Things to know about Richard III and what type of play it is…
It’s a medieval morality play
Shakespeare uses Richard as a figure of Vice. Vice tempts sinners and then punishes them for their transgressions/weaknesses. They always realise they have sinned and repent, then they are punished by Vice. Vice himself is defeated by the powers of good/God and order is restored.
The audience enjoys the figure of Vice – they like his naughtiness and lack of respect. They love the way he punishes those (often in privileged positions) who are otherwise untouchable. To a certain extent he restores order but importantly, he is always defeated at the end to make it clear to the audience that evil cannot pay.
To a large extent, the audience enjoy the feeling of schadenfreude (pleasure at someone else’s pain or discomfort).
It could be argued that although Richard is amoral (ie has no morals anyway), that as Vice, he is ironically doing God’s work by punishing the sinful. However, once he makes the choice to kill the Princes – who are blameless in the Wars of the Roses and are not sinners – he moves beyond being a wicked tool of God and becomes a monster. If the Yorks have any claim to the throne, then Richard usurps Divine Right by killing the boys (who are ahead of him in royal lineage): therefore he is not only committing a heinous sin but transgressing natural law and God’s rule. Under the morality play, he needs to be punished. Richmondbecomes the tool of God who restores balance and begins a new rulership clearly under God’s law.
It endorses the Tudor Myth
Remember that Henry VII and VIII needed to solidify and justify a frankly dodgy link to the throne. They hired the best, most influential historians in Europe to rewrite an ‘official’ account of English history to make them look good. For this reason, some see Richard III as little more than propaganda and to a certain extent this is true…with some serious ambiguity.
Shakespeare knows he has to keep his patrons (the nobles who give him money, support and a certain amount of protection) happy. In many ways, the play flatters Queen Elizabeth in representing her family lineage as chosen by Divine Right (destined by God to be monarchs), with a strong claim to the throne.The public love her, so making a play showing everyone’s favourite Queen and how she is descended from a True Hero of Good = bums on seats. Kerching $$$$.
It’s a plea for peace and a controversial warning about the devastation caused by warring noble families (yes, it’s really Game of Thrones)
In a country sickened by hundreds of years of constant war, religious persecution and change, there is massive unease about what will happen when Elizabeth I dies (she is childless). On the brink of another potential war, the manipulative movers and shakers are lining their guys up to be next; hugely powerful noble houses with massive armies are gearing up for their claims and crazy foreigners might make it all come crashing down. Shakespeare sometimes steers near dangerous waters in the way he depicts the masses being at the mercy of the self-serving elite (you can go all Marxist here) – the nation suffers because of the never ending cycle of violence and betrayal (“blood to blood”).
It’s a Tragedy
Shakespeare is heavily influenced by Greek Tragedy. Macbeth, Anthony, Hamlet and Othello are clear examples of the noble defeated by their own hubris, dying bravely after recognizing how badly they stuffed up. Richard is odd as he clearly fills many traits of the classic Hero figure. Use the Greek/Shakespeare Tragedy guide to help you – all of these elements work with Richard! However, at a certain point (arguably the killing of the Princes and the isolation from Buckingham and the audience) he moves from flawed protagonist to outright antagonist; from figure of Vice to despotic tyrant (remember Tyrell’s “the bloody King”), with Richmond becoming the protagonist in At 5. A key discussion point here is how Shakespeare denies Richard a noble death scene – by rendering him silent and the death quick, he takes away any power or empathy that he might obtain in dying nobly, thereby preventing him from having the death of a heroic character.
It’s a History Play
Not only does Shakespeare write huge sagas, recording key events in history, he actually changes the perception of history through his plays. Because of the combination of Vergil and Moore’s biased histories (commissioned by Henry VII) and Shakespeare’s history plays, the general perception of hundreds of years of history (and historical figures) is basically unreliable. In short, Shakespeare’s history plays actually shaped national identity and a nation’s view on what they think their history actually is. That’s a pretty big legacy.