Richard III 1. His Life

Transcription

1 To what extent does Shakespeare portray a valid historical image of key characters in Histories, with particular focus upon Richard III, Henry VI, Part I, Henry VI, Part II and Henry VI, Part III. Shakespeare is certainly a man who has, through his incredible power with words, managed to inspire thousands of people. Now, almost four hundred years after his death, he is still a celebrated playwright and poet, with his plays being performed almost daily at theatres all over the world. Equally, Richard III and Henry VI are two relatively famous former Kings of England. Richard III (ruled ) is traditionally known as one of the most villainous Kings ever to rule our country: portrayed as murdering his two nephews, the Princes in the Tower, and generally being happy to kill anyone in the way of his absolute power. Yet few know about his work to help the poor, and that actually, he is not the only suspect in the murder of the Princes: it is to this day an unsolved mystery. Henry VI (ruled and ), contrastingly, is not as well known, but was a Tudor ancestor, so was celebrated by Kings like Henry VII and his son Henry VIII. Although he went mad at the end of his reign, few people know this, thinking that Henry VI led a weak reign for no other reason than his greater interest in his religion and the Church. Shakespeare, therefore, could well be seen as being responsible for people holding these views. He is the man who most famously presented the Kings in these ways, and it is his works that are still popular today. Therefore, through this project I intend to explore the true validity of Shakespeare s portrayal of his leading characters in Richard III and the Henry VI trilogy, discovering if there is some degree of truth behind his writings, or whether he merely wrote to impress the unrelenting Tudor audience of these plays. Richard III 1 His Life Richard III was a famous Yorkist King. He lived during the Wars of the Roses, and was born to Richard Plantagenet, the third Duke of York and his wife Cecily Neville. He took over the throne when his brother, King Edward IV died, being left as Protector, because Edward s son, King Edward V was only twelve years old at the time of his death. There was competition for rule from the beginning of his short reign, which actually only lasted from Elizabeth Woodville, Edward IV s wife, was from a highly unpopular family who many of the nobles were jealous of due to their quick rise to power 1 Image:

2 when Elizabeth married Edward. As the historian Charles Ross said, Elizabeth had nothing to recommend except her obvious physical attractions. Her rather cold beauty was not offset by any warmth or generosity of temperament 2. Therefore, it is clear that although Richard III was an unpopular ruler at the end of his reign, at the beginning he was thought better than the alternative, Elizabeth Woodville and a Regency Council led by her. Through his quick and decisive action he became King, with strong allies who sought to help him rise to the throne. He rewarded those who helped him generously, although he was also quick to turn against some former supporters, including Lord Hastings who had effectively put him on the throne, when they began to conspire that Richard was using too much power that he had no real right to. Equally, he was surprised when his former closest ally, the Duke of Buckingham, unexpectedly rebelled against him. Perhaps he had got an appetite for reward and simply wanted more: the causes are still unknown. As Richard s reign went on it is undeniable that due to the constant threat of rebellion, he leadership became weaker. Therefore he was defeated in a battle that could have gone either way, on the field at Bosworth. He was usurped by Henry Tudor. The main reason for his unpopularity was the common belief that he killed his nephews, the Princes in the Tower. It is also believed that he killed his brother, the Duke of Clarence, and obviously he became more unpopular in giving Hastings and other former supporters an illegal summary execution. Yet these beliefs are not all definite or founded, and my aim is to investigate the validity of Shakespeare s writings on Richard III, with particular reference to these claims. Shakespeare and Richard III When Ben Jonson said of Shakespeare, "he was not of an age, but for all time!" 3, he foreshadowed the fact that Shakespeare s historical writing would influence the future, a time far more advanced than that of Shakespeare yet still so reliant upon his words. This is totally reflected in modern views of many historical characters, including Richard III. Thus his portrayal by Shakespeare has become the standard view that people seem to have have of him, whether or not it is valid, as proven by the survey I conducted exploring the opinions people hold about Richard III. After asking thirty people, including a mixture of people of different ages and sexes, it appeared that the most popular words used to describe Richard III seemed to be tyrant, evil and villainous, with child-murderer even being used in one instance. It has become normal to not only accept but believe without question the words of Shakespeare about this man, yet it must be remembered that Shakespeare was not an Historian but a playwright, and therefore a fictional writer, meaning that his plays are exaggerated in order to make them more dramatic and therefore more profitable. If Shakespeare s plays had been written using exactly what really happened within the events he depicts, there is no doubt that they would not have sold so well, and they may not even be famous today. Therefore, to make himself and his plays a success, it is clear that 2 Charles Ross, Edward IV, Ben Jonson Preface to the First Folio, 1623

3 Shakespeare had no choice but to exaggerate and make more exciting the Historical Events he described. Therefore, the people who described Richard III as evil or any of the other rather derogatory terms above seem to have taken the traditional Shakespearean view of the character, with their claims being clearly unfounded and based upon fiction rather than fact. One of the earliest words in Richard III used to describe the apparently despicable King is devil, as well as a murderous villain 4, giving Richard negative connotations from the offset of the play. He is also often described as a tyrant, which is defined as a cruel and oppressive ruler 5 in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, the use of such a word gives Richard an instantly evil and repelling image. The audience will certainly picture him as a leader who cares little about his subjects, and rules autocratically and selfishly straight away. Yet in the case of Richard this can be seen as untrue: especially as he was a Northerner at heart and very much had a soft spot for the Northern cities like York and Northumberland, looking after them whenever he could. From a young age Richard was well known for being a loyal Yorkist, proving himself in battle for Edward VI and the York family. Edward had often given Richard, who was at the time the Duke of Gloucester, work in looking after the needs of the North: this was where he was originally from so Richard was a respected man in these areas. Richard had certainly been, since at least 1471, the dominate magnate in the Northern areas, so exercised a lot of power there: even in the buildings controlled by the Church, like the cathedral in York, he spent money and time. So when Shakespeare portrays Richard III to be a man cruel and oppressive to all, it actually seems that this is invalid, as his relationship with the Northerners could go as far as being seen as patriarchal and loving. The King had a two-way relationship with the nobility and gentry in York, Durham and Northern cities, and had to fight for them within Court to get their support. The council in York also wrote of its dismay at the overthrow of Richard, although this was a disputed subject, with not everyone feeling quite the same way. This shows that although he was more popular in the North, with most loyal Ricardians being also Northerners, his popularity was certainly not absolute, which is likely why Tudor was able to overthrow him. It also shows that Shakespeare, who portrays Richard III as unpopular, using Queen Margaret, the widow of the Lancastrian Henry VI, to describe him as that foul defacer of God s handiwork 6, reflecting that Shakespeare, although completely exaggerating the hatred of the majority for Richard, was not totally unfounded in his claims, as there were obviously those who disliked him. Shakespeare provides a hunchbacked and unattractive image of Richard III: fitting with a theme of otherness often seen in the less likeable characters in his plays. For instance, in The Tempest, Caliban, one of the clear antagonists in the play, is given the image of being 4 William Shakespeare. Richard III Act I, Scene 3 5 H.W Fowler, F.G Fowler. Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11 th edition revised. July William Shakespeare. Richard III Act 4, Scene 4

4 inhuman and deformed, not honoured with human shape 7. Although Richard is at least human, he is similarly given a repulsive image, reflecting the repulsive personality that Shakespeare provides his character with. When Shakespeare s Richard describes himself, he says I, that am curtail d of this fair proportion, Cheated of feature by dissembling Nature 8, showing that even the King himself is aware of his unearthly and extremely unappealing image. Scarce half made up makes Richard appear not only deformed in image, but also deformed mentally: Shakespeare makes him out to be a man not only unappealing image but also not fully formed mentally, so making Richard seem an unfit monarch. Deform d, unfinish d makes Richard III out to be exactly the sort of man that the unsympathetic late 1400 s would have totally misunderstood. The disabled were not looked upon favourably at the time: they were seen as a burden upon society as they were unable to work or pay taxes. Although Shakespeare makes out Richard to be severely deformed though, the fact that he was able to fight in battle from a young age, and continue to do so as he got older, even in suppressing the Buckingham Rebellions successfully, although this debatably had more to do with weather conditions than Richards fighting skills, as well as fighting in, although not surviving, the Battle of Bosworth, demonstrate little disability and more of a fit young man who was able to go to war to defend himself and his beliefs. Even more so, the famous line A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse! 9 actually seems to imply that Richard was very unlikely to be severely deformed: a hunchbacked man would surely struggle to ride a horse competently, so Shakespeare seems to have at the least, once more, exaggerated the condition of Richard III. Richard III has actually recently become a topic often seen in the news, so is currently a very interesting figure to be writing about. A body has been found and dug up underneath a car park in Leicester, which by coincidence is very near the Battlefield of Bosworth, and tests are currently underway on the bones, to extract DNA and see if it matches that of Richard. The body itself, however, if it does turn out to be the long lost King, will prove Shakespeare to be exaggerating the condition of Richard III to some degree. John Stow, an Historian, described Richard III of person and bodily shape comely enough, only of very low stature 10 in Modern interpretations describe him not as unattractive, or exceptionally attractive, although many make it clear that he lacked in height. The body that was found, although not certainly being Richard, has been discovered to have severe scoliosis: not quite as pronounced as that which Shakespeare places upon the countenance of Richard, but still enough that his back would have been slightly hunched, and one shoulder would have certainly seemed higher than the other, which could also explain why he was so lacking in height. The body also has a deformed skull and Richard III was said to be killed by a severe blow to the head with a hammer, so this could well be the man in question. Shakespeare, 7 William Shakespeare. The Tempest Act 1, Scene 2 8 William Shakespeare. Richard III Act 1, Scene 1 9 William Shakespeare. Richard III Act 5, Scene 4 10 John Stow,

5 however, does not specify as to how Richard III was killed, just making clear his helplessness upon his death, especially illustrating his desperation for a horse, before he disappears off stage to be announced dead by the victorious Duke of Richmond. Was he a murderer? It is very much a traditional view held by historians, originally provided by such as Shakespeare and the Tudor monarchs that Richard III really was an evil and cruel man. Even at the beginning of the play, in his first speech, Richard III says I am determined to prove a villain 11. This is held up throughout the whole play by Shakespeare: it is perhaps even for dramatic effect that Shakespeare makes Richard such a villain, for without him being so captivatingly subtle, false and treacherous, the play would not be nearly as dramatic or effective, and Richard would certainly not be one of Shakespeare s most powerful antagonists. Indeed, in a 2000 Amanda Mabillard article, she describes him as the second most notorious Shakespeare villain, only narrowly losing out to Othello s Iago. She shows a typical view of Richard III, in saying The tyrannical, morally vacuous Richard III orders his own brother's execution and the murder of two innocent children because they are obstacles to his kingly ambition 12. It is a fervent belief of many people that Richard III killed his two nephews: so Edward V, and Richard, Duke of York, his cousin, the Princes in the Tower, and some do believe that Richard also ordered the killing of his brother, the Duke of Clarence. It is likely that Clarence was ordered to death by both Richard and Edward IV for plotting against the latter, although there are rumours that he was killed by being drowned in a vat of wine- definitely not the usual method of execution for nobles at the time. Although there has never been any proof as to whether or not the princes were killed by their Uncle, and more than five hundred years later it remains one of History s greatest mysteries, Shakespeare makes the assumption that Richard undoubtedly killed the Princes. In a dream, the ghost of Prince Edward, the assumed Edward V, says to Richard Think, how thou stabb dst me in my prime of youth 13, instantly, therefore, giving the audience the undisputable idea that it was Richard who was responsible for the murders of the two young Princes. There are in fact three key theories today as to who killed the Princes. It is highly likely that they were murdered, as Richard III failed to produce them when there was much bad press and resentment towards him over their assumed murders. However, it was not necessarily through Richard s own doing that they suddenly disappeared. They were last seen not long after Richard, the other Prince, was summoned to join his brother at the Tower, playing in the grounds together. The three main suspects as to who murdered them, are: Richard III, of course, the obvious suspect, the Duke of Buckingham, formerly Richard s closest ally but soon to rebel against him in his greedy desire for even more power that that he had already gained, and the more controversial suggestion of Henry Tudor, the Duke of 11 William Shakespeare. Richard III Act 1, Scene 1 12 Mabillard, Amanda. Top Shakespeare Villains. Shakespeare Online. 20 Aug < > 13 William Shakespeare. Richard III Act 5, Scene 3

