Welcome to the second play of Shaketember 2023, Richard III. I find Richard a fascinating character, so I’ll spend most of the time looking at him and pick up a few puzzle pieces along the way and see if we can figure out why he’s such a monster. Is he a monster?
Richard’s first soliloquy
Act 1 Scene 1, the play opens with a long soliloquy from Richard, introducing the current state of the country and his brother King Edward – all is victorious and well. Then with a ‘But I’, he introduces himself not just in sharp contrast, but in a shocking image.
Before we look at this shocking image, which we are so familiar with it’s not surprising anymore, I want to state the obvious. The play
- opens with the title character,
- alone on stage,
- speaking directly to the audience.
I haven’t read all of Shakespeare’s plays but, not sure if you noticed this, having the title character opening the play is quite unusual. If you think of the plays that are named after its main characters:
Coriolanus starts with a riot, the title character doesn’t appear until line 150 something in Act 1 Scene 1. Titus Andronicus line 70 ish in Act 1 Scene 1. Julius Caesar starts with common people getting told off celebrating in the streets and Caesar as well as Brutus appear in Act 1 Scene 2. Hamlet Act 1 Scene 2. Macbeth starts with the witches and doesn’t appear until Act 1 Scene 3. Romeo and Juliet starts with a street fight that doesn’t involve either of them. Antony and Cleopatra start talking the earliest among this lot, but still after an under-the-breath complaint from two soldiers behind their backs. I haven’t read King Lear, Othello or Cymbeline. But I had a quick flick through, I don’t think any of them speak at the opening of the play. So firstly, generally speaking, the main character just doesn’t appear immediately.
My theory falls apart a little bit if you look at the English History plays. Richard II is the first to speak line 1 Act 1 Scene 1. Same with Henry IV. But both Richard II and Henry IV speak to other characters on stage. So secondly, no one starts the show solo, except Richard III. The stage direction of Act 1 Scene 1 reads ‘Enter Richard, Duke of Gloucester, alone.’ Imagine the pressure on that one single actor, especially if you imagine the original theatre setting, it must have required huge star quality and a huger voice to hush the rowdy crowd in Elizabethan London.
Thirdly, Richard III’s opening soliloquy speaks directly to the audience. Both Ian McKellen, Laurence Olivier and Benedict Cumberbatch look right at the camera into your eyes. He’s alone, he’s not speaking to himself. He’s aware of the audience watching. What does that say about the self-awareness of the character? He’s speaking to people who are outside the story. He’s not speaking to people who lived during the Wars of the Roses. He speaks to Elizabethan theatre go-ers. He himself seems capable of standing outside time and space. 400 years on, he speaks to us, directly, looking into your eyes. This is what I’m like. This is who I’ll become and what I’m going to do. What will you make of me?
Now we can look at how he introduces himself. It’s such a famous opening line. But I hadn’t heard of it until just a few weeks ago. I’m also going to emphasise certain words. See what you make of it when it’s presented this way.
RICHARD
Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this son of York,
And all the clouds that loured upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths,
Our bruis’ed arms hung up for monuments,
Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings,
Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.
(Act 1 Scene 1)
Did you notice the ‘ours’? We now live in a time of peace and glory. I’m proud of our house and lineage. He goes on to talk about his brother King Edward, ‘this son of York’.
RICHARD
Grim-visaged war hath smoothed his wrinkled front;
And now, instead of mounting barb’ed steeds
To fright the souls of fearful adversaries,
He capers nimbly in a lady’s chamber
To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.
(Act 1 Scene 1)
So what’s King Edward doing from Richard’s perspective? Instead of going to wars and terrifying the enemies, he now enjoys the company of a lady in wanton luxury. There’s a change of tone from his pride in the house of York and what they used to be like to his disapproval and disgust of his brother’s current way of life.
RICHARD
But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
I, that am rudely stamped, and want love’s majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
I, that am curtailed of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinished, sent before my time
Into this breathing world scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them—
(Act 1 Scene 1)
He uses verbs in passive form repeatedly to talk about himself. ‘I am not shaped nor made for love; I am clumsily stamped; I am curtailed, cut short of a normal physical form and I am cheated of feature by dissembling nature.’ I’m not sure what ‘dissembling nature’ means. Johnson’s dictionary defines it as ‘to play the hypocrite’ and uses this line as an example. Does it mean nature is playing the hypocrite in forming him in this way? Compared to my brother, I’m not fit for love because I was born and made deformed and ugly. He’s resentful.
