RICHARD III: VILLAIN OR VICTIM
Richard III, the last king of the House of York and the last of the Plantagenet dynasty, is remembered in history as a villainous murderer and a scheming hunchback. In this paper we will attempt to prove that Shakespeare’s depiction of Richard III was based on biased sources of information and was a part of Tudor political propaganda in order to defile the monarch’s reputation for generations to come.
In arguing that Richard III was more of a victim rather than a villain, we will use the following method. First, we are going to look at the political landscape of the time when Shakespeare wrote his play. Second, we will identify and evaluate the credibility of Shakespeare’s sources of information about Richard III. Third, we will trace theatrical and literature tradition that Shakespeare based his Richard III’s character on. Forth, we will look at how Shakespeare portrayed Richard III. Finally, we will look at archeological and historical discoveries of the present.
Shakespeare wrote Richard III – the fourth play in his Yorkist Tetralogy – some time between 1592 and the end of 1593 (from 28 June 1592 till the end of 1593 all London theatres were closed because of the plague)[1]. This period of time is known as Elizabethan era. It is named after the Virgin Queen Elizabeth I of England. Elizabeth I was the last monarch of the Tudor dynasty. The Tudors were preceded by the Plantagenet dynasty – the longest ruling English dynasty. The Plantagenets separated into two rivalry Houses – the House of Lancaster and the House of York – fighting for the throne in the War of the Roses. The War of the Roses as well as the rule of the Plantagenets came to an end with the death of Richard III who was killed on the battlefield by Henry Tudor, the founder the Tudor dynasty that ruled England for 117 years and whose last representative was Henry Tudor’s granddaughter Elizabeth I[2].
For 117 years politics and culture were censored by Tudor propaganda. Henry was a usurper being only remotely related to the royal bloodline (the House of Lancaster), so it was only logical for him after he seized the throne to strengthen his claim by presenting Richard III and his reign as a usurpation of the English throne. That was done through historical chronicles: the Anglica Historia by Polydore Vergil (1516, published in 1534), The History of King Richard the Third by Sir Thomas More (published by Rastell in 1557), Chronicles of Holinshed (1577), The Union of the Houses of Lancaster and York of Hall (1548), Grafton’s Chronicle at large (1569) and Grafton’s prose continuation of Hardyng’s verse Chronicle (1543); and Shakespeare’s play Richard III[3]. Shakespeare helped elevate Richard's reputation of probably the most sinister king in the English history to the new heights: Richard is a scheming murderer who plots the deaths of those standing in his way to the throne including his two innocent nephews, Edward and Richard (the Princes in the Tower controversy). Richard’s evil nature is reflected in his bodily deformities.
In the Middle Ages, it was a widely spread belief that physical deformity signified an evil person that was born from the devil. In the play Richard is described as the ‘poisonous bunch-backed toad’[4] and is referred to as a devil numerous times:
Anne. Alas, I blame you not, for you are mortal,
And mortal eyes cannot endure the devil.
Avaunt, thou dreadful minister of hell[5].
Anne. O, wonderful, when devils tell the truth![6]
Queen Margaret. (aside) Out, devil! I do remember them too well:[7]
It is believed that that myth of Richard’s physical deformity originated from John Rous, a Warwickshire priest, who wrote in his History of England: “Richard of York ... was retained within his mother's womb for two years, emerging with teeth and hair to his shoulders... like a scorpion he combined a smooth front with a stinging tail. He was small of stature, with a short face and unequal shoulders, the right higher and the left lower...“[8]. One has to bear in mind, though, that it was written shortly after Richard’s death in 1485 so this description was most likely tainted by Tudor supporters. Thomas More wrote that Richard “… was little of stature, ill fetured of limmes, croke backed, his left shoulder much higher than his right, hard favoured of visage... he came into the worlde with the feete forwarde ... and also not untothed”[9]. Vergil, Henry VII’s historian, wrote about Richard’s appearance: “He was lyttle of stature, deformyd of body, thone showlder being higher than thother, a short and sowre cowntenance, which semyd to savor of mischief and utter evydently craft and deceyt”[10]. A different picture is painted by descriptions dating before Richard’s death. Archibald Whitelaw, archdeacon of Lothian and James’s III of Scotland ambassador to Richard’s court wrote in 1484: “Never has so much spirit or greater virtue reigned in such a small body”[11]. A travelling knight from Silesia wrote in 1484: “King Richard is … a high-born prince, three fingers taller than I, but a bit slimmer and not as thickset as I am, and much more lightly built; he has quite slender arms and thighs, and also a great heart”[12]. Shakespeare must have over-exaggerated king’s minor appearance faults in order to create an archetypical Machiavellian prince, and at the same time please those in power.
