Pedagogical University of Cracow

Faculty of Philology
Institute of Modern Languages

English Philology

Teaching Specialization

Przemysław Graca

King Richard the Third, the Last Plantagenet

in The Tragedy of King Richard the Third
by William Shakespeare

B.A. paper
written under the supervision
of Ewa Panecka, PhD

Cracow 2013
 Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny
im. Komisji Edukacji Narodowej
w Krakowie

Wydział Filologiczny

Instytut Neofilologii

Filologia angielska, Specjalność nauczycielska

Przemysław Graca

Prezentacja Ryszarda III

ostatniego króla dynastii Plantagenetów
w dramacie Williama Szekspira: “Ryszard III”

Praca dyplomowa
napisana pod kierunkiem
dr Ewy Paneckiej

Kraków 2013
Table of Content:

1. Introduction 4

2. Chapter One 7

3. Chapter Two 15

4. Conclusion 22

5. Works Cited 23

6. Streszczenie 24
 Introduction

The aim of the following thesis is to offer an analysis of the figure of King
Richard the Third, the last king of the house of Plantagenet as he is presented in The
Tragedy of King Richard the Third by William Shakespeare. Shakespeare's history
plays were based on the framework established by popular history writings, mainly
Raphael Holinshed's Chronicles. These chronicles served as a source for
Shakespeare's plays and outline for his characters, from Richard II to Richard III.
According to these sources Edward III was considered a prosperous king, Richard II
inexperienced and weak, Henry V beloved and heroic. Most of these sources agree
that Richard III was evil incarnate and his actions were as abominable as his
apparition. The sources were not written by objective, impartial historians, if such
existed in the Elizabethan England, searching for reliable history accounts was never
Shakespeare's concern. Hence certain authentic characters are reanimated, time,
place and geography frequently mismatch reality. In these times history was not the
branch of science known today, but rather a way of using stories of the past to make
a political point. Under the patronage of the Tudors, literature writers deliberately
manipulated history and gave birth to a whole set of interpretations and myths. These
legends were well rooted in the audience's consciousness, and Shakespeare had to
deliver a story they knew, altering history to increase its dramatic effect, while being
as politically correct as he could. Failure to do so could have resulted in his
imprisonment in the Tower, where so many of his play's characters met their end.
Furthermore, the stories of the past had valuable lessons to teach. Edward Hall's
works, for example, taught that England was already largely Protestant before it
became the country’s predominant religion, Shakespeare's play showed what the
Tudor monarchs intended to teach: that the monarch has to be obeyed unless God
wills otherwise, as in the case of Richard and that it was right for Henry, the duke of
Richmond, to claim the throne. The poet presented his story in the way history was
presented in his times, and in the process damaged Richard's reputation more than
any other pearson's '(...) Shakespeare belonged to his age, & was common to all the
first-rate men of that true Saeculum aureum of English Poetry, and what is his own,
& his only (…)'1
Since the defeat of The Great Armada, the English started to take interest in

1 Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. Coleridge's writings on Shakespeare. op. cit., p. 27.

4
their past and a kind of national consciousness began to emerge. History plays
started to appear in numbers never seen before, in a fairly short amount of time
playwrights managed to fill the gap and meet the arising demand. It was not long
before the crown took interest in history plays as a way of educating its subjects and
spreading its doctrine. Shakespeare, as Elizabeth's lead playwright, was tasked with
the creation of a set of history plays, covering the period from Richard II to Richard
III. For such an early play, Richard III is the longest and most elaborate of all, its
protagonist complex and surprisingly defamed by most accounts, yet less popular
than Macbeth or Iago, considered Shakespeare's more mature characters. The play is
a culmination of the series, showing the birth of the Tudor dynasty which contributed
to its creation. Shakespeare seems the obvious choice for conducting research on 16th
century representation of the infamous king, as he wrote both for the common people
and the elite. He was not as popular in his lifetime as he is now, his work proved the
most lasting and recognizable to this day.
The critical method that lends itself best for the sake of the following
argument is that of New Historicism. The chosen method is a variety of New
Psychological approach. Since the aim of the thesis is to present the monarch's image
that was perceived as historically accurate in the context in which it was created,
New Historicism was selected as the best critical approach.
The thesis consists of three chapters. Chapter 1 presents Richard's kingship
and his way of ruling England and compares him with other Shakespeare's
monarchs. Chapter 2 describes Richard's chivalry, his qualities of a Christian knight
and a noble. The chapter is also devoted to presenting Richard's personality, his
character as a man and his role in the drama.
Of the bibliographical items available the most inspiring was the Richard
Andersen's Richard III for its thorough, albeit frivolous at times, analysis of
Shakespeare's play. Another useful source was Andrew Cecil Bradley's Lectures on
Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth for an interesting insight into Shakespeare's
literary style and similarities in the construction of his plays and characters. Another
useful source was Maurice Hunt's 'Shakespeare's' King Richard III' and the
Problematics of Tudor' for its study of Tudor contribution to the play's creation and
the subject of their illegitimacy presented within.
All quotations from William Shakespeare's Tragedy of King Richard the
Third come from the edition of London: Guild Publishing, 1989, and are referred to

5
as 'Richard' and act, scene, and verse number in the footnotes throughout the thesis.

