The Spoils of War
by F.R.R. Mallory
March 7, 2007

Richard, Prince of Gloucester, entered this world fifth in line to the British royal throne. At 29 years old, his elder brother began manifesting mysterious and debilitating physical symptoms such as acute stomach pains, vomiting, seizures, hallucinations, depression, anxiety and paranoia. He also complained of a racing heartbeat and became highly sensitive to light and was forced to spend much of his time indoors, in darkened rooms. His attendants noticed his attacks occurred after eating, and after drinking alcohol. Two years later he died in an abrupt and unexpected accident. Little more than a year after that Richard's father fell ill and died and at 30 years of age, Richard became Duke of Gloucester, one of the most powerful members of the reigning royal family. It doesn't take much to feel ghostly fingers nudging the unhealed wounds of history here, nor to mildly exploit them as I have done here by shaping them with a suspicious undertone. This is spin.

What role, William Shakespeare here? Was he a spin doctor of his day? His play, Richard III, is certainly diabolical in its careful depiction of King Richard as a villainous and murdering bastard. By amping up and dramatizing the events in Richard's life, events I have demonstrated were not much different from events in the life of the current Duke of Gloucester, Shakespeare shaped those events into a monstrous framework with a distinct political viewpoint. This is spin. The mythological life of Richard III presented a unique and powerful opportunity for historical exploitation, an opportunity Shakespeare certainly recognized since he exploited Richard III in this play. But, Shakespeare himself is not immune to this process of being acted upon as both his play and his historical identity have become opportunities in service to ongoing political and personal manipulations.

It becomes difficult not to wonder at the machinations of power behind the current historical revisionist process being used to rehabilitate Richard III and de-habilitate William Shakespeare when you discover that Richard, Duke of Gloucester, is the moneyed and powerful patron of the Richard (Duke of Gloucester) III Society who states they are:

"A society dedicated to reclaiming the reputation of a king of England who died over 500 years ago and who reigned for little more than two years. Richard's infamy over the centuries has been due to the continuing popularity, and the belief in, the picture painted of Richard III by William Shakespeare in his play of that name. The validity of this representation of Richard has been queried over the centuries and has now been taken up by the Society. The Society aims to promote, in every possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the role of this monarch in English history" (Richard III Society).

In 2002 Richard III was voted onto the list of the top 100 Britons. When his listing occurred the BBC History Magazine identified him as a "doubtful entrant, based on special interest lobbying or 'cult' status", who is: "On the list owing to the Richardian lobby, but a minor monarch" (BBC History Magazine).

At the time of Shakespeare's life the Plantagenet dynasty, the royal line that Richard was a part of, was effectively extinct which meant it had no contemporary members in positions of power and influence to challenge a maligned depiction of him. Being the last in his line positioned Richard III upon the razors edge of the power dynamics of his day. Arguably, England and its royal family represented a world power. This was certainly a position deigned to attract political sharks of all descriptions and did. Some of those political opportunitsts were called the Tudors.

Elizabeth I, Queen of England at the time the play was being written, was the last and final member of the Tudor dynasty which came to power at Richard III's death, bringing the events full circle. Elizabeth I was famous for instituting, "Strict laws regulating theater prohibit[ing] any explicitly religious or current political events from being represented on stage. No playwright writing for the public during the English Renaissance could be formally considered a religious dramatist." (Voss). In addition, it shouldn't be ignored that Shakespeare's family and upbringing was Catholic and Elizabeth's Protestant reign was a dangerous time to be a Catholic in England. Catholic priests caught on English soil were considered traitors and were executed. It's fair to say that all of these elements were present at the time Shakespeare decided to write Richard III.

History is a spoil of war. Information and the dissemination of information becomes the privy of those in positions of power who are able to impose their will upon the mechanisms of propagandized spin. Power buys the optimum magisterial speaking positions. Consider how often you see the President speaking on television compared to his opponents. One of his spoils as winner of the battle to ascend to the presidency is the opportunity of a platform to expound on his viewpoint on current events This platform is a privilege of political power.

Shakespeare, at the very pinnacle of language crafting, had the necessary tools at his disposal to elevate the Richard III story into the popular consciousness of his day. The play, Richard III, can be said to expose the godhead of divine monarchy as debased and absent of moral code in direct contrast with official depictions of royalty as descended from or given special position directly from God. This neutralizing of English monarchy allowed for the transition of political power away from direct royal rule toward the Parliamentary government still in effect in England today. The confusion of Shakespeare's historical dramatization of Richard III standing as history continues to incite controversy today. To some extent, his version of history has become the spin we remember. It is not immediately clear if he wrote this play on behalf of a patron but the underlying political alignment of the play itself is not in question.

But Shakespeare, in his opening salvo, goes beyond the mere manipulation of historical detail when he has Richard say, "Now is the winter of our discontent" (1.1.1). "I am determined to prove a villain" (1.1.30). "Of Edward's heirs the murderer shall be." (1.30.40). In this extraordinary opening Shakespeare makes the audience complicit with the villain because he speaks directly to the audience or departs from the play's staging when he uses the inclusive "our." Once informed, the audience then bears a degree of responsibility for accepting or remaining passive to Richard's behavior since the audience is now included in the play's collapsed reality form. From this moment forward in the play, Richard's acts of villainy include the tacit consent of the audience.