6 Richmond. The third and final, Henry Tudor, is seemingly the least likely suspect, as if the Princes had still been alive when he inherited the throne, he could have used this to his own advantage. However, he could have, in his quest to become King, had them murdered in order to damage further the reputation of Richard. The answer to this mystery is still unknown, and probably always will be, but it remains true that Shakespeare takes none of the debate as to who really murdered the princes into account, assuming instantly that it must have been the tyrant King Richard III, and therefore biasing the audience against the character, and offering an account that could well be invalid, as this is opinion rather than fact, and can never be validated. Henry VI 14 His Life Henry VI was born in 1421 to King Henry V of England and Catherine of Valois, a French Princess and Queen Consort of England. He was part of a strong Lancastrian lineage, so was an ancestor of King Henry VII, Henry VIII and the great Tudor monarchs. He was a child King, inheriting the throne at just nine months old, and also inheriting, although not without dispute, the French throne at eleven months old. When he came of age in 1437, he was able to take over from his regents and exert his authority in both England and France. The Wars of the Roses were to begin in his reign, despite him being a peaceful and pragmatic King. He lost land in France to Joan of Arc, and was seen as weak King who was unable to prevent the power struggles that began between factions during his reign. He was married to Margaret of Anjou, and he suffered regular periods of insanity and madness, which meant that she had to take over towards the end of his reign and do a lot of ruling for him. He proved inept at war, so Margaret was to take over in battling against Richard, Duke of York, who became protector during Henry s first bout of insanity, but was not willing to give the throne back to Henry when he recovered in 1455, resulting in the beginning of the Wars of the Roses: the Lancaster versus York battles that were to go on until 1485, when Henry Tudor usurped the throne from Richard III. These wars, however, eventually resulted in the collapse of the House of Lancaster for the time being. He ruled twice: one from 1422 to 1451, and once from 1470 to 71, after which Edward IV was a successful King until Richard III took over upon his death. Shakespeare and Henry VI 14 Image-

7 Henry VI was famously not only a weak King due to his immense level of piety and desire for peace over war, but also an ill King. In the early 1450 s, it is known that Henry VI became mentally ill: he was totally unable to rule England in the condition he was in, so needed members of the York family, and indeed his wife, to look after his Kingdom for him. Yet Shakespeare appears to discard the period of time in which Henry was severely mentally ill, instead focusing on his weakness as a monarch. Henry has been described by the as a.. man whose interest in government was sporadic 15, showing that he was certainly a weak monarch, which reinforces Shakespeare s view that Henry VI was indeed weak as a ruler. Yet the reasons behind his weakness, for instance, his illness, seem to be ignored by Shakespeare. To exemplify this, when Henry receives Margaret of Anjou as his wife at court in England, in Henry VI, Part II, this comes at a high price to his country, as he has to give land previously seized by the English to Margaret s Father, the King of Naples, much to the dismay of Henry s protector, the Duke of Gloucester. The Treaty of Tours which was the marriage treaty of Henry and Margaret was extremely unfavourable to the English, with no dowry given to the English, and even making Henry pay for the wedding himself. Yet Henry, in Henry VI, Part II, seemingly unfazed by this, instead just being happy to have won the beauteous face 16 of Margaret, so showing little political skill, instead being focused on his own desires. Indeed, the marriage is described as fatal by the Duke of Gloucester, showing that Shakespeare wanted to blame the French Regent upon the failure of Henry VI s reign. Yet in reality, it was not the marriage between Henry and Margaret that caused the Wars of the Roses to begin and ultimately Henry s downfall, although it must be said that this marriage was a contributing factor in the beginnings of the factional rivalry at court, due to the anger of some over the marriage Treaty, and it was this factional rivalry that did eventually lead to the outbreak of war. Early in Henry VI, Part I, the Mayor of London describes Henry VI as virtuous Henry 17, demonstrating that he was well known for his strong religious beliefs and good character even at a tender age. This coincides with the views of Historians about Henry VI, as it is widely believed that Henry VI was a very pious man who sought to avoid war where possible: an early pacifist. As BBC History says, Henry was a pious man, showing that he was extremely virtuous which is why, even as a very young man, people felt that he was religious and respectable. This makes it look as though Shakespeare blames the weakness of the leadership of Henry VI on his piety and religion: he was a man more interested in studying Scripture and praying, and felt that things such as war were fundamentally wrong. However, during his reign, Henry VI enlisted Polydore Vergil as his chief Historian: the man who was required to write his history. Most historians have found it easy to write good accounts of monarchs through time, with at the least a few victories in their reign, as well as fantastic political and motivational speeches to make them seem a powerful ruler whether 15 BBC History: Henry Vi 16 William Shakespeare. Henry VI: Part II Act 1, Scene 1 17 William Shakespeare. Henry VI: Part I Act 3, Scene 1

