Hypermasculinity and "Richard III"

In his essay “The Unruly Masculinity of Richard III,” Ian Frederick Moulton writes that Shakespeare’s first four history plays not only address wars of the fifteenth century, but “concerns and anxieties provoked by the contemporary war with Spain,” addressing “the dangers of feminine rule [and] uncertain succession of the crown, the threat of foreign invaders, and the excesses of unruly or self-serving captains” (254). A play about “masculine disorder,” Richard III features the inversion of traditional gender values, women appear as strong, masculine usurpers while men appear weakened (255). Moulton argues that, “in the absence of strong masculine royal authority, English manhood…turns to devour itself” (258). The deformed Richard is the personification of this “destructive masculine force,” represented by his emblem the boar and contrasted by his successor Richmond (259). Moulton also points out that Richard’s reference to his inability to cry over the death of his father suggests his “excess of masculine heat” and imbalance of the humors (260-61). Richard’s disregard for the order of patriarchy and the bonds of male warriors is what makes his viciousness, ambition and skill in battle makes him monstrous and dangerous to the state rather than a military asset (262). Moulton also describes the way in which deformity was perceived in the sixteenth century as connected to sin, eroticism, female imagination during childbirth and was considered threatening to the nation (262-3). Moulton concludes by explaining how Richard’s wooing of Anne demonstrates his need for women within the patriarchal order of reproduction despite his mysogeny, demonstrating his inability to see gender as non-essential (268).

Moulton’s essay not only makes a clear case for Richard III as a complex narrative of gender roles and patriarchal order as well as situating the play’s themes within historical events and ideology. While Richard appears to be a problematic figure in gendered terms, situated between masculine power and feminine weakness represented by his deformity, this essay shows how these two gender identities can coexist. Richard’s need to assert his masculinity in the form of ambitious and cruel political scheming may be understood as the consequence of his physical deformity, not as an Elizabethan manifestation of “sin” and warped eroticism, but a psychological response. Moulton’s essay provides insight into the complicated role of women in the play relative to anxieties about Elizabeth I as both strong leader and “usurping woman,” demonstrating how they can at once act outside of accepted social roles to confront a male authority and become victims of a usurper themselves. Moutlon’s essay ultimately provides a way of understanding Richard III not only as part of a historical study of gender roles and nation-building, but also reveals its potential as a modern critique of patriarchy, revealing its inadequacy in the face of individual agency and non-traditional gender roles.

References:

Moulton, Ian Frederick. “’A Monster Great Deformed’: The Unruly Masculinity of Richard III.” Shakespeare Quarterly. Vol. 47, No. 3. Autumn. Folger Shakespeare Library. 1996. Pp. 251-268.

Deformity and Performance in "Richard III"

Chapter four of Narrative Prosthesis: Disability and the Dependencies of Discourse addresses representations of Richard’s deformity in film, tracking historical interpretations of Richard’s disability and finally examining various film versions of the play. David T. Mitchell and Sharon L. Snyder assert that film as a representational medium relies on “external deformities and visible ticks of character” in order to communicate the character’s psychological state (97). Comparing Richard’s quest for vengeance and need to compensate for “built-in defects” to the cyborgs in Bladerunner, the authors state that Richard’s disability “[underlines] his own metaphysical unfitness to govern” and would have been recognized by an Elizabethan audience as a traditional representation of Vice (99-100). However, the authors also suggest that when viewed in the context of changing contemporary attitudes towards disability and self-fashioning, Richard’s deformity becomes part of his performance and a narrative device. Richard wields his disability as a weapon, “[reclaiming] the myriad of associations placed upon his form to his own advantage even while divulging his tactics to an audience that thereby becomes an accomplice to his own treachery” (104). Mitchell and Snyder ultimately argue that “Richard III is Shakespeare’s first depiction of the modern subject,” who “conceives of the world as a stage” and “yields the very stuff that individuality is made of—the multitude of psychic ‘depths’ alluded to by disability” (108). The chapter ends with a brief discussion of various film versions of Richard III, some which only reaffirm the naturalized connection between physiology and psychology while others take advantage of the unfixed meanings of Richard’s deformed physique.

This essay provides a basis for understanding Richard’s deformity in a non-traditional way, opening up his deformity to interpretation by the director, the actor and the audience while also revealing how Richard’s disability can humanize his often caricature-like character. Rather than a fixed character trait that must be worked around by the production and the actor, Richard’s deformity becomes a powerful tool that helps to drive the action of the play, such as the scene where Richard craftily uses his disability dispatch Hastings. If Richard’s disability is a narrative device and a tool, then the nature of his physical difference is mutable, potentially enhancing, and no longer predetermined by the text. This reading of Richard’s deformity also asks the audience to question their own naturalized perceptions of disability and psychology, making the play a story about physicality, performance and personal identity. If Richard’s deformity is no longer trapped within the medieval conception of disability and psychological depravity, then Richard is a fuller, more modern, and more threatening protagonist and the play’s traditional performances destabilized.