When I get to this point, I don’t think he’s actually proud of the collective ‘our’, the house of York earlier. The united front of the house is a pretended illusion.
RICHARD
Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my shadow in the sun,
And descant on mine own deformity.
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.
(Act 1 Scene 1)
I cannot enjoy this time of peace, because I’m trivial in comparison to my brother and I’m reminded of my deformity all the time. Therefore I will become a villain and cause mayhem. It’s interesting he sets a villain opposite to a lover – I cannot prove a lover therefore I am determined to prove a villain. He wants to prove himself one way or another. The way of a lover will not work, no one will love me because I’m so ugly. The way to prove myself therefore lies in hate and villainy. Is this his true motive for being a villain? This logic seems too simple to convince me. I’m ugly on the outside therefore I’ll match my inside with my appearance.
I have two questions at this point. Why does he think that he’s not fit for love and why does he feel the need to prove himself? Keep that in mind because I have some far-fetched theories as to why Shakespeare’s Richard III is twisted like this.
One effect this opening speech has on me is that, knowing he’s determined to play the role of a villain, from this point onwards, I try to discern every word he says whether he’s PLAYING the villain or if he’s speaking from the heart.
How the story goes after that
Right, Richard Plantagenet sets out to become a villain and he does an excellent job. Here’s how the story goes, very briefly. We’re introduced to the main characters in Act 1, Clarence is sent to the Tower and murdered, Lady Anne is conquered, Queen Elizabeth and her family are clearly not Richard’s friends, and old Queen Margaret is bitter. King Edward dies in Act 2. Queen Elizabeth’s family is imprisoned and executed. Hastings is executed on a false charge. The two princes are sent to the Tower and declared illegitimate. Richard becomes King at the end of Act 3. That’s the high point of his plot line. If becoming king is what he wants, he has achieved it at this point.
But that’s not what he wants. He says right in the opening scene that what he wants is to prove a villain. Soon after he sits himself on the throne, he orders Buckingham and then Tyrrel to kill the princes in the Tower, and in the same breath orders Catesby to vacate the position of the Queen by killing his wife Lady Anne, in the presence of Stanley. This is the first time Buckingham hesitates to carry out his command. Richard III has proved to be such a wicked monster by this point even his conspirator cannot stomach his evil. I wonder what all these men think at this point. They don’t say it out loud but I think they see his madness and villainy because Buckingham leaves him and rises against him. Stanley joins Richmond Henry Tudor Henry VII as well. But no man verbally challenges him. Honestly, this is not a healthy court with open ears and humble hearts. When Edward hears Clarence is executed, his outburst is why has no one challenged him. No one dares to say no to the king and all they do is to join the opposite side of the political power.
I say no one dares to challenge him. No MAN does. The women do. When I read the play for the first time I was quite surprised how much women feature in the story. These four women do not stay quiet like the men do. Especially the first three, they challenge and curse him and his villainy bitterly and publicly, Queen Elizabeth and Duchess of York literally stop him on his horse when he’s going to war against Richmond. We’ll look at this scene in a bit.
Richard and Lady Anne
Do you remember the questions earlier, why does Richard think that he’s not fit for love and why does he feel the need to prove himself? Well here’s the first piece of the jigsaw puzzle.
One of the first things Richard does to prove himself a villain, contrary to his own word that since I CANNOT prove a lover // … // I am determined to prove a villain, is to prove himself a lover. By wooing Lady Anne. Isn’t that interesting? I read somewhere that this scene is unnecessary to the storyline because marrying Lady Anne doesn’t help him on his way to the throne. What it does show however, is Richard’s attitude towards women and his evaluation of his own worth.
Lady Anne is his first conquest and success. I don’t understand how she yields to his wooing. But his commentary on her afterwards to the audience is revealing.
RICHARD
Was ever woman in this humour wooed?
Was ever woman in this humour won?
I’ll have her, but I will not keep her long.
What, I that killed her husband and his father,
To take her in her heart’s extremest hate,
With curses in her mouth, tears in her eyes,
The bleeding witness of her hatred by,
Having God, her conscience, and these bars against me,
And I no friends to back my suit at all,
But the plain devil and dissembling looks?
And yet to win her, all the world to nothing!
Ha!
Hath she forgot already that brave prince,
Edward, her lord, whom I, some three months since,
Stabbed in my angry mood at Tewksbury?
Now pay attention how Richard describes Lady Anne’s husband Edward
A sweeter and a lovelier gentleman,
Framed in the prodigality of nature,
Young, valiant, wise, and, no doubt, right royal,
The spacious world cannot again afford.
He’s genuinely praising Edward. This is the first point of the play where I doubt that he’s a pure villain. I don’t think a monster, like Voldemort for example, is capable of seeing the virtues of others and praising them warmly.
And will she yet abase her eyes on me,
That cropped the golden prime of this sweet prince,
And made her widow to a woeful bed?
On me, whose all not equals Edward’s moiety?
On me, that halt and am misshapen thus?
My dukedom to a beggarly denier,
I do mistake my person all this while!
Upon my life, she finds, although I cannot,
Myself to be a marvellous proper man.
(Act 1 Scene 2)
He’s in disbelief. ‘I’m not half as good as Edward, I’m misshapen and walk with a limp. What is she thinking agreeing to marry me? She sees me as a ‘marvellous proper man’ although I cannot.’ It really shows how Richard sees himself here. He genuinely believes he’s unworthy of respect or love. He’s more used to dogs barking at him than women falling for him.
It sounds like he has low self-esteem. My question is, who cemented that idea in his head? He’s determined to prove a villain, and the first thing he manages is to prove a lover. A woman just agrees to marry him. He doesn’t think, ‘oh maybe I CAN give and receive love and live a peaceful life’. No, that option doesn’t even cross his mind. ‘No one in their right mind could possibly genuinely love me.’ When Lady Anne agrees to marry him, his reaction is not gladness but ridicule. ‘What’s wrong with her, that she actually loves me?’ Love is just not an option in his head. Why is that?
Richard and his mother
Another prominent woman in the play is Queen Elizabeth. She’s the mother of the princes who are murdered in the Tower. There are a few domestic scenes between mother and sons. I tend to think of THEM more in terms of the victims of the tragedy, two little children and their grieving mother. But there’s a parallel in the play. There is another grieving mother mourning for her two children. When Clarence dies, the Duchess of York loses a son; when Edward dies, she loses another son. I think the Duchess of York plays a more profound role in the play, because of the impact she has been having on Richard since even before our play starts. Here’s definitely another key women figure that I only realised the significance of recently.
The Duchess seems to know Richard is the culprit behind Clarence and Edward’s death before there’s any evidence against him. When everyone, including Clarence’s children, thinks Queen Elizabeth and King Edward are responsible for Clarence’s death, the Duchess says
DUCHESS
Peace, children, peace. The King doth love you well.
Incapable and shallow innocents,
You cannot guess who caused your father’s death.
(Act 2 Scene 2)
She knows it’s Richard. When Richard speaks kindly to Clarence’s children, she comments
DUCHESS
Ah, that deceit should steal such gentle shape,
And with a virtuous visor hide deep vice.
(Act 2 Scene 2)
Those are hints of her suspicion. Later, she’s explicit with her feeling toward her sons. I really like this metaphor. After both Clarence and Edward die, the Duchess says,
DUCHESS
I have bewept a worthy husband’s death,
And lived by looking on his images;
But now two mirrors of his princely semblance
Are cracked in pieces by malignant death,
And I, for comfort, have but one false glass
That grieves me when I see my shame in him.
Clarence and Edward are two true mirrors of their worthy father. Now she only has ‘one false glass // That grieves me when I see my shame in him’. When Queen Elizabeth goes into the sanctuary with her son, the Duchess goes with them, even though she has no cause to do so. I wonder if that’s her way of showing her stand with her dead sons against her living one.
As Richard’s evil dealings surface more and more blatantly, she curses him more and more bitterly.
We have now come to the scene where Queen Elizabeth and Duchess of York stop Richard on his horse when he’s going to war against Richmond. This is the one and only confrontation against Richard. The men at court did not confront Edward until it was too late to regret the death of Clarence. The men around Richard did not stand up to him for all the evil he’s been doing. Now all the characters who die in the play have died, there’s the confrontation against Richard from his mother. I remember there was a lot of analysis about Coriolanus and his mother. I wonder if there’s a theory of the relationship between Richard and his mother as well. I think this is one of my favourite scenes in Richard III, again, not because it’s lovely, but electrifying.