6
 Chapter One

The chapter is devoted to Richard's kingship as it has been presented in the

play, as well as the ideas on kingship prevalent in Shakespeare's times. The following
paragraphs aim to show that Shakespeare's Richard is depicted as a tyrant. The
protagonist violates the law and terrorizes his subjects. Richard's reign is illegitimate;
he is a usurper, who gains the throne through unlawful deposition of Prince Edward
V, murders other pretenders to the throne and rules without the consent of heaven.
Richard is a skillful politician and a cunning schemer; he presents himself to the
public as modest, virtuous with pretensions to greatness, antagonizes his enemies,
disposes of his rivals with ease and secures his claim to the throne.
Richard is depicted as a tyrant. Shakespeare has presented the shortest reign
of an English king in history showing his numerous instances of abuse of kingly
power: 'Because most Elizabethans were familiar with the history of the Lancasters
and the Yorks, Shakespeare knew he didn’t have to retell the whole story, just the
most interesting parts at an accelerated pace.'2 The two years that follow Richard's
ascension to the throne are made even shorter through quick shifts of action in the
play', leaving little more than a glimpse of murder, crime and terror. Although
Shakespeare may not be historically accurate or free of bias most of the times: '(…)
his influence remains deeply pervasive. Shakespeare made Richard into an
archetypal villain, exceeded only in consummacy and subtlety, by Iago in the
Shakespearian canon.'3 his visage of the last Plantagenet is the most enduring, widely
known and appealing as well as one of the most vilifying portrayals.
Richard's rule is dotted throughout the play with a series of crimes. He is
accused of the murder of his nephews, the young princes Edward and Richard. In
deep secrecy, Richard hires a killer to do his bidding, a corrupted knight: 'Tyrell, I
mean those bastards in the Tower.'4 Another murder is the disposal of his wife, Lady
Anne: '(...)give out that Anne, my queen, is sick, and like to die.' 5, which makes it
possible for him to marry his niece Elizabeth. The following are the beheading of
Lord Buckingham, who led a rebellion against the king and the execution of Lord

2 Andersen, Richard. Richard III, op. cit., p. 42

3 Ross, Charles, Richard III, op. cit., p. xxxIII.
4 Richard, act 4, scene 3, verse 76.
5 Ibid,. act 4, scene 2, verse 59.

7
Hastings: 'Richard accuses Hastings of keeping Mrs Shore who has bewitched his
arm, and demands his execution.'6 He sends two assassins to murder his brother
George, the duke of Clarence, imprisoned in the Tower, and more. In fact, it was
Edward IV who ordered George's execution; Richard did bring the death warrant of
Henry VI to the Tower but it was king Edward who gave the order to have him
executed; the Woodville conspirators; Gray, Rivers, Dorset, Sir Thomas Vaughan
were all plotting against the crown and the lord protector. Lady Anne's husband died
in battle but it is unsure if it was Richard who terminated his life. The death of the
princes in the Tower is still a mystery: 'It was unfortunate for Richard's reputation
that, with Vergil and More, the etching of his villainy fell into the hands of
draughtsmen far more skilful, subtle and sophisticated, and, above all, more
infuential than those of Rous, Andre or Carmeliano.'7 Richard's supposed
wrongdoings and crimes were not solely Shakespeare's invention. Most of these
come from accounts of popular history writers, many of whom shared Richmond's
exile or served the Tudor dynasty, and were prone to write unfavorably about
Richard and the house of York.
During his reign, Richard violates the law. Since 1215 all English kings have
been sworn to obey the law of the land. The Magna Carta states that no man is above
the law, or that no free man can be imprisoned, relieved of his property or harmed in
any other way without charge and a fair trial. During his rule, Richard unlawfully
detains prince Edward and his brother in the Tower. He imprisons lords: Hastings,
Buckingham, Gray, Rivers, Dorset, Sir Thomas Vaughan and Lord Stanley's son.
Lord Hastings is executed without trial for High Treason:
What, think you we are Turks or infidels,
Or that we would against the form of law
Proceed thus rashly in the villain's death
But that the extreme peril of the case,
The peace of England and our persons' safety,
Enforced us to this execution?8
This shows a most distorted picture of reality, as each of the mentioned were either
set free shortly after detention or granted a trial; whether the verdict was just or not
is debatable, but such knowledge was inaccessible to the sixteenth century audience.

6 Dobson, Michael and Stanley Wells, The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare, op. cit., p. 387.
7 Ross, op. cit., p. xxxvii.
8 Richard, p. 137, act 3, scene 5, verse 39-44.

8
Here, Richard openly states that his actions are a breach of law, his denial of justice
was sure to arouse strong, negative feelings towards the last Plantagenet in the
Elizabethan times:
A scrivener observes that the indictment for Hastings's death
was commissioned hours before he was accused of any crime,
but nobody dares to speak openly about such state ruses.9
In addition, The Great Charter stated that the free men of Great Britain were allowed
to rebel against the king to enforce the laws written in the said document, which
makes Richmond's war and insurrection legitimate in the eyes of law, furthering his,
still rather weak claims to the crown; his legacy traced back to king Henry IV.
According to the Tudor propaganda, even a bad king has to be obeyed. However,
here Richmond is a 'God's messenger sent to punish Richard's crimes'10, a necessary
exception, made to break the curse that was believed to have befallen England:
Henry IV started a chain of calamity by breaking his solemn
oath of allegiance to Richard II. His sin was visited on his
descendants in the third generation: Henry VI was born to
misery. But the agents of retribution were themselves sinful.
Edward IV similarily breached a solemn oath, and paid for it in
the murders of his sons (by Richard). Richard III, the next
agent in the sequence, was even more villanous, and he too
paid the necessary price.11
Richard exercises his power over, still loyal, subjects by means of terror. To
ensure that Lord Stanley does not rebel, Richard holds hostage the lord's son: 'If I
revolt, off goes young George's head.' 12At Bosworth, when a messenger arrives
bearing news that Lord Stanley changed sides, Richard orders the execution of his
son. Fortunately, this order is not carried out, as Richard dies soon after and his
prisoner is released. After Hasting's death the English are aware of Richard's
misdeeds and hypocrisy however, no one dares to rise against him for fear of sharing
the lord's fate.13
Richard's story resembles the same pattern that other Shakespearean tyrants:
Macbeth, and Claudius fall in. Richard III, Macbeth and Hamlet all describe the rise
to power, unjust rule and downfall of an evil ruler. The plot reaches a climax when

9 Dobson, op. cit., p. 387.

10 Ross, op. cit., p. xxxvi.
11 Ibid,. p. xxxviii.
12 Richard, act 4, scene 5, verse 4.
13 Anderson, op. cit., p. 71

9
the villain is defeated and a savior from abroad arrives, whether it is Richmond in
the tragedy of Richard III, Malcolm in Macbeth or Fortynbras in Hamlet, heralding
his righteous reign and the coming of peace. What makes them different is that
unlike Hamlet and Macbeth, The Tragedy of Richard III is a history play. While the
former deal with fictitious characters loosely based on historical background, the
latter tells the story of authentic people and events, thus establishing credibility of
Richard's villainous image for generations.
Richard's reign is illegitimate. When king Edward IV succumbs to malady
and dies, the crown of England is passed to his eldest son, Edward. His last will
states that Richard would hold the title of Lord Protector of the Realm, until
Edward's son comes of age to rule solely by himself, the young prince is 12 years old
when crowned: 'Charges of bastardy become Richard of Gloucester's weapon for
destroying the right of his nephews to the crown.'14 Shortly after Richard sets his
plans in motion by making lord Buckingham spread rumors:
Infer the bastardy of Edward's children:
Tell them how Edward put to death a citizen,
Only for saying he would make his son
Heir to the crown; meaning indeed his house,
Which, by the sign thereof was termed so. 15
In the earlier versions of the play Richard states that his family is by bastardy to
undermine Edward's claims: 'So ambitious is Richard for the kingship that he
additionally is willing to taint his brother Edward, his mother, and nearly himself with
illegitimacy'16. With George, the duke of Clarence dead, his heirs attained and the late
king's children illegitimate and barred from the throne by their father's supposed
attainder, Richard remains the only pretender with the strongest claims. The princes'
assassination at the Tower of London secured Richard's seizure of the crown. In fact: it
was the 'Titulus Regius' signed by the parliament that made the princes' right to the
throne invalid, however Henry VII ordered the said document repealed and all copies
destroyed. According to Hunt, the play focuses on the subject of illegitimacy and
Shakespeare had to be careful in the way he delivered it, the Tudor were long associated
with bastardy. Both Richard and Richmond seize the throne from a legitimate heir, to
denigrate Gloucester's usurpation while justifying Henry's seizure of the crown,
14 Hunt, Maurice. 'Shakespeare's' King Richard III' and the Problematics of Tudor'. www.questia.com,
10.05.13.
15 Richard, act 3, scene 5, verse 76 – 80.
16 Hunt. www.questia.com, 10.05.13.

10
Shakespeare introduces the concept of 'legitimate illegitimacy'. Henry is not born
legitimate but has political and moral legitimacy: 'The legitimately born "bastard"
Richard and the pious, ethical Henry, the Earl of Richmond, who is tainted with
bastardy in the play (as he was in life), illustrate this paradoxical idea.'17
Richard's rule had neither the consent of heaven nor the approval of the people.
Duke Buckingham, to probe Londoners' attitudes toward Richard, makes an audience
discrediting Edward's bastard children and praising the new king, he is met with 'wilful
silence', through these humorous scenes the Londoners express their: 'wisdoms and (...)
love to Richard'18. Unfavorable attitudes towards Richard were not mere fiction,
genuine records prove that he was indeed a usurper to his subjects. Few people from
beyond the court would know exactly what was happening in the state, which gave birth
to many rumors about the king's actions: '(...) we can be confident that he was widely
regarded as a usurper by his own subjects, since his claim to the throne never
commanded any general credence (...) and other evidence shows that not only was
Richard regarded as an unlawful king but was also thought capable of poisoning his
own queen in order to marry his niece.'19
Apart from the people's love, Richard lacks divine sanction. The Tudor myth
states that kings, nobility and other people belong to classes created by God. Since,
according to common beliefs of the times, God is directly involved in history and
watches over England, any disruption of the mentioned moral order causes unnatural
happenings and forces God's hand to make amends; hence the visits of ghosts of
Richard's victims, bidding him to 'despair and die' while assuring Richmond of his
victory 'But cheer thy heart, and be thou not dismayed. God and good angels fight on
Richmond's side(...)'20. A similar disorder on the echelons of power happens in Hamlet,
which also causes ghosts to appear. Amongst the tools of divine reckoning is the
concept of fate. Queen Margaret, long dead when these events take place, makes an
apparition in the play as a harbinger of doom, who: '(...) curses everyone with
predictions of misfortune and death.'21 along with all other surviving women in the play,
similarly to the wyrd sisters in Macbeth.
Shakespeare's rulers all exemplify the Tudor idea of kingship. In the Tudor
view, Richard is the polar opposite of Henry V, the first difference is the approval of the
17 Hunt. www.questia.com, 10.05.13.
18 Richard, act 3, scene 7, verse 40.
19 Ross, op. cit., p. lxi.
20 Richard, act 5, scene 5, verse 128 – 129.
21 Dobson, op. cit., p. 387.

11
people which his Richard clearly lacks, whereas in Henry V, the nobles, church and
gentry all rally to support their sovereign's claims. Secondly, the legitimacy of a king
ought to be unquestioned. Unlike Richard's, Henry's rights to the throne cannot be put
to doubt. Lastly, the notion of the consent of heaven which sanctions a king's rule is
essential to rule over England. Henry V had the advantage of having the church as his
ally, as the Tudor myth stated, God had direct involvement in worldly matters,
especially in directing the courses of battles. The battle of Agincourt 1415 ended up
miraculously, with the French defeated and their losses shamefully disproportionate to
the English. At Bosworth 1485, Richard is at the disadvantage of having heavenly
powers against him, ending in his demise on the battlefield.
Richard is a cunning schemer. In his soliloquies Richard reveals his plans to the
audience, inviting them, in a way, into his schemes, treating them as if they were his
accomplices:
Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous,
By drunken prophecies, libels and dreams,
To set my brother Clarence and the king
In deadly hate the one against the other22
He antagonizes his enemies, turning them against each other; in doing so he also puts
the blame for their deaths on others. Gloucester informs the royal court that he suspects
Elizabeth and Jane Shore of witchcraft blaming them for crippling his arm, thus making
other men suspicious and bonding with them. He also holds his mother responsible for
his misfortunate birth and condition, thus guilty of his character and actions as well.23
During an argument with Queen Elizabeth and her kin, Richard turns everyone against
Queen Margaret:
What were you snarling all before I came,
Ready to catch each other by the throat,
And turn you all your hatred now on me?24
But shortly after he expresses understanding for the former queen, gaining trust and
admiration of the quarreling nobles. Richard's skill in manipulating people is revealed
in the scene where he courts Lady Anne. Her husband has been slain by Richard during
the war, a fact he cannot deny as, according to Anderson, the Elizabethan audience
believed that a corpse bleeds when its murderer is nearby. Richard however puts the
blame for her husband's death on Anne herself, saying it was her beauty that drove him
22 Richard, act 1, scene 1, verse 32 – 35.
23 Anderson, op. cit., p. 98.
24 Ibid,. act 1, scene 2, verse 189 – 191.

12
to slay her beloved. 'The scene construction shows how Richard—unarmed and at the
mercy of a hate-filled, sword-bearing foe - is able to charm his way out of being killed
and into Anne’s heart.'25. Lady Anne, poisoned on Richard's order, officially is said to
have succumbed to an illness. The Princes of the Tower, murdered on Richard's behalf,
are no longer seen in public: 'He turns Edward against his other elder brother George,
Duke of Clarence, by libelling him with the suspicion of plotting to kill Edward.'26 The
blame for Clarence's death falls, due to Richard's machinations, on king Edward. If he
had not died at Bosworth, Richard would have surely evaded facing justice, as he leaves
no witnesses or traces of his involvement in any of his crimes.
Richard makes a skillful politician. Although the English are not enthusiastic
about seeing Richard crowned, he establishes a public image of modesty, virtue and
piety. When the children of Edward are claimed illegitimate Richard makes sure that
people see his ascension to the throne as accepting his duty towards England, rather
than a hostile takeover driven by his ambition:
The Mayor and citizens watch Gloucester's show of religious
devotion with two bishops. Buckingham urges him to accept their
faint request to become king, to which Richard consents after
making a pretence of refusing.27
His plan to marry Edward's daughter is also a political choice. On the one hand, this
would have brought back Edward's legitimate heir to the throne, on the other, it would
have threatened Richmond's plans and made it impossible to fulfill his oath to marry
Elizabeth and support his claims, should he wish to become king.
King Richard is an example of a dishonorable tyrant, yet he is more than just a
villain on a seat of power. Shakespeare builds the main character true to the image his
Tudor benefactors sought to establish: a ruthless, calculated killer full of insidious
cunning, an unjust and paranoid sovereign, a typical antagonist:
'Shakespeare's Richard was far from being a mere dramatic
invention. His characterization derives from a whole century of
historical writing, during which time Richard's name had been,
with growing elaboration, consistently denigrated.28
Still, as Ross points out, Shakespeare constructs his villain with a dose of lighter
touches, absent in the works of other writers of his time 29. His Richard manipulates
25 Anderson, op. cit., p. 51
26 Dobson, op. cit., p. 387.
27 Ibid,. op. cit., p. 387.
28 Ross, op. cit., p. XXXIV.
29 Ibid,. op. cit., p. XXXIV.

13
people with skill and intelligence, he is as ruthless in politics as he is successful.
These traits make Richard's character much more appealing than the usually biased
portrayal, and his persona at least interesting, if not likeable.

14
 Chapter Two

The chapter is devoted to Richard's knighthood and how it has been shown
in Shakespeare's play. Sir Richard was involved in the War of the Roses at an early
age, he became knight of the order of Bath, as well as the order of the Garter. In
Richard III his code of chivalry undergoes a decay as he breaks the ideals he is
supposed to uphold. He has become an anti-knight, a man in opposition to all
knightly values, he murdered his liege, harmed the innocent, disposed of his lady,
and broke the law. He has turned disloyal to his friends. Richard dissembles a
Christian, he has no conscience and feels no remorse. Richard retains only a pretense
of Christian conviction. He feels no remorse for his crimes, perceives himself as
godless and beyond redemption. Richard has proven himself to be an able
commander and a brave soldier by leading his people to battle and fighting alongside
them. Richard's eloquence encourages his men to battle. He is a veteran of many
battles who protects England from Richmond and the French army he used to invade
England.. The chapter is also devoted to Richard as a character of the play and its
protagonist. The following paragraphs aim to elaborate on the tragic and outcast
nature of the last Plantagenet, his exceptional persona and the drama's anti hero.
Richard is an outcast who loses all his friends and allies, he differs from all other
heroes of the story, both physically and mentally. Richard's character is built upon
the personification of Vice from morality plays and in many ways resembles other
Shakesperean characters.
Richard's portrayal is an antithesis of a knight. The knight's code of conduct
was part of the medieval culture and it was very difficult to accomplish its
instructions fully. Although the codes varied more or less across the centuries, they
were consistent in their choice of military and religious values, establishing high
moral standards for the warrior class to achieve. An excellent representation of a
code of chivalry is described in the Song of Roland. The code asks knights 'To serve
the liege lord in valor and faith, To obey those placed in authority'. Although loyal to
his brother Edward during the Wars of the Roses, Richard breaks the oaths towards
Edward's successor, murdering him and usurping his throne: 'At all times to speak
the truth, To eschew unfairness, meanness and deceit' Richard lies to Edward about
the prophecy concerning Clarence's unfaithfulness. He also breaks his word after
offering his help to George in proving his innocence, not only he does not help but

15
resorts to murdering his brother: 'I will deliver you, or else lie for you' 30. The love he
expresses with such eloquence to Lady Anne and Elizabeth is a lie as well, which
hides his true intentions and hopes of gain. According to Andersen, in his soliloquy
he also lies that his repulsive appearance bars him from human love, which makes
him determined to become a villain: 'Indeed, he is a consummately skillful "courtly"
lover. Although he denies that he can play such a role'31. Richard states that he cannot
'prove a lover', yet he seduces women with ease and his lies mean to win him
sympathy while at the same time hiding his true motive: ambition.32 He wins the
throne through schemes, lies and murder. His oppressive government is responsible
for many injustices, unfair judgments and deaths:
Till George be pack'd with posthorse up to heaven.
I'll in, to urge his hatred more to Clarence
With lies well steel'd with weighty arguments33
'To respect the honour of women, to protect the weak and defenseless' is yet another
rule Richard violates. A knight fights for their betrothed lady and swears to protect
her life as well as her reputation. Richard's Lady is Anne Neville, a daughter to the
rebel lord Warwick and heir to his vast estates which through marriage become
Richard's property. Gloucester woos Anne with courtly manners and intelligence,
winning her heart in spite of his wretched looks and being responsible for her
husband's death. When Anne is no longer needed, Richard orders his men to give out
that she is mortally ill, and have her poisoned, thus breaking the oath to serve his
lady with honor. Richard treats other women with a similar cruelty, while pleading
Queen Elizabeth to help him win over her daughter's heart, at the side he calls her
'Relenting fool, and shallow, changing woman!'34 expressing that it was foolish of
Elizabeth to believe in his words. Andersen argues that Richard's animosity towards
women is a result of hatred towards his mother, whom he blames for his
disfiguration.35 It was common that a king would slay other pretenders to the crown
in medieval times, the existence of a rightful candidate to the crown could end in a
bloody civil war. Yet the Princes of the Tower were under the protection of Richard.
Imprisoned, the Princes were hardly a dangerous coup'd etat, making the slaughter of

