Carlson 1

Matthew Carlson
Dr. Higl
ENG 417: The Works of Shakespeare
May 5, 2014
The Body Behind Richard III
In August of 2012, University of Leicester archeologists began searching an
inconspicuous parking lot for the remains of one of Englands most notorious kings,
Richard III. With the only evidence of his location being hundreds of years old, the odds of
success were slim. However, only a few days in to the dig, they uncovered two skeletons,
one of which was strikingly similar to descriptions of Richard. Battle wounds and physical
markers indicated that they had found what they were looking for. After months of
analysis, CNN.com reporter Bryony Jones reported that British scientists announced
they are convinced beyond reasonable doubt that a skeleton found is that of the former
king, who was killed at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485. Such a discovery enables
historians and Shakespearean scholars alike to reinterpret the historical circumstances
regarding the infamous King.
Richard IIIs exhumation rekindles old conversations circulating the relationship
between Richards physical body and his rhetorical body. This discovery offers a new
understanding on how the opening monologue, historical context, textual cruxes, and
performance interpretations of The Tragedy of King Richard the Third depict Richard both
physically and rhetorically. However, before diving into the play, a look at the recent
discovery of King Richard IIIs provides a new frame to the old discussion.
Jones suggests that, historically, the enigmatic King Richard III is remembered by

Carlson 2
school children and Shakespeare aficionados alike as a notorious villain, hunchbacked and
hateful, accused of killing his own nephews, the Princes in the Tower, to usurp the
throne, effectively qualifying him as one of the most nefarious kings of England. Rumor
has it, that after Richards defeat at the Battle of Bosworth Field, his body was
unceremoniously strapped to a packhorse, trotted back into the city, stripped, and posted
up on display for all of England to see. If that wasnt enough, after a hasty burial, his body
was reportedly dug up and thrown into a nearby river. While these rumors seem
outlandish and unbefitting of a monarch, they raise an important question: Was King
Richard III truly as heinous as these rumors picture him? The University of Leicesters
recent archeological endeavor offers insight that help to answer this question.
The recent unearthing of Richards bones helps scholars see a previously unknown
picture of one of Shakespeares most malevolent protagonists. Matching the bones as
closely as possible to Richard through mtDNA was only the first step in assuaging the
Tudors conjecture regarding Englands nefarious King Richard III. Using the bones
themselves helps the process of reevaluating just how much the real Richard has been
manipulated throughout history. The most pertinent piece of evidence concerning
Shakespeares The Tragedy of King Richard the Third is undoubtedly Richards spine. Its
recovery encourages a new analysis of the real relationship between the play and the man.
Many of the Tudor historians and chroniclers made a point of commenting on
Richards hunched back and withered arm. Sir Thomas More, the first of many, recorded
Richard as a monstrous individual. Shakespeare used Mores descriptions to build his own
version of Richard. However, the University of Leicester provides visual proof that
Shakespeares Richard was much different than the real Richard was. King Richard III

Carlson 3
suffered from a curvature of the spine, known as scoliosis, not a hunched back (e.g. see fig.
1 and 2). Contradictory the Tudor Myth, the findings claim that the scoliosis would only
have meant that Richards right should was noticeably higher than his left, not a fully
developed hunch or growth. They also provide that there is no sign of a withered arm,
which again, works against both the Tudors and Shakespeares representations of Richard.

Fig. 2. (Below) King Richard III in burial

plot. The curvature of the spine and
nature of his burial are clearly shown.

Fig. 1. (Above) King Richard IIIs

spine.

Carlson 4
After over four hundred years, a clearer picture of Richard is beginning to unfold. He
neither suffered from a hunched back nor a withered arm. He simply had uneven
shoulders. Yet his adversaries exacerbated that fact in order to further their own political
standing. This is not to say that Richards physical appearance was the only factor in his
historical reception. There are certainly other factors, but his body seems to have been a
catalyst for Shakespeare to exploit. Therefore, breaking the four hundred year status quo is
paramount in deciphering the puzzle surrounding Richard IIIs body. Previously, the
complexities of Richards physical and rhetorical bodies have been mirror images. Yet now,
evidence suggests that historical accounts and reality are not the same. The Tragedy of King
Richard the Third has been a major proponent of the Tudor Myth, and through it, Richard
has been solidified in history as one whose physical manifestation is representative of his
moral nature.
One of Shakespeares most famous speeches is the opening soliloquy in Richard III. It
offers a quick, yet revealing look into the mind of one of Shakespeares most interesting
characters, Richard III. The opening forty lines provide the audience with a look into not
only Richards oratory skill, but also the central role of his physical appearance in the play.
The diction, syntax and figurative language that Shakespeare used in Richards lines plant
the necessary seeds for Richards character to develop. Using precise descriptors and
elegant structure, Shakespeare enables Richard to embody the villainous nature for which
he is remembered.
From the very first lines of the play, the audience can see that Richard is unhappy.
Even though the war and violence surrounding his family has ceased, Richard is not the
least bit pleased. He is still just the deformed brother of the king. His body serves as a

Carlson 5
catalyst for the hatred that appears in his soliloquy. Using that hatred, he schemes to take
over the throne through deception and manipulation. None are safe from his treachery, not
even his own family. At the core of all of his wrongdoings is Richards abnormal physical
appearance.
As Ian McKellen demonstrates in a speech on Macbeths tomorrow, and tomorrow,
and tomorrow speech, looking at the last word of every line can offer a general sense of
the speech as a whole. In applying this analytical method to Richard III, the list mirrors
Richards feelings towards the current state of his life: discontent, buried, wreaths,
monuments, measures, adversaries, tricks, majesty, nymph, proportion, nature, unfashionable,
peace, time, deformity, lover, villain, dangerous, dreams, king, just, and treacherous. These
twenty-two words, constituting over half of the lines in the opening soliloquy, provide the
audience with eerie sense of what is to come in the rest of the play.
From there, the speech can be divided into three major sections, each of which
offers insight into just how much Richards physical body influences his actions throughout
the play. In order to set up his true intentions, Richard utilizes manipulation and effective
speaking skills to begin the play:
Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this son of York;
And all the clouds that loured upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths,
Our bruised arms hung up for monuments;
Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings,

Carlson 6
Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.
Grim-visaged war hath smoothed his wrinkled front,
And now instead of mounting barbed steeds
To fright the souls of fearful adversaries,
He capers nimbly in a ladys chamber
To the lascivious pleasing of a lute. (1.1.1-13)
Richard begins this passage with the seemingly positive statement, Now is the
winter of our discontent / Made glorious by this son of York (1.1.1-2). War has ceased and
peace is flooding the monarchy. However, this does not reflect Richard. His use of our more
accurately represents his family or the monarchy, and not himself (1.1.1-2). He makes it
quite clear that he is not content with the way his circumstances are going. Only a few lines
later, in the second section of this speech, Richard abruptly shifts from our, the plural
possessive, to I, the singular possessive, distinctly separating himself from the monarchy
and country as a whole.
While Richards exchange of warlike images for pleasant ones appears in good spirit,
Richard is only setting up the juxtaposition of the ugly self and the beautiful whole. After
depicting the clouds clearing and the approach of a new summer (1.1.2), Richard uses
bruised arms (1.1.6) and dreadful marches (1.1.8). In line nine, Shakespeare begins
with a spondee, Grim-visaged, placing emphasis on the role of war and violence in the
play. These phrases keep war and violence fresh in mind. Again, Richard sets up the
juxtaposition coming in the second section between the current state of peace and his own
state. His later lines, Why, I in this weak piping time of peace / Have no delight to pass
away the time, / Unless to spy my shadow in the sun / And descant on mine own

Carlson 7
deformity, contrast the opening lines, enabling him to speak outright that his only delight
is the motivation he derives from his deformities, and the motives they have supplied him
(1.1.24-27).
His true thoughts unfold in the second section of the speech. Starting at line
fourteen, Richard begins to take on a new direction, moving towards his own agenda.
Shakespeare extends the language, using multiple clauses, not even stopping the sentence
throughout. The complex lines allow Shakespeare to introduce Richard as a more
intelligent and charismatic character early on. For Richard however, the lengthy and wellwritten lines encourage the audience to respect him, regardless of his appearance or
intentions, by utilizing his intelligence and skill as a wordsmith. Using these skills, Richard
shifts from the pleasant state of the crown to his own deplorable state:
But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass,
I that am rudely stamped, and want loves majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph,
I that am curtailed of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinished, sent before my time
Into this breathing world scarce half made upAnd that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them- (1.1.14 -23)
Here, Richard expresses his bitterness towards his appearance. He uses the phrases not
shaped for sportive tricks (14), rudely stamped(16), and curtailed of this fair

Carlson 8
proportion (18). These depictions spring from the Tudor Myth, set forth by Sir Thomas
More, Edward Hall, and Raphael Holinshed. Using these, Shakespeare, and in turn Richard,
elicit the nature of the deformed and cruel Richard, purveying unsavory Machiavellian
qualities. Martine Van Elk argued that, if Richard has been deformed by divine decree, he
can never be in charge of his self-presentation, which Richard does later in the play (Van
Elk 7). This supports a Machiavellian reading of Richard because he later takes charge of
his body using his withered arm as a tool to manipulate Hastings. The cruel manner in
which Richard depicts himself, stemming from the Tudor Myth, reiterates that even though
he was dealt an unfair physique, whether it was by God or by nature, he is embracing it as
another tool to use later on.
As soon as Richard finishes expressing his shortcomings, he begins foreshadowing
the dark times that are to come. Continuing his two part self-denigrating descriptions,
Richard wraps up the second section:
Why, I in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my shadow in the sun
And descant on mine own deformity.
And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days. (1.1.24-31)
In channeling his physical deformities, and the troubles they have brought him in life
Richard begins to shuck some of the blame away from himself and onto nature, chance, or

Carlson 9
God. This passage, which Van Elk called, a passage that appears to dwell on his
victimization and lack of responsibility for his deformity, is the first, and most clever,
glimpse of Richards manipulation and cunning offered in the play (Van Elk 8). This attempt
to rid himself of the blame for his actions is not directed at another character in the play,
but is instead directed at his creation. Van Elk suggests that Shakespeare uses Richard as a
vessel to show that the play's metatheatrical moments [such as Richards blame] allow
audiences to consider the theater itself as a vehicle through which history is presented and
explore the ways in which politics and theater are implicated in each other (Van Elk 3).
Furthering the historical symmetry of Richards physical and rhetorical body,
Richard outwardly states to the audience that due to his physical appearance, and his
willingness to embrace it, he will seek vengeance through usurpation:
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.
And if King Edward be as true and just
As I am subtle false and treacherous,
This day should Clarence closely be mewed up
About a prophecy which says that G
Of Edwards heirs the murderer shall be. (1.1.32-40)
In the final nine lines of the speech, Richard reveals his plot to overthrow the monarchy. By
shaping the opening soliloquy and cleverly using images and language that illicit emotional

Carlson 10
response, Richard gains the audiences involvement. Even though his plot is sinister, this
involvement gives Richard his first taste of power in the play.
Moving beyond the literal and implied meanings of this speech, Shakespeare
employs an interesting approach to its form and function. Richards lines hold no real
rhyme scheme, except for the heroic couplet at the end. Utilizing mainly iambic pentameter,
Shakespeare uses emphatic alterations to stress important sections or lines, such as in lines
sixteen, eighteen, and thirty when Richard starts the lines with I in order to place
importance on himself. The stress on each I lets Richard boost himself as the most
important subject, especially when paired with unstressed use of our in lines six, seven,
and eight. Richard doesnt care for the peace in his house; he only cares about himself.
Adding to Richards charismatic nature and the acceptance of his physical deformity
are his uses of metaphor and imagery. Right away, Richard starts, Now is the winter of our
discontent / Made glorious summer by this son of York (1.1.1-2). The winter is a metaphor
for the times of turmoil, while summer suggests high spirits and peace. Van Elk suggests
that the seasonal metaphor hints at Richards understanding of the cyclical nature of
violence, especially with the recent end of the War of the Roses (Van Elk 6). Greenblatt
notes that the son Richard refers to serves as a pun, meaning both a son of York and the
sun used in Edward IVs emblem (Greenblatt 548).
Richards skilled tongue is not limited to seasonal and nature imagery, either. He
also alludes to several gods, presumably from Greek mythology. Richard comments on how,
All the clouds that loured upon our house / In the deep bosom of the ocean buried (1.1.34). Here, Zeus, the god of the sky, thunder, and clouds, is represented in line three, and
Poseidon, the God of water and the oceans, is represented in line four. Richard goes on to

