Shakespeare\'s Richard III and Tey\'s Richard III

¶ … SHAKESPEARE'S RICHARD III AND TEY'S RICHARD III

This paper explores the differences between Shakespeare's account of Richard III and Josephine Tey's Account of the same. The paper reasons out the causes of differences.

COMPARISON OF SHAKESPEARE'S RICHARD III AND TEY'S RICHARD III

Shakespeare's descriptions of Richard III have been the most popular historical account.

He describes Richard to be a physically deformed individual with his deformities eating away at his mind and soul turning him into a loathsome character. Moreover, he depicts Richard to be greedy for throne so much so that he went about on a murdering spree. In Shakespeare's account, Richard killed his own brother George whose turn it was in the line of succession within the House of York. Moreover, he had the queen's brothers, Rivers and Gray and his wife Anne murdered too with the aid of the conspiratorial Buckingham. But, as depicted by Shakespeare, his most infamous and popular and much touted crime was the order to murder the rightful heirs to the throne, his brother Edward's two young sons.

In striking contrast to the Shakespearean account, stands Josephine Tey's mystery masterwork, 'The Daughter of Time.' The main character of this detective work, Inspector Grant, a modern day detective, perpetrates the mythology around Richard III and deciphers the mystery of the murders of the princes. The account also reveals some very disturbing differences; Richard had no profound physical deformities. He was a kind, generous and loyal man and a wise and merciful ruler so much so that his downfall is ascribed to his leniency. Moreover the account discredits Richard's position as a murderer of his nephews as it emphatically states that there is no credibility to the evidence of Richard being a murderer.

Shakespeare's portrayal of Richard III should not come as a surprise to an ordinary reader because he was more of an artist and a writer than a historian. Shakespearean plays have certain characteristics that are common to all. Shakespeare uses his own ideals to convey his innermost thoughts. For example, in all of his plays he seems to be against the morality and displays. This, in turn, is represented by some twist in physical appearance, such as 'Richard III's hunchback, Edmund's illegitimacy, or Macbeth's dwarfish appearance' (Moore, 1995). In the same manner, his characters have got to go through the typical route of struggle, rise, triumph and fall. All of this is found in his account of Richard, the third. It is quite natural to believe that this play was no exception. Hence it had all his trappings and little relevance to history.

Time and again, writers and general public alike have questioned the historical accuracy of the Shakespearean account of Richard. In 1986, Mary Miller cited a certain book by the name of Tower of London as historically inaccurate. To such a citation, she received an inquiry asking her what she thought of the accuracy of Shakespeare's work on Richard III. This goes to show that the general readers are still confused over mythologies surrounding Richard. Though in 1844, Caroline Halsted (Moore, 1995), a historian declared that Shakespeare's plays were not to be taken literally. His plays, she argued, were more for entertainment rather than statement of historical facts. She furthermore stated that knowledgeable historians should be able to distinguish the facts from Shakespeare's characteristics of playwriting. Her analysis of Shakespeare's characterization of Richard in the Henry VI plays was in a step-by-step manner. She added that Shakespeare introduced anachronisms all of his own and rather decorated Richard's image by bringing in details from some chronicles (Moore, 1995). At another place, it has been stated that Shakespeare's material for the play came from the Tudor chronicles. Hence in the same vein, Josephine Tey wrote the book to clear up myths surrounding Richard III.