Richard in Richard III is, next to Iago in Othello, often considered the most treacherous and manipulative Shakespearean character to have appeared on the early modern English stage. Physically deformed, jealous, maniacal, cruel, and power-hungry, Richard represents everything that would have been detested in an English monarch, and it is thus no surprise that the common people are the first to turn on him. However, historians maintain that the actual Richard III was by all accounts a respected and progressive ruler who, though he may have suffered from scoliosis, was not plagued by a deformity that would have drastically altered his appearance.
Why, then, is Shakespeare's Richard so repulsive? While critics can only speculate about authorial intent, Richard's exaggerated foulness likely stems from a number of political, social, and theatrical motivations: first, the play is interested in exploring the appeal and seductive nature of evil as one of its major themes. Indeed, audiences watch as a number of supposedly rational characters are won over by Richard's persuasive rhetoric, even characters who expressed disgust toward him earlier in the play. That the audience sees Richard as so malicious makes these "triumphs" of his more perplexing, but ultimately raises the question for the audience of how evil actually manifests in the world.
Second, and more important, Richard III was the last king on the throne before the birth of the Tudor dynasty. When Richmond defeats Richard on the battlefield, he becomes King Henry VII, the first Tudor king in English history. At the time the play was written, Queen Elizabeth I – Henry VII's granddaughter – occupied the throne, and playwrights had to gain her favor through their performances in order to maintain their careers. Thus, many have argued that the villainy of Richard III serves as a setup to the prosperity and peace brought on by the Tudors, one of whom was still ruling the country at the time Shakespeare was writing. In this way, the play intervenes in the historical narrative to craft a more socially acceptable and entertaining take on the evolution of English monarchs. It also, then, raises the question of what constitutes a history play, and to what extent playwrights could embellish historical narratives for the purpose of entertainment or – as is likely the case with Richard III – rewriting history altogether.
