Abstract:
Critics have long been obsessed with the ambiguous
nature of Shakespeare's Richard III. Richard, the
protagonist whose name bears the very title of the play,
is portrayed as ostensibly an evil figure, and weather his
actions are the result of the incarnation of the devil in
human form or the result of a mind disturbed as result of
physical deformity has long been observed and
discussed. However, the present reading, relying on new
historicist notions of power and subversion, aims to look
at the play from a significantly different perspective.
Richard usurps the throne by killing his brother, King
Edward IV, and to maintain his authority and
sovereignty is compelled to commit more crimes. At the
same time, his eloquence and power to control the course
of events as well as other characters, specifically in the
first part of the play, has long appealed to audiences and
critics, attributing a somewhat productive and dynamic
quality to his character.The present paper attempts to
uncover glimpses of possible reasons for two closely
related ambiguities which have long problematized the
play. The first aspect is related to the genre of the play,
vacillating between two poles; while the play apparently
depicts Richard as one of the King's of England,
recorded in the history books of Hall and Holinshed, yet
Richard embodies certain characteristics which can align
him with the tragic hero. The second is related to the
very character of Richard, at once a villain and a
redeemer. Many critics have praised him, for his power
of eloquence and aptitude to govern those around him,
simultaneously recognizing the evil and villain in him.