Carlson 11
personify the god of war, Ares, when he comments that, Grim-visaged war hath smoothed
his wrinkled front, in line nine, and He capers nimbly in a ladys chamber in line twelve.
Taken in total, Richards words demonstrate his mastery of language and imagery
offer descriptions of his physical deformity, and show his thirst for power all within his
opening speech. This final section of the speech provides a fitting end to his initial
appearance, combining all of Richards physical motives, oratory skill, and internal
struggles in the final nine lines of his soliloquy.
On the surface, this soliloquy introduces the conflict of the play and the plot of its
main villain, but on a deeper level, it reveals who Richard is through diction, syntax, and
figurative language. Shakespeare uses this speech to further perpetuate the villainous and
treacherous mind and intentions of both Richard, the character, and King Richard, the man.
Shakespeare uses his characters persona to propagate how the real Richard was seen both
historically and literarily. In this speech, Shakespeares Richard is a product of both his
physical deformities and his own interpretation of them. Yet this speech is not the only
instance where language is manipulated to draw rhetorical symmetry to Richard IIIs actual
physical appearance. The textual cruxes of Richard III offer insights to this
misrepresentation as well.
Richard III not only portrays deformities to be indicators of wretchedness and evil,
but also offers interesting textual avenues for examination as to how Richard the monster
came to be. Shakespeares use of deformity as a generator of vengeance encourages an
exploration of several textual cruxes and their impact on the plays delivery. In order to
understand how this play works in relation to deformity, the complex relationship between
the quarto and the folio need to be understood.

Carlson 12
The textual companion to Greenblatts The Norton Shakespeare anthology, William
Shakespeare: A Textual Companion by Gary Taylor and Stanley Wells offers a detailed
overview of the various textual issues that arise when looking into the textual history of
Richard III. Taylor and Wells attempt to dissect the respective origin and authority of the
first quarto and first Folio texts of Richard III, a process which, in 1864, the Cambridge
editors deemed the most difficult question which presents itself to an editor of
Shakespeare (228). While Richard III has eight quartos, they are all similar derivatives of
the first quarto, leading Taylor and Wells to the conclusion that the first quarto is the
closest to being an accurate representation of Shakespeares performance. While the others
are still relevant sources, their differences from the original are fairly minor in terms of the
plays interpretation.
Since the turn of the twentieth century, several hypotheses have emerged regarding
the nature of the manuscript which lies behind Q1 (228). The primary discussion debates
the credibility of the first quartos manuscript source, and whether or not one or more
participants created that manuscript from memorial reconstruction. W. Greg, Gary Taylor,
and Kristian Smidt all offer their ideas on the issue, but the premier theory comes from
David Patrick. He claimed that the first quarto is a memorial reconstruction from a
manuscript based off of a performance (Taylor and Wells 228). Because no foul papers or
notes survive that would clarify the origin of the play, the texts need to be compared in
order to identify what is missing, added, or changed among the different versions.
In doing so, evidence emerges to suggest that a manuscript was indeed compiled
form a group of contributors, most likely an acting company. There are a few passages that
differ from the quarto and the folio. Taylor and Wells suggest that this discordance is a

Carlson 13
result of the transmission method used and the disagreement stems from the
reconstruction itself. Some purposed that these changes could have come from authorial
drafts. In fact, there are lines in the folio and not in the quarto, suggesting that the
manuscript was used in the creation of the folio as well, though there is no tangible
evidence that this happened. Still, understanding the process of getting from the quarto to
the folio poses problematic, even with the help of a manuscript.
Whether Shakespeare, or his acting company, edited Richard III for performance
reasons or not, the quarto and the folio do not line up perfectly. Taylor and Wells contend
that the quarto seems to be more inclined for use in performance (228). One scene
presented in the quarto, but not in the folio is known as the clock scene. Both quarto and
folio versions of act four have Richard attempt to manipulate Buckingham into killing
Edward, a potential threat to Richards reign. And though Buckingham has murdered for
Richard before, he hesitates, asks for time to think, and leaves the scene briefly. Visibly
angry, Richard instantly hires another killer to do his bidding. This is where the quarto
differs from the folio. Upon Buckinghams return, Richard acts calm and composed:
Buckingham My lord, your promise for the earldom
..
Buckingham My lord?
King Richard Ay? Whats oclock?
Buckingham I am thus bold to put your grace in mind
Of what you promised me.
King Richard

But whats oclock?

Buckingham Upon the stroke of ten.

Carlson 14
King Richard Well, let it strike!
Buckingham Why let it strike?
King Richard Because that, like a jack, thou keepst the stroke
Betwixt thy begging and my meditation.
I am not in the giving vein today. (4.2.104-19)
Although small, this extension shows a glimpse of just how volatile Richards temperament
is. In a matter of a few moments, Richard moves from trusting, to anger, and finally ends on
malice, tormenting Buckingham and refusing to fulfill his initial promise. Without this
scene, as in the folio, an elegant section depicting Richards ability to rid himself anyone
who does not help him, whether they are friend or foe would be lost.
Another problematic section is Hastingss prophecy at the end of act three, scene
four. Greenblatt argues it may have been omitted from the quarto for political and
superstitious reasons (545). Yet, while the feeling of this scene can be inferred from the
tone and direction of the play, its inclusion magnifies Richards treachery. Just before
Hastings beheading, he proclaims a prophecy to Catesby:
Hastings

O bloody Richard! Miserable England!

