Part II

Why did Shakespeare portray Richard III the way he did?

Shakespeare was a Lancastrian, while Richard was a Yorkist.  These two branches of the Royal House of Plantagenet were at odds with each other.  Shakespeare did not like the Yorkists so naturually he did not like Richard III.  This is why he portrayed him in the way that he did. He wanted to make Richard out to be deformed and villainous. 


Answer the following: With regard to the history of Richard III, what is meant in distinction between "Traditionalist" or "Revisionist" source? What is meant between "Lancastrian" and "Ricardian"?


Traditionalists do not like change.  They like to keep things the way they are and follow traditions.  They follow the rules and do exactly what they are told.  A revisionist is someone who does not "follow the crowd."  They stay true to their own beliefs and are not afraid to speak up or defend themselves.  


A Lancastrian is someone of the House of Lancaster.  A Ricardian is someone who wants to change the bad image that Richard III has been given by writers and historians.  Ricardians are fans of Richard III who was a Yorkist, so essentially they are also Yorkists.  The Lancastrians and Yorkists were at odds with each other ever since the beginning of the Wars of the Roses.  They fought over which house would take the throne after King Henry VI died.  The Yorkists won, leaving the Lancastrians bitter. 


Sources:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardian_(Richard_III)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorkists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancastrians




Lancastrian vs. Ricardian


Polydore Virgill: 


Virgill writes about Richard III in a Lancastrian point of view.  When talking about how Richard locks his nephews in the Tower of London Virgill says, "And so was thinnocent chyld pullyd owt of his mothers armes. Richard having by this meane obtaynyd almost his hartes desire, convaighed his nephewys from the bysshop of Londons howse unto the Towr." Virgill uses phrases like, "thinnocent chyld pullyd owt of his mothers armes," which makes the reader feel sympathetic towards the children and view Richard as being evil.  Virgill also says, "And this way his dryft, that, whyle stayng and tarying made the people desyrus of this solemne sight, he, by consultinge from poynt to poynt, might sound and serche out how the nobylytie was affected, saying alway that he did not seke the soveraigntie, but referryd all his dooings to the profyt of the realme. Thus covering and cloking certane days his desire, under the colour and pretence of common welthe, he so enveglyd the myndes of the nobilitye..." meaning that Richard tried to cover up what he was doing, by saying that it was all for the good of the Kingdom.  He is basically saying that Richard was a liar and that he was sneaky.  


Horace Warpole:


Warpole speaks from a more Ricardian point of view.  He talks about Richard's appearances.  He does not believe that Richard was deformed and ugly as many famous historians and writers have said he was.  Warpole uses an example of the countess of Desmond.  Warpole says, "The old countess of Desmond, who had danced with Richard, declared he was the handsomest man in the room except his brother Edward, and was very well made."  Warpole also says, "The truth I take to have been this. Richard, who was slender and not tall, had one shoulder a little higher than the other: a defect, by the magnifying glasses of party, by distance of time, and by the amplification of tradition, easily swelled to shocking deformity; for falsehood itself generally pays so much respect to truth as to make it the basis of its superstructure."  He says that Richard's looks have been over exaggerated.  He has been made out to be a "monster" and to have had a huge hump-back and deformities, when it really was not that bad.