(It’s best to read Parts One, Two, Three, Four and Five and ‘A Synopsis’ first)
Queen Elizabeth hated warfare. She thought it was a waste of money and a waste of life. She had no interest in attacking other countries and would only allow armies to be mobilised if England itself was attacked.
The Earls of Essex and Southampton hated peace. They thought it made men ‘hate one another’ because they ‘less need one another’. ‘It begot plenty, plenty pride, pride distain and disdain strife’. War, they believed, was ‘an agent of civilization’ and ‘the school of tolerance’.
So when Richard III, in his opening soliloquy, criticises the effeminacy of peacetime (when ‘grim-visaged war’ is reduced to capering ‘nimbly in a lady’s chamber’), many Elizabethans would have agreed with him. And not just the men.
War is ‘grim-visaged’ and so is King Richard himself. That’s why he feels at home on the field of battle. (He has already proved himself a valiant warrior at Tewksbury before the play starts).
But peace, he thinks, makes him look like a monster. So he behaves like one.
Shakespeare’s genius is to show, at the Battle of Bosworth Field, all Richard’s positive qualities flooding back: his courage, comradeship, defiance and wit. He cheers the hearts of his soldiers, is utterly professional in his preparations and in battle ‘enacts more wonders than a man’.
Indeed, if Richmond (later Henry VII, Queen Elizabeth’s grandfather) had not filled the battle field with look-alike ‘Richmonds’ (five of whom King Richard slays) the Battle could well have gone the other way.
Note: Shakespeare himself invents these sneaky ‘look-alikes’. Would he have done that if the intention of the play was to justify the Tudor claim to the throne?
War even brings out a poetic sensibility in the hunch-backed King. On the eve of battle he urges the Duke of Norfolk to make sure he is safely guarded in his tent, then adds:
Stir with the lark tomorrow, gentle Norfolk
To which the Duke, with loyalty and affection, responds:
I warrant you, my lord…
Leave a Reply