References:

Mitchell, David T. and Sharon L. Snyder. Narrative Prosthesis: Disability and the Dependencies of Discourse. The University of Michigan Press. 2003.

Who was the "real" Richard III?

Born October 2, 1452 to Richard, Duke of York and Cecily Neville, Richard was the youngest of seven surviving siblings and grew up with his brother George and sister Margaret at Fotheringhay Castle in Northampshire. He resembled his father’s side of the family, and was short, sickly with dark hair, the very opposite of his strong, good-looking brothers. While Richard may have had some sort of slight physical difference in his shoulders, his hunchback appears to have been a literary addition. Richard’s youth was marked by the tumultuous wars between York and Lancaster, and he was exposed to the gruesome horrors of battle surrounding his father’s campaign for power. He spent part of his childhood fleeing his father’s enemies with his mother and siblings, exiled to Burgundy, before witnessing his triumphant brother Edward take the crown. Within a few months, the nine-year-old Richard became Duke of Gloucester.

Richard joined Warwick’s household at age nine where he received his noble education. He was a “[student] of modern developments in warfare” with excellent military training and experience in battle (Hicks 21). As a teenager, he was involved in the various wars between 1469 and 1471, wounded at Barnet and a commander at Tewkesbury, and he was involved in Welsh, Scottish and French military expeditions and conflicts until his ascension to the thrown.

Edward openly favored Richard with responsibilities and honors, including Constable of England for life, and won Richard’s loyalty during Warwick’s endeavors to depose him. This, of course, infuriated Clarence, three years Richard’s elder. Edward and Clarence’s hatred culminated in Clarence’s arrest and charge of treason that earned him the Tower. While it seems that Richard pleaded for Clarence’s life, he remained loyal to Edward and dutifully took on his Scottish and Welsh campaigns.

Richard's signature on a founding document of Middlham College.

Despite his later political scheming, Richard is recorded to have been an attentive, generous ruler who earned the devotion of his citizens, described as a “friend and justicer to the people of Yorkshire” (Kendall 152). When he set out to put down the Scottish border insurrections, egged-on by Louis XI in order to distract England from his own conflict with Burgundy, his northern subjects served him loyally. He is even supposed to have pardoned many of the leaders in Buckingham’s rebellion of their charges of attainder. His power resided primarily in the north, in land that had formerly belonged to Warwick and was secured by Richard’s marriage to Anne Neville in 1471, a controversial match at the time because Clarence also sought the Neville inheritance through his wife, Anne’s sister, Isabel.

His symbol the boar does not have a clear origin, but represents ferocity and bold warrior spirit. Although Richard may have believed that he was the best man fit for the job of king, especially given his loyalty to his brother and mistrust of the Woodvilles and their potential power at court if Edward V ruled, he ultimately undermined his own good intentions by his bloody maneuvers. During his reign, Richard attainted over one hundred people, an unprecedented number for so short a period, "[suggesting] that he was in a state of insecurity bordering on panic" (Gillingham 231).

However, Shakespeare clearly twisted the facts. For example, Anne died of disease, probably tuberculosis, after the death of her son, Edward, and was not murdered (although, rumors were circulating before her death that Richard would marry Elizabeth of York). The evidence surrounding the Princes in the Tower is inconclusive when it comes to pinning the deed on Richard, although most historians agree that he was culpable. And while it may seem as though Richard took advantage of his brother’s weakening position on the throne, both physically and politically, it is necessary to remember that Richard had watched his favorite brother and most important role model deteriorate and allow debauchery and carelessness to take over his court through Hastings and the Woodvilles. Richard was alienated from the world of court by the time be returned from his Scottish campaigns and felt no allegiance to the Queen and her family, even her heirs, upon Edward’s death.

Does this mean that Shakespeare was wrong? Not necessarily. Shakespeare did change the facts about Richard III and the history leading up to his reign, but he did so in order to both satisfy the Tudor Queen and her discontented subjects, who worried about things like civil unrest, foreign military powers, and most importantly, a female ruler without an heir. In order to ask daring but important questions about his own time, Shakespeare had to reinvent his nation's history and in doing so help build the mythical Richard III that we know today.

A statue of Richard III in Castle Gardens, Leicester.

