In Richard III various characters claim and discuss various rights and privileges that they do or should possess. Queen Margaret, the widow of Henry VI, tells the current queen,"
This sorrow that I have by rights is yours, / And all the pleasures you usurp are mind"(1.3.178-9). Richard complains (before becoming king) that
. . . The world is grown so bad
That wrens make prey where eagles dare not perch.
Since every Jack became a gentleman,
There's many a gentle person made a Jack (1.3.71-4).
Each of these characters asserts a world in which each possesses a right to rule. Yet, the various characters who profess and utilize these rights and privilege acquire them through treachery, deceit and often murder. Consider how Edward the current king, obtained the throne. His brother Richard, acting on his behalf, murdered the previous king and his son. His other brother, Clarence, is also implicated in the death of Edward, despite taking a vow to defend the king and his family. What is this play saying about political power? How is it related to justice or morality? Does might make right?
In Richard III, as he does in so many of his plays, Shakespeare reminds the audience that those in power are just as petty, scheming, and immoral as everyone else; in fact, they arguably are depicted as more foul than the commoners, as it is through deception and violence they gain their status. At the start of the play, Edward reigns as king. The monarch is described by his brother Richard as, “true and just” (I.1.36), and, in his one scene on stage, he works to create peace and unity among his divided subjects. But how did this majestic ruler gain power? He rebelled against the previous king and, with the aid of his brothers, murdered him. Note that this is Edward, considered a protagonist in the play. Richard, on the other hand, the leading man and clear villain, uses even more immoral methods to gain the throne, sentencing to death his brother, nephews, brother-in-law, and wife, as well as many other individuals. He also lies to the entire nation of England and to his whole family. Despite the religious facade he dons when asked to become king, Richard is far from a saint. In fact, he is described by Lady Anne (his future wife) as a, “foul devil” (I.2.51), by old Queen Margaret as the, “son of hell” (I.3.241), and by his own mother as a, “toad” (IV.4.159). He may be the King, but Richard is a reviled figure and with good reason.
ReplyDeleteA similar idea in the play is the conflict between “old” nobility and “new” nobility. From the opening scene, Richard and Clarence complain about the recent promotion to nobility of the queen’s relatives. As Hastings puts it, “More pity that the eagles should be mewed,/while kites and buzzards prey at liberty” (I.1.136-7). The “common birds” are commanding the skies, while the mighty would-be-leaders are forced aside. By this argument, the nobility really are no different from the average citizens, as anyone can, through the right stroke of luck, join their ranks. However, while Richard feels that his family is the rightful ruling class, Queen Margaret sees them in a similar manner to how Richard sees Rivers and Grey. Addressing Richard, Queen Elizabeth, and a number of their associates, she comments, “you wrangling pirates, that fall out/in sharing that which you have pilled from me!” (I.3.162-3). In her mind, they are all thieves and common birds, none of whom deserve the power they have been granted. Thus, Shakespeare’s message is clear: every generation of nobility deviously rips their power out of the hands of their predecessors, only to have it violently taken from them in turn. A person may have political power, but that certainly does not make them just; on the contrary, if they have somehow hacked their way to the top of the heap, it is unlikely they made it up there without getting their hands and souls awfully dirty.
Richard III chronicles the end stages of the Wars of the Roses, where two warring factions, the Yorks and the Lancasters, vied for the throne of England. In the beginning, the current king, Edward IV, came to power by killing his rivals, who had in turn killed their rivals. Power was won with lance and sword and blood; the last one left standing would end up sitting on the throne. Queen Margaret is perhaps the embodiment of this struggle; she rails against Richard and Queen Elizabeth, saying “A husband and a son thou ow’st me; and thou a kingdom” (1.3 175-176). She points out here that Richard killed her husband and son; so that now his brother, Elizabeth’s husband, is king. She believes that the power they possess is hers by right. But before one pities her lot too much, Richard points out that in order for her to have been Queen, his family was slain and cruelly mocked. Neither side seems to hold the moral high ground here; but Richard steps over the line especially by killing many more innocent people, including his own family, and being duplicitous and untruthful. The phrase ‘might makes right’ comes to mind in this situation, though in a different sense. Might may give one the earthly right to hold power; but it does not give one the heavenly and moral right. Though might may seem to make right, and power is interchangeable, god and justice will ultimately not allow evil to fester and reap the fruits of the power it has taken. Richmond, later king Henry VII, rebels and avenges those Richard has killed to become king.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I agree with Russell: everyone involved in politics in this play is tainted in some way, stained by their actions that brought them to where they now stand. I would add that even noble Clarence is corrupted by politics: as the Second Murderer eloquently points out, "Thou [Clarence] didst receive the sacrament to fight / In quarrel of the House of Lancester" (1.4.209-10). Clarence, even though he accuses the murderers of "Spurn[ing] at [God's] edict and fulfill[ing] a man's" (1.4.204), himself is an oath breaker and a "traitor to the name of God" (1.4.211), driven by "My brother's love, the devil, and my rage" (1.4.230).
ReplyDeleteHowever, I would also point out that not all of the politicians in Richard III are wholly wicked and corrupt; instead, they seem to be a blend of both, good and bad. Take, for example, Lord Buckingham. When asked to kill the heirs of Edward, Buckingham hesitates, and asks:
Give me some little breath, some pause, dear lord,
Before I positively speak in this.
I will resolve you herein presently. (4.2.26-28)
Although we never know if Buckingham decides to kill the children after all, he at least has a flash of conscience at the thought of doing so; in contrast, James Tyrrel, the man whom Richard III eventually hires to kill the children, feels no qualms at all:
RICHARD: Dar'st thou resolve to kill a friend of mine?
TYRREL: Please you. But I had rather kill two enemies.
RICHARD: Why then, thou hast it. Two deep enemies,
… Are they that I would have thee deal upon.
Tyrrel, I mean those bastards in the Tower.
TYRREL: Let me have open means to come to them,
And soon I'll rid you from the fear of them. (4.2.73-80)
Compared with Tyrrel, Buckingham seems like a saint; he, at least, feels some uneasiness at the thought of killing children. Although he has his faults, he also has his good moments. Similarly, Lord Hastings also displays good attributes, despite being a member of the nobility. Hastings is, indeed, one of the few people to oppose Richard's rise to power, although he does so too late: in Act 3, he states, "I'll have this crown of mine cut from my shoulders / Before I'll see the crown so foul misplaced" (3.2.45-46). Hastings wants to do the right thing, even though he might able to advance his own position by throwing in with Richard. This courage and desire to do right shows that even though most nobility can be bloodthirsty and ruthless, they still have consciences and are capable of good.