Бричка Максим RICHARD III BY WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE IN THE ELIZABETHAN POLITICAL CONTEXT

 

Brychka M. I.

PhD student, Department of Foreign and Slavic Literatures,

Shevchenko Institute of Literature,

National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine

 

Academic supervisor: Torkut N. M., Doctor of Philological Sciences, Professor,

Senior Research Fellow,

Shevchenko Institute of Literature,

National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine

 

Richard III by William Shakespeare in the Elizabethan Political Context

 

The accession of Elizabeth Tudor in 1559 was highly dramatic. Just after the execution of her mother (Anna Boleyn), Henry VIII declared her illegitimate, and when she was 10 (1543), he restored her to the line of succession. In 1570 Pope Pius V issued the bull Regnans in Excelsis, declaring her «the pretended Queen of England and the servant of crime», excommunicating her from the Catholic Church and labeling as a heretic [3]. This biographical and political context significantly complicated her position as a claimant to the throne and made the issue of symbolic and ideological legitimization of authority decisive for the stability of her reign. British historian David Loades captured the full complexity of the young Elizabeth’s situation, noting that «to bring a divided country together, she needed to be popular; to re-establish its sense of identity, she needed to distance herself from her sister; to gain political credibility, she needed to be sober and discreet; to gain the maximum advantage from her gender, she needed to be aloof and fascinating, with a hint of coquetry. The question of marriage brought all these disparate elements together in one problem of fearsome complexity» [2, p. 18]

Moreover, the situation was worsened by the presence of claimants to the throne, such as Mary Stuart and others, as well as the notorious reign of Mary I Tudor (1516–1558). Known in historiography as «Bloody Mary», she conducted the policy of violent re-Catholicization that caused deep societal divisions and intensified confessional tensions. At the time of Elizabeth I’s accession, a conflict between two irreconcilable camps – the Catholic and the Protestant – was unfolding both in England and across Europe, and the threat of internal uprisings by the nobility, as well as external pressure from Catholic powers (primarily the Spanish Armada), was very real.

 Under these circumstances, Elizabeth I was compelled to deliberately appeal to the already established Tudor ideological discourse, which represented monarchical authority as a historical necessity and an expression of divine providence. Drawing on the rhetorical and symbolic strategies developed by the Tudor dynasty, Elizabeth constructed the image of a legitimate ruler tasked with restoring order and stability. The queen was identified with heroines of the Old Testament – Deborah, Esther, Jael, Judith – thus sacralizing her image and reinforcing the justification and consolidation of female authority in the early modern period. At the same time, this strategy was not an innovation of the so-called «Gloriana,» as similar ideological mechanisms had been employed since the establishment of the Tudor dynasty. Susan Doran argues that «Elizabeth was, of course, neither the first nor last early modern English monarch to be fashioned as David or Solomon. A 1486 pageant presented Henry VII as a David triumphing over Goliath (Richard III), while more than a century later John Davies called the first Tudor king ʹEngland’s Salomonʹ on the grounds that they both understood that ʹthe safetie, and wealeʹ of their state ʹRested in wealth and peace, and quiet raigne / And not in forraine Conquests, and debateʹ” [1, p. 95].

William Shakespeare, whose civic identity was shaped by the cultural, intellectual and political contexts of his time, drew on dramatic histories as a genre that enjoyed steady demand among early modern English theatre audiences, employing popular historiographical and literary sources. It should be noted that, by the late sixteenth century, the history plays functioned not only as a form of theatrical entertainment but also as a powerful instrument for the ideological interpretation of the past. In this context, a key role was played by the so-called Tudor myth – a historiographical and cultural construct that shaped perceptions of the Tudors’ divine election and legitimized their authority through contrast with the «chaotic» and «tyrannical» past of the Wars of the Roses and the lawlessness of the Yorkist Dark Age. The Tudor ideological metanarrative was crossmedial in nature, manifesting itself both in fictional and non-fictional texts and in numerous cultural practices.

The Tudor myth produced not only literary but also historiographical texts, among which particular importance relied on Polydore Vergil’s Anglica Historia (1534), commissioned by Henry VII; Thomas More’s History of Richard III (composed during the reign of Henry VIII and published in 1543); and Raphael Holinshed’s Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland (1577). In these works, a clear opposition is constructed between the destructive rule of the Yorkist dynasty and the stability brought about by the accession of the Tudors. Within this paradigm, the figure of Richard III is depicted as a one-dimensional tyrant-usurper, responsible for political and social disorder.

It is precisely this reductive model of Richard III’s image that serves as Shakespeare’s point of departure; however, his drama introduces a fundamental artistic complication and deepening of the character. The uniqueness of Shakespeare’s Richard III (written about 1592–94) lies in the rejection of the black-and-white moral evaluation, typical of the earlier literary representations. The Bard created an ambivalent, multidimensional image of the tyrant. On the one hand, Richard III operates within the framework of the Tudor myth and sustains its ideological metanarrative. On the other hand, he emerges as a psychologically complex figure capable of eliciting from the recipient not only condemnation but also paradoxical empathy, sympathy, and even admiration for his charisma and strategic, Machiavellian mode of thinking.

Unlike the historiographical sources, which represented Richard III as a one-dimensional ruthless usurper, Shakespeare endows his protagonist with a developed capacity for self-reflection and rhetorical mastery – qualities that themselves became crucial factors in his violent ascent to power. The central artistic mechanism of this complication is the use of soliloquies: self-reflexive monologues in which Richard openly comments on his intentions, strategies, and crimes. As a result, the spectator becomes an observer of Richard’s personal «game of thrones», witnessing his political maneuvers, psychological stratagems, and rhetorical manipulations.

Through the system of soliloquies, Shakespeare not only psychologizes the character but also exposes the very process through which tyranny is formed. Tyranny is represented not as an abstract, impersonal evil devoid of discernible causes, but as the result of a complex entanglement of personal trauma. Richard’s trauma is the most notable sense of bodily and social otherness, experienced by him as alienation in childhood. His political ambitions, and consciously chosen strategies of manipulation are consistently employed and shaped by the rhetoric of persuasion, the theatricalisation of piety, the simulation of humility. Richard’s soliloquies appeal to mass consciousness, thereby transforming political reality into a stage and power into the outcome of a carefully orchestrated performance.

Shakespeare delves into the nature of tyranny by conceptualizing it as a multidimensional phenomenon. Moreover, he analytically decomposes it into three interrelated levels: psychological (childhood trauma, bodily and social otherness, internalized complexes), rhetorical (the manipulation of mass consciousness through language, gesture, and the theatrical display of piety), and political (the usurpation of power as the result of a consciously constructed strategy).

Thus, Shakespeare’s Richard III is simultaneously rooted in the Tudor myth, reinforces it, and transcends its limits. The play does not reject the official ideological metanarrative, but at the same time Shakespeare radically complicates it by offering the audience not a ready-made moral judgment. He suggests analytical perspective on the mechanisms of power usurpation and on the nature of tyranny as a phenomenon shaped by social, political, and psychological determinants.

References

1.                 Doran S. Elizabeth I: An Old Testament King. Tudor Queenship: The Reigns of Mary and Elizabeth / ed. by A. Hunt, A. Whitelock. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. P. 95–110.

2.                 Loades D. Elizabeth I. London; New York: Hambledon and London, 2003. 410 p.

3.                 Pius V. Regnans in Excelsis [Electronic resource]. – 1570. – Available at: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius05/p5regnans.htm (accessed 5 February 2026).