with victor Henry Tudor, who acted as an agent of retribution, a stark contrast of the ‘usurper’. It would be unwise of Shakespeare to criticise Henry Tudor, who was Elizabeth’s grandfather (and who assumed the crown following his victory at the Battle of Bosworth 1485), as it would undermine the Tudor dynasty, hence undermining the current monarch, Elizabeth I. Although not an endorsement of the first Tudor monarch, the play instead acts as an exacerbated view of the tyrannical regime of Richard III, which was defeated by Tudor victor Henry VI. Hence, for this reason, it can be deduced that the play acted as Tudor propaganda, and an integral agent in bolstering the position of Queen Elizabeth I. Amongst the influence of Tudor historians, (as well as legitimising the Tudor regime), the influence of patronage of Shakespeare’s works is also noteworthy and should not be overlooked. Shakespeare relied heavily on patronage. Patrons were important not only for Shakespeare, but also for any playwright who hoped to cement their place in the world of Tudor theatre and gain repute.Typically, wealthy aristocrats and patrons were integral in securing a firm reputation amongst the high society elites, who held significant influence in determining a playwright’s success or failure (32). Shakespeare successfully secured the patronage of Fernando Stanley, (who was directly related to Thomas Stanley), who, at the Battle of Bosworth abandoned his previous loyalties of the Yorkist dynasty and instead supported the more likely victor, Henry Tudor (33).Although the factor of patronage could have indeed influenced Shakespeare in tarring Richard with the brush of tyranny, it is not of high significance when compared to the factors of cementing the Tudor position and the influences of Tudor historians such as More and Rous. Why Shakespeare was so significant Shakespeare played an integral role in the blackening of Richard III’s reputation and his play arguably the most significant factor in giving Richard his tyrannical reputation.The Richard we encounter in the play exerted powerful influence, not only during the Tudor period, but also in the 20th and early 21st century perceptions (34). Shakespeare’s play successfully reflected the Tudor obsession, which vilified Richard, as a way to legitimise the Tudor regime. In the play, Richard is portrayed as an “evil man who committed many terrible deeds”, effectively
throughout the play. It was popular belief during the era that physical appearance had a firm connection to a person’s character, hence why Richard’s tyranny was portrayed to be inevitable from birth. Shakespeare releasing his play at a time in which pre-conceptualised beliefs regarding deformity were already extremely high, arguably allowed for maximum impact upon the audience when drawing comparisons to Richard’s physical abnormalities in relation to his rule as king. Shakespeare’s plays, in general, were a main source of entertainment, not only for the upper- class gentry and nobility, but were made widely accessible to those of the lower middle-classes too; paying less than a penny for admittance to the yard (30). For this reason, Shakespeare’s plays held immense power and influence over those who attended, not only serving as a way to deliver political messages, but also, as demonstrated were highly reflective of the thought of Englishmen of the time.As Jeffrey R. Wilson states, Shakespeare’s ‘Richard III’ completely rebuts the concept of physiognomy of ‘accidental’ attributes. Instead, Shakespeare promotes the physiognomy of natural attributes and portrays them as an accurate representation of the wickedness he executes (31).This contemporary belief is also seen to be supported by English historian of the time John Rous.The historian claimed that, from birth, it was inevitable that Richard would live a malevolent life due to such abnormalities. The fact that Shakespeare wrote behind such a backdrop is significant.Writing at a time in which anxieties around deformity were already high provided the optimum environment for the play to have maximum impact amongst those who watched it.The message of Richard’s deformity being reflective of his own morality played on pre-existing beliefs within contemporary society and fermenting them.The fact that Shakespeare’s plays were also widely accessible allowed for the spreading of such ideas. Was the play written under Tudor influences? How does this limit the validity of the play? The play was released in 1597, behind the backdrop that was the questioning of Elizabeth I’s legitimacy, with beliefs that she was allegedly born out of wedlock.This issue of her legitimacy began the focal point of various coups, such as the Babington Plot of 1586 that aimed to unseat her from the throne of England, replacing her with the more favourable claimant, Mary Queen of Scots. For this reason, Shakespeare would have been subject to heavy censorship in the context of both heresy and politics when writing the play, and would have taken great care not to include content that would potentially discredit the current monarch or portray the current dynasty in a negative light. In the play, Shakespeare contrasted the tyrannical Richard
demonstrating Richard’s destructive and manipulative path to the English throne.
Shakespeare achieved this through his effective portrayal of Richard as a Machiavellian, who imposes fear upon his people through brute force, as well as using his deformity to mirror his reign as king. By discrediting the reign of Richard, it successfully portrays Henry VII to have acted
9
Made with FlippingBook Digital Publishing Software