Shakespeare’s Richard III is an extremely complex history play, and its antagonist Richard is equally complicated. I think that the biggest question of this play is what motivates Richard to destroy his own family and instigate yet another war. In this way I find Richard to be very Similar to Iago from Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Othello, The Moor of Venice. The question of what motivates Iago is equally as compelling as what motives Richard, although for Iago I think the question is intentionally unanswered. In class we discussed how Iago’s lack of a clear motive is potentially a reflection of evil in the real world; typically what motivates evil is never truly explained. I really like this reading because I think it contributes to the tragedy component of this play.

Richard, on the other hand, is pretty vocal about what motivates him- he wants to take the crown for himself and for everyone else to be his subordinates. But I think he is a little too clear about his motivations, especially because some of his actions contradict his desires. Furthermore, his speech at the beginning of the play was more revealing of what drives him than we initially noted. I argue that Richard does what he does because he believes he doesn’t fit in the world of post-war peace and happiness that the play opens in. He misses the chaos of gruesome war and murder that he thrived in and wants to recreate it in whatever way he can, even if it means murdering his own family. I don’t think he cares about the political implications of seizing the crown, although it is definitely a profitable bonus.

“But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,/ Nor made to court an amorous looking glass;/ I that am rudely stamped and want love’s majesty…” (1.1.14-16). In these lines Richard describes his emotional shortcomings that are emphasized by the post-civil war world. He exclaims that he is not designed for a life happiness and love, and there is a tone of yearning in what he says. He describes the past years of war as if he is remembering a fond time of his childhood, wishing that he could go back to it: “ Now is the winter of our discontent/ Made glorious summer by this son of York…” (1.1.1-2). Clearly he enjoyed the chaotic, disastrous, murderous, horrible qualities of civil war in which he thrived. He doesn’t really speak of the crown like this, other than remarking on the power he has to create chaos.

If Richard was only concerned with the crown, then why would he not be more careful with keeping his behavior secretive. Most of the characters of this play are suspicious of him, and they fear the depth of his cruelty. It is also interesting that the characters who are the must suspicious of him are all females: Elizabeth, Margaret, Anne, and the Duchess of York. What does this fact imply? Why are the women more attuned to Richard’s evil than the other characters of this play?

Richard is relentless, as is clear through his ordering of the murders of his own flesh and blood including innocent children. He has no concern for human life, for the families and loved ones of the people he murders, for the consequences of his actions. Richard is selfish and is only concerned with enhancing his own power. He is fueled by death and cruelty and is crazed by what it gets him. In many ways, this play demonstrates the transformation of Richard into something that is human only in form. At the beginning of the play we learn that he is in someway less than human, at least physically: he has a hunchback and a deformed arm. But by the end of the play he lacks any hint of humanity. It might be a stretch, but I think this reflects Richards character as an embodiment of war itself. Like war, his motives are unclear, his actions are inhuman, and he is entirely self-serving. Is there an argument to be made for Richard’s character being motivated by his love for chaos more than his desire for the crown? Can he be understood as an embodiment of war?