8 they were or not. Yet, as Bertram Wolffe, a twentieth century historian wrote, "His constant change of plan, regardless of expense, show his impractical nature and lack of steadfast purpose. His ambition to surpass all other foundations in privileges and grandeur reveals the ostentatious nature of his piety 18, showing that realistically, Henry VI, according to this revisionist view, was a man who liked to show off just how pious he was, and relate all his work back to God and religion. Even Polydore Vergil struggled to find a way to make Henry VI look good, so used his piety as his redeeming feature. Therefore, although Shakespeare was right in making Henry VI a pious and religious character, this was not necessarily his redeeming future, being solely something contemporary historians of Henry VI used in their quests to make him look a good monarch. Margaret s affair with the Duke of Suffolk in Henry VI, Part II is one event in the Henry VI trilogy that is almost definitely historically inaccurate. While Margaret did not always get on with Henry VI, and was likely not always a faithful wife, it also remains true that she did not have an affair with the Duke of Suffolk, with this event being entirely fictitious and dramatized for effect. Margaret is depicted by Shakespeare as an evil character, mainly due to the fact that she is French. In Richard III, for instance, it is she that encourages the brutal murders of the Princes and feels that the old Queen, Elizabeth Woodville, should suffer if justice is to be carried out. She seems a highly contrasting character with her weak and spineless husband Henry, especially in her speech in Henry VI, Part III, in which she says, after her husband refuses to fight against making a decision that is not keen on, Had I been there.. the soldiers should have tossed me on their pikes before I would have granted to that act. But thou preferr st thy life before thine honor 19. These lines are demonstrative of the fact that as a character, Margaret is perfectly able to defend what she believes in, unlike her husband. However, according to many Historical sources, the character of Margaret has been exaggerated, like many others, by Shakespeare. She was a strong ruler, and absolutely determined to rule well when her husband fell ill, but whether she had good intentions or not is a debatable subject. Shakespeare, however, certainly seems to have made her a character more evil than she was. Was Shakespeare s Portrayal of Henry VI and Richard III valid? Although Shakespeare is undeniably one of the most celebrated playwrights on the planet, and arguably the most talented writer ever to have lived, as an Historian he is certain not an accurate source: his plays are meant to be works of fiction, and not true accounts of History. There are, of course, some aspects of Histories that are completely historically correct: for instance, Henry VI s army being defeated by Joan of Arc and Richard III dying on the battlefield at Bosworth, yet not all the events depicted by Shakespeare are quite as true. For instance, the chronology of events in, in particular, the Henry VI trilogy is not totally accurate. One of the key events which Shakespeare depicts incorrectly is the involvement of 18 Bertram Wolffe 19 William Shakespeare. Henry VI: Part III Act 1, Scene 1

9 Margaret of Anjou in the Duchess being exiled: when in fact she was exiled years before Margaret even arrived in England. Shakespeare was certainly an entertainer: Richard III has always been the favourite Shakespeare character of many surely down to the absolutely unbelievably evil element of his personality. Therefore, while Shakespeare s Histories can be used as a fantastic source of entertainment, they are certainly not to be used with any Historical fact or accuracy in mind. Conclusion- Why Was Shakespeare So Biased? His Audience It must be kept in mind that Shakespeare was writing for a Tudor audience: in particular the Queen Elizabeth I. As soon as the Tudors were gone and it was safe to talk 20, was said by Brent Carradine, one of the key characters in Josephine Tey s fictional The Daughter of Time, proving that while Shakespeare was writing, it was not even safe to talk in a respectful way about a known enemy like Richard III: this would at the least amount to treachery towards the Queen, and simply could not be done legally. Therefore, Shakespeare s writing had to be tailored towards a Lancastrian-favouring Tudor audience, as is very much demonstrated in the Henry VI Trilogy. Henry VI was a King well-known for going senile at the end of his reign, with his wife and advisors having to take over much of ruling for him after he broke down. Yet Shakespeare does not portray him at all in this way, making him out to be totally capable of making his own decisions, just as a weak monarch who was incapable of making good and worthy decisions. In making a link between Henry VI and the mentally illness he supposedly suffered from, Shakespeare could be seen as criticising the lineage of the Tudors, so portraying them as having weak genes. Therefore, it was better that Shakespeare made Henry a weak monarch, partially because he was incapable of making good decisions, and equally due to his overly forceful wife. Equally, his audience probably played a large part in creating the tyrannous character of Richard III: a hated King by the Tudor s, he would have been depicted in a bad light by all their Historians, and therefore Shakespeare would have had little choice but to follow suit. Furthermore, his sources, such as the Holinshed s Chronicles for Richard III, and Polydore Vergil, who wrote a Historical account of Henry VI, were equally biased to write in the mood of the times: Vergil biased towards making Henry VI look good, while Holinshed had more pressure to make Richard III a clear political enemy. In all of his Elizabethan plays, it was necessary for Shakespeare to be extremely careful, as in order to have his plays performed in the places that would allow him to be increasingly rich and famous, he knew that they had to not only have the approval of Elizabeth I and the Tudor nobles, but also be enjoyed by them. Profit and Sales Most of Shakespeare s work, though, seems to have been written mainly to not only make him more money, through sales of tickets to the plays. Therefore, the more dramatic and 20 Josephine Tey The Daughter of Time 1951

10 interesting a play was to its audience, the more tickets it would sell. Equally, the more likely it was that a play would be popular and sell well, the better places it would be performed in. So Shakespeare had to write in the most dramatic way possible in order to make himself money and become more famous as a writer. Therefore, he needed to at the least exaggerate situations to make them seem more exciting to his audience. Richard III depicted as an average and dull King, who suffered from unexpected rebellions after rewarding his loyal supporters too highly, would not make nearly as exciting a play as the Richard III written by Shakespeare. Richard as a terrifyingly strong antagonist makes the audience interact more with this exciting and illuminating character. Equally, Shakespeare needed a strong antagonist in Henry VI, so exploited the nationality of his already unpopular wife, due to the xenophobia of the English towards the French. Margaret of Anjou therefore becomes a wicked woman in Henry VI, while in reality she was one of the only people in a position to take charge of England when Henry became mentally ill, and did so, but struggled to rule due to the hatred the English towards her and the fact that she was a woman. However, this would not make as exciting a play as Shakespeare s version of events, with Henry s marriage to this woman being a major contributing factor in the beginnings of the factional rivalry that led to the Wars of the Roses. Therefore, it is clear that one of Shakespeare s main motivations in writing his plays was making it exciting and dramatic enough that his audience could not only relate to, but interact with his storyline and characters, going away and continuing to spread the word of his writing. For this reason, it was completely necessary for Shakespeare to use exaggeration in his Histories, to make the lives of his Historical key characters appear more interesting.

11 Bibliography Baldwin, David. Richard III Amberley Publishing, Feb Fowler H.W, Fowler F.G. Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11 th edition revised. July 2004 Jonson, Ben Preface to the First Folio, 1623 Lee, Cathy. AQA History AS: Unit 1 Britain, : Student's Book Nelson Thornes, May 2008 Ross, Charles. Edward IV, University of California Press, 1974 Shakespeare, William. Henry VI, Part I, 1592 Shakespeare, William. Henry VI, Part II, 1594 Shakespeare, William. Henry VI, Part III, 1595 Shakespeare, William. Richard III, Shakespeare, William. The Tempest, 1625 Tey, Josephine. The Daughter of Time, Touchstone, 1951 Weir, Alison. Lancaster and York: the Wars of the Roses. Vintage, July BBC History Watson, Greig. 12 th Sept, Garton, James. Mabillard, Amanda. 20 Aug,