Context (OCR A-Level English Literature): Revision Notes
Context
Understanding the historical and cultural context of Shakespeare's Richard III is essential for fully appreciating the play. Written in 1592 during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, the play dramatises the final phase of the Wars of the Roses, a series of devastating civil wars that tore England apart between 1455 and 1487. Shakespeare's portrayal of Richard III is not simply a historical retelling. Instead, it is heavily shaped by the political climate of his own time, particularly the need to legitimise the Tudor dynasty that ruled England. By examining the historical events, political propaganda, and cultural beliefs of the Elizabethan era, we can better understand why Shakespeare presents Richard as such a memorable villain and how the play reflects the social and political realities of sixteenth-century England.
Shakespeare's Richard III is as much a political document as it is a work of drama. Understanding that the play serves to flatter and legitimise the Tudor monarchy is crucial for interpreting its portrayal of historical events and characters.
The Wars of the Roses (1455-1487)
The Wars of the Roses provide the historical backdrop for Richard III. This conflict was a brutal struggle for the English throne between two branches of the royal House of Plantagenet. The Lancastrians were symbolised by a red rose, whilst the Yorkists adopted a white rose as their emblem. The wars consisted of a series of battles, political betrayals, and shifting allegiances that created enormous political instability across England.
York versus Lancaster
Richard III belonged to the Yorkist faction, whose claim to the throne was contested by the rival Lancastrian house. Richard's older brother, Edward IV, had successfully secured the throne for the Yorkists by defeating the Lancastrians in battle. However, Edward IV's death created a power vacuum. Richard exploited this opportunity, seizing control and eventually claiming the crown for himself through manipulation and violence. This historical context helps explain the deep political divisions and ambitions that drive the action of Shakespeare's play.
Common Misconception: Richard did not simply inherit the throne through legitimate succession. His rise to power involved manipulation, political manoeuvring, and the exploitation of a power vacuum created by his brother's death. Understanding this context is essential for appreciating the moral complexity of his character in the play.
The rise of the Tudors
The play concludes with a pivotal moment in English history: the defeat of Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth by Henry Tudor. This victory marked the end of the Wars of the Roses and the beginning of the Tudor dynasty. Henry Tudor became Henry VII, and his granddaughter was none other than Queen Elizabeth I, who ruled England when Shakespeare wrote the play. Shakespeare portrays the Tudor victory as the triumph of good over evil, reflecting the official Tudor view of history. This was not simply dramatic storytelling but also political flattery, presenting the Tudor claim to the throne as divinely ordained and morally justified.
Political Context: Shakespeare was writing under Elizabeth I, Henry VII's granddaughter. His portrayal of Henry Tudor as a virtuous saviour and Richard as an evil tyrant was not merely artistic choice but political necessity. Challenging the official Tudor narrative could have been dangerous for a playwright in Elizabethan England.
Richard III: Historical versus Shakespearean representation
Shakespeare's portrayal of Richard III differs significantly from historical reality. The playwright relied heavily on sources that were themselves biased, particularly Sir Thomas More's The History of King Richard III. More's account, written during the Tudor period, depicted Richard as a tyrant and usurper. Shakespeare amplified this portrayal even further to create one of literature's most memorable villains.
Shakespeare's primary sources for Richard III were already heavily biased in favour of the Tudor perspective. Sir Thomas More wrote his history during the reign of Henry VIII (Henry VII's son), and it served Tudor political interests to portray Richard as a monster and usurper. Shakespeare inherited this bias and magnified it for dramatic effect.
Richard's villainy
In the play, Richard is presented as a deformed, ruthless, and deeply manipulative character. Shakespeare shows him murdering his brothers, nephews, and numerous political rivals in his relentless pursuit of power. However, historically, Richard III was not as unequivocally evil as the play suggests. Whilst evidence exists of political ruthlessness, some historians argue that Richard was actually a capable ruler with a legitimate claim to the throne. The exaggerated villainy in the play serves a political purpose rather than representing pure historical truth.
Historical Accuracy: Modern historians have challenged the extreme vilification of Richard III. Whilst he was certainly politically ruthless (as were most monarchs of his era), the extent of his crimes remains debated. Some evidence suggests he was a competent administrator and had genuine legal claims to the throne. Shakespeare's portrayal reflects Tudor propaganda more than historical reality.
The Princes in the Tower
One of the most controversial aspects of Richard's legacy concerns the fate of two young princes: Edward V and his younger brother, Richard, Duke of York. Shakespeare attributes their deaths directly to Richard's ambition, showing him ordering their murder to eliminate threats to his crown. In reality, the historical evidence remains inconclusive. No one knows with certainty what happened to the princes, though they disappeared during Richard's reign. This enduring mystery has contributed significantly to Richard's dark reputation throughout history.
Historical Mystery: The fate of the Princes in the Tower remains one of English history's greatest unsolved mysteries. Whilst Shakespeare presents their murder as fact, attributing it directly to Richard, historians continue to debate what actually happened to them. Some even question whether Richard was responsible at all, suggesting alternative theories about their disappearance.
Physical deformity as moral corruption
Shakespeare's Richard suffers from physical deformity, including a hunchback and a limp. In the play, this physical appearance symbolises his inner moral corruption, reflecting Elizabethan beliefs that external appearance revealed internal character. Whilst some historical accounts mention Richard's physical appearance, Shakespeare deliberately exaggerates these features to reinforce the character's villainy. Interestingly, when Richard's body was discovered in 2012, archaeologists confirmed he had suffered from scoliosis (a twisting of the spine), though not to the extreme degree suggested in the play.
Elizabethan Worldview: The connection between physical deformity and moral corruption was a common belief in Shakespeare's time. This physiognomic theory held that a person's external appearance directly reflected their internal character. Modern audiences should recognise this as a cultural belief of the period rather than an endorsement of discriminatory attitudes towards physical disability.
The Tudor myth and propaganda
Shakespeare's Richard III strongly reflects what historians call the Tudor myth. This narrative was carefully constructed to legitimise the Tudor dynasty by portraying Richard III's fall and Henry Tudor's rise as the triumph of divine justice. Tudor historians such as Thomas More and Polydore Vergil perpetuated this myth, which shaped how subsequent generations understood this period of history.
Understanding the Tudor Myth: The Tudor myth was a carefully constructed historical narrative designed to justify Henry VII's seizure of power. It portrayed the Tudor victory as divinely ordained and morally necessary, casting Richard III as a villain who had to be overthrown. This myth influenced historical understanding of this period for centuries and continues to shape popular perceptions today.
Henry VII as a saviour
In the play, Henry Tudor appears as a virtuous and rightful heir who brings peace and stability to England after Richard's tyrannical reign. This portrayal fits perfectly with the Tudor narrative of Henry VII as the divinely appointed king who ended the Wars of the Roses and restored proper order to the kingdom. By presenting Henry in this heroic light, Shakespeare reinforces the legitimacy of the Tudor monarchy.
Demonisation of Richard
The Tudor regime had strong political reasons for discrediting Richard III. By portraying him as a usurper and murderer, the Tudors could justify Henry VII's claim to the throne. Shakespeare's play contributes significantly to this portrayal, reinforcing the idea that Richard's defeat at Bosworth was an act of divine retribution for his crimes. This demonisation served the political interests of the Tudor monarchy, making their seizure of power appear morally justified.
Political Motivation: The extreme vilification of Richard III served a clear political purpose. If Richard could be portrayed as an illegitimate tyrant and usurper, then Henry VII's military conquest and seizure of the throne could be reframed as rightful restoration of order. The Tudors needed to discredit Richard to strengthen their own claim to legitimacy.
Elizabethan politics
Writing during Queen Elizabeth I's reign, Shakespeare was likely influenced by the political need to flatter the Tudor monarchy. Elizabeth, as Henry VII's granddaughter, was a direct beneficiary of the Tudor triumph over Richard III. Shakespeare's depiction of historical events carefully aligns with the official Tudor narrative, presenting the dynasty in the most favourable light possible. This was not merely artistic choice but political necessity in an era when playwrights had to be cautious about challenging royal authority.
Divine right of kings and political legitimacy
The concept of the divine right of kings was central to Elizabethan politics and features prominently in Richard III. This belief held that monarchs were appointed by God and therefore possessed absolute authority. Challenging or deposing a rightful monarch was seen as defying God's will, a deeply serious matter in sixteenth-century England.
Central Theological Concept: The divine right of kings was not merely a political theory but a theological doctrine deeply embedded in Elizabethan society. It held that God personally selected and appointed monarchs, making rebellion against a king equivalent to rebellion against God himself. This belief underpins much of the play's moral framework and would have resonated powerfully with contemporary audiences.
Richard as a usurper
Richard's rise to power through deceit and murder violates both the natural and divine order. The play presents his actions as morally wrong and politically illegitimate, making his eventual downfall appear inevitable. Shakespeare suggests that Richard's tyranny is directly punished by God, reinforcing the idea that only a rightful monarch, such as Henry Tudor, can restore proper order to the kingdom. This theme would have resonated strongly with Elizabethan audiences, who believed deeply in the divine sanction of monarchical authority.
The theme of divine justice
Throughout the play, characters frequently invoke God and fate, particularly in scenes involving Queen Margaret's powerful curses. Richard's defeat at Bosworth is framed as divine justice for his crimes. Richmond's final speech in Act 5 emphasises the restoration of peace and order, aligning perfectly with the Elizabethan belief that a monarch's legitimacy was sanctioned by God. The play suggests that the moral order of the universe will ultimately be restored, no matter how much chaos and evil temporarily prevail.
Queen Margaret functions almost as a prophet in the play, her curses accurately predicting the downfall of Richard and his allies. Her role demonstrates the Elizabethan belief in divine providence—that God's justice, though sometimes delayed, is inevitable and inescapable.
Elizabethan views on women and power
The role of women in Richard III reflects broader Elizabethan attitudes towards women and their involvement in politics. Women in the play, including Queen Elizabeth, Lady Anne, and Queen Margaret, are portrayed primarily as victims of male ambition. However, they also demonstrate moments of political agency and power, particularly through their words and curses.
Margaret's curses and prophecy
Queen Margaret, though politically marginalised and defeated, exerts significant influence through her curses and prophecies. Her speeches overflow with references to divine justice, and she accurately foreshadows the downfall of Richard and his allies. Her role as a prophetess highlights an important idea: women, whilst excluded from direct political power, could still influence events through spiritual or moral authority. Margaret's words carry weight precisely because they invoke divine justice, suggesting that moral authority can transcend political powerlessness.
Elizabethan attitudes to female power
Whilst women in Richard III are often portrayed as pawns in the political game, their ability to speak out and curse those who wronged them represents a form of resistance. This portrayal may have resonated with Elizabethan audiences, especially considering they lived under the rule of a powerful female monarch, Queen Elizabeth I. However, the play still largely reflects the patriarchal norms of the time, with women being side-lined in the male-dominated political world. The tension between women's marginalisation and their moments of power reflects the complex attitudes towards female authority in Elizabethan England.
Historical Paradox: Shakespeare's audiences lived under the rule of Elizabeth I, one of England's most powerful monarchs, yet the dominant ideology of the time held that women were naturally inferior and unsuited for political power. This contradiction created complex attitudes towards female authority that are reflected in the play's portrayal of women—simultaneously powerless and powerful, marginalised yet prophetic.
The role of fate and providence
Elizabethan England was characterised by strong beliefs in fate and providence. These concepts suggested that events were guided by a higher power and that the moral order of the universe would eventually be restored. This worldview is absolutely central to the structure and message of Richard III.
Elizabethan Worldview: The concepts of fate and providence were fundamental to how Elizabethans understood history and politics. Providence referred to God's active intervention in human affairs to ensure justice, whilst fate represented the inevitable unfolding of divine will. These beliefs shaped how audiences would have interpreted Richard's rise and fall as part of a divinely ordained pattern.
Richard's rise and fall
Richard's rapid ascent to power is portrayed as unnatural and against the will of God. His reign is characterised by moral corruption and bloodshed, making his eventual downfall appear as an inevitable consequence of his defiance of the divine order. Richmond, by contrast, is portrayed as God's chosen ruler, whose victory restores harmony to England. This pattern reinforces the Elizabethan belief that Providence would ultimately punish wrongdoing and reward virtue.
The use of curses
Characters such as Queen Margaret invoke fate and curse those who have wronged them. These curses prove remarkably accurate as the play progresses, coming to fruition in disturbing detail. Shakespeare uses these curses to suggest that Richard's actions cannot escape divine judgement and that fate will ultimately restore balance. The curses function almost as prophecies, demonstrating that the moral order will reassert itself despite temporary chaos and injustice.
Key Points to Remember:
- Shakespeare wrote Richard III in 1592, during Queen Elizabeth I's reign, and the play reflects Tudor political interests and propaganda
- The Wars of the Roses (1455-1487) between the Lancastrians and Yorkists provides the historical backdrop, ending with Henry Tudor's victory at Bosworth
- Shakespeare's portrayal of Richard as a deformed, evil villain is heavily influenced by biased Tudor sources, particularly Thomas More's account, and differs from historical reality
- The play reinforces the Tudor myth by presenting Richard's defeat as divine justice and Henry VII's victory as God's will, legitimising Tudor rule
- Key Elizabethan concepts shape the play, including the divine right of kings, providence, and beliefs about fate, moral order, and political legitimacy