The Influences of Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince on Richard the Third

These traits that Richard displayed were not befitting to a king and a man who was suppose to lead. Rather than look out for the

he finally wins the mayor and the alderman over and receives the offer to "the

Richard, the main character of the Shakespeare’s play, Richard III is portrayed as socially destructive and politically over-ambitious. His destructive potential is depicted by the way he relates with the other protagonists in the play and also by what he confesses as his intentions.

According to the article History and Tragedy in Richard II, written by Elliot, he writes “Richard is a failure as a king not because he is immoral, nor because he is too sensitive and refined for the job, but because he misunderstands the nature of kingship (260)”. Richard’s downfall is not all his fault but as a king he should have understood the idea of what a great king needs to do to succeed in the life of royalty.

William Shakespeare’s Richard III is a historical play that focuses on one of his most famous and complex villainous characters. Richard III or The Duke of Gloucester, who eventually becomes king, is ambitious, bitter, ugly and deformed. He manipulates and murders his way to the throne and sets the tone for the whole play with his very first speech, which is the opening of the play.

    According to many, Shakespeare intentionally portrays Richard III in ways that would have the world hail him as the ultimate Machiavel.  This build up only serves to further the dramatic irony when Richard falls from his throne.  The nature of Richard's character is key to discovering the commentary Shakespeare is delivering on the nature of tyrants.  By setting up Richard to be seen as the ultimate Machiavel, only to have him utterly destroyed, Shakespeare makes a dramatic commentary on the frailty of tyranny and such men as would aspire to tyrannical rule.

Richard III, King of England, murdered his two nephews in order to maintain his power. This novel also

Ambition is an earnest desire for achievement. Both texts are self reflexive and emphasise Richard’s obsessive ambition, desire and longing for the throne. Each Richard strives towards capturing the throne regardless of consequences and bloodshed. Richard is depicted in both texts as an ambitious character who strives to gain power and independence through deception and self confessed villainy. ‘Since I cannot prove a lover. . . I am determined to prove a villain’ This obsession which drives Richard to commit horrific evils to gain and then protect his claim to the throne. His ