Shakespeare vs. Tey: Competing Visions of Richard III

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 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.

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.

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. His plays share certain characteristics common to all his works. Shakespeare uses his own ideals to convey his innermost thoughts — for example, in many of his plays he appears preoccupied with questions of morality, and this concern is often 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 follow a typical arc of struggle, rise, triumph, and fall. All of these elements are present in his account of Richard III. It is quite natural to conclude that this play was no exception, and that it carried all of his dramatic conventions with little concern for historical fidelity.

Time and again, writers and the general public have questioned the historical accuracy of Shakespeare's account of Richard. In 1986, Mary Miller cited a certain book titled Tower of London as historically inaccurate, and in response received an inquiry asking what she thought of the accuracy of Shakespeare's own work on Richard III — a telling exchange that shows how confused readers remain about the mythologies surrounding the king.

As early as 1844, the historian Caroline Halsted declared that Shakespeare's plays were not to be taken literally (Moore, 1995). His plays, she argued, were written for entertainment rather than as statements of historical fact, and knowledgeable historians should be able to distinguish the facts from Shakespeare's characteristic playwriting conventions. Her analysis of Shakespeare's characterization of Richard in the Henry VI plays proceeded step by step. She noted that Shakespeare introduced anachronisms of his own invention and embellished Richard's image by incorporating details drawn from certain chronicles (Moore, 1995). It has similarly been observed that Shakespeare's material for the play came from the Tudor chronicles — chronicles that were themselves politically motivated. It is in this context that Josephine Tey wrote her book: to clear up the myths surrounding Richard III.