References:

Hallam, Elizabeth. The Wars of the Roses: From Richard II to the Fall of Richard III at Bosworth Field—Seen Through the Eyes of Their Contemporaries. NY: Weidenfeild and Micholson. 1988.

Hicks, Michael. The Wars of the Roses: 1455-1485. NY: Rutledge Taylor and Francs Group. 2003.

Kendall, Paul Murray. Richard the Third. NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 1956. Print.

Murph, Roxane. “Richard III: The Making of Legend.” Richard III Society, American Branch. 1977. 10/26/09. < http://www.r3.org/bookcase/murph1.html>.

What were Shakespeare's sources?

Shakespeare’s primary source appears to be Edward Hall’s The Union of the Two Noble and Illustrate Families of Lancastre and Yorke published in 1548 that included Sir Thomas More’s “The Tragical Doynges of Kyng Richard the Thirde.” Other sources include The Third Volume of Chronicles by Raphael Holinshed for details on the action and The Mirour for Magistrates, both dating from 1587.
In Shadowplay, Clare Asquith also argues that Richard III was most likely a parody of Elizabeth’s closest councilor and Secretary of State, Robert Cecil. Not only did Richard’s hunchback mock Cecil’s own physical appearance and mannerisms, but Richard’s opening speech also describes Cecil’s political career. Many descriptions of Richard throughout the text appear to be specific references to Cecil, such as his nickname “Elf” or his association with the secret service, a “black intelligencer” (RIII 4.4.71). However, Shakespeare’s cunning layering of symbolism of Richard as a Vice figure as well helps him to subtly escape criticism, just as he does in Richard II, about which Elizabeth famously remarked “I am Richard II, know ye not that?” Despite the “ruthless and efficient propaganda machine in place” that the transmission of “politically correct versions of national history,” Shakespeare circumvented Elizabeth’s disapproval with his talent and clever use of coded meaning.

References:

Asquith, Clare. Shadowplay. NY: Public Affairs. 2005.

Hattaway, Michael. Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare’s History Plays. Cambridge University Press. 2002. p.103

The Princes in the Tower

The story of the Princes in the Tower, which refers to the confinement of the sons of Edward IV by Richard III in the Tower of London in 1483, is perhaps one of the most bone-chillingly mysterious places where fact and fiction become blurred. Edward V was born in Westminster Abbey while his mother, Queen Elizabeth, was in sanctuary on November 2, 1470, making him only twelve-years old at the time of his death. Edward, Prince of Wales, was at Ludlow when his father died under the care of Earl Rivers, who then helped to escort him along with a force of 2,000 men to London.

When Rivers and Sir Richard Grey, his nephew, went to meet Richard and Buckingham, they were both arrested, leaving Edward entirely vulnerable. When she heard that her son had been captured, Queen Elizabeth immediately took sanctuary with her other children. Thanks to a considerable military force surrounding Westminster Abbey, the queen was eventually persuaded to relinquish her younger son, the nine-year-old Richard, Duke of York, who was taken to meet his brother in the Tower.

John Everett Millais' "The Two Princes Edward and Richard in the Tower, 1483," 1878.

It is at this point in the story where the facts become obscured. The only detailed written version of the deaths of the two princes comes from Sir Thomas More’s History of King Richard III, in which he relates a confession supposedly given by James Tyrell, the alleged murderer, upon his trial for treason in 1502. Since this confession has never actually surfaced, it is impossible to know whether More invented it or not. More claims that after Brackenbury refused to do the murders himself, Richard employed his ambitious servant Tyrell and placed the princes in the care of “Black Will or Will Slaughter” instead of their usual keepers. With the help of Miles Forest, “a fellow fleshed in murder before time,” and John Dighton, “a big, broad, square, strong knave,” Tyrell had the princes smothered to death at midnight and then buried at the foot of one of the Tower’s staircases (214). Apparently, Richard then had them re-buried in an unknown location.

The Murder of the Princes in the Tower, James Northcote, 1785

While it is most widely accepted that Richard III was responsible for the deaths of the princes, there are several other highly plausible scenarios. First, it has been claimed that Buckingham himself killed the princes, since he would have had access to the Tower at the time. The alternative defended by modern-day Ricardian supporters is that Henry Tudor had the princes killed in order to stabilize his own claim to the throne, which also explains why the blame would have been ascribed to Richard III as an integral piece of Tudor propaganda. It has even been suggested that the princes actually died of disease, such as the plague, while in confinement. To complicate matters, in 1674, a chest was uncovered buried beneath the White Tower containing two child skeletons supposed to be the princes’ remains. Although an examination of the “bones of 1674” found them to be appropriate matches for the two princes and believed the deaths to have occurred in 1483, making it impossible to have been the work of Henry VII. However, this was discredited in the 1950s, and it remains uncertain whether these are The Bones or not.

