So, to be able to say
something about Richard III, that is, to be able to distinguish the
real Richard III with Shakespeare's interpretation of the character,
I've done a little research upon the matter. I believe that
Shakepeare, although so great in his command of words, was not a
historian. Therefore, his historical plays should not be entirely
trusted as a guideline in any historical research.
Actually,
prior to reading Richard III, some years ago, I read a few chapters
of a book by Glenn Pierce, entitled King's Ransom
in a library sort-of, but the book was gone when I came back some
time later to continue my reading. In that book, Richard is described
as a more modest and kind human being rather than a wicked ambitious
demon. Thus these few last days I tried to find what other people say
about Richard III.
Firstly,
his looks. While Shakespeare described him as a hunchback, and
practically a monster in appearance, such thing is not likely the
case. In Richard's time, people who went to war needed to wear heavy
armours and weapons. It is very unlikely that a man with hunchback
could actually go to war, on a horse, and kill his opponents
dexterously. The newly found remains believed to be the king shows
that Richard III was not a hunchback, although he had scoliosis. It's
in harmony with Rous and More's report that one of the king's
shoulder is higher than the other. [1][2]
 |
| The newly-found Richard III remains |
Now,
about the murders that Richard III committed in Shakespeare's story.
Scholars are still debating whether Richard really committed all of
those murders. It's actually interesting to read what the Richard III
Society has to say about it.[3] It's not so much to conclude that
Shakespeare's description of the king's homicidal character is too
much dramatisation with less historical accuracy.
On
the contrary, many people in Richard's era described him as a brave
soldier, a good member of the family and also a good king. Instead of
being a tyrant, he encouraged justice in all his region.[4][5]
Why,
then, did Shakespeare write such a play, and how could such a play
labelled as 'historical'?
Shakespeare
complied with the general belief of his era that deformity in flesh
reflects the deformity in moral qualities as well. Moreover,
Shakespeare lived under the reign of a Tudor sovereign, thus it would
be easier for him to glorify the present dynasty rather than to give
balanced view of the former one.
Another
reason. There are writings available in Shakespeare's era which might
be biased and not credible. Among those are writings by Polydore
Vergil and Sir Thomas More. Shakespeare was also believed to have
taken his history from the Chronicles,
which quality is varied when it comes to accuracy. [1]
Whether
Richard to some extent had really been a bad tyrant, or whether he
had been most unjustly accused of committing terrible things he had
never done, most of us would agree that Shakespeare's play Richard
III remains a masterpiece –
even those supporting Richard wouldn't deny that. But this play
reminds us all that we have to carefully choose between fact and
fiction and make sure of everything before believing it entirely.
That's
all I think. I am no expert in this matter, I'm sorry, but it has
been fun to dig deeper into history this time. I encourage you all to
read these links below, in order to see Richard III from another
point of view.
[2]http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-05/world/36758723_1_dna-tests-richard-iii-curved-spine
[3]Richard III Society. http://www.richardiii.net/2_5_0_riii_controversy.php#crimes
[5]Richard III Society. http://www.richardiii.net/2_3_0_riii_leadership.php#parliament
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment