Richard III challenges notions of how history is created and presented. Shakespeare’s play depicts the infamous Richard not only at odds with the other characters, but also fighting for a different interpretation of history. Richard and Margaret function as two characters opposed to each other with regard to history; Richard attempts to cover up the past as Margaret attempts to expose it. However, the creation and acceptance of history is largely predicated on more common figures. In particular the scrivener, a seemingly small side character, becomes an integral figure who creates the documentation of history, cementing the written version as a truth. The scrivener, tasked with the duty to write the documents falsely indicting Hastings at Richard’s request, approaches the audience in Act III, scene 6 and laments his position of falsely creating a legal document construed as truth, and manifests the complicated truth of history. The scrivener’s position as a figure entrusted with written truth is observantly figured against both Richard’s approach to history through his language and the play as a whole–a text figured with propagandistic interests with the Tudor line. The scrivener’s scene, with its focus of documented history, exposes Richard’s verbal tricks and the play’s reliability as a historical document. While critics including Paige Martin Reynolds and Linda Charnes have identified both Richard and Margaret of Anjou as figures who engage with and distort history, lesser characters serve similar vital functions. Overall, Charnes and Reynolds contribute much to the conversation of history within the text and are essential to this particular reading, yet the level that the scrivener as a character works on contributes to...
... middle of paper ...
...g to their favor, and in the creation of Hastings’ indictment, must create another “device” to place public opinion in the hands of the court (3. 6. 11). The public, nonetheless, knows that the bias is in place, illustrated by the scrivener’s questions to the audience. In the depiction of this figure, the scrivener calls out to the audience to recognize authorial control of historical narratives. The question remains as to what the audience should make of this bungling of historical narratives. Should they assign a Derridan lack of truth to the entire ordeal? Should they posit a historical meaning outside of the context of Richard III, relying solely on finite historical texts the scrivener brings into question? What remains to be addressed here is the question of meaning with characters that both create and question the very nature of truth in history and drama.
Richard III's Usurpation and His Downfall Richards rule was always unstable due to his unlawful usurpation to the throne and his part as far as the public was concerned in the death of the two princes. As a result right from the start he didn't have the trust or support from his country. As soon as he became King people were already plotting against him. After he was crowned he travelled the country trying to raise support by refusing the generous gifts offered to him by various cities. However unknown to him a rebellion was been planned in the South.
Shakespeare constructs King Richard III to perform his contextual agenda, or to perpetrate political propaganda in the light of a historical power struggle, mirroring the political concerns of his era through his adaptation and selection of source material. Shakespeare’s influences include Thomas More’s The History of King Richard the Third, both constructing a certain historical perspective of the play. The negative perspective of Richard III’s character is a perpetuation of established Tudor history, where Vergil constructed a history intermixed with Tudor history, and More’s connection to John Morton affected the villainous image of the tyrannous king. This negative image is accentuated through the antithesis of Richards treachery in juxtaposition of Richmond’s devotion, exemplified in the parallelism of ‘God and Saint George! Richmond and victory.’ The need to legitimize Elizabeth’s reign influenced Shakespeare’s portra...
Anne is quite like a modern woman in the way that if a man tells her
Instead of a powerful physical image, like Queen Elizabeth I, Richard implements elegant soliloquies, engages in witty banter, and attunes the audience to his motives with frequent asides. This flexibility demonstrates Richard's thespian superiority and power over the rest of the play's cast, making him a unique character in the play, but why does he do it? This constant battle between characters to claim mastery over a scene leaves the audience with a seemingly overlooked source of power for an actor [clarify/expand].
Shakespeare's Richard III is a play pervasive in figurative language, one of the most notable being the symbolic image of the sun and the shadow it casts. In an examination of a short passage from the text, it will be argued that Richard is compared to a shadow in relation to the sun, which has traditionally been held as a symbol of the king. The passage is significant not only because it speaks volumes about the plots of Richard, but also because it is relevant in understanding the overall plot of the play, which in the first few acts is almost indistinguishable from the plot of the scheming Duke of Gloucester.
Gifted with the darkest attributes intertwined in his imperfect characteristics, Shakespeare’s Richard III displays his anti-hero traits afflicted with thorns of villains: “Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous / By drunken prophecies, libels, and dreams” (I.i.32-33). Richard possesses the idealism and ambition of a heroic figure that is destined to great achievements and power; however, as one who believes that “the end justifies the means”, Richard rejects moral value and tradition as he is willing to do anything to accomplish his goal to the crown. The society, even his family and closest friends, repudiate him as a deformed outcast. Nevertheless, he cheers for himself as the champion and irredeemable villain by turning entirely to revenge of taking self-served power. By distinguishing virtue ethics to take revenge on the human society that alienates him and centering his life on self-advancement towards kingship, Richard is the literary archetype of an anti-hero.
...remained constant regardless of environment. Evidently, the play itself manipulates the audience’s perception of reality as it presents a historical recount designed to solidify the ruling monarch, and condemn Richard. This one-sided portrayal is achieved through animal imagery of a “usurping boar”, as Shakespeare’s pro-monarch propaganda highlights how duplicitous representations of reality may influence a society, regardless of context.
The content and construction of texts are inexorably influenced by the plethora of social, cultural, and historical factors relative to a composer’s context. Context thus becomes the principle medium for deciphering the complex and often didactic meanings within texts. Through the comparative study of Shakespeare’s historical tragedy King Richard III and Al Pacino’s postmodern docudrama Looking For Richard, both texts explore the various connections explored through the protagonist Richard with respective societal influence affecting their portrayal. Shakespeare’s text strongly conveys a sense of providentialism which was influential by the Tudor monarchy whilst Al Pacino thorough the implement of modern day media portrays these influences to a secular, postmodern audience.
Written during a time of peace immediately following the conclusion of the War of the Roses between the Yorks and the Lancasters, William Shakespeare’s play Richard III showcases a multi-faceted master of linguistic eloquence, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, a character who simultaneously manages to be droll, revolting, deadly, yet fascinating. Richard's villainy works in a keen, detestable manner, manifesting itself in his specific use or, rather, abuse of rhetoric. He spends a substantial amount of time directly interacting and therefore breaking the fourth wall and orating to the audience in order to forge a relationship with them, to make members not only his confidants of murderous intentions, but also his accomplices and powerless, unwilling cohorts to his wrongdoings. Through the reader’s exploration of stylistic and rhetorical stratagem in the opening and final soliloquies delivered by Richard, readers are able to identify numerous devices which provide for a dramatic effect that make evident the psychological deterioration and progression of Richard as a character and villain.
According to many, Shakespeare intentionally portrays Richard III in ways that would have the world hail him as the ultimate Machiavel. This build up only serves to further the dramatic irony when Richard falls from his throne. The nature of Richard's character is key to discovering the commentary Shakespeare is delivering on the nature of tyrants. By setting up Richard to be seen as the ultimate Machiavel, only to have him utterly destroyed, Shakespeare makes a dramatic commentary on the frailty of tyranny and such men as would aspire to tyrannical rule.
As the inspector begins to investigate the murders of the boys he collects history books that he believes will give him insight into Richard III and his horrible crime. The first history book he comes upon is a historical reader which bears “the same relation to history as Stories from the Bible bears to Holy Writ.” This book explains the tale of the princes in the tower using short paragraphs and full page illustrations which teaches an important moral, but adds no insight to the real story of Richard III. The second text he uses to investigate the crime is a proper school history book. The first realization he comes to while reading this book is that all school history books seem to separate history into easy to digest sections associated by the different reigns that never intersect or overlap. The second realization is that Richard III must have had a towering personality to have made himself “one of the best-known rulers” in two thousand years o...
Shakespeare’s plays were grouped into three categories: comedies, tragedies and histories. The histories were those plays based on the lives of English kings. Shakespeare was one of the first writers to write about English history. According to Garber, “before Shakespeare’s time there were few history plays such written in England--- England history was told in verse and prose chronicles (239)”. It’s considered that Richard II is one of the early “historical plays”. The play became so iconic that even Queen Elizabeth said that she was “Richard the second, know ye not that”. Richard II tells the story about a king’s downfall.
Shakespeare thus leaves his audience to fabricate their own perception with serving only minor stage directions. They are then left with Hamlet’s lingering words, actions, and the reactions to predisposed whether Hamlet’s madness is actually feigned or legitimate. Nevertheless, The evidence does not actually define Shakespeare’s character, Hamlet. To relate, modern audiences must do their research to become accustomed to the way of thinking done by people of the Renaissance. All in all, Hamlet’s true soundness is left up to the people of today’s
Nevo, Ruth. “Acts III and IV: Problems of Text and Staging.” Modern Critical Interpretations: William Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Ed. Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House, 1986. 53. Print.
The plays of William Shakespeare are generally easy to categorize, and the heroes of these plays are equally so. However, in the history play Richard II, Shakespeare’s king is more ambiguous than Hamlet or Romeo– there is no clear cut answer to whether Richard II is a tragic hero... or simply a tragedy. Historically, Richard II was crowned at a very young age, forced into the role of monarch, and thrust without hesitation into the murky world of political intrigue, which perhaps lends his character sympathy because he had no choice in his fate. However, despite his forced role in life, Richard II seems to rely on the concept of divine right to secure his throne, making no effort to sustain it once it is “irrevocably” his. Richard II is both the tragic hero and the tragedy– simply playing the role of King for the majority of the play, but only coming into his own after he is deposed, and only then to fight for his own existence.