References:

Maurer, Helen. “Bones in the Tower: A Discussion of Time, Place and Circumstance.” Part 2. The Ricardian, vol. 8, no. 111. 1990. pp 474-493.

Wagner, John A. Encyclopedia of the Wars of the Roses. CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc. 2001. Print.

Oh, Brother: Edward, George and Richard

Before discussing the three brothers, it is worth noting that they also shared three sisters and a brother, Edmund, Earl of Rutland. Edmund was raised at Ludlow with his brother Edward, and therefore probably never knew Richard or George very well. Rutland accompanied his father, Richard, Duke of York, on his military campaigns for the throne along with his brother Edward, Earl of March, until he was killed by Lord Clifford at Wakefield in 1460.

Edward IV

Edward IV was over six-feet tall and very handsome, which might explain some of the anxiety Shakespeare’s Richard felt about his appearance. He was born in Rouen on April 28, 1442 to Cecily Neville, the aunt of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, making them cousins. The very young hero of Mortimer’s Cross and Towton, Edward was crowned on Palm Sunday, 1461 at the age of eighteen. There are many good things to say about Edward and his reign: He was good with the state’s money. He reformed the salaries of his officials, successfully purposed foreign trade, and asked little taxes of his people. He was also serious about peace with France, sealing the Picquigny Treaty in 1475 with Louis XI, despite an earlier alliance with Burgundy. He was also a very loyal brother to Richard, who returned this loyalty and received many posts and estates as a result. He liked to read, and kept a large library where he copied manuscripts and later became interested in the new art of printing.

Edward with Queen Elizabeth and son, Prince Edward.

Pulpit at Fotheringhay Church. Edward IV's Arms between symbol of Clarence, black bull, and Gloucester, white boar.

On the other hand, Edward also enjoyed women to the extent that it caused problems. One of Edward’s contemporaries, Dominic Mancini, wrote that, “he pursued with no discrimination that married and the unmarried, the noble and the lowly: however he took none by force. He overcame all by money and promises” (Fraser 77). Edward, for example, agreed to marry Lady Eleanor Butler, or Lady Lucy, as Richard calls her in the play, in order to sleep with her. He tried this again in 1464 with Lady Elizabeth Woodville, only this time he actually had to go through with it before she would give in (they were apparently in bed for four hours after the wedding). When his secret marriage got out, Warwick, who had been negotiating a marriage alliance with the French princess, he was furious. It was at this point that Warwick began conspiring with Clarence to dethrone the King. And we cannot forget the infamous Jane Shore, his favorite mistress.

Mistress Shore

Edward’s successful maneuvering of Warwick’s rebellion among other military victories suggests that he was an effective soldier and strategist. But, Edward could be a callous guy. He approved the practice of impaling traitors, he loved hunting, and was known to some “despotic tendencies” later in his reign (Hallam 231). It was Edward who was responsible for his brother Clarence’s death after trying for and attainting him of treason. By 1482, he had seriously provoked his subjects, who were annoyed by his failure to support Burgundy in the conflict with France and more taxes to pay, all magnified by a bad harvest and harsh winter.

Edward also liked to indulge himself, spending amply on food, drink, the latest fashions, jewels, and rich furnishings for his homes (although, his expenditures made him a popular king among London merchants). Was Edward a superficial guy? It sounds like it, but then again, everyone around him was obsessed with wealth and power too. His waning health left him unable to complete many of his ambitious projects in Scotland and France, and he died April 9, 1483 of fever, naming his ever-loyal brother Richard the Lord Protector to his son, Prince Edward.

Edward atop the Wheel of Fortune.

If Edward’s biography reveals a few blemishes, Clarence’s is worse. Born in Dublin, October 21, 1449, George grew up with his brother Richard and sister Margaret at Fotheringhay Castle, although much of his youth was spent fleeing the bloody battles as his father attempted to take the throne. Like Edward, George was also a strong and handsome young man, charming, well-spoken and extremely ambitious.

He became Duke of Clarence in 1461 on the day following his brother’s coronation, all of which Richard anxiously watched while awaiting his own honor as Duke of Gloucester a few months later. He was also made lord-lieutenant of Ireland shortly after. After that, it was Richard who continually received Edward’s favor and rewards, inspiring jealousy on the part of Clarence. Clarence married Warwick’s eldest daughter Isabel, and with his father-in-law attempted rebellion against Edward, probably after having been tempted by Warwick to take the throne for himself. Although the brothers were reconciled and Warwick defeated, this was not the end of Clarence’s misbehavior.

In addition to his fight with Richard over Warwick’s lands, going to great lengths to try and prevent Richard’s marriage to Anne involving an alleged kidnapping, Clarence wanted a new wife in 1477 after Isabel died in childbirth (they had a daughter, Margaret, Countess of Salisbury, and a son, Edward, Earl of Warwick). This time, he was after Mary, the daughter of the Duke of Burgundy, who was a very wealthy heiress. Edward flat-out refused to allow the match, probably because he did not think Clarence good enough, and instead promoted the Queen’s brother, Anthony, Earl Rivers. As if Clarence had not resented his upstart in-laws enough already, now he was furious. He attempted to make Edward and the Woodvilles look bad by brutally implicating a servant woman in the death of his wife, only to receive equally harsh retaliation from Queen Elizabeth. At Clarence's bidding, a member of his household was hung for sorcery and treason against the crown and then Clarence himself spread rumors that the king was engaged in witchcraft, that he was a bastard with an illegitimate marriage, and stirred a rebellious uprising. Finally, Louis XI told Edward that Clarence had only sought Mary’s hand in Burgundy to secure the crown for himself. Clarence was kept in the Tower until he was tried of treason and found guilty, though Edward waited ten days before finishing the sentence, possibly due to Richard’s pleas. Although nobody really knows how he was executed on February 18, 1478, it is said that he was drowned in a butt of malmsey wine. While this is probably just a historical addition to suggest that Clarence was a heavy drinker, it underscores his bizarre history.

Clarence's writ of attainder.

What is supposed to be the bones of Clarence in Tewkesbury Abbey.

It becomes clear that Shakespeare did not just manipulate the facts, but entirely rewrote the story of these brothers. If Richard was in fact relatively close to both of his brothers throughout his youth, then it means that his motivation to murder his brothers and go after the crown was not hatred of Edward and Clarence. It is more likely that Richard, like his brother Clarence had before him, saw the threat that the Queen and her family posed to his position as Lord Protector and saw no alternative but to assert his own claim.

References:

Fraser, Antonia. The Wars of the Roses. Los Angeles, CA: Cassel & Co, 2000. Print.

Kendall, Paul Murray. Richard the Third. NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 1956. Print.

Hallam, Elizabeth. The Wars of the Roses: From Richard II to the Fall of Richard III at Bosworth Field—Seen Through the Eyes of Their Contemporaries. NY: Weidenfeild and Micholson. 1988. Print.

“Wars of the Roses.” Luminarium Encyclopedia Project. 2009. Web. Accessed 2-22-10. <http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/warsoftheroses.htm>.

Top Five Causes of the Wars of the Roses

1. Unresolved drama from the Hundred Years’ War. The English suffered a massive defeat at the end of the Hundred Years’ War, losing most of their land possessions in France, including Maine, Normandy and Bordeaux, and leaving many landowners impoverished and mercenaries who had picked up the habit of pillaging, plundering and violently taking whatever they wanted during the war.

2. Recent financial disaster. After the most recent outbreak of the Black Plague, the labor force had been devastated, driving up prices and the cost of labor and bringing widespread famine. At the same time, there was an entire population of new landholders on the rise becoming increasingly powerful and wealthy feudal lords, while older lords were in debt. Plus, war was expensive and the treasury was broke.

3. The peers got bored. While it sounds a little silly, it is not hard to imagine that England probably didn’t know what to do with itself at first when the Hundred Years’ War was over. Under the corrupted “livery and maintenance system,” or what was known as “bastard feudalism,” the peers could still quickly raise large, personal armies. Now all they needed was someone new to fight.

4. Henry VI was not a popular king. Both nobles and Parliament, including Richard of York, Richard III’s father, had major grudges against Henry’s favorites, Somerset and Suffolk, especially when they didn’t do these nobles any favors. Henry VI alienated most of the peerage while also upsetting the Commons at Parliament, and was frequently dealing with rebellions from the countryside (although so were later rulers). Not only did the birth of Henry’s heir complicate the question of succession and who would take power, but he also became mad, which allowed York to take power until he came to his senses again, beginning the long struggle for the crown between Lancaster and York.

5. Richard III. Richard is more or less responsible for the final stage of the Wars of the Roses, although it has also been argued that Edward IV’s highly concentrated power base made his brother’s usurpation possible.

References:

Jokinen, Anniina. "Causes of the Wars of the Roses: An Overview." Luminarium Encyclopedia. Web. 26 Apr 2007. [2-16-2010]. <http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/roseswarcauses.htm>

Wagner, John A. Encyclopedia of the Wars of the Roses. CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc. 2001.