Did Shakespeare Have Richard III All Wrong?

Before I write anything about Shakespeare's representation of Richard III, it's important to clarify that the Machiavellian schemer of The Tragedy of King Richard III isn't entirely a creation of the Bard's imagination; Shakespeare's source was Holinshed's Chronicle, which was first published in 1577 and then revised for a second edition ten years later.

We're talking about a 'history' that was penned well into the Tudor period, an era in which any positive light shone on members of the Plantagenet family would not be looked upon favorably. Moreover, by the time Raphael Holinshed was drafted in to assist with the chronicle (sometime in the mid 16th century), Richard's 'bad press' had been around for over sixty years.

With all that in mind, let's consider Shakespeare's Richard III. A man who is physically deformed: with a withered arm and a hunchback; a man so frighteningly unusual that he was born with teeth and so hideous that dogs bark at him.

He's a scary dude. A sixteenth century boogeyman. And when we consider that Shakespeare is writing during the era in which the granddaughter of Richard's killer is on the throne  it's no great surprise that this is the case.

What is surprising is that Richard is, at times, quite a fun character; there's humor in amongst all that darkness. And, something I feel is probably overlooked by those Ricardian's who feel Shakespeare treats the last Plantagenet king unfairly, is that he is the 'hero' of the play. The work is a tragedy, making Richard a tragic hero - he's up there with King Lear, Macbeth, Othello and Hamlet. 

Isn't that odd? Shakespeare could have written a play with Henry VII (Elizabeth's grandfather) as the protagonist: the hero. Instead, it's Richard that takes center stage and that in itself is, I would argue, flattering.

One of the expectations of The Richard III Society was that, by finding and exhuming Richard's body, his reputation would finally be redeemed - his remains would somehow prove that he was, after all, a decent guy and a good king.

One of the ways they'd hoped to prove that was to put to bed what they considered to be nonsense about his hunchback. And it stood to reason, if the Tudors (and Shakespeare) lied about Richard's back, then it could be argued that they were equally dishonest about everything else.

So, it must have come as a great disappointment when it was found that Richard's bones indicate he did indeed have a significant curve in his spine. Not a hunchback per se, and it's thought the deformity would have been difficult to discern underneath clothing. Nevertheless, there was definitely something wrong with Richard's back. 

What else did his remains tell us? Well, Shakespeare was wrong about the withered arm. Perhaps more important though was what we learned about the manner of Richard's death; the violent, brutal and humiliating last hours that took his life. 

Does any of this change how we feel about him, though? Does it prove that he was a benevolent monarch? The truth is, no, it doesn't. It might make him seem more human, but doesn't Shakespeare make him human, too? After all, that's the point of tragedy - to give a 'great' man an all too human frailty that will unquestionably lead to his downfall.

Shakespeare's Richard III is a villain, I'm not disputing that. However, as with all of Shakespeare's villains, he isn't evil for evil's sake. We know why he feels such hatred - he's been treated like a freak his entire life. He's been hardened by the cruelty he's received and he's determined to make the world pay. He's full of bitterness. self-pity and jealousy:

"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."

In a way, don't we feel sorry for him? Yes, he's malicious and unfeeling, but Shakespeare suggests that there is a human being beneath all that - a man who is acting out of emotions we're all prone to. Yes, he takes them to the extreme, but there still remains a sympathetic character underneath those violent, vicious acts. And, considering Elizabeth may not take too kindly to a 'human' representation of Richard, that's really quite dangerous territory for Shakespeare to be walking.

But, even if you disagree with that view of Shakespeare's Richard III, there is one more reason that I think the Platagenet king should be grateful to the Bard of Avon: there would not be half as much interest in King Richard if it weren't for his infamous status as Shakespeare's villain.

Realistically speaking, he should have no more than a brief footnote in history - a king (albeit the last in the Plantagenet line) who ruled for just a little over two years. Surely, the reason people all over the world are still fascinated by Richard and his legacy is not the facts, but literature. It's all thanks to Shakespeare.

So, whether Shakespeare got him all wrong or not (and that's a question we can still not fully answer) is perhaps irrelevant. He created a character that is bigger than the real Richard and given the 15th century king a level of fame he could not possibly have dreamed of. Some of that notoriety he might not be too thrilled about, but it's better to be remembered (even if it's for something that's not true) than to be forgotten, isn't it?