Post date: Feb 27, 2017 12:57:31 AM
"Are people born wicked? or do they have wickedness thrust upon them?" this line from the song "No One Mourns the Wicked" from Wicked ran through my head the moment I read the lines "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" (1.I.28-31). Richard in Richard III is deformed, a useless arm, a humped back, a curved spine. In a way, this steps back into the Greek idea of beauty = goodness. In another, it reflects the reality of Richard. He did have scoliosis, a severe case of it. But Shakespeare takes the appearance of Richard and uses it to promote the Tudor narrative of their ascension to the throne, that of Henry VII overthrowing an evil tyrant. Richard, because of this physical deformity, cannot have a normal life so therefore must submit to his monstrous appearance and become a monster.
This is why I find the full title, The Tragedy of Richard III, to be so fitting. Richard destroys himself by becoming a monster. By being forced into the role of a monster, both by Shakespeare but also by those around Richard.
In Wicked, Elphaba is shunned at first for her green skin, then shunned once the wizard puts out the narrative that she is evil, when in reality she just didn't agree with the Wizard and his lack of ethics. In The Wizard of Oz, the Wicked Witch of the West gets no such backstory and is therefore a convenient villain. It's rather interesting to view people and stories from one point of view and then another. Shakespeare, and most of Tudor England, saw him as a usurper, a murderer, a tyrant. Today, we remember him as that old king who got found under a car park, that king who murdered his nephews. The myth of Richard III has obscured in many ways the real Richard from public view.
To focus on the Character Richard, I find myself looking at a character who at once hates himself and becomes what society expects of him, gaining power and control all the while. He sees himself as a monster, so he must act the monster. The interactions with others creates a sense that this monster wasn't born, but made, shaped. Richard's brother George trusts Richard to get him out of this imprisonment in the Tower. George believes his brother loves him enough to save him and that "it pleaseth neither of us well" that George is in chains (1.I.116). This idea can't be from filial loyalty - for nobility can be very cutthroat. It has to come from a genuine place of love. Although George is framed as "simple" and "plain" he shows a willingness to distrust Mistress Shore and her influence on his brother the king. He trusts Richard though. This lends me to believe that evil is something new to him, which Richard also hints at in his opening monologue. Since he cannot enjoy peace, he makes chaos in order to gain power.
When Richard "woos" Lady Anne, she starts out hating him for killing both her husband and her father-in-law King Henry VI. At the end though, Anne changes her tune, glad to see Richard "become so penitent" and agrees to marry him (1.II.239). Although Richard manipulates her into this arrangement, the fact that she so readily accepts his repentant tears is odd. His reputation then is not one of absolute evil, but of an enemy loyal to his family. Therefore, Anne finds it easier to see Richard as a one time murderer, truly repentant and truly in love than the Richard Shakespeare allows us to see, one bent on control and power. Richard recognizes this dual view of him with the line, "upon my life, she finds, although I cannot, / myself to be a marv'lous proper man" (274-275). This idea of Richard seeing himself as a monster is back. He sees the monster within but others cannot, at least not until the very end.
The only one who is clear sighted about Richard is Margaret, former Queen to Henry VI. No one believes her prophetic proclamations until it is too late though. She says of Richard, "Sin, death, and hell have set their marks on him, / and all their ministers attend on him" (1.i.312-313). Again, this idea that Richard is truly evil is not believed by anyone who can do anything about it. Queen Elizabeth hates Richards for his rebuff of her, not for his dark plans, at least not yet. She fears his role as Protector of the Prince of Wales should her husband die. In this, she expects the worst of Richard, so he becomes petty, playing the role of an envious brother-in-law.
Richard changes his face to match what people expect or want out of him, manipulating his image to make himself seem harmless or less powerful than he truly is. He even manipulates the audience to an extent. Being open about his plans, his evil nature, and reveling in it, while giving us the reasoning behind such malignant thoughts, we begin to understand and therefore empathize with him as a person. It's an interesting way to bring the audience into the story. We think we know Richard and therefore we think we can control and guess the outcome of the story.
As Shakespeare makes a monster out of a historical figure for propaganda purposes, the characters and society surrounding Richard the Character make him a monster as well. Some expect villainy from him, for his looks or for his opposition to their own goals, therefore he becomes a villain to them. Others expect only goodness, making his treachery all the worse. What would Richard be like in this fictional representation of him if he was allowed to be normal? If he wasn't made into a villain by necessity and physical appearance? In the previous plays with him in them, he doesn't seem to covet the throne, he seems loyal to his family and their goals. This role of villain is sudden in the scheme of things. It's only once peace occurs under his brother that Richard becomes restless enough to start murdering and scheming for the throne.
I have no idea really where I'm going with this, I suppose I'm trying to grapple with the Richard portrayed in Shakespeare's time, the Richard found in his own monologues, the Richard who interacts with others, and the Richard of history. Every incarnation is different, some have many facets to them, some that are imposed on him to suite an agenda. Isn't it interesting though, that we have so many different forms of this man to the point where we don't know who he truly was?
*Thus always to tyrants came from "sic semper tyrannis" allegedly said by Brutus and also said by John Wilkes Booth after assassinating their "tyrants." It's also a really catchy song from a really catchy album.