Below is a letter penned by Rudy VanVeghten at the Meredith Historical Society.
A Monster or a “Good King”?
Nearly four centuries after William Shakespeare portrayed him as a malevolent hunchbacked tyrant, England’s King Richard III has benefitted somewhat from a recent character rehabilitation. Research begun by writer/producer Phillipa Langley around the turn of the 21st century inspired a search for Richard’s burial site, culminating in the retrieval of his bones from a Leicester parking lot in 2012. Medical analysis of those bones has generally concluded that Richard might have had minor deformities, particularly scoliosis, but nothing particularly debilitating. Langley’s research also indicated that during his short 25-month reign as the last of England’s Plantagenet kings, Richard was not the monstrous caricature reported by the early Tudors, his conquerors. Rather, he was a “good king” who has been unfairly maligned since his death in 1485 at the Battle of Bosworth.
But it was Richard’s reputation as a monster that was prevalent in 1597, when Shakespeare wrote his play originally titled The Tragedy of King Richard the third. Containing, His treacherous Plots against his brother Clarence: the pitiful murder of his innocent nephews: his tyrannical usurpation: with the whole course of his detested life, and most deserved death. Shakespeare had two important criteria for writing and staging the play: 1) It had to appeal to the general theater-going population of London who he hoped would pay to see it, and 2) it had to pass muster with Queen Elizabeth I, granddaughter of Richard’s vanquisher Henry VII. It seems likely Shakespeare followed the conventional wisdom of the time with little if any hint that contemporaneous representations of Richard had been exaggerated. Even if he had suspected a character assassination and had portrayed the king more sympathetically, he’d have risked the play being rejected by the queen’s censors.
Understanding historical context can sometimes provide an extra layer of appreciation for Shakespeare’s craft, however, it should never be thought of as essential. The Bard’s appeal and reputation doesn’t rest on his teaching us history. It rests on what he tells us about human nature. Whether it’s Hamlet, Lady Macbeth, Shylock, or Richard III, Shakespeare always puts himself in his characters’ shoes, and we need to do the same. As we watch the Winnipesaukee Playhouse’s production tonight, we need to ponder what motivates Richard and whether his behavior is in some way justified. Like Shakespeare, we need to wear Richard’s shoes (the character’s, not the historical figure’s) and ask ourselves how we would behave in the same situation.
Nearly four centuries after William Shakespeare portrayed him as a malevolent hunchbacked tyrant, England’s King Richard III has benefitted somewhat from a recent character rehabilitation. Research begun by writer/producer Phillipa Langley around the turn of the 21st century inspired a search for Richard’s burial site, culminating in the retrieval of his bones from a Leicester parking lot in 2012. Medical analysis of those bones has generally concluded that Richard might have had minor deformities, particularly scoliosis, but nothing particularly debilitating. Langley’s research also indicated that during his short 25-month reign as the last of England’s Plantagenet kings, Richard was not the monstrous caricature reported by the early Tudors, his conquerors. Rather, he was a “good king” who has been unfairly maligned since his death in 1485 at the Battle of Bosworth.
But it was Richard’s reputation as a monster that was prevalent in 1597, when Shakespeare wrote his play originally titled The Tragedy of King Richard the third. Containing, His treacherous Plots against his brother Clarence: the pitiful murder of his innocent nephews: his tyrannical usurpation: with the whole course of his detested life, and most deserved death. Shakespeare had two important criteria for writing and staging the play: 1) It had to appeal to the general theater-going population of London who he hoped would pay to see it, and 2) it had to pass muster with Queen Elizabeth I, granddaughter of Richard’s vanquisher Henry VII. It seems likely Shakespeare followed the conventional wisdom of the time with little if any hint that contemporaneous representations of Richard had been exaggerated. Even if he had suspected a character assassination and had portrayed the king more sympathetically, he’d have risked the play being rejected by the queen’s censors.
Understanding historical context can sometimes provide an extra layer of appreciation for Shakespeare’s craft, however, it should never be thought of as essential. The Bard’s appeal and reputation doesn’t rest on his teaching us history. It rests on what he tells us about human nature. Whether it’s Hamlet, Lady Macbeth, Shylock, or Richard III, Shakespeare always puts himself in his characters’ shoes, and we need to do the same. As we watch the Winnipesaukee Playhouse’s production tonight, we need to ponder what motivates Richard and whether his behavior is in some way justified. Like Shakespeare, we need to wear Richard’s shoes (the character’s, not the historical figure’s) and ask ourselves how we would behave in the same situation.
