Kan
Wang
996869946
M.
Sergi
ENG331H1
S
A Good Monarch:
Shakespeare vs. History
Shakespeare created Richard III in
his play The Tragedy of King Richard the
Third as an evil, immoral,
and deceiving freak. Thus concluded him as a failed king. However, due to
the time, place and environment in which the play was produced, I doubt on
Shakespeare’s view of a good monarch. Moreover, I question if Edward IV and
Henry VII were such good kings as Shakespeare created to be. In order to
successfully establish the coward and failure image for Richard III in the
play; Shakespeare portrayed him as physically defective and psychologically
twisted. In the meantime Shakespeare praised Edward IV and Earl Richmond, later
as Henry VII, being noble and faithful. Thus people who read or watched the
play would compare between them. Richard III defying religion degrades his
reputation even more since religion was important to monarchs’ role.
Since The Tragedy of King Richard the Third
was produced during the Tudor Dynasty, David Hipshon, the author of Richard III, questioned the legitimacy
of the historiography in the play and expressed his different opinion about
this king being a failure, as Shakespeare established. Hipshon described
Richard III as “a bad man and a good king”. (Hipshon 211) As much I agree with
Hipshon that Shakespeare depreciated Richard III, I do not agree that he was a
bad man. As independent of historian Hipshon and Shakespeare, I believe that
King Richard III was portrayed to the people unfairly. His reputation was
distorted so the Tudors had the legitimacy to take the throne through war, not
through birthright. As Hipshon stated in his book, “If Richard III had defeated
Henry Tudor at Bosworth, and few would have bet against it in 1485, a
successful period of stability, prosperity or military glory might have allowed
the usurpation to acquire a vindication of sorts.” (Hipshon 210) However, losers
are always in the wrong. Since Richard III’s reputation died with him at
Bosworth, it was determined that his fate to be distorted.
Shakespeare
completely rebuilt an image for Richard III in the play that did not belong to
the king. In Richard’s monologue at the beginning of the play, Richard says,
“But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks / nor made to court an
amorous looking glass.” (Shakespeare I, i, 14-15)
Immediately he
describes himself as frail, ugly and inferior. It would be more convincing to
people if these words were spoken from the mouth of Richard than from someone
else. Saying something about oneself is like confirming the truth. Then the
line below made him seems more loath than he already appeared,
“That
dogs bark at me as I halt by them.” (Shakespeare I, i, 23)
Hipshon
objected Shakespeare completely and praised Richard III as a brave fighter. He
described briefly about the battle of Bosworth in his book. From his
description of Richard III, this king could not be anything Shakespeare
established him to be. No one would ever dare to underestimate Richard III during the battle, probably not even
Henry Tudor himself. (Hipshon 208) This proves how brave and charismatic he was,
then why did Shakespeare make this image of Richard III?
Historians
are aware that Henry VII of Tudor became King after the battle of Bosworth that
killed Richard III. Thus the rule of Henry VII was illegitimate since Richard
was rightfully crowned as King of England in 1483. For Henry Tudor’s treasonous
act against the crown to be accepted, he and his heirs had to make Richard III
as evil, unfit and brutal as possible. Shakespeare did a very good job in this regard. Hipshon argued he was a good king because
of his bravery in leading his army and a bad man because he usurped the throne
from his nephew. (Hipshon 211) I agree
that Richard was a good King. His immoral image was a production of
Shakespeare, who lived during the Tudor dynasty. It would be in his best
interest to negatively describe
Richard III in all aspect to please the monarchs at time. However I believe
Richard III did what he had to do in order to secure the House of York. I would
argue that it was because he was a responsible and good man.
As a predominant member of the
House of York, Richard III saw the danger of young Edward being crowned as
king. He was very young, which would cause political stability in England. With
Queen Elizabeth Woodville’s family so influential, (Shakespeare, II. iii)
Richard III feared that King Edward V would not be strong enough to balance
with them. Furthermore it could lead to the House of York losing the throne. Therefore Richard III took the throne by
himself because he knew he could withstand the Woodville family, since he had
experiences in warfare and he had connections with the Nobility. (Hipshon, 187)
He usurped the throne driven by the fact that he was a honourable man who saw
his family most importantly. He was willing to attempt usurpation in order for
the House of York not to fall. I believe that he also did this because he knew
that his father, Richard, Duke of York, died in battle to gain the throne for this family. Richard III
would not want the Woodvilles to take that away. There is no clear definition
of good or bad men in politics. Richard III gave up his personal reputation to
save his family’s reputation; this is an act of a good man. If he had succeeded
and reigned longer, he would have developed England as well with his talent and
ambition.
On the other hand, Edward IV could not pass
as a good King and Henry VII was not a good man as created in Shakespeare’s play.
In the beginning of scene II act i, we see Edward IV asking all the lords and
the queen to make promises to be nice to each other after his death. I think it
is pathetic. What kind of king would be so pitiful in begging his subjects to
promise him not to do what he does not want to see? Shakespeare interpreted
that the lords promised Edward IV because he was popular and people respected
him. I interpret it that he did not know what to do about the rivalries except
for begging so that he would feel better about his remaining rule. Henry VII on
the other hand at the end of the play clearly revealed how deceiving he was.
His right to rule was granted by the marriage with Elizabeth York, yet he
ignored the fact that Elizabeth should be in line before him and went ahead to
take the throne (Shakespeare V. v. 21-23). It connects to how illegitimately
the Tudors took the throne to begin with. Thus it was essential to make Richard
III as a bad king and a bad man. Then the Tudors would be seen as saviors of
England, in hope to give them a little more legitimacy to reign.
Shakespeare throughout this play often had
his character of Richard defied religion. Whenever Richard deceived or attempted
murder, he would quibble with swearing in the name of God. It seemed to readers
and audience that he did not fear God at all. This was also a main factor that
ruined Richard III’s reputation. It is known that the king is divine and a
representative of God on earth. It is a position both moral and holy. It would
be very scandalous if Richard III was not religious. That would make him even
more unfitting as a monarch. Henry Tudor would be a hero who overthrew a king
who was not divine and lost his mandate from God. It was a smart attack on
Richard III to legitimize the Tudor dynasty. However I found it very
hypocritical when Henry VIII himself divorced with the Church just to get what
he personally wanted. It was even more immoral and unfaithful since he threw
away his own divine rights by breaking the rules. This proves that Richard the
character was not as bad as Henry VIII because he only lied and twisted the
truth a little bit. Henry VIII acted out a break up with the Church, which was unforgivable.
The play of The Tragedy of King Richard
the Third was a
propaganda attack on Richard III. It was needed during the Tudor dynasty, and I
would argue especially during the Elizabethan era because the religious
revelries in the country were so intense that had already threatened the
royal power. This play could be used to remind people that the Tudor dynasty
saved England from a king who was so evil, immoral and cruel that could ruin
the country. Directing people’s attention away from the religious issues. By
telling people that Tudor was a better choice, it could make the Catholics to
compromise because they would think that there could be worse choices. Therefore,
this paper questions Shakespearians’ view of good monarch. While complimenting
Hipshon’s argument that Richard III was a good king, I disagree with him that
Richard III was a bad man. I believe that Richard III was fit monarch and a
honourable man. It is sad that the losers are always in the wrong; otherwise
Richard III would go down remembered as a good monarch in history.
Citation
Hipshon, David. Richard III.
London and New York: Routledge, 2011. Print
Shakespeare, William. Peter Holland, Ed. The Tragedy of King Richard the Third. New York: Penguin Books,
2000. Print
No comments:
Post a Comment