30 Richard, act 1, scene 1, verse 115.

31 Oestreich-Hart, Donna J. Therefore, since I Cannot Prove a Lover. www.questia.com, 10.05.13.
32 Anderson, op. cit., p. 48.
33 Richard, act 1, scene 1, verse 153 – 155.
34 Ibid, act 4, scene 4, verse 447.
35 Anderson, op. cit., p. 98.

16
defenseless orphans difficult to justify. As his morality degrades, so does his
speechcraft, very similarly to another Shakespearean character who loses his
eloquence, Othello. Initially, Richard's speech is full of eloquence but as the play
proceeds, his sentences grow shorter, as in his wooing of Lady Anne. His wit in
speech also falters, in his conversation with the young princes he quickly finds out
that he cannot match the boys' intelligence and skill in dispute, which angers him.
Richard's speech to his soldiers before Bosworth also lacks the dignity his utterances
possess earlier in the play, his language turns rude, scornful. A knight should
remember: 'To refrain from the wanton giving of offence,' wheras Richard resorts to
ridicule and lashing out on Henry.36
Richard dissembles a Christian. Since the crusades, a knight's most important
duty shifted from his lord to that of the Roman church: 'To fear God and maintain
His Church. To keep faith' is yet another point in the code of chivalry Richard fails to
accomplish. Richard retains a pretense of conviction only to establish an image of a
religious monarch in the eyes of his subjects. At Bosworth, a terrible dream awakes
Richard, who calls to God: 'Give me another horse: bind up my wounds. Have
mercy, Jesu!—Soft! I did but dream.37', however this sudden act of remorse and
godliness quickly shift into courage and self reliance:
O coward conscience, how dost thou afflict me!
The lights burn blue. It is now dead midnight.
Cold fearful drops stand on my trembling flesh.38
Although the ghosts of his victims haunt him, Richard accepts himself as a villain
with no intention of seeking atonement.
Although shunning religious and civil commandments of the knight's code
such as honour, honesty and loyalty, Richard retains but one of knight's virtues:
valour. 'Never to refuse a challenge from an equal, never to turn the back upon a foe'
Even as king, Richard fights bravely with his men on the battlefield, an uncommon
act of bravery in medieval times, normally the king would remain at a safe distance
with his rearguard, especially when the throne was at stake. There, he seeks
Richmond to engage him in a fair fight:
I will stand the hazard of the die
I think there be six Richmonds in the field;

36 Anderson, op. cit., p. 80

37 Richard, act 5, scene 3, verse 223 – 224.
38 Ibid, act 5, scene 3, verse 225 – 228.

17
 Five have I slain to-day instead of him.39
Although Richard lost much of his wit in speech by the time of the battle of
Bosworth, the speech he gives to his army still encourages his soldiers, assuring
them of victory and the righteousness of the cause they fight for. He crushes
Buckingham's rebellion and executes its leader. He defends England from an army of
foreigners brought by Richmond to conquer England, just as he did before the death
of his brother Edward when battling the Scots and Lancastrians, true to his title:
protector of the realm. A knight's distinctive and inseparable attribute is the horse.
Nobles were easily distinguishable from common peasants or soldiers on the
battlefield by fighting mounted on armored warhorses. The warhorse and its
equipment is expensive but essential to a knight, granting him the speed and higher
survivability in battle, and enabled him to strike his foe from above. More
importantly, however, the horse was a sign of wealth and status, when Knights
engaged in a duel, they fought as equals, on the same level. Thus it is not surprising
that when dismounted at Bosworth, Richard seeks another horse to keep fighting
with the enemy on equal terms. Alas, his unknightly death as footman, facing defeat
at the hands of his better - Richmond, furthers the contrast between his character
and the rest of the feuding heroes of the play:
His horse is slain, and all on foot he fights,
Seeking for Richmond in the throat of death.
Rescue, fair lord, or else the day is lost!

[Alarums. Enter KING RICHARD III]

Richard III. A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!40

Richard refuses to retreat with his life, thus becoming the last English king to die in
battle, true to another commandment of the code of chivalry: 'To persevere to the end
in any enterprise begun.'
Richard's knighthood shows similar inconsistencies as his kingship does. On
the one hand he does not live by the code and is far from keeping to the moral
standards of a knight. His vile character contrasts with the almost Arthurian visage
represented by Richmond, whose person is elevated to the status of a legend, while
Richard lowers as in dignity and morality in the course of action. On the other hand,
he still retains some positive facets, virtues related to knight's military duties which

39 Richard, act 5, scene 4, verse 497 – 499.

40 Ibid, act 5, scene 4, verse 490 – 493.

18
served him well to the end. His devotion and care for England along with the
reputation of a daring warrior and skillful tactician give credit to the opinion of the
London Cronicles:
Richard's realm might have prospered and he himself
might have been praised and beloved instead of reviled,
if only he had been content to remain Protector41
Richard is an outcast, by the end of the story he turns his back on everyone
that holds his side. After murdering his brothers and nephews he begins to lose his
allies. Although loyal to Richard, Lord Hastings quickly learns that merely a hint of
insubordination proves fatal, ending in his execution, Richard comments on his death
with fake concern and sadness:
I took him for the plainest harmless creature
That breathed upon this earth a Christian;42
Lord Buckingham the kingmaker soon realizes the king he put on the throne is an
ingrate. 'Is it even so? rewards he my true service. With such deep contempt made I
him king for this?(...)'43 Breaking his promise to lord Buckingham led to a rebellion
against Richard. His own mother scorns and curses him regretting that he was ever
born:
O, she that might have intercepted thee,
By strangling thee in her accursed womb
From all the slaughters, wretch, that thou hast done!44
Lord Stanley deflects Richard's side shortly before the battle, finally Richard deems
himself deserted by everyone, godless; 'What do I fear? myself? there's none else
by;'45 Richard's outcast nature is manifested also in his appearance, similarly to
Othello, who is a Moor living among Italians, or King Lear's illegitimacy. His
physical deformities make him a pariah, but also incline the reader to pity him and
show understanding, at the same time giving his malignity a motive unlike Iago's
machinations which do not seem to have a clear purpose:
Like the deformity of Richard, Edmund's illegitimacy furnishes, of
course, no excuse for his villainy, but it somewhat influences our
feelings. It is no fault of his, and yet it separates him from other men.

41 Ross, op. cit., p. XLVII.

42 Richard, act 3, scene 5, verse 26 – 27.
43 Ibid., p.143, act 4, scene 2, verse 122 – 123.
44 Ibid., p.143, act 4, scene 4, verse 468 – 471.
45 Ibid., p.153, act 5, scene 5, verse 136.

19
 He is the product of Nature--of a natural appetite asserting itself
against the social order; and he has no recognised place within this
order. So he devotes himself to Nature, whose law is that of the
stronger, and who does not recognise those moral obligations which
exist only by convention,--by 'custom' or 'the curiosity of nations.'46
Richard's wrongdoings are an attempt at evening the scales, correcting the wrong that
has been done to him, he is an exceptional character, from his point of view the laws
of men do not apply, As A. C. Bradley observes: 'Richard and Macbeth are the only
heroes who do what they themselves recognise to be villainous.' 47 Dobson states that
Richard sees himself as an exceptional character, who feels entitled to act as he
pleases, even if it is wrong, to compensate for whatever life has denied him, Richard
uses his drawbacks and deformities to justify what he does, taking what is his by
right, for the wrong he has suffered.48
Richard is a tragic character, in the opening soliloquy the protagonist
describes his situation. The War of the Roses has ended and everyone enjoys the
peace, Richard is unable to fit in the new order, his military skill is no longer needed,
his deeds are largely unappreciated, thus he is fated to become a villain because he is
unable be anyone else. Anderson points out that to the Elizabethans everything that
was unnatural was evil, hence Richard's twisted character matches his deformities 49.
Furthermore, Hunt states that a character's bastardy was commonly associated with
deformities and hideousness. Hence Richard's tendency to infer illegitimacy in
others, so that, by comparison, he would feel less repulsive in appearence.50 The
tragedy of Richard makes him share the fatal flaw, a trait which leads a
Shakespearean character to ruin. Richard's ambitions motivate his actions and drive
him to wage war with everyone in pursuit of regal glory and reparation for his
miserable state as a human and a person in the society, his ambition becomes his
undoing:
In the circumstances where we see the hero placed, his tragic trait,
which is also his greatness, is fatal to him. To meet these
circumstances something is required which a smaller man might have
given, but which the hero cannot give. He errs, by action or omission;
and his error, joining with other causes, brings on him ruin. This is

46 Bradley, A. C. Shakespearean Tragedy: Lectures on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth lecture 1,
op. cit., p. 3
47 Bradley, lecture 1, op. cit., p. 3
48 Dobson, op. cit., p. 388.
49 Anderson, op. cit., p. 63.
50 Hunt. www.questia.com, 10.05.13.

20
 always so with Shakespeare. As we have seen, the idea of the tragic
hero as a being destroyed simply and solely by external forces is quite
alien to him; and not less so is the idea of the hero as contributing to
his destruction only by acts in which we see no flaw. But the fatal
imperfection or error, which is never absent, is of different kinds and
degrees. At one extreme stands the excess and precipitancy of Romeo,
which scarcely, if at all, diminish our regard for him; at the other the
murderous ambition of Richard III.51
Richard's character is a reference to the personification of vice in morality plays.
According to Anderson, morality plays were popular in the Elizabethan times and
known to the audience, its characters easily distinguishable as personifications of
virtues and vices, fighting for everyman, an allegory of mankind. Vice was generally
characterized as one of the seven deadly sins or simply evil incarnate. Allegorical
characters openly stated their evil machinations, similarly to Richard communicating
his thoughts to the audience.52 Vice tended to be comical, contrasting with the gravity
of virtue. In Richard III there are several comical elements: the Londoners' reaction
to Buckingham's announcement, quarrels in the court, Catesby's serving as a
messenger. All the comedy surrounding Richard furthers his semblance to vice.

