In contemporary books about the English history, the entry about Richard III reads approximately as follows:
According to popular belief the most villainous King in English history was a hunchback who plotted all his life to become King. This relentless pursuit of the crown was done at any cost, even it seems down to the murder of the royal princes, the sons of Edward IV […].
When reading on, most of the works revise their opinion and admit that actually Richard was not any more blood thirsty or brutal than other contemporary monarchs, that the “popular belief” that he killed his Nephews in the Tower, and that he was malformed, was actually not a fact, but an assumption, which has not been proven up to this day. Although most of the time the reliable sources revise their opinion about this monarch a few paragraphs later, the first impression on the history-interested person is made. The question here is what creates or created this image of the villainous and deformed Richard III? Some history books mention William Shakespeare’s history The Tragedy of King Richard III as one of the possible works that have been influencing the people’s opinions about this English king. This essay is intended to analyze in what way Shakespeare’s work undermines this thesis and what picture he really drew of the monarch Richard III.
In order to understand this complex matter, the essay will guide through the historical background of the drama and will try to analyze the notion of Shakespeare’s portrayal. Furthermore, as the character of Richard appears in earlier plays already, the beginnings of the character will be presented in order to highlight the complexity of the character’s development. In addition, two characterizing scenes will be examined, so that the different views on Richard’s complexion can be observed. The last part consists of a short analysis of Richard’s counterpart Richmond, which emphasizes the impact that Richard’s complexion has on the audience.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2.1. Historical Background
2.2. The early development of Richard’s complexion
2.3. Richard’s first soliloquy
2.4. The courting scene with Anne
2.5. Richard’s counterpart: Richmond
3. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This essay explores how William Shakespeare's portrayal of Richard III has shaped the public perception of the historical monarch. It investigates the literary construction of Richard's character, the influence of the "Tudor Myth," and the psychological appeal of his villainy, questioning whether Shakespeare's work serves as a primary source for the persistent negative reputation of the king.
- The influence of the Tudor Myth on Shakespearean characterization
- The correlation between physical appearance and inner character in Elizabethan thought
- Rhetorical and psychological strategies used by Richard to manipulate others
- The concept of "sinister aesthetics" and audience fascination with evil
- The contrast between Richard and his counterpart, Richmond
Excerpt from the Book
2.3. Richard’s first soliloquy
The beginning of Richard III starts with a soliloquy of Richard, which consists of three parts. At first, he gives a situation-overview, followed by another self-assessment very similar to the already quoted one above, and a demonstration of Richard’s further plans.
In the second part the intellectual villain who dominates the play is introduced: “And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover / To entertain these fair well-spoken days / I am determined to prove a villain/ And hate the idle pleasures of these days.” This sarcastic conclusion makes clear that Richard, unlike in Senecan Tragedies such as the Spanish Tragedy, the outer circumstances cannot be responsible for Richards actions, but only his character and own will are accountable for that. Richard chooses to be a villain and makes that unmistakably clear to the audience. He further describes himself as the shadow, which stands in contrast to “this glorious sun of York”, an antipode of light and dark, of good and evil: another catchy motif which occurs repeatedly throughout the play, and which, as we will see later on, plays a vital role with regard to Richards counterpart Richmond and the resulting sympathies for both of the characters.
The fact that he shares his further plans with the audience (namely that he is plotting an intrigue in order to eliminate the human barriers standing between him and the crown) makes us his accomplices. We become his confidants in the very first scene already and are drawn into his plotting and his character, before we are able to even attempt a struggle. We may feel uneasy about this, but somehow we enjoy Richard’s “virtuosity in villainy”. This might be one of the factors that make the play so influential on the peoples’ lasting attitude towards its major character as well as the historical figure.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter outlines the discrepancy between historical reality and the popular image of Richard III, introducing Shakespeare's play as a potential source for this lasting misconception.
2.1. Historical Background: The author discusses the political necessity for the Tudor dynasty to legitimize their rule, which involved fostering a negative image of Richard III through "Tudor-friendly" historical records.
2.2. The early development of Richard’s complexion: This section traces how Shakespeare established Richard’s character through the preceding York Tetralogy, emphasizing the Elizabethan belief that outer deformity reflects an inner malice.
2.3. Richard’s first soliloquy: An analysis of Richard’s opening speech, demonstrating how he actively chooses his role as a villain and creates a complicit relationship with the audience.
2.4. The courting scene with Anne: This chapter examines Richard’s rhetorical prowess and psychological manipulation in his interaction with Lady Anne, highlighting the audience's fascination with his "sinister aesthetics."
2.5. Richard’s counterpart: Richmond: The author argues that Richmond serves as a flat, idealized contrast to Richard, intended to represent the "good" and legitimate authority to satisfy the political climate of the Elizabethan era.
3. Conclusion: The study concludes that Shakespeare's brilliant characterization of Richard III has inadvertently transformed a complex historical figure into a lasting caricature of evil.
Keywords
Richard III, William Shakespeare, Tudor Myth, Villainy, Characterization, Sinister Aesthetics, Rhetoric, History, Elizabethan Age, Richmond, Power, Dramaturgy, Psychology, Literature, War of the Roses.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this work?
The paper examines the extent to which William Shakespeare’s play "The Tragedy of King Richard III" is responsible for the enduring historical image of Richard III as a villainous, deformed king.
What are the central themes discussed in the essay?
The central themes include the manipulation of historical perception, the "Tudor Myth," the Elizabethan connection between physical deformity and moral character, and the psychological impact of literary villiany on audiences.
What is the main objective or research question?
The primary research question is: In what way does Shakespeare’s work influence the public’s perception of Richard III, and what specific picture of the monarch does he present?
Which scientific methodology is applied?
The essay utilizes a literary-historical analysis, examining primary texts (the plays) and secondary literary criticisms to uncover the techniques used to build the character of Richard.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body covers the political background of the Tudor era, the development of Richard's character across multiple plays, his specific rhetorical techniques in key scenes, and a comparison with his antagonist, Richmond.
Which keywords best characterize this academic work?
The work is best characterized by keywords such as Richard III, Shakespeare, Tudor Myth, sinister aesthetics, literary characterization, and historical reputation.
How does the author define "sinister aesthetics"?
The author, referencing Joel Eliot Slotkin, describes it as the audience's psychological fascination with a villainous character, where the attraction arises not in spite of, but because of the character's dark and artful nature.
Why is Richmond considered a "flat character" in this analysis?
Richmond is characterized as flat because he functions primarily as a symbol of legitimate, supernatural good and order, appearing in the final act as a finished, idealized counterpart that lacks the literary depth and complexity of Richard.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Anonym (Autor:in), 2008, Villain or hero? - Shakespeare's image of Richard III, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/201795
