Storm1

Chanin Storm

Dr. John Arnold

ENGL 406

11 May 2010

Richard III

When considering the two thoughts that are regarded as the basic instructions for rulers

and government, the focus is on Aristotle, The Politics, and Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince.

Aristotle talks about rulers in Book 3, defining the six regimes of rulers, as monarchy, tyranny,

aristocracy, oligarchy, constitution, and democracy. Machiavelli only describes the monarchy in

his works for in Renaissance Europe there was no other option. The two different views of

government have their supporters and their opponents. Shakespeare used both in his plays using

the definition of tyrant and monarch to highlight his historical plays. One of the most obviously

Machiavellian dramas is Richard III and with the common beliefs of the day, he uses Richard III

to show the ugly side of the monarchy, or rather tyranny.

First, the reader must identify what exactly is a tyrant. In Book 3 of Politics, Aristotle

discusses defines a tyrant as a monarch who is only interested in his own desires and needs rather

than the states requirements. This definition is the most common definition of tyrant throughout

history. There is someone who views the tyrant, not as a bad ruler, but as a ruler that does what

needs to be done and balances the tyrannical acts with the acts of kindness and justice. Actually,

Machiavelli’s The Prince does not acknowledge that anyone could be a tyrant. He defines the

rulers and government by failure and success of the given reign. He focuses on the balance of

power and justice and the necessity to at times be cruel and at other times be caring and just. For

Machiavelli, this makes a good ruler and a good government.

 Storm2

How do Aristotle and Machiavelli play into Shakespeare’s Richard III? Shakespeare

would have known about the views of the ancient Aristotle, but they would not have influenced

him as much as the ideology of Machiavelli and Renaissance Europe. Thus, when Shakespeare

wrote his dramas, he used the definitions associated with Machiavelli in which to describe the

historic rulers of England. He used these dramas not just as histories, but as memories of good

and bad rulers and the actions and events that led them in their journey as monarch.

Within Act I, scene 1, Richard, the Duke of Gloucester, tells the audience of his plots, all

of which are Machiavelli in nature.

“Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous,

By drunken prophecies, libels, and dreams,

To set my brother Clarence and the King

In deadly hate the one against the other;” (I.i.31-35)

Richard tells the audience, that he is plotting not just against his brother Clarence, but against the

sickly King, his other brother, as well. Even at this point it is obvious that there is much going on

behind the scenes, but that it is all within the plans of Richard, so as he may usurp the monarchy.

Richard III uses the basis of religion in two separate scenes and yet both are used for the

same purpose. The first is:

“Tell them that God bids us do good for evil;

And thus I clothe my naked villainy

With odds old ends stol’n forth of holy writ,

And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.” (I.iii.334-337)

 Storm3

Here the audience sees that Richard is playing one side, the Queen's side, against those lords that

are loyal to him, such as the Duke of Buckingham and Lord Hastings. However, he uses the

church again when the Duke of Buckingham tells him

“And look you get a prayer book in your hand,

And stand between two churchman my lord -

For on that ground I’ll make a holy descant –

And be not easily won to our requests:

Play the maid’s part, still answer nay, and take it”

(III.vii.47-51)

Buckingham is having Richard use the church as a ploy to get the citizens of London to back him

in his quest for the throne, which works beautifully as Richard plays the spiritual leader and only

gives in to the request of becoming their king at the end of their pleading. These two actions

show the Machiavellian view that “a mind so framed that should you require not to be so, you

may be able and know how to change to the opposite” (Machiavelli, Chapter 18).

Even before Richard gets the throne, he begins his executions of enemies and friends.

The first execution is of his own brother, Clarence, as it is clear when talking to the men he hired

to do the deed:

“But, sirs, be sudden in the execution,

With obdurate, do not hear him plead;

For Clarence is well-spoken, and perhaps

May move your hearts to pity if you mark him.”

(I.III.345-348)
 Storm4

This is the first of his executions. The second, third, and fourth executions are of the Queens,

men, Lord Rivers, Lord Grey, and Sir Thomas Vaughan. Next is Lord Hastings, then the

children of the Queen, including the heir to the throne, his wife, and lastly the Duke of

Buckingham for not killing the princes of Henry V; each of these executions were directed by

him, but were carried out by others so as to keep his hands clean of the act. However, Richard

does have blood on his hands in the murders of Henry Sixt, and Prince Edward. The murders

were committed so that he could win the hand of Prince Edwards’s widow, Lady Anne (I.ii).

When the Duke of Buckingham was executed, it became obvious to the mind of Richard

was not as stable as it may have been at one time. His dream the night before the battle tells him

he will die. It is only at this point that Richard realizes that he has only been half of the ruler he

needed to be and that because of his inability to have a balance to his reign, he will lose it on the

battlefield.

If he had truly been following the description of Machiavelli, he would not have been so

cruel and so full of his own interests. He would have been swift in justice and been grateful to

his loyal friends and lords. Instead, he feared all those around him, paranoia not only of friends,

but of known and unknown enemies. There was no other option but to lose at the Battle of

Bosworth to the Earl of Richmond. Machiavelli sums the event up well:

“And you have to understand this, that a prince, especially a new one, cannot

observe all those things for which men are esteemed, being often forced, in order

to maintain the state, to act contrary to faith, friendship, humanity, and religion.

Therefore it is necessary for him to have a mind ready to turn itself accordingly as

the winds and variations of fortune force it, yet, as I have said above, not to
 Storm5

diverge from the good if he can avoid doing so, but, if compelled, then to know

how to set about it.” (Machiavelli Chapter 18)

This is what Richard III did not understand. He was not able to put his own interests and power

struggles aside for the betterment of the nation. He did not know how to put his good deed, if

there were any, in the public light, and he did not know how to be cruel and just at the same time.

Instead his rule was one of paranoia and fear, on his part and on the part of his people. When the

King is unstable, everyone is an enemy, and it is only a matter of time before the power

explodes, and the King is deposed by others that can fully maintain and understand the concepts

laid out by Machiavelli.

 Storm6

Works Cited

Aristotle. Politics. Trans. B. Jowett. The Internet Classics Archive. Massachusetts Institute of

Technology. Web. 20 January 2010.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Trans. W. K. Marriot. The Constitution Society. 10 July,

1997. Web. 20 January 2010.

Shakespeare, William. "King Richard III." The Riverside Shakespeare. 2nd ed. New York:

Houghton Mifflin Company, 1997. 748. Print