Analyse Shakespeare representation of Richard’s villainy in Acts 1-3 of the play.
In Act I of King Richard III, Shakespeare characterises Richard, Duke of Gloucester as an embodiment of the Tudor Myth’s exaggerative portrayal of him – a usurping, duplicitous and deformed Plantagenet. In the opening soliloquy, Shakespeare shows Richard’s displeasure with peace by personifying warfare, “grim-visaged war hath smoothed his wrinkled front,” in juxtaposition with the more delicate, shameful existence of “caper[ing] nimbly in a lady’s chamber to the lascivious pleasing of a lute,” capturing the disillusionment he feels now that the two Houses are not at war. This depicts Richard as someone who is bitter about the transformation of the Plantagenet dynasty “in this weak piping time of peace,” making it clear that he longs for a return to violence, militaristic glory and personal gain – and is determined to secure that glory with villainy. This alienation also highlights Shakespeare’s superimposed trait of deformity. His self-deprecating idiolect emphasises the psychological burden of being “cheated of feature by dissembling nature, deformed, unfinished, sent before [his] time,” showing that in wartime his appearance is “smoothed,” yet in peacetime his “lamely and unfashionable” nature is accentuated, and therefore a justification “to prove a villain.” Shakespeare attributes Richard’s villainy, partly, to the rhetorical genius displayed in the stichomythic extended ‘battle of words’ with Lady Anne; he substitutes the loss of participating in wars, by partaking in a fierce quarrel with the widow of Henry VI – who he killed in battle. Richard rhetorically justifies and shifts the guilt of the “stabbing” onto his own victim, “for I did kill King Henry, but ‘twas thy beauty that provokèd me.” Shakespeare employs a moment of high physical theatricality and drama to accompany this, with the offering of the “sharp-pointed sword” that is symbolic of Richard’s fatalistic attempt to usurp the throne, a moment in which there is a substitution of morality for immorality, in the failure of Anne to “be thy executioner” and the subsequent offering of the “ring.” The interjectional asides of Margaret depict the contextual complexity of hatred for such a “villain” from a Lancastrian perspective, “hie thee to hell for shame, and leave this world, thou cacodemon. There thy kingdom is,” a demonic, metaphorical depiction of Richard’s status as a Machiavel, showing that although his treachery is powerful, it is not without opposition. Shakespeare characterises Richard as being self-aware of his ability to “seem a saint when most I [Richard] play the devil,” portraying his villainy to be a metatheatrical choice. The use of smaller, seemingly insignificant characters who oppose this villainy, like the remorseful ‘Second Murderer’ of Clarence, contrast Richard’s intentions by acting as subtle philosophical opposition. In an allusion to Roman immorality, “how fain, like Pilate, would I wash my hands of this most grievious murder,” the Second Murderer’s apprehension of being ordered, by “the duke,” to commit “a bloody deed, and desperately dispatched” subverts the prescribed Machiavellian notion of religious judgement and morality being second to ‘the Prince,’ or in regards to Richard, himself as the usurping King.
In Acts II and III, Shakespeare represents how commanding Richard Gloucester’s villainy is, as those he has prophesised against become “ensnareth” in his “deadly web.” In King Edward’s apostrophe after hearing the news of Clarence’s ‘reversed’ execution, “O God, I fear thy justice will take hold on me and you, and mine and yours, for this,” Shakespeare reveals how, like with Lady Anne, Richard can construct the confines of guilt around those who he “plots” against. This is supplemented by the insightful idiolect that he speaks of the “little prating York” in, “Oh, ‘tis a perilous boy, bold, quick, ingenious, forward, capable,” recognising that the Prince will make a good king, if he is allowed to live. However, Shakespeare contrasts this ironic perceptiveness with Richard’s declarative statement, “chop off his [Hastings’] head,” depicting the deplorable manner in which a villain, like Richard, can talk of children and murderous treason simultaneously. Shakespeare’s use dramatic irony in the ‘council meeting’ scene, in which the members discuss the anonymity of “the Lord Protector’s mind,” indicates how Richard’s duplicity can remain hidden from those he seeks to destroy. The motif of the facade of appearances is affirmed by Buckingham, “We know each other’s faces. For our hearts, he knows no more of mine than I of yours, or I of his,” and coupled with Hasting’s statement that Richard has not “delivered his gracious pleasure” even though “he loves [him] well,” portraying the iniquitous intention of Richard to be unidentified, unknown and therefore dangerous. Ultimately, Richard’s villainy is validated by his “holy exercise,” which is emphasised by Shakespeare’s stage direction of Richard entering “between two Bishops,” signifying his authority to rule, and hence a dutiful, divine, religious masking of his “heinous deeds.” This is used by Richard’s remaining loyal adversaries to enshrine him as the rightful king. Buckingham’s alliterative, rhetorical juxtaposition that “this prince is not an Edward. He is not lulling on a lewd love-bed but on his knees at meditation,” shows how Richard’s methodology of villainy, is to reject morality to achieve power, adhering to the Machiavellian philosophy of the unimportance of
...(download the rest of the essay above)