Richard III: Was he really that bad?
Richard III's skeleton was recently discovered in a parking lot in England. Shakespearean expert Peter Saccio dissects the myth of "the murderous monarch."
(Page 2 of 2)
What is on his mind is how we came to be the kingdom we are now. The play ends with Henry Tudor conquering Richard and promising to marry Richard's niece Elizabeth, so that Lancaster shall be joined with York and everything shall be happy.Skip to next paragraph
A love letter to 'orphan books' – the works that time forgot
Harry Potter's wife? Read all about it
Uncovering the real world behind 'The Great Gatsby'
Donna Tartt's 'The Goldfinch' – a novel that has charmed critics and readers alike – wins the 2014 Pulitzer Prize
What books were challenged most in 2013? ALA releases its list
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
Most of us would call it political propaganda.
Q: Why is this character so appealing even though he's a bad man?
A: Richard III is amusing, he's funny. He's very entertaining on the stage – he has more soliloquies than Hamlet. This is not just a bad guy, but a guy we like to hate.
He leads the audience, if the actor is at all good, into being a silent co-conspirator with all his plots, which involves not only killing the princes. He kills his own brother, he woos the Lady Anne, he argues with old Queen Margaret, and he's so clever about doing it and explaining to the audience what he's going to do, then comments on his own performance after he's done it.
He is not only an actor, he's a playwright before and a critic afterward.
Q: Is he Shakespeare's most charming villain?
A: I guess so. The closest rival is Iago, and I don't find him that charming.
Q: What does the discovery of his skeleton tell us?
A: I'm glad that it's gotten settled that he did have a physical deformity. That is not visible from the surviving portraits, which are head-and-shoulders things. We didn't know whether that was just part of the Tudor slander of him. Turns out he did have this problem that wrenched his spine.
Q: What do you think we miss about the real King Richard III?
A: There are a couple of good things he did, but he only had two years to be king.
The death of the prince was really fatal for him. Killing kids is bad not only in our time but in Richard's time, a thoroughly Christian era. The archetype for killing kids was King Herod in the Bible. That's really very bad.
The trouble for Richard's reputation is that too much else got attached to it during Tudor times. They loaded onto him previous royal deaths, and the heart of that Tudor interpretation was that he was scheming for the crown from the moment he could walk.
Historically, there's nothing that I can find wrong, evil, criminal about Richard until he was left as guardian of the two young princes.
I'm still of the belief that Richard, having usurped his nephews' crown, had to get rid of them. Whether he knew that was in the script from the start or a realization he came to slowly, he was still responsible. If you depose a king, even if he's 12, you've got to make sure he's gone permanently.
Q: So the ultimate slur on his character is true?
A: Yes, and it formed the basis on which a number of previously quarreling other people in the kingdom could get together and say "Anybody but Richard."
Q: And Shakespeare could define him?
He does so with the brilliance. The real addition he made that's lasting is that he made Richard an actor, as self-conscious player who says, "I'm going to do this, watch me. I'm going to do that, watch me. "That's what makes him irresistible.
Randy Dotinga is a Monitor contributor.