Interestingly, the way Richard III was portrayed in the paintings was also censored to fit the widely spread Tudor propaganda. His physical flaws were over-exaggerated; facial features were altered in the original paintings to make Richard look mean and devilish. “The king's right shoulder was made to look higher than his left by extending the gown and the jeweled collar on that side a little further upwards. An X-radiograph of the painting … also revealed that lower edge of Richard's eye has been slightly raised and straightened. Also, the outline of the nose have been enlarged a little and that the mouth has been tampered with in order to make the lips look thinner. Without doubt these alterations were made with the intention to bringing it [portrait] more into line with the early Tudor view of Richard as a deformed villain.”[13]
As it was mentioned above, Richard III is a fourth play in a set of four – tetralogy. Classical Greek tetralogy is composed of three tragedies followed by a satyr play written by the same playwright for the City Dionysia competition. The fact that Richard III is one of Shakespeare’s earlier plays means that Shakespeare was still in-sync with certain dramaturgical and theatrical traditions while developing his own style. As Theodore Weiss wrote while analyzing dramaturgical value of the play: “At the same time we must realize that in his very triumph of excess Richard is serving, unknown to himself, an end much greater than his own … [This] is indeed a kind of satyr play … Like a Dionysian satyr, rending all in his riotous path, Richard in the end … must be torn to pieces, sacrificed in the way he has sacrificed others”[14]. Another fact that speaks to the idea that Richard III is a sort of satyr play – tragicomedy – is that Richard’s character has traces of the Vice character indigenous to Medieval morality plays. In Act III scene one Richard says talking to Prince Edward:
Thus, like the formal Vice, Iniquity, I moralize two meanings in one word[15].
Etymologically vice means moral fault, wickedness, and comes from Latin vitium – “defect, offense, blemish, imperfection," in both physical and moral senses[16]. Shakespeare’s Richard truly is the personification of physical and moral faults, a villain. In Act I scene one in his soliloquy Richard proclaims:
I am determined to prove a villain[17].
There’s no argument that Richard III is the allegorical embodiment of vice. But what does he mean saying “two meanings”? What is the second meaning of vice?
The Vice character originated well before religious morality drama. He came into medieval drama from the popular festivals. The Vice was a well-developed and well established clown character, a jester that could be called by names other than Vice (Avarice, Desire, Sin, Courage, etc.[18]). The Vice was one of the audience’s favorite characters. The person playing the Vice was, as a rule, one of the major actors in the company (Richard Burbage played Richard III in Shakespeare’s company), and he had some of the longest parts. The Vice’s job was to keep the audience entertained. He also often told the audience beforehand what was about to happen in the play[19]. Richard has all those characteristics in the play. His part is surely the longest one. Although he is a major villain scheming his way to the crown the audience has a feeling of being co-conspirators when Richard lets them into his plans:
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 Edward’s heirs the murderer shall be.
Dive, thoughts, down to my soul. Here Clarence comes[20].
Even though the audience may not approve of Richard’s means and is most likely appalled by his plotting it still is attracted to his evil persona. Legend has it that “a woman fell in love with Burbage when she saw him play Richard III and begged him to come to her chambers that night under the name of King Richard” to role play[21]. Most likely she fell in love with Richard III’s darkness and not Burbage.
There are elements of comic relief that Shakespeare makes use of in the play despite the overall tragic gloom. Richard is witty and funny, he makes hideous acts and murders look less of a tragedy. As Grant B. Mindle writes in his essay Shakespeare’s Demonic Prince: “Robbed of their dignity, their deaths are no tragedy. Richard’s victims are first made into fools and then into corpses to the delight of his audience”[22]. For example, the murder of his brother George, Duke of Clarence feels like the just act of punishment delivered when George admits to having murdered Edward, Prince of Wales, and tries to justify it:
Alas! For whose sake did I that ill deed?
For Edward, for my brother, for his sake.
He sends you not to murder me for this,
For in that sin he is as deep as I.
If God will be avengèd for this deed,
O, know you yet He doth it publicly!
Take not the quarrel from His powerful arm;
He needs no indirect or lawless course
To cut off those that have offended Him[23].
Lady Anne looks like a complete fool by the end of the conversation with Richard. She curses him, his future kids and his future wife – herself – unknowingly:
O, cursèd be the hand that made these holes;
Cursèd the heart that had the heart to do it;
Cursèd the blood that let this blood from hence.
…
If ever he have child, abortive be it,
Prodigious, and untimely brought to light,
Whose ugly and unnatural aspect
May fright the hopeful mother at the view,
And that be heir to his unhappiness.
If ever he have wife, let her be made
More miserable by the death of him
Than I am made by my poor lord and thee![24]
After that prolific cursing spree she lets Richard charm her into becoming his wife.
Hastings is another fool who unknowingly brings death upon himself:
To doom th' offenders, whosoe'er they be.
I say, my lord, they have deservèd death.[25]
It seems as if Richard only does what others beg him to do: kill them, and it feels just.
Shakespeare plays with two different components of the Vice character: moral and clownish and does a great job marrying them.
To conclude, Shakespeare’s portrayal of Richard Ill and his reign has contributed immensely to molding the public opinion of Richard. Whether Shakespeare was aware or not that his sources of information – historical chronicles – were tempered with and falsified is unclear. Shakespeare was not a historian or a chronicler but a dramaturgist. His primary goal was to create entertaining popular plays (judging from the amount of Quartos (6) Richard III was one of the most popular and longest-running plays in Shakespearian Globe), thus the historical inaccuracies should be expected. It also opens a door to trying to correct some of them in production.
Works Cited
1. “English monarchs.” 12 Dec. 2012. Web. 12 Dec. 2012. <http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk>.
2. Hammond, Carolyn. Richard III. The Portraiture of Richard III by Frederick Hepburn, 16 Dec. 2012. Web. 16 Dec. 2012 <http://www.richardiii.net/r3_man_portraits.htm>.
3. Hammond, Carolyn. Richard III. Richard III’s Appearance, 16 Dec. 2012. Web. 16 Dec. 2012 <http://www.richardiii.net/r3_cont_appearance.htm>.
4. Hanham, Alison. Richard III and his early Historians, 1483-1535. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975. Print.
5. Mares, Francis Hugh. “The Origin of the Figure Called "The Vice" in Tudor Drama.” Huntington Library Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 1 Nov. 1958. University of California Press. Print.
6. Mindle, Grant B. “Shakespeare’s Demonic Prince,” Interpretation 20, No. 3. Spring 1993. Print.
7. Shakespeare, William. Richard III. London: Cambridge University Press, 1968. Print.
8. Srinivasan, Archana. “16th and 17th Century English Writers.” Publishers, 2006. Print.
9. “Vice,” Online Etymology Dictionary, 2001-2012. Web. 15 Dec. 2012. <http://www.etymonline.com/ >.
10. Weiss, Theodore. The Breath of Clowns and Kings: Shakespeare’s Early Comedies and Histories. New York: Atheneum, 1971. Print.
