Please see this website:
http://www.dartmouth.edu/%7Eengl24/study_questions/errors/index.html
Richard III
Keeping all the characters (the dramatis personae) straight in Richard III requires
constant attention, especially on the first reading. Here are some helpful notes.
Keep in mind that these are the characters as Shakespeare depicted them, not
necessarily true to history. See Peter Saccio's Shakespeare's English Kings
for both historical and Shakespearean information. Also helpful are the genealogies
on the endsheets of the Norton edition. Links on the names will take you to
the British Monarchy website for historical sketches and genealogies.
King Edward IV's Family: York
Brothers: Edmund, Earl of Rutland (dead), George, Duke of Clarence (killed in
the Tower), Richard, Duke of Gloucester (Richard III)
Parents: Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York; Cecily Neville, Duchess of York
Wife: Elizabeth Woodville, (once Lady Grey, now Queen)
Children: Prince Edward (briefly Edward V); Richard, Duke of York; Elizabeth
of York (Queen of Henry VII)
Mistress: Jane Shore (apparently one of many)
Queen Elizabeth's Family: The Woodvilles (considered "upstarts" by
Richard Gloucester)
Brother: Earl Rivers
Sons by previous marriage: Dorset and Gray
Other Queens in the play
Queen Margaret: Henry VI's widow (Lancaster). Henry VI, the last Lancastrian
King, was deposed in 1461 and killed in the tower before the play opens.
Anne Neville: Was "married" to Prince Edward (Margaret's son) until
he was killed in battle. She becomes Richard III's Queen.
Henry, Earl of Richmond (Henry VII) "Lancaster" marries York
Henry's great-great-grandfather (on his mother's side) was John of Gaunt, Duke
of Lancaster. His father was Edmund Tudor. By marrying Edward IV's daughter,
Elizabeth of York, he "unites" the white rose with the red and initiates
the Tudor dynasty as Henry VII.
Study Questions
Stephen Greenblatt, in his introduction (Norton 510), calls attention to three
major perspectives the play offers on the events it depicts: "psychological,
metaphysical, and political." Try to reconstruct these three perspectives
as you re-read the play.
1. Metaphysical. Curses, oaths, and providential retribution and design. Queen
Margaret's curses all appear to come true, but does the play invite us to see
her as a special prophet of God's revenge? Look again at 1.3 and how ridiculously
overdone Margaret's cursing frenzy appears. Also consider the farcical tone
of the cursing scene in 4.4 where Margaret, Elizabeth, and the Duchess of York
spell out the logic of cursing and divine(?) retribution. They imagine a God
who follows such eye-for-an-eye logic, but what about the God who says "Vengeance
is mine" (Deuteronomy 32:35) or who teaches "turn the other cheek"
(Matthew 5:39)? (Try the Bible Browser.) Which sort of Divine Providence does
the play endorse? Which sort of attitude towards Divine Providence does it endorse?
Consider the various characters' appeals to God's vengeance or justice: King
Edward at 2.1.132, Gloucester agrees at line 140. Lady Anne at 1.2.62 &
106. Margaret at 1.3.138, and Gloucester responds at line 182, backed by Elizabeth
at line 83. Margaret prays that God will kill "all of them" at 1.3.213.
Buckingham doesn't believe that Margaret's curses (or anyone's can actually
invoke God's wrath (1.3.289), but Margaret argues that curses can give God a
wake-up call (1.3.292). Gloucester disingenuously invokes the Christian principle
of praying for one's enemies (1.3.319 & 340) instead of seeking vengeance;
he's the only one in the play who ever does this, even cynically. Clarence believes
that God's vengeance is always public, not hugger-mugger as murder (1.4.205).
Clarence's children have been taught to pray for God's revenge (2.2.14) and
to refuse to cry for their enemies' misfortunes (2.2.62-64). Queen Maragaret
even thanks God for Richard's bloody deeds against her rivals (4.4.55). The
citizens' faith in God's justice is pretty much worn out (2.3.38). Queen Elizabeth's
faith in God's justice is strained at 4.4.22; she cannot curse with conviction,
but feels that cursing may at least ease the heart (4.4.127-131). Even the Duchess
of York wavers in her confidence in God's justice (4.4.188). Richmond, of course,
believes God is on his side in battle (5.5.194) and that Richard is "God's
enemy" (5.5.207). Richard, significantly, never invokes God or his justice
in his speech before the battle (5.6.37-71); rather he says they may be marching
all to Hell.
Consider Richard's opening speech (1.1). When he says he is "determined
to prove a villain," in what sense does he mean "determined"?
That he has made up his own mind? or that "dissembling nature" (1.1.19)
has "determined" his character and fate? or that he has been providentially
"shaped" to be a villain? When he plays the role of "the formal
Vice, Iniquity" (3.1.82), does he decide to play this role or does he mean
he is destined to be God's evil "scourge and minister"? What difference
does it make?
Also in the first scene, note that Clarence speaks of "prophecies and dreams"
as "suchlike toys" (1.1.60) and Richard ascribes such superstitious
beliefs to the disingenuous machinations of "women" (1.1.62) who appear
to hold much sway with the King and the court. Does Richard, then consider prophecies,
omens, and dreams so much silly superstition, or a mask for machiavellian designs?
Does he not employ such superstitions for his own designs? What does he think
when he dreams the night before battle of those he's murdered (5.5)?
Psychology. Richard can so well perform the affections of love (1.2) and repentance
(1.2.204-208) that he convinces Lady Anne to begin to think well of him, even
to marry him. Is he almost convinced by his own performance (1.2.239)? Can he
play the lover, the plotter, the pious courtier, the villain, even the king
so well that he loses track of who he is (see 5.5.131-157)? Does his manipulation
of other's desires finally subvert his own?
Politics. Richard admits to Lady Anne that he killed Henry VI, and he offers
a political reason for doing so: Henry VI (the last Lancastrian King) was considered
a disaster as an administrator, too intent on piety and prayers to attend to
the business of the realm. During his reign factions grew into civil wars (the
Wars of the Roses), France was lost, and the king suffered from bouts of mental
illness. Did Richard have some political justification for helping to depose
and kill him? Similarly, Edward IV proved a less-than-effective king. His lust
for women and high living was proverbial; his death was attributed to too much
sex, food, and drink, the classic vices of intemperance1.1.140-41). He had illegitimate
children which made it easy to call in question proper blood succession; Richard
even implies Edward himself may not have been his father's son (3.5.84-90).
Would not Richard be a better king than either of them? But what does the play
suggest his motives are?
Richard pretends to believe in nothing, but uses other's beliefs to set his
traps and plots. He uses superstitious beliefs to imprison Clarence, and to
mock the women; he uses psychology to woo Lady Anne; he uses Hasting's bland
confidence in bloodlines and divine ordination to trip him up. He appears through
much of the play to prove the effectiveness of utterly cynical self-promotion,
playing upon others' oversimple faith to use them to his ends. Does the play
run any risk of endorsing such a cynical machiavel? Are we invited to admire
Richard's stunning successes? Does he fall victim to his own cynicism, or does
he just prove unable to keep track of so many different selves?
Other Features to consider. The play persistently invokes a discourse of inwardness
and outwardness, always calling attention to the problem of discerning one's
inward attitudes and intentions from one's outward performances and speeches.
For example, Queen Elizabeth (1.3.62-69) infers Richard's "interior hatred"
from his "outward" acts of hostility towards her and her family. She
imagines that the King can "learn the ground" of his hostility and
"remove it." This makes the matter seem all too simple, doesn't it?
In the rest of the scene Richard makes it appear that everyone's interior motives
are made suspect by their outward acts, whether they know it or not (1.3.126ff).
Lord Hastings also believes that Richard's "heart" is perfectly displayed
in his face, and his misreading of Richard's face is catastrophic for him (3.4.48-53).
What are Queen Elizabeth's "inward" motives? Stanley's (1.3.25-29)?
Hastings'? Buckingham's? Rivers' and Gray's?
Consider also all the various forms, gestures and rituals that attempt to reconcile
inward attitudes with outward behaviors. In 2.1 King Edward believes he can
reconcile everyone if only they swear they are sincere. How good are such oaths?
In 1.4, the murderers have a warrant for the king's word. Does this warrant
make the outward deed the King's or theirs (1.4.105ff). Does the sealed warrant
truly reflect the King's will at this moment? How good are such warrants at
guaranteeing that actions and words accurately represent desires?
All the prophecies, curses, and omens littered throughout the play also suggest
a desperate attempt to discover God's secret providential intentions by reading
outward signs. Are we meant to believe that Richard's ugliness truly denotes
his inward evil? Do obscure prophecies and omens (like the letter "G"
for George [or Gloucester]) truly reveal the future? Can we make omens and signs
mean whatever we wish, just as Richard can make his behavior and words signify
a false "inwardness"? Hamlet, we remember claims to have "that
within which passeth show," a special interior self no one can discern,
not even his good friends. But he also subscribes to the notion that "There's
a divinity doth shape our ends/ Rough-hew them how we will."