I prophesy the fearfulst time to thee
That ever wretched age hath looked upon. (3.4.103-5)

This prophecy would add much to the performance of the play, yet it was excluded from the
quarto. Depicting the ominous route in which Richards reign as king is heading, this
passage adds to the notion that the folio is a more substantive text, while the quarto was
tailored for performance. Hastingss omitted lines may have been left out because they
could well be seen as unsettling to an audience that laid great store by prophecy

Carlson 15
(Greenblatt, 545). While this may be true, there are other curses and prophetic utterances
in the play that hold similar unsettling potential. Lady Anne curses Richard, If ever he have
wife, let her be made / More miserable by the death of him / than I am made by my young
lord and thee (1.2.26-28). She in turn curses herself as well, for she ends up marrying
Richard, only to be murdered by his bidding. The Duchess of York curses Richard to die by
Gods justice, Therefore take with thee my most heavy [F, greeuous] curse, (4.4.188) and
finishes with Bloody thou art, bloody with thy end (4.4.195). This too comes to fruition
when Richard dies in battle. Because both of these deadly curses come true, an incongruity
rises up with the omission of Hastingss prophecy from the quarto. Hastingss prophecy
was omitted due to the unsettling nature the prophecy might have had on the audience, yet
these deadly curses were allowed to stay, even though they are of the same nature. This is
most likely because Hastingss prophecy included all of England, while Lady Anne and the
Duchess of Yorks curses were aimed solely at Richard.
The language Shakespeare employs throughout Richard III, elicits a sense of
menacing and darkness. The language of the curses fit the language More, Hall, and
Holinshed provide of Richard. Shakespeare perpetuates these images through not only
Richards own self-perception, but the language other characters use to attack Richards
unnatural physique as well. Shortly after Lady Annes curse, Shakespeare uses her to
deliver a revealing string of vicious attacks that reflect both his nature and his appearance.
As soon as Richard enters the scene, Lady Anne unleashes her hatred, What black
magician conjures up this fiend (1.2.34-5), Avaunt, thou dreadful minister of hell
(1.2.46), Foul devil (1.2.50), Blush, blush, thou lump of foul deformity (1.2.57), finishing
with Thy deed, inhuman and unnatural, / Provokes this deluge supernatural (1.2.60-61).

Carlson 16
The editors of The Norton Shakespeare changed the word unnatural to supernatural in
line sixty-one in order to set up Annes invocation of Gods vengeance. This change was
neither in the quarto nor the folio, but it does link the passage effectively for that purpose.
On the other hand, using the word unnatural twice in a span of only five words creates a
certain level of significance for the word. It is reflective of the Tudor myth, which
Shakespeare was employing. Supernatural shifts the focus away from the unnatural
aura of Richard, and instead steers the conversation towards God.
Taking the quarto versions of the play as an entirely separate entity from the folio
versions serves an important purpose. While those that seek the one true Shakespeare may
disagree, having two separate plays allows for a distinction between the plays performance
and its anthologized folio text. The folio and conflated versions of Richard III are long,
second only to Hamlet in running time. Editors involved in conflating the texts of
Shakespeare have argued that the cuts made in the quarto version of Richard III were
purely theatrical in nature, similar to the omissions from Henry V, but these claims are
unfounded. Even entertaining the idea that the two plays were not separate entities, the
major omissions would only reduce its playing time by five to ten minutes (231).
Therefore, passages present in the folio, but not in the quarto cannot be justified by
claiming they were removed for performance time. Through examination of the differences
between the quarto text and the folio text, a deeper understanding of how Shakespeare and
his subsequent editors manipulate the texts to further the relationship of Richards
physical and rhetorical body.
Shakespeare is undoubtedly a major player in the survival of Richards overtly
deformed appearance throughout history, but he was not the creator of such an

Carlson 17
interpretation. Tudor era critics, historians, and artists depict Richard III to be a repulsive
man capable of heinous deeds. One such Tudor account, taken from Sir Thomas More, of
Richard IIIs unnatural humanity is the rumor that he was born with teeth (Greenblatt et.
al, 539). A deeper understanding of Shakespeares representation of Richard III, the
character, can be gained through understanding how the real King Richard III was
represented in the source material Shakespeare used to research his plays. Three Tudor
accounts of Richard III, the earliest of which precedes Shakespeares play by eighty-four
years, of Richard III come from Edward Halls, The Union of the Two Noble and Illustre
Famelies of Lancastre & York, Raphael Holinsheds, The Chronicles of England, Scotland, and
Ireland, and Sir Thomas Mores, The Historie of Kyng Richarde the Thirde. Each of these,
however, come from the Tudor era, which most certainly held anti-Richard sentiments.
Though they may be from a time during which Richard was remembered as especially
villainous, they do offer similar accounts of Richard IIIs appearance and the historical
events surrounding his life in the sixteenth century, which helps explain Shakespeares
Richard III.
Shakespeares Richard III embodies the deceptive and murderous traits of the Tudor
Richard III by employing the various descriptions the chroniclers provided. Sir Thomas
More describes Richards grizzly birth, claiming that the Dutchess of York could not be
delivered of him uncut, and he came into the world with the feet forward, as men be borne
outward, and (as the story runs) also not untoothed (More, 6). Halls Chronicle, written in
1548, thirty-five years after Mores account, adds more interesting passages as to how
Richard III was viewed in the fifty years before Shakespeare wrote his play. He provides an
evocative depiction of King Richards reign, stating, Nowe after this triumphante

Carlson 18
coronation, there fell michifes thicke and thicke, [] all the tyme of his vsurped reigne,
neuer ceased there cruell murther, death, and slaughter, till his awne destruccion ended it
(Hall, 377). Hall goes on to expand on Mores description and puts forth that Richard III,
was small and litle of stature so was he of body greately deformed, the one shoulder
higher then the other (Hall, 421). Holinshed reiterates both More and Hall, claiming,
[Richard] was malicious, wrathfull, enuious, and from afore his birth euer forward
(Holinshed 362). By using the Tudor histories as sources for his own research on King
Richard III, Shakespeare perpetuated the same deformed and monstrous Richard as those
presented by More, Hall, and Holinshed.
In the beginning of the play, Richard despises his deformities and vows to prove a
villain (1.1.30). Shakespeares descriptive language shadows the descriptions provided by
More, Hall, and Holinshed. Shakespeare uses the words deformed (1.1.20) and
deformity (1.1.27), which come from Halls description. Shakespeare references Mores
birthing story when Richard III says, unfinished, sent before my time (1.1.20).
Shakespeares Richard III continues his grievances, using phrases such as, rudely
stamped (1.1.16), curtailed of this fair proportion (1.1.18), Dogs bark at me as I Halt by
them (1.1.23). Only once Richard finishes pointing out his physical hindrances does he
proclaim his solution to the sufferings his deformities have brought upon him:
And therefore since I cannot prove a lover
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasure of these days. (1.1.28-31)