[1] William Shakespeare, Richard III (London: Cambridge U.P., 1968) x.
[2] “English monarchs,” 12 Dec. 2012 <http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk>.
[3] William Shakespeare, Richard III (London: Cambridge U.P., 1968) xi-xiv.
[4] Richard III I, iii, 11.
[5] Richard III I, ii, 45-47.
[6] Richard III I, ii, 74.
[7] Richard III I, iii, 119.
[8] Alison Hanham, Richard III and his early Historians, 1483-1535 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975) 120, 121.
[9] Carolyn Hammond, “Richard III’s Appearance”, Richard III, 16 Dec. 2012, 16 Dec. 2012 <http://www.richardiii.net/r3_cont_appearance.htm>.
[10] Carolyn Hammond.
[11] Carolyn Hammond.
[12] Carolyn Hammond.
[13] Carolyn Hammond, “The Portraiture of Richard III by Frederick Hepburn”, Richard III, 16 Dec. 2012, 16 Dec. 2012 <http://www.richardiii.net/r3_man_portraits.htm>.
[14] Theodore Weiss, The Breath of Clowns and Kings: Shakespeare’s Early Comedies and Histories (New York: Atheneum, 1971) 159, 200.
[15] Richard III III, i, 61.
[16] “Vice,” Online Etymology Dictionary, 2001-2012.
[17] Richard III I, i, 6.
[18] Francis Hugh Mares, The Origin of the Figure Called "The Vice" in Tudor Drama (University of California Press, 1958) 12.
[19] Francis Hugh Mares, 14.
[20] Richard III I, i, 6.
[21] Archana Srinivasan, 16th and 17th Century English Writers (Publishers, 2006) 21.
[22] Grant B. Mindle, “Shakespeare’s Demonic Prince,” Interpretation 20, no. 3 Spring 1993: 206.
[23] Richard III I, iv, 39.
[24] Richard III I, ii, 11.
[25] Richard III III, iv, 73.
Richard III, the last king of the House of York and the last of the Plantagenet dynasty, is remembered in history as a villainous murderer and a scheming hunchback. In this paper we will attempt to prove that Shakespeare’s depiction of Richard III was based on biased sources of information and was a part of Tudor political propaganda in order to defile the monarch’s reputation for generations to come.
In arguing that Richard III was more of a victim rather than a villain, we will use the following method. First, we are going to look at the political landscape of the time when Shakespeare wrote his play. Second, we will identify and evaluate the credibility of Shakespeare’s sources of information about Richard III. Third, we will trace theatrical and literature tradition that Shakespeare based his Richard III’s character on. Forth, we will look at how Shakespeare portrayed Richard III. Finally, we will look at archeological and historical discoveries of the present.
Shakespeare wrote Richard III – the fourth play in his Yorkist Tetralogy – some time between 1592 and the end of 1593 (from 28 June 1592 till the end of 1593 all London theatres were closed because of the plague)[1]. This period of time is known as Elizabethan era. It is named after the Virgin Queen Elizabeth I of England. Elizabeth I was the last monarch of the Tudor dynasty. The Tudors were preceded by the Plantagenet dynasty – the longest ruling English dynasty. The Plantagenets separated into two rivalry Houses – the House of Lancaster and the House of York – fighting for the throne in the War of the Roses. The War of the Roses as well as the rule of the Plantagenets came to an end with the death of Richard III who was killed on the battlefield by Henry Tudor, the founder the Tudor dynasty that ruled England for 117 years and whose last representative was Henry Tudor’s granddaughter Elizabeth I[2].