51 Bradley, lecture 1, op. cit., p. 3

52 Anderson, op. cit., p. 48.

21
 Conclusion

The phrase 'History is written by the victor' has never had a better representation
than in the figure King Richard III. If the historical battle of Bosworth had taken a
different course, Shakespeare's hunchback Richard probably would never have been
brought to existence. With the passing of time, the Tudor influence diminished, which
allowed for new approaches to the treatment of the Yorkist rule. The following centuries
brought new interpretations, frequently opposing the biased portrayal of the Elizabethan
era writings, which are interpretations as well. Further research should concentrate on
different authors form 18th century onward, when the subject regained its interest once
again and different points of view were taken into consideration. Examples of unique
and creative portrayals of Richard that can be used to further develop the thesis are:
Richard Plantagenet a legendary tale, a poem by Thomas Hull, which shows the story
through the eyes of Richard's illegitimate son, Jane Austen's History of England or
Robert Louis Stevenson's The Black Arrow: A Tale of the Two Roses. 20th century
depictions of Richard may be found in Rosemary Hawley Jarman's novel We Speak No
Treason. Finally, a number of fiction and fantasy characters of the present century are
closely associated with Richard's person, or his story. Some characters of A Song of Ice
and Fire by George R. R. Martin show striking similarities to Shakespeare's Richard,
while Philippa Gregory's novel The White Queen presents yet another cultural depiction
of Richard III.

22
 Works Cited
Works by the Author:
1. Shakespeare, William. Tragedy of King Richard the III. London: Guild
Publishing, 1989.

Other works cited:

1. Andersen, Richard. Richard III. New York: Marshall Cavendish Benchmark,
2011.
2. Bradley, A. C. Shakespearean Tragedy: Lectures on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear,
Macbeth.2nd ed. London: Macmillan, 1905.
3. Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. Coleridge's writings on Shakespeare. New York:
Capricorn Books, 1959.
4. Dobson, Michael and Stanley Wells. The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare.
United States: Oxford University Press, 2001.
5. Hunt, Maurice. Shakespeare's' King Richard III' and the Problematics of Tudor
Bastardy In: Papers on Language & Literature, Volume: 33. Issue: 2: 1997
6. Oestreich-Hart, Donna J. Therefore, since I Cannot Prove a Lover In: Studies in
English Literature 1500-1900, Volume: 40. No. 2, Spring 2000.
7. Ross, Charles. Richard III. Great Britain: Yale University Press, 1999.

23
 Streszczenie

Tematem pracy jest prezentacja Króla Ryszarda Trzeciego jakim ukazywano go

w szesnastowiecznej Anglii, na podstawie dramatu Williama Szekspira “Ryszard III”.
Szekspir, uważany za największego dramaturga wszech czasów, jest autorem serii
dramatów historycznych, które na zlecenie i pod patronatem panującej wówczas
Królowej Elżbiety I opisują rządy królów Anglii, od Ryszarda II aż po ostatniego
Plantageneta. “Ryszard III” jest jednym z wcześniejszych dzieł pisarza, ukazując
dojście do władzy, panowanie oraz śmierć tytułowego władcy. Ukazany przez Szekspira
Ryszard Trzeci jest bezwzględnym tyranem, który na swej drodze do władzy popełnia
wiele przestępstw, mordując wszelkich oponentów do tronu i podporządkowuje sobie
poddanych przez strach i przemoc. Ryszard nadużywa królewskiej władzy, łamiąc
prawa wolnych obywateli i dopuszczając się niesprawiedliwości, stawiając siebie ponad
prawem. Jego postać jest ukazana jako ostatnia plaga zesłana przez Boga dla ukarania
Anglii za odsunięcie od władzy króla Ryszarda Drugiego. Jego rządy są bezprawne,
Ryszard jest uzurpatorem, który przywłaszcza koronę mordując Edwarda Piątego, jest
również przebiegły, łatwo zjednuje sobie podwładnych, antagonizuje swych wrogów
lub pozbywa się ich bez śladu. Jego wiara i rycerstwo są jedynie pozorne sam zaś
Ryszard jest bezwzględny i wiarołomny, cechuje go niewdzięczność i brak sumienia.
Jednocześnie zaś Ryszard jest tragiczną postacią, kaleką od urodzenia, na zawsze
odróżniającym się od innych wyrzutkiem. Swe żądze i ambicje usprawiedliwia swym
kalectwem, aby naprawić wyrządzone mu krzywdy stawia siebie ponad ludzkimi
prawami. Postać Ryszarda jest wzorowana na „Niemoralności”, znanej postaci
popularnych wówczas misteriów.

24