Carlson 19
In the very beginning of the play, Richards physical ailments manifest into the
destructive plot to take over the throne. In Richard IIIs opening soliloquy, he concludes by
revealing the first step of his plan; And if King Edward be as true and just / as I am subtle
false and treacherous / This day should Clarence closely be mewed up / About a prophecy
which says that G / Of Edwards Heirs the murderer shall be (1.1.36-40). Richard reveals
his well thought out plan to the audience. His brother, Clarence, will be pitted against
Edward IV by creating a false prophecy which foretells that Edward IV will die at the hands
of G. King Edward believes G to be Clarence, whose name is George, but in actuality, G
refers to Richard, Duke of Gloucester.
Both Sir Thomas More and Hollinshed provide Tudor biased interpretations of
instances where King Richard IIIs actions and his speech differ. More tells of King Richard
IIIs deceitful assumption of Lord Protector over Edward V:
But for all this comfortable courtesy of the Duke of Gloucester, he
sent the Lord Rivers and the Lord Richard with Sir Thomas Vaughan
into the north country to different places to prison and, afterwards,
all to Pomfrait, where they were, in conclusion, beheaded.
In this way the Duke of Gloucester took upon himself the order
and governance of the young king, whom, with much honor and
humble reverence, he conveyed upward toward the city. (More, 16)
Mores anecdote about how Richard took the role of Lord Protector over Henry V is in stark
contrast to Holinsheds quote from a dinner where, the then King, Richard III orders that
no wrong an nor extortion should be doone to his subiects. And thus he taught other to
execute iustice and equitie, the contrarie whereof he dailie exercised (Holinshed 400). The

Carlson 20
juxtaposition of these two quotes not only demonstrates the hypocrisy the real Richard III
exuded during his upheaval of the throne of England, but provides insight as to where
Shakespeare founded his portrayal of Richard III as well.
Raphael Holinsheds The Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland, published in
1577, was the last of the three main Tudor accounts of Richard III to be published, much of
which was recycled information from More and Hall. However, one of the first images
Holinshed provides is a snapshot of Richard IIIs cunning and manipulation. Once Richard
III took the crown, he proceeded to put on a show of good faith to the onlookers:
[Richard] commanded that one Fog, whom he had long deadlie hated, should
be brought then before him, who being brought out of the sanctuarie (for
thither had he fled for feare of him) in the sight of the people, he tooke him
by the hand. Which thing the common people reioised at, and praised, but
wise men tooke it for a vanitie. (Holinshed 397)
Richard seems to fool the masses into thinking that he was a forgiving and merciful. But, as
Holinshed points out, wise men were not fooled by his public display of forgiveness, but
instead noted his hypocrisy. Just as Holinshed demonstrates, the Richard III of
Shakespeares play uses cunning and deceit to advance his own personal endeavors.
The final piece that the More, Hall, and Holinshed add to their version of King
Richard III is the disappearance of the two princes. Holinshed conjectures that Richard III is
guilty of, the lamentable murther of his innocent nephues, the yoong king and his tender
brother (Holinshed 400). Shakespeares Richard III performs this with devilish ease.
Unlike More, Hall, and Holinsheds uncertainty around the matter of what happened to the
princes, Shakespeare has Richard III imprison the boys, and tests Tyrrell by asking, Darst

Carlson 21
thou resolve to kill a friend of mine? (4.2.71). Tyrrell accepts the request and replies, Let
me have open means to come to them, / And soon Ill rid you from the fear of them
(4.2.77-78). More says the boys disappeared (More 16), Hall writes that Richard III hired a
henchman who killed the boys and buried them under the stairs (Hall 378), and Holinshed
aligns with Hall, contending that he heard that the boys were imprisoned and killed
(Holinshed 402).
Another interesting textual crux is that Richard III is part of a tetralogy of histories,
yet, in 1597, the quarto was first published as a tragedy. The play, then, is both a history
and a tragedy. This causes friction because there is a clear discrepancy in its classification.
Taking into consideration the historical circumstance of the plays initial publication helps
to clarify the situation. A play depicting the tragic downfall of the last York King, Richard III,
would have appealed to the Tudor Queen, Elizabeth I. The Tudor era sources Shakespeare
was using, presented as fact by the Tudors, combined with the timing of Richard IIIs
publication, created a situation open to qualify the play as both a history and a tragedy.
While the written accounts were Shakespeares main sources for Richard, there are
other cases that highlight the historical convergence of Richards physical body and his
rhetorical body. The British Portrait Gallery provides several portraits of Richard III, yet
there are some striking discrepancies between the original paintings of Richard and those
that survive today. One of the earliest paintings of Richard that survives today dates from
sometime between the late 15th or 16th centuries (e.g. see fig. 3). This painting, whose artist
is unknown, shows a clear hump on Richards right shoulder. However, evidence that this
painting has been altered sometime since its creation has been noted by the Journal of the
Royal Society of Medicine. They provide an x-ray image of the same painting that shows

Carlson 22
that the hump on his shoulder may have been added to the original (e.g. see fig. 4). The xrayed image shows a dip in the right shoulder line, not a rounded hump. If the hump was
added after the original was created, the painting becomes further evidence that Richards
physical and rhetorical body have been doctored to perpetuate the rhetorical appearance
of Richard historically.

(Fig. 3. Original painting with the hump)

(Fig. 4. X-ray image showing a dip)

Carlson 23
The conversation about The Tragedy of King Richard the Third has constantly
revolved around his appearance, and much of the conversation about the play and
Richards physical and rhetorical appearance revolves around three main ideological
camps. There have been lasting discussions regarding Richards construction, though due
to the new discovery of his remains, the research available on The Tragedy of King Richard
the Third and King Richard III himself has been rather repetitive. However, there are pieces
of information from before his remains discovery that can help foster a better
understanding of Richards physical and rhetorical bodies in both the play and in life.
Much of the modern research about Richard III centers on performance. Martine Van
Elk wrote an article attempting to provide teachers with information on how to effectively
approach the play when teaching. While he focuses heavily on performance in his article,
Determine to prove a villain: Criticism, Pedagogy, and Richard III, Van Elk proposes that:
The long-standing critical debate on Richard III has centered on the
overall presentation of history in the play, and specifically on its
status as a providential narrative in support of the Tudor Myth or as a
secular, humanist, or even Machiavellian text that looks to human
action in this world as a primary cause for historical change. (Van Elk
2)
More specifically, the Tudor Myth and Richards presentation in the play are major
conversations that influence the plays interpretation today. Van Elk outlines various
interpretations of Richard throughout the play, but he focuses on the three main topics,
political, psychological, and metaphysical ideologies. The political and psychological
ideologies focus on Richard being a Machiavellian character, or as Van Elk puts it, a

Carlson 24
supremely gifted courtly performer (8). This is evident in the opening soliloquy when he
outlines the state of the nation. Van Elk also notes that, Shakespeare shows that deformity
itself is not necessarily only limiting. It may, and does, in fact prove to be somewhat of an
asset to Richard, as we see when he justifies his attack on Hastings by exposing his
withered hand and attributing his deformity to witchcraft (Van Elk 8). Looking at Richard
through these lenses often leads to the assertion that Richards temperament is a result of a
life dealing with deformity. As Van Elk puts it, a presentation of Richard as motivated by
his deformity might, after all, be used to support both secular and providential
perspectives (Van Elk 3). The other focus is the metaphysical, which argues that Richards
physical abnormalities are a result of his evil nature. Van Elk argues that if Richard has
been deformed by divine decree, he can never be in charge of his self-presentation (Van
Elk 7). Many medieval and early chroniclers of Richard held this belief. These schools of
thought are related and can be synthesized to help understand how Richard was presented
both physically and rhetorically.
There are medieval conjectures that may have influenced why people saw
deformities and disabilities as representations of their inner nature, but modern scholastic
theory has updated those thoughts to meet the needs of modern research. Much of the
recent research into Richard III is centered on Mitchell and Snyders, Narrative Prosthesis:
Disability and the Dependencies of Discourse. They are referenced in many sources and
articles regarding Richards physical deformity and his portrayal in performances, and are
generally accepted as an authority in the matter. Since they have solidified the groundwork
for much of this theory, many scholars use their work to help interpret The Tragedy of King
Richard the Third.

Carlson 25
Mitchell and Snyder provide a historical overview of the plays performance, citing
research and historical precedence as they do so. The majority of their work reflects Van
Elks approaches, the metaphysical and the political/psychological approaches. This
process has aided the current state of research into the play. They begin by outlining the
oldest known accounts of Richards malignance. Mitchell and Snyder offer that the original
Richard was created and performed using Sir Thomas Mores description of Richard, which
was based off of Bishop Elys account of Richard III. This is presumably the origin of the
metaphysical, or rhetorical, construct of Richard. Mitchell and Snyder provide that,
historians suggest, [Ely] invented the deformity of the king as a stratagem for providing
the wholesale malignity of the previous regime (Mitchell and Snyder 102). This Tudor
approach, which More, Hall, and Holinshed each perpetuated, advances Richards rhetorical
construct. To help counter the dominance of the Tudor Myth, Mitchell and Snyder also cite
the Richard III Society, which states, In reality, Richard was quite normal looking [he]
was known as an accomplished soldier (102). They go on to state that Richard would not
have been able to perform the duties of a soldier had he been hunchbacked or had a
withered arm (102).
In an earlier criticism, written in the 1970s, Phillip Rhodes wrote Physical
Deformity of Richard III, which contends that, In a less queasy Elizabethan age physical
deformity must have been a godsend to a playwright. Shakespeare seized upon it (Rhodes
1650). Rhodes views the descriptions of Richards deformity as reflective of Richards
malevolent nature. Physical Deformity of Richard III demonstrates Rhodess alignment
with the metaphoric camp as well, suggesting that Shakespeare simply made his hero-

Carlson 26
villain deformed simply because it would further exaggerate just how immoral Richard
was.
Since there are more accounts favoring the idea that Richard was considerably
deformed than those suggesting that he wasnt, Mitchell and Snyder cite many sources
perpetuating the Tudor Myth. They offer, among others, William Dodd, editor of The
Beauties of Shakespeare (1757), as a proponent of the myth. After quoting several passages
from Richard III, Dodd coolly distills a universal truth from Shakespearean text: It has
long been observed, that Distortun vultum sequitur distortio morum. A face distorted
generally proclaims distorted manners, (Mitchell and Snyder 109). Dodd, nearly one
hundred and fifty years after the play was written, continues to advance the Tudor Myth.
In the years following Dodds critique, some critics claimed that Richards physical
ailments could be seen as sources of pity. Mitchell and Snyder cite several other
commentaries concerning Richard IIIs reception. They note Mrs. Griffiths mix of pity and
disdain for Richard, as well as Alexander Popes difficulties of navigating social and moral
public perceptions of disability (110). Alexander Pope embraced the spider as a personal
emblem, which Mitchell and Snyder compare to Richards embracement as, a perverse
embrace of self-denigrating terms (110). In Richard III, Richard says, And therefore since
I cannot prove a lover / / I am determined to prove a villain (1.1.28-30). Lord Byron,
also disabled, sympathizes with Richard when he accepts his deformity and determines to
use it to his advantage. Together, along with the deplorable social conditions surrounding
disability during their lives, Lord Byron, Alexander Pope, and Richard embody the persona
of the tragic victim, which suggests that Richards physical body is the same as his
rhetorical body.