For 117 years politics and culture were censored by Tudor propaganda. Henry was a usurper being only remotely related to the royal bloodline (the House of Lancaster), so it was only logical for him after he seized the throne to strengthen his claim by presenting Richard III and his reign as a usurpation of the English throne. That was done through historical chronicles: the Anglica Historia by Polydore Vergil (1516, published in 1534), The History of King Richard the Third by Sir Thomas More (published by Rastell in 1557), Chronicles of Holinshed (1577), The Union of the Houses of Lancaster and York of Hall (1548), Grafton’s Chronicle at large (1569) and Grafton’s prose continuation of Hardyng’s verse Chronicle (1543); and Shakespeare’s play Richard III[3]. Shakespeare helped elevate Richard's reputation of probably the most sinister king in the English history to the new heights: Richard is a scheming murderer who plots the deaths of those standing in his way to the throne including his two innocent nephews, Edward and Richard (the Princes in the Tower controversy). Richard’s evil nature is reflected in his bodily deformities.
In the Middle Ages, it was a widely spread belief that physical deformity signified an evil person that was born from the devil. In the play Richard is described as the ‘poisonous bunch-backed toad’[4] and is referred to as a devil numerous times:
Anne. Alas, I blame you not, for you are mortal,
And mortal eyes cannot endure the devil.
Avaunt, thou dreadful minister of hell[5].
Anne. O, wonderful, when devils tell the truth![6]
Queen Margaret. (aside) Out, devil! I do remember them too well:[7]
It is believed that that myth of Richard’s physical deformity originated from John Rous, a Warwickshire priest, who wrote in his History of England: “Richard of York ... was retained within his mother's womb for two years, emerging with teeth and hair to his shoulders... like a scorpion he combined a smooth front with a stinging tail. He was small of stature, with a short face and unequal shoulders, the right higher and the left lower...“[8]. One has to bear in mind, though, that it was written shortly after Richard’s death in 1485 so this description was most likely tainted by Tudor supporters. Thomas More wrote that Richard “… was little of stature, ill fetured of limmes, croke backed, his left shoulder much higher than his right, hard favoured of visage... he came into the worlde with the feete forwarde ... and also not untothed”[9]. Vergil, Henry VII’s historian, wrote about Richard’s appearance: “He was lyttle of stature, deformyd of body, thone showlder being higher than thother, a short and sowre cowntenance, which semyd to savor of mischief and utter evydently craft and deceyt”[10]. A different picture is painted by descriptions dating before Richard’s death. Archibald Whitelaw, archdeacon of Lothian and James’s III of Scotland ambassador to Richard’s court wrote in 1484: “Never has so much spirit or greater virtue reigned in such a small body”[11]. A travelling knight from Silesia wrote in 1484: “King Richard is … a high-born prince, three fingers taller than I, but a bit slimmer and not as thickset as I am, and much more lightly built; he has quite slender arms and thighs, and also a great heart”[12]. Shakespeare must have over-exaggerated king’s minor appearance faults in order to create an archetypical Machiavellian prince, and at the same time please those in power.
Interestingly, the way Richard III was portrayed in the paintings was also censored to fit the widely spread Tudor propaganda. His physical flaws were over-exaggerated; facial features were altered in the original paintings to make Richard look mean and devilish. “The king's right shoulder was made to look higher than his left by extending the gown and the jeweled collar on that side a little further upwards. An X-radiograph of the painting … also revealed that lower edge of Richard's eye has been slightly raised and straightened. Also, the outline of the nose have been enlarged a little and that the mouth has been tampered with in order to make the lips look thinner. Without doubt these alterations were made with the intention to bringing it [portrait] more into line with the early Tudor view of Richard as a deformed villain.”[13]
As it was mentioned above, Richard III is a fourth play in a set of four – tetralogy. Classical Greek tetralogy is composed of three tragedies followed by a satyr play written by the same playwright for the City Dionysia competition. The fact that Richard III is one of Shakespeare’s earlier plays means that Shakespeare was still in-sync with certain dramaturgical and theatrical traditions while developing his own style. As Theodore Weiss wrote while analyzing dramaturgical value of the play: “At the same time we must realize that in his very triumph of excess Richard is serving, unknown to himself, an end much greater than his own … [This] is indeed a kind of satyr play … Like a Dionysian satyr, rending all in his riotous path, Richard in the end … must be torn to pieces, sacrificed in the way he has sacrificed others”[14]. Another fact that speaks to the idea that Richard III is a sort of satyr play – tragicomedy – is that Richard’s character has traces of the Vice character indigenous to Medieval morality plays. In Act III scene one Richard says talking to Prince Edward:
Thus, like the formal Vice, Iniquity, I moralize two meanings in one word[15].
Etymologically vice means moral fault, wickedness, and comes from Latin vitium – “defect, offense, blemish, imperfection," in both physical and moral senses[16]. Shakespeare’s Richard truly is the personification of physical and moral faults, a villain. In Act I scene one in his soliloquy Richard proclaims:
I am determined to prove a villain[17].
There’s no argument that Richard III is the allegorical embodiment of vice. But what does he mean saying “two meanings”? What is the second meaning of vice?
The Vice character originated well before religious morality drama. He came into medieval drama from the popular festivals. The Vice was a well-developed and well established clown character, a jester that could be called by names other than Vice (Avarice, Desire, Sin, Courage, etc.[18]). The Vice was one of the audience’s favorite characters. The person playing the Vice was, as a rule, one of the major actors in the company (Richard Burbage played Richard III in Shakespeare’s company), and he had some of the longest parts. The Vice’s job was to keep the audience entertained. He also often told the audience beforehand what was about to happen in the play[19]. Richard has all those characteristics in the play. His part is surely the longest one. Although he is a major villain scheming his way to the crown the audience has a feeling of being co-conspirators when Richard lets them into his plans:
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 Edward’s heirs the murderer shall be.
Dive, thoughts, down to my soul. Here Clarence comes[20].
Even though the audience may not approve of Richard’s means and is most likely appalled by his plotting it still is attracted to his evil persona. Legend has it that “a woman fell in love with Burbage when she saw him play Richard III and begged him to come to her chambers that night under the name of King Richard” to role play[21]. Most likely she fell in love with Richard III’s darkness and not Burbage.
There are elements of comic relief that Shakespeare makes use of in the play despite the overall tragic gloom. Richard is witty and funny, he makes hideous acts and murders look less of a tragedy. As Grant B. Mindle writes in his essay Shakespeare’s Demonic Prince: “Robbed of their dignity, their deaths are no tragedy. Richard’s victims are first made into fools and then into corpses to the delight of his audience”[22]. For example, the murder of his brother George, Duke of Clarence feels like the just act of punishment delivered when George admits to having murdered Edward, Prince of Wales, and tries to justify it:
Alas! For whose sake did I that ill deed?
For Edward, for my brother, for his sake.
He sends you not to murder me for this,
For in that sin he is as deep as I.
If God will be avengèd for this deed,
O, know you yet He doth it publicly!
Take not the quarrel from His powerful arm;
He needs no indirect or lawless course
To cut off those that have offended Him[23].
Lady Anne looks like a complete fool by the end of the conversation with Richard. She curses him, his future kids and his future wife – herself – unknowingly:
O, cursèd be the hand that made these holes;
Cursèd the heart that had the heart to do it;
Cursèd the blood that let this blood from hence.
…
If ever he have child, abortive be it,
Prodigious, and untimely brought to light,
Whose ugly and unnatural aspect
May fright the hopeful mother at the view,
And that be heir to his unhappiness.
If ever he have wife, let her be made
More miserable by the death of him
Than I am made by my poor lord and thee![24]
After that prolific cursing spree she lets Richard charm her into becoming his wife.
Hastings is another fool who unknowingly brings death upon himself:
To doom th' offenders, whosoe'er they be.
I say, my lord, they have deservèd death.[25]
It seems as if Richard only does what others beg him to do: kill them, and it feels just.
Shakespeare plays with two different components of the Vice character: moral and clownish and does a great job marrying them.