RICHARD
Who intercepts me in my expedition?
DUCHESS
O, she that might have intercepted thee,
By strangling thee in her accursed womb,
From all the slaughters, wretch, that thou hast done.
(Act 4 Scene 4)
First of all, she wishes he was never born.
DUCHESS
No, by the Holy Rood, thou know’st it well
Thou cam’st on earth to make the earth my hell.
A grievous burden was thy birth to me;
Tetchy and wayward was thy infancy;
Thy school-days frightful, desp’rate, wild, and furious;
Thy prime of manhood daring, bold, and venturous;
Thy age confirmed, proud, subtle, sly, and bloody,
More mild, but yet more harmful, kind in hatred.
What comfortable hour canst thou name
That ever graced me with thy company?
(Act 4 Scene 4)
I haven’t known a single hour of happiness in your company. So secondly, since birth, Richard has been a difficult child to his mother. Even if it is true that Richard has not a shred of virtue – which I don’t believe – to hear this long list of faults proclaimed by a mother to my face is only going to make me more hard-hearted and cold-blooded. Richard replies
RICHARD
You speak too bitterly.
I think he’s speaking from the heart. Mother, you have always been cold towards me and avoided my company and presence since I was little. You have always preferred my brothers and put them on your knees. If you see nothing good in me, well, I’ll be as bad as I can manage, to spite you, and to revenge. Not a lover, therefore a villain. Is it too presumptuous a conclusion to make that the Duchess never loved Richard, and this is the reason why Richard is so spiteful towards Lady Anne and so merciless towards his brothers, why he thinks himself unworthy and not fit for kindness and love?
DUCHESS
Hear me a word, For I shall never speak to thee again.
…
Either thou wilt die by God’s just ordinance
Ere from this war thou turn a conqueror,
Or I with grief and extreme age shall perish
And never more behold thy face again.
Therefore take with thee my most grievous curse,
Which in the day of battle tire thee more
Than all the complete armour that thou wear’st.
My prayers on the adverse party fight;
And there the little souls of Edward’s children
Whisper the spirits of thine enemies
And promise them success and victory.
Bloody thou art; bloody will be thy end.
Shame serves thy life and doth thy death attend.
(Act 4 Scene 4)
You’re not helping woman! What’s the point of cursing him now? Just to vent your hatred? Look, her purpose is not even, change your mind and stop doing evil. There’s not a hint of pleading. She never speaks to him kindly, least of all here. Her whole point is, go and die a horrible death. Honestly, I feel sorry for Richard. There’s a pause in both film adaptations I watched. It’s a heartbreaking moment looking at the face of both Ian McKellen and Benedict Cumberbatch.
But you can say, well he deserves it. After all he has done, what does he expect apart from curses? If he’s a 100% villain like Voldemort, he doesn’t deserve anything else except a bloody end. But the play hasn’t finished and there’s another piece of jigsaw puzzle in Act 5.
On conscience
Before Clarence is murdered, we see him tormented by his nightmare with visions and ghosts, and crumble under the weight of his conscience. Brackenbury comments that princes and common people are really no different, except a title, and for that, they carry a whole load of care. Clarence is troubled by his wrongdoings and his conscience, now two common people come on stage to discuss their wrongdoing at hand and their conscience.
This is another one of my favourite scenes. It’s funny and profound at the same time as many of Shakespeare’s comical scenes in great tragedies are. These two are sent by Richard to kill Clarence in the Tower. They come on stage while Clarence is asleep.
SECOND MURDERER
What, shall I stab him as he sleeps?
FIRST MURDERER
No. He’ll say ’twas done cowardly, when he wakes.
SECOND MURDERER
Why, he shall never wake until the great Judgement Day.
FIRST MURDERER
Why, then he’ll say we stabbed him sleeping.
SECOND MURDERER
The urging of that word “judgement” hath bred a kind of remorse in me.
FIRST MURDERER
What, art thou afraid?
SECOND MURDERER
Not to kill him, having a warrant, but to be damned for killing him, from the which no warrant can defend me. (Act 1 Scene 4)
It’s a perfect demonstration of conscience at work. I’m not afraid to kill him because I have a warrant from the Duke to do so. I will not get into trouble with the earthly law and justice. But I AM afraid to be damned for killing him, from the which no warrant can defend me. I just find that fascinating. His conscience knows that there will be a reckoning beyond where the earthly king’s warrant can reach.
