Shakespeare's Histories: The Dramatization of Actual People

As an English major, I have to have an opinion about Shakespeare. Personally, I'm a fan of the histories. I like the comedies as much as the next person, but I think that there's some perspective to be gained from reading dramatizations of real (or mostly real) events. I quite like King John and Macbeth (which, in my opinion is both a tragedy and a history), but my favorite Shakespeare play is, without a doubt, Richard III.

While half the fun of Richard III is Richards wile and villainy, I think that a lot of people make a mistake when they assume that Shakespeare's Richard is the same as the historical Richard. I recently wrote a post on my main blog about my evolving opinion of Richard III; to make a long story short, I think that, while Richard made some bad decisions, he wasn't evil. It was hard to be a good guy in England during the War of the Roses. Even the much applauded Edward IV was capable of extreme acts of brutality and even executed his own brother for treason (although he had good reason to do so). Henry VII, who succeeded Richard, ruled with an iron fist, as was evidenced by his Star Chamber Inquisition and steep taxes.

Richard III actually, was by the standards of the time, a pretty good guy up until he disinherited his brother's children and took the crown. He was loyal to Edward IV throughout his entire reign, served his family tirelessly, and, by all accounts, ruled his lands with fairness and justice. In a lot of ways, he was the Stannis Baratheon of the War of the Roses.

Anyway, as has been proved by historians time and time again, Shakespeare is guilty of some serious libel when it comes to Richard III. While this is understandable given that the Tudors did everything in their power to malign his public image and, of course, Shakespeare himself was not alive during his reign and therefore had no frame of reference, it begs the question, when writing about a real person, does the author have any responsibility to respect the truth. Clearly, Shakespeare didn't think so. Of course, works of fiction based on the lives of real people are, at the end of the day, works of fiction, but in my opinion, the author should be judicious when writing about the life of a real subject.

Of course, the opposite is also true. There is a natural tendency to villain some historical figures and glorify others. This is especially prevalent, it seems, in novels about American patriots. I mean, you hear a lot of about George Washington and the cherry tree, but that does not mean he was a perfect person. Everyone has their flaws. I think that Richard III is unique in that he, as a historical figure, ignites both extremes.

Ever since the BBC began airing their new series The White Queen, people have been positively fan girling over Richard III. While this is a nice change of speed for a historical figure that has such a negative reputation, I think that people forget that it is a TV show. There is a lot to be said for the carefully crafted dialogue, meticulous styling, and finding a good looking, mild mannered actor to pull it all together. Actually, I think the actor looks a little bit like Edward Scissorhands. He plays Richard as a sort of soft-spoken, thoughtful guy, who is very levelheaded and tries to do the right as he sees it. Something that will redeem every villain, of course, is romance. The BBC has also done an excellent job of creating a very sweet love story for Richard and Anne Neville.

When compared with the disastrous consequences of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville's romance, Richard and Anne look like a fairy tale match. I think that this redeems him in the eyes of most viewers of the show. Anne is a character in the play, but not a particularly likable character, though she is far from being the most hated character in the play. Richard III is certainly not a romance.

Now, in the wake of a lot of Richard-friendly fiction, The White Queen, and the discovery of Richard's skeleton, I wouldn't be surprised if people were writing fan-fictions about them (actually, I've just checked and they are). I know that, if you search 'Anne Neville and Richard in The White Queen' you get a lot of montages of the two of them staring deep into each other's eyes set to sappy love songs. I have no problem with that, but, while history tells us that Anne and Richard knew each other before they were married and tradition holds that Richard cried at Anne's funeral, I doubt that their marriage was a real 'love match'. Anne was heiress to a rather large fortune and Richard was a royal duke with a lot of political clout, so they both had very good motives for marrying, whether they liked each other or not. But, it's nice to imagine that they liked each other.

So, as much as I like Shakespeare, and as much as I like The White Queen, I think that it's important to remember that neither of these is really an accurate portrayal of the real person. It is tempting to subscribe to Shakespeare's world view though; he's so clever with words: "Now is the winter of our discontent/ made glorious summer by this son of York." Get it? Son versus sun. Puns and Shakespeare make the world go 'round: the words of a true English major.

Just readin'