To conclude, Shakespeare’s portrayal of Richard Ill and his reign has contributed immensely to molding the public opinion of Richard. Whether Shakespeare was aware or not that his sources of information – historical chronicles – were tempered with and falsified is unclear. Shakespeare was not a historian or a chronicler but a dramaturgist. His primary goal was to create entertaining popular plays (judging from the amount of Quartos (6) Richard III was one of the most popular and longest-running plays in Shakespearian Globe), thus the historical inaccuracies should be expected. It also opens a door to trying to correct some of them in production.
Works Cited
1. “English monarchs.” 12 Dec. 2012. Web. 12 Dec. 2012. <http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk>.
2. Hammond, Carolyn. Richard III. The Portraiture of Richard III by Frederick Hepburn, 16 Dec. 2012. Web. 16 Dec. 2012 <http://www.richardiii.net/r3_man_portraits.htm>.
3. Hammond, Carolyn. Richard III. Richard III’s Appearance, 16 Dec. 2012. Web. 16 Dec. 2012 <http://www.richardiii.net/r3_cont_appearance.htm>.
4. Hanham, Alison. Richard III and his early Historians, 1483-1535. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975. Print.
5. Mares, Francis Hugh. “The Origin of the Figure Called "The Vice" in Tudor Drama.” Huntington Library Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 1 Nov. 1958. University of California Press. Print.
6. Mindle, Grant B. “Shakespeare’s Demonic Prince,” Interpretation 20, No. 3. Spring 1993. Print.
7. Shakespeare, William. Richard III. London: Cambridge University Press, 1968. Print.
8. Srinivasan, Archana. “16th and 17th Century English Writers.” Publishers, 2006. Print.
9. “Vice,” Online Etymology Dictionary, 2001-2012. Web. 15 Dec. 2012. <http://www.etymonline.com/ >.
10. Weiss, Theodore. The Breath of Clowns and Kings: Shakespeare’s Early Comedies and Histories. New York: Atheneum, 1971. Print.
[1] William Shakespeare, Richard III (London: Cambridge U.P., 1968) x.
[2] “English monarchs,” 12 Dec. 2012 <http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk>.
[3] William Shakespeare, Richard III (London: Cambridge U.P., 1968) xi-xiv.
[4] Richard III I, iii, 11.
[5] Richard III I, ii, 45-47.
[6] Richard III I, ii, 74.
[7] Richard III I, iii, 119.
[8] Alison Hanham, Richard III and his early Historians, 1483-1535 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975) 120, 121.
[9] Carolyn Hammond, “Richard III’s Appearance”, Richard III, 16 Dec. 2012, 16 Dec. 2012 <http://www.richardiii.net/r3_cont_appearance.htm>.
[10] Carolyn Hammond.
[11] Carolyn Hammond.
[12] Carolyn Hammond.
[13] Carolyn Hammond, “The Portraiture of Richard III by Frederick Hepburn”, Richard III, 16 Dec. 2012, 16 Dec. 2012 <http://www.richardiii.net/r3_man_portraits.htm>.
[14] Theodore Weiss, The Breath of Clowns and Kings: Shakespeare’s Early Comedies and Histories (New York: Atheneum, 1971) 159, 200.
[15] Richard III III, i, 61.
[16] “Vice,” Online Etymology Dictionary, 2001-2012.
[17] Richard III I, i, 6.
[18] Francis Hugh Mares, The Origin of the Figure Called "The Vice" in Tudor Drama (University of California Press, 1958) 12.
[19] Francis Hugh Mares, 14.
[20] Richard III I, i, 6.
[21] Archana Srinivasan, 16th and 17th Century English Writers (Publishers, 2006) 21.
[22] Grant B. Mindle, “Shakespeare’s Demonic Prince,” Interpretation 20, no. 3 Spring 1993: 206.
[23] Richard III I, iv, 39.
[24] Richard III I, ii, 11.
[25] Richard III III, iv, 73.