After the first murderer kills Clarence:
SECOND MURDERER
A bloody deed, and desperately dispatched.
How fain, like Pilate, would I wash my hands
Of this most grievous murder.
FIRST MURDERER
How now? What mean’st thou that thou help’st me not? By heavens, the Duke shall know how slack you have been.
SECOND MURDERER
I would he knew that I had saved his brother.
Take thou the fee, and tell him what I say,
For I repent me that the Duke is slain.
FIRST MURDERER
So do not I. Go, coward as thou art. (Act 1 Scene 4)
Do you get the two references to the Bible here? The second murderer wishes he could be like Pilate, who, after failing to rescue Jesus from the madness of the crowd, “took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, ‘I am innocent of this man’s blood (meaning I do not take the responsibility of sending Jesus to the cross); see to it yourself’.” The second murderer also wouldn’t take the money that’s rewarded him for killing Clarence, like Judas brought back the thirty pieces of silver after he betrayed Jesus, saying “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood”. Both quotes are from the Gospel of Matthew. That’s a Sunday school aside.
The first murderer physically stabs and kills Clarence and the second one wishes he could have saved Clarence. Which of the two murderers is cowardly and weak? Or which of the following options is more difficult and shows a stronger character of a man? To face the duke or to face your conscience?
Richard’s conscience
Later on the two murderers of the boys are reported to have to face their conscience too. The ones who carry out the deeds all sound a lot more tender-hearted than the one who gives out the order. But Richard has to reckon with his conscience too at the end.
At one point, Buckingham says about Richard in the presence of lords and bishops,
BUCKINGHAM
We know each other’s faces; for our hearts,
He knows no more of mine than I of yours,
Or I of his, my lord, than you of mine. (Act 3 Scene 4)
When Buckingham says that, he’s lying. He knows Richard’s heart and intentions. But we see the irony when we look back at it knowing Buckingham is executed later on. Dissemble is another keyword of this play. It’s full of hypocrites and concealing what’s inside a man and looking the opposite, what’s on one’s face and what’s in his heart. Maybe three people know what Richard is truly like, and us, the audience, because Richard talks to us directly. But when I thought I knew who Richard was, I was surprised once again. After a nightmare that echoes Clarence’s nightmare, Richard has to face his conscience.
RICHARD
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.
What do I fear? Myself? There’s none else by.
Richard loves Richard, that is, I am I.
Is there a murderer here? No. Yes, I am.
Then fly. What, from myself? Great reason why,
Lest I revenge. What, myself upon myself?
Alack, I love myself. Wherefore? For any good
That I myself have done unto myself?
O, no, alas, I rather hate myself
For hateful deeds committed by myself.
I am a villain. Yet I lie, I am not.
Fool, of thyself speak well. Fool, do not flatter.
My conscience hath a thousand several tongues,
And every tongue brings in a several tale,
And every tale condemns me for a villain.
Perjury, perjury, in the highest degree;
Murder, stern murder, in the direst degree;
All several sins, all used in each degree,
Throng to the bar, crying all “Guilty, guilty!”
I shall despair. There is no creature loves me,
And if I die no soul will pity me.
And wherefore should they, since that I myself
Find in myself no pity to myself?
Methought the souls of all that I had murdered
Came to my tent, and everyone did threat
Tomorrow’s vengeance on the head of Richard.
(Act 5 Scene 3)
He’s diamond-hard hard and he succeeds in playing the villain when he faces people in broad daylight. It’s when he faces himself in the dead of night that we see into his vulnerability and realise he does have a conscience and there’s human weakness in his heart and he has failed to become the villain he sets out to be. What shocks me most is when he says, he despairs because ‘There is no creature loves me, // And if I die no soul will pity me.’ I didn’t realise until this point this great sorrow of his, that he craves love. Maybe he doesn’t really wish to become a villain. He doesn’t know that what he really wants is love and affection.
I think the tragedy of Mark Antony is a great man falling. The tragedy of Richard III is a man who sets out to achieve the wrong thing in the wrong way. Both quite heartbreaking.
RICHARD Slave, I have set my life upon a cast, And I will stand the hazard of the die.
One last thought before I go. I wonder what Shakespeare thought of King Richard III. Did he believe he was a blood-thirsty murderer as in his source material? What do you think?
A Day of Small Things 