Shakespeare vs. Tey: Competing Visions of Richard III
This paper compares Shakespeare's account of Richard III with Josephine Tey's revisionist portrayal in her detective novel The Daughter of Time (1952). Shakespeare depicts Richard as a physically deformed, murderous schemer who kills his way to the throne, while Tey's Inspector Grant investigates the historical record and finds a very different man — kind, generous, and wrongly accused. The paper explores why Shakespeare's account diverges so sharply from the historical evidence, arguing that his artistic conventions, reliance on Tudor chronicles, and dramatic needs shaped a portrait more suited to the stage than to history. It also considers how Tey uses the detective genre to challenge politically motivated myth-making.
- Introduction: Overview of the two competing accounts of Richard III
- Shakespeare's Portrait of Richard III: Shakespeare's depiction of Richard as deformed murderer
- Josephine Tey's Revisionist Account: Tey's Inspector Grant clears Richard of wrongdoing
- Why Shakespeare's Account Differs from History: Dramatic conventions and Tudor sources shaped Shakespeare's Richard
- The Daughter of Time: Plot and Method: Detective-style inquiry dismantles myths about Richard III
- Conclusion: Truth emerges over time, exposing historical myth-making
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper establishes a clear contrasting framework early, setting Shakespeare's account against Tey's revisionist portrait and maintaining that contrast throughout.
- It contextualizes Shakespeare's dramatic conventions — his recurring motifs of physical deformity linked to moral corruption — to explain why his Richard III should not be read as literal history.
- The paper draws on a real historian (Caroline Halsted, 1844) and a secondary scholarly source (Moore, 1995) to lend credibility to its argument that the Shakespearean account was never intended as historical fact.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper employs comparative textual analysis, placing two distinct representations of the same historical figure side by side to reveal how artistic intent, political context, and genre conventions shape historical narrative. By using Tey's detective-novel methodology as a model for historical inquiry, the paper also illustrates how critical reading of primary sources can dismantle long-standing myths.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief statement of purpose, then surveys Shakespeare's depiction of Richard's crimes and character. It pivots to Tey's contrasting portrait before analyzing why Shakespeare's dramatic conventions precluded historical fidelity. A dedicated section traces the scholarly and popular questioning of Shakespeare's accuracy. The paper then summarizes the plot and argumentative method of The Daughter of Time, closing with Tey's central premise that truth emerges over time.
Introduction
Few historical figures have been subject to as radically different portrayals as Richard III. This paper explores the differences between William Shakespeare's account of Richard III and Josephine Tey's account of the same figure, and examines the causes of those differences.
Shakespeare's Portrait of Richard III
Shakespeare's depiction of Richard III has long been the most widely known historical account of the king. He describes Richard as a physically deformed individual whose deformities eat away at his mind and soul, turning him into a loathsome character. Shakespeare also depicts Richard as so consumed by greed for the throne that he embarks on a murderous campaign to seize it.
In Shakespeare's account, Richard kills his own brother George, whose turn it was in the line of succession within the House of York. He also has the queen's brothers, Rivers and Gray, as well as his wife Anne, murdered with the aid of the conspiratorial Buckingham. His most infamous crime, however — the one most often cited and debated — was his alleged order to murder the rightful heirs to the throne: his brother Edward's two young sons.
Josephine Tey's Revisionist Account
In striking contrast to the Shakespearean account stands Josephine Tey's mystery masterwork, The Daughter of Time. The main character, Inspector Grant, a modern-day detective, cuts through the mythology surrounding Richard III and investigates the mystery of the princes' murders. Tey's account reveals some very disturbing differences from the Shakespearean version: 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 attributed to his leniency. Furthermore, the account discredits Richard's role as murderer of his nephews, arguing emphatically that the evidence against him lacks credibility.
Conclusion
The contrast between Shakespeare's Richard III and Tey's Richard III ultimately reflects a broader tension between dramatic narrative and historical inquiry. Shakespeare's dramatic conventions, his reliance on Tudor chronicles, and his artistic preoccupations all shaped a portrait of Richard that served the stage rather than the historical record. Tey, by contrast, uses the detective genre to model the kind of careful, evidence-based reasoning that can recover a more accurate picture of the past. Her work reminds readers that the historical Richard III and Shakespeare's theatrical villain are very different figures, and that myth, once embedded in popular culture, requires persistent scrutiny to dislodge.
References
Moore, James A. (1995). Historicity in Shakespeare's Richard III. Richard III Society. Retrieved March 5, 2002, from
Tey, Josephine. (1952). The daughter of time. New York: Macmillan.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.