Carlson 27
Mitchell and Snyder conclude by arguing that, Richard III stands as the first
dramatic personage to embody a modern sense of a singular self (111). Shakespeares
Richard had adverse circumstances to overcome in his life, yet he embraced them, and used
them to achieve his goals. Opposing this view, critics such as George Bernard Shaw argue
that since Richard does not arrive at the necessary insights, he does not deserve this
acclaim, and rather, he comes off as more caricature than character (111).
Moving beyond the authority of Mitchell and Snyder, Katherine Schaap Williams
looks at the rhetoric behind Richards deformity in the play. Williams, a disability theory
and Renaissance scholar, tackles the split in this debate in her article, Enabling Richard:
The Rhetoric of Disability in Richard III. Similar to Mitchell and Snyder, she argues that the
two major debates regarding Richards deformity are divided into two camps, a
performance camp and a metaphysical camp. She focuses on Richards deformity as a tool
for performers to either emphasize or down play, allowing performances to tailor his
physical appearance to his villainous characteristics. In fact, Williams notes that even
though his body may be deformed, nothing about Richards actions are dis-abled, at least
in the sense of operative insufficiencies that hinder his political goals. Williams begins to
break the status quo. She recognizes that Richards physical body and his rhetorical body
are in fact up to interpretation.
Joshua Eyler, in his article Disability in the Middle Ages, continues to break away
from the standard. He argues that the two camps concerning deformity in Richard III are
either characterization or metaphor (Eyler 183). While Eyler offers general arguments
for both camps, he adds, [] Shakespeare was applying medieval notions of disability to
the historical Richard III in his construction of Richard, the character (Eyler 183). This

Carlson 28
leads to his argument that while evidence of sin may have been a way for the Middle Ages
to explain impairment [], Shakespeares Richard III shows how the connection transcends
an implication of punishment for sin to become dramatic evidence of latent immoral
desires (Eyler 185). So, by employing the medieval notions that deformity and sin are
connected, Richards appearance in the play lends support to his rhetorical construction.
There is another aspect of the available research on this topic that previously misled
accurate analysis of the conversation around Richard III. These scholars attempted to use
the text to diagnose Richard. Several articles aimed at diagnosing Richards health offered a
wide array of potential issues. Maxine Andersons article The death of a mind: a study of
Shakespeares Richard III, uses a psychoanalytic lens in which she addresses the various
mental conditions that can be ascertained from the play. Another article titled Richard III:
A royal pituitary dwarf? compares the physical deformity described by Shakespeare to
dwarfism. Previously, these articles were interesting to consider, however, they did not
provide much in the way of advancing the academic discussion regarding his physicality.
However, with the advent of Richards remains, a much greater, and more accurate,
understanding of Richards physique is now available. While using the text to diagnose
Richard is still impractical, these debates gain more potency when considering the plays
performance.
With all of the criticism and debate surrounding Richard IIIs construction of
Richards body, performance was one of the only avenues for Richards body to make a
change in its reception. Even then, the performance history of Richard III is one that has
been fairly straightforward until recent years. Traditionally, Richard, the protagonist of the
play, has been portrayed as hunchbacked, as it is depicted in the text. But such a historically

Carlson 29
complex and misrepresented character is bound to be the topic of debate. Even so, The
Tragedy of King Richard the Third has experienced resurgence in performances in the last
hundred years. There are four notable performances beginning in 1911, one of which is a
silent film.
In 1911, Sir Frank Warde starred as Richard, Duke of Gloucester, in the silent film
Richard III. This performance is interesting for a few different reasons. The plays lines have
been cut, replaced with exaggerated gestures and movements on stage. One scene,
Richards dream sequence just before going to battle, is acted out almost entirely with
gestures, yet the text uses carefully constructed lines rather than action. While silent, the
action allows viewers to follow relatively closely, having an understanding of the play
would help viewers immensely. Another peculiar aspect of this version is the makeup and
costuming of Richard. Shakespeares text shows Richard as deformed in both the back and
arm, yet this film has neither. In act one, scene two, Richard interrupts Annes mourning.
She begins to slander Richardss appearance, using important lines that depict Richard as
deformed and villainous. However, in the film version, all the viewer is provided with are
actions. The scene shows Richard, obviously ill intentioned, wooing Anne, yet his
deformities are not present. This disjunction with the text works to undermine the films
integrity. One of the core elements of the play is the spoken element of Richards
appearance, yet this film does not incorporate any of it. The final interesting aspect of this
version is that fact that it is a filmed adaptation of a stage play. Nearly all of the scenes take
place on stage. This is most likely due to the new advent of film, however it does offer
viewers the experience of seeing the stage performance, while still being a film.
After several other interpretations and adaptations, another major performance of

Carlson 30
Richard III starring Laurence Olivier came along. This version was filmed in 1955 and
utilized traditional conventions in films today, such as music, changing locations, and
dramatic action. Oliviers rendition is one the more traditional performances of Richard III,
but it does pose some interesting points for discussion. Although Richard is as Shakespeare
describes him in the text, with a hunchback and a withered arm, his words are different
than those in either the folio or quarto. In the most important speech of the entire play, the
opening soliloquy, Olivier omits original lines, and instead creates several lines of his own.
This creates a disconnect with what some would call the true Shakespeare. This is
interesting because Olivier is considered one of the most iconic Shakespearean performers
of all time. Omitting lines and interjecting different ones reduces the authority of the film.
The costuming in Oliviers version, compared to the other versions, is as close to
Elizabethan and Shakespearean costuming as it gets. This is fairly typical of Oliviers films,
as he seems to be predisposed to getting things as close to the original performance as
possible. This, again, is at odds with the opening speech. Omitting lines and adlibbing
others seems to work against Oliviers traditionalist method of performing Shakespeare.
The most interesting film version in since Oliviers version is the 1995 film, Richard
III, starring Ian McKellen. Since its production, it has generated interest due to its unique
representation of Richard. Not only do his physical appearance and his rhetorical
presentation come into one entity, but they are presented in a way that stirs viewers to
despise him even more than Shakespeare presents him. During Shakespeares time,
Richards costuming would have been as close to what a York king would have worn. Yet in
McKellens version, Richard is depicted as close to a Nazi as possible without explicitly
saying it. The setting of the film is much closer to todays world than Shakespeares, and it

Carlson 31
enables a modern audience to connect on a deeper level.
Jessica Walkers, As Crooked in Thy Manners as Thy Shape: Reshaping Deformity
in Loncraines Richard III, notes that, [this version] suggests both that deformity is an
external sign of evil and that his deformity has caused him to become evil (Walker 155).
Walker comments on McKellens downplay of the physical deformity and focuses on the
moral malignance of Richard, portraying him as a hunchbacked Nazi (Walker 156). This
radical change in Richards appearance brings to life in modern viewers what an audience
would have had during a performance in Shakespeares time. Just as Richard would have
represented a fresh sore for the country of England in 1598, McKellens Nazi Richard
elicits an overpowering sense of dread in todays viewers.
In a similar fashion, Kevin Spacey portrayed Richard as a visually stirring militant
tyrant, in a 2012 stage performance of Richard III at the Old Vic. While not as overstated as
McKellen, this stage performance draws connections to a more modern iteration of what
Richard would have done to audiences four hundred years ago. In an interview on Theater
Talk, in 2012, Spacey talked about the process of assuming such a villainous character. For
inspiration, he talked with disabled veterans about what it was like overcoming disabilities.
Spacey used these conversations in order to understand and embrace what Shakespeares
Richard went through to begin his reign of terror. The costuming also allowed Spacey to
fully invest himself in how Richard would have moved with his deformities. The
performance utilized a special leg brace in order to emphasize the impact his hunchback
would have had on his ability to walk. Using the brace made Richard more physically
monstrous than any other performance had. It allowed Richard to move about the stage
with a crab-like manner, removing some of Richards humanity.

Carlson 32
Modern costuming wasnt only limited to a special brace in Spaceys performance,
either. Just as McKellens version used Nazi costuming, Spaceys Richard was outfitted in
modern military uniform. He donned aviator sunglasses, giving him a rather modern
militant appearance. Large TV monitors were used to aid in the performances overall
modern approach to Shakespeares four hundred year old play. Modernizing the
performance allows audiences to consider the play historically, just as Van Elk suggested
Shakespeare himself tried to do. This approach is only hindered in that it connects the play
to a more modern historical event, not the content of the play itself.
These renditions of Richard III provide researchers visual evidence that Richards
physical body has been synonymous with his rhetorical body. However, with the discovery
of the Kings bones in 2012, the future of Richard IIIs performance becomes unclear. The
text indicates that Richard was hunchbacked and disabled, yet modern science proves that
he was physically able. The scoliosis he suffered from would have only manifested in the
form of uneven shoulders, not a hunched back or withered arm. No matter what modern
performances bring to the discussion of Richard III, presentations of Richard III will always
have to account for the texts inclusion of Richards outward appearacne. They will either
use the misrepresented historical accounts of Richard, or they will use what science has
provided. So what does this new information mean for the play as a whole? Will future
performances reflect the Tudor Myth put forth by Sir Thomas More and his
contemporaries? Does the plays text take precedence over what science has determined to
be inaccurate? The answers to these questions will only be answered in the years to come.

Carlson 33
Works Cited
Anderson, Maxine K. The death of a mind: a study of Shakespeares Richard III. Journal of
Analytical Psychology. 701-716. Academic Search Premier. Web. 18 Oct. 2013.
Eyler, Joshua R. Disability in the Middle Ages Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company,
2010. Print.
Hall, Edward. Hall's Chronicle. London: J. Johnson, 1809. Web.
Holinshed, Raphael. Holinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland. London: J.
Johnson, 1807. Google EBook, 11 May 2012. Web.
Jones, Bryony. Body found under parking lot is King Richard III, scientists prove. CNN.com
5 Feb. 2013. Web.
Jones, Bryony. Richard III: The mystery of the king and the car parking lot. CNN.com 4
Feb. 2013. Web.
Mitchell, David, and Sharon Snyder. Narrative Prosthesis: Disability and the Dependencies of
Discourse. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2000, Print.
More, Thomas. More's History of King Richard III. Ed. J. R. Lumby. Cambridge: U, 1883.
Google EBook, 22 Aug. 2005. Web.
Rhodes, Philip. Physical deformity of Richard III. British Medical Journal. 24-31 (1977)
Web. 18 Oct. 2013.
Richard III: A Royal Pituitary Dwarf?. Lancet 24 Aug. 1991: 480. Academic Search
Premier. Web. 22 Oct. 2013.
Richard III. Dir. Andre Calmettes. Perf. Fredrick Warde. Richard Anne (Wooing Scene from
Richard III ~ Silent Film). Youtube.com, 23 Mar. 2008. Web.
Richard III. Dir. Andre Calmettes. Perf. Fredrick Warde. Richard III - Extract. Youtube.com,

Carlson 34
11 Feb. 2013. Web.
Richard III. Dir. Laurence Olivier. Perf. Laurence Olivier. London Films, 1955. Digital.
Richard III. Dir. Richard Loncraine. Perf. Ian McKellen. United Artists, 1995. Digital.
Richard III. Dir. Sam Mendes. The Old Vic, London. 6 Aug. 2011. Performance.
Schaap Williams, Katherine. Enabling Richard: The Rhetoric of Disability in Richard III.
The Society for Disability Studies. Rutgers. 2013.
Shakespeare, William. "Richard III." The Norton Shakespeare. Ed. Stephen Greenblatt,
Walter Cohen, Jean E. Howard, Katharine Eisaman Maus, and Andrew Gurr. New
York: W.W. Norton, 1997. N. pag. Print.
The Complete Spine. 2012. Osteology, The University of Leicester. University of Leicester Osteology. Web.
The Skeleton Being Excavated. 2012. Osteology, The University of Leicester. University of
Leicester - Osteology. Web.
Tomorrow, and Tomorrow -- Ian McKellen Analyzes Macbeth Speech (1979). Perf. Ian
McKellen. 1979. Youtube.com. 24 May 2013. Web.
Two Vertebrae. 2012. Osteology, The University of Leicester. University of Leicester Osteology. Web.
Unknown. King Richard III. 16th Century. Nation Portrait Gallery, England. Www.npg.org.uk.
National Portrait Gallery. Web.
Van Elk, Martine. Determined To Prove A Villain: Criticism, Pedagogy, And Richard III.
College Literature 34.4(2007): 1-21. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Oct. 2013.
Walker, Jessica. As Crooked In Thy Manners as Thy Shape: Reshaping Deformity in
Loncraines Richard III. Journal Of The Wooden O Symposium 11. (2011): 155-171.

Carlson 35
Academic Search Premier. Web. 22, Oct. 2013.
Wells, Stanley W., and Gary Taylor. William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion. Oxford:
Clarendon Pr., 1987. Print.
X-ray of Royal Collection Portrait. n.d. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.
Http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Web.