like the "Vice" character of medieval morality pageants, who simply represented the evil in man, Richard does not justify his villainy—he is simply bad. Indeed, Richard, with self-conscious theatricality, compares himself to this standard character when he says, "Thus like the formal Vice, Iniquity, / I moralize two meanings in one word" (III.i.82–83). We should note that the mere fact that he reflects upon his similarity to the Vice figure suggests that there is more to him than this mere resemblance. Watching Richard's character, Shakespeare's audiences also would have thought of the "Machiavel," the archetype of the scandalously amoral, power-hungry ruler that had been made famous by the Renaissance Italian writer Niccolò Machiavelli in The Prince (first publis . . .
Malicious, power-hungry, and bitter about his physical deformity, Richard begins to aspire secretly to the throne—and decides to kill anyone he has to in order to become king. For a number of decades in the late fifteenth century, England's royal family was locked in a power struggle that periodically erupted into violence. The Lancastrians had killed a second York son—Edmund, earl of Rutland—when he was still quite young. ) Shakespeare often plays fast and loose with the facts, stretching and altering the timeline to suit his dramatic purposes, but the plays generally are based upon historical records. In these ways, Richard III explores a theme Shakespeare later revisited in Hamlet and Macbeth—the idea that the moral righteousness of a political ruler has a direct bearing on the health of the state. Using his intelligence and his skills of deception and political manipulation, Richard begins his campaign for the throne. His extraordinary skill with words enables him to manipulate, confuse, and control those around him. Richard's skill with language and argument is what enables him to woo Lady Anne, have Clarence thrown in prison, keep the Woodvilles off his track, blame the king for Clarence's death, and achieve Hastings's execution, all at very little risk to himself. The problems began in the late fourteenth century, with the death of the long- lived King Edward III, of the house of Plantagenet. Had Shakespeare portrayed Richard as a hero, then Henry might have seemed villainous for usurping his throne, and Shakespeare might have fallen from favor with Queen Elizabeth. The boar was one of the most dangerous animals that people hunted in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, and Shakespeare's audience would have associated it with untamed aggression and uncontrollable violence . Richmond feels that he has a claim to the throne for which he is willing to challenge Richard—setting us up for the final showdown between the Houses of York and Lancaster at the Battle of Bosworth Field. Finally, Richard finds himself under threat from an unexpected source: Henry Tudor, the earl of Richmond, a descendant of a secondary branch of the Lancasters (from John of Gaunt's third wife), has been gathering power overseas. After the executions, Edward took the throne once again.
Common topics in this essay:
Richard III, Lord Buckingham, Lady Anne, Henry VII, Queen Elizabeth, Symbols Symbols, Elizabeth Woodeville, King Edward, Henry VI, Anne Clarence, richard iii, king edward, common people, queen elizabeth, henry vi, henry vii, edward iv, lady anne, king edward iv, king richard, royal family, king henry vii, succeeded son henry, richard iii begins, late fifteenth century, |
Acceptance Essays