By luring the audience into this position Shakespeare forces them to co-create with Richard making the audience both perpetrator of monstrous deeds and victim of them in the same moment. The audience's only alternate choice would be to withdraw from this imposed participation and victimization by removing themselves from the theatre once the accessorizing structure has been so declared. Is this (play, story, myth) fiction? By selecting a historical figure Shakespeare blurs the fiction/reality distinction even further. When this play is performed, it ceases being fiction because the two realities of play and audience are collapsed into one and since the audience is not fictional then the experience is also not fictional but could fairly be said to be real.

This mastery of spin and inclusion of the audience as co-conspirators allows the playwright to deliver both a forbidden religious drama as well as provide opportunities for the conveyance of message regarding current political events. Shakespeare delivers a de facto religious drama by providing both confession and absolution (both, Catholic religious processes) through direct dialogue prior to the death of a character, such as with Clarence, "Ah keeper, keeper,I have done these things, That now give evidence against my soul." (1.4.66-67). And "God give Your Grace good rest!" (1.4.75). This is merely one of Shakespeare's many techniques to maintain a critical religious continuity throughout the play.

Richard has become England's silenced king unable to fight against Shakespeare's description of him. This is monarch as villain. The nature of monarchy is at stake here, as is a population's complicity with moral barbarism and the conjoining of this perception of moral decay with monarchy. By looking at the modern British monarchy and their struggle to survive from the position of entitled privilege, it becomes clear why the rehabilitation of kingship is once again receiving royal funding.

Neither history, nor play, are positioned in a fixed place in time. Each are subject to a continually evolving environment and both are acted upon and informed by the future. As malleable constructions, both history, play and playwright are being constantly manipulated to meet the needs of current political pressures being brought to bear upon them.

The concerted effort by Richard, Duke of Gloucester and the Richard III Society to rehabilitate Richard III bear witness to the continuing power of both Shakespeare and his play. At stake is vast wealth, vast power and opportunities for titled individuals and others seeking to gain both on the shoulders of king Richard III and in spite of William Shakespeare. These are the spoils of the wars that act upon and through complicity of the public, for we have our own kings and our own spin-doctor-Shakespeares manipulating the artifice of our governing persona. Revisionist history is merely the future acting upon the past by reshaping events in service to current political objectives.

Works Cited or Referenced

"Mission" The Richard III Society. 2007. http://www.richardiii.net/.

Moore, James A., PhD. "Historicity in Shakespeare's Richard III" Richardian Register. Winter 1986. <Vol. XX, No.4)

Shakespeare, William. David Bevington, Ed., The Tragedy of King Richard The Third. The Necessary Shakespeare. 2nd ed. New York: Pearson Longman, 2005.

"Top 100 Britons" BBC History Magazine. 2002. http://www.bbchistorymagazine.com/Default.asp?bhcp=1.

Voss, Paul J. "How Catholic Was Shakespeare?" Crisis 20, no. 7 (July/August 2002): 34-39. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/arts/a10147.html.

William Shakespeare
1564-1601

I didn't know that I was going to like Shakespeare, in fact, based on my childhood experiences with "good literature" I was pretty convinced that Shakespeare was an author to endure rather than one to enjoy.

What was up with those sonnets?

I had sort of a vague idea that his plays were ponderous and hard to read and after all, what could they possibly have to say to me 400 years after they were written.

But, well you see, my brain has some bent corners and around one of those corners is a pleasure center that gets all juicy and squishy when I run into a work that has undiscovered STUFF in it.

See, after 400 years I was pretty convinced that Shakespeare had been gone over with so many combs that the turf was bald.

This allowed me to have zero expectations. So, when I was tossed upon the mountainous pile of sonnets I mentally shrugged and focused on memorizing the sonnet I was required to present to the class.

That's about the point that our professor (quite the Brit) began telling us all the naughty details about Shakespeare. The guy was downright racy. My opinion of him improved immediately and I started snooping for evidence of his picadillos - and they are pretty easy to sniff out.

I like authors with a bit of hair in their ears, men/women who discovered they put their pants on backward after joining a friend for lunch. Real people, like me. Don't we all like to belong, particularly to the cult of cool people?

So, he was rescued by a professor who blamed most of England's history on SHEEP!

But, that was merely the throat clearing for me. Remember that bent corner of my brain - I can't explain it really except to say that when I read stories I get suspicions about things.

That's what happened with Richard III. That's when I felt like I met the real William Shakespeare, the man with the sharp political knife. What's not to like when a writer is downright daring - plus he left me clues to his treasures 400 years later.

If you've avoided Shakespeare thinking it was something like literary medicine. It isn't. Just ignore all the hype, this man can kiss your brain and isn't that what it is all about?

HOME | MALLORY'S WORKS | COOL STUFF | JOURNAL | TRUNK | ABOUT MALLORY

© 2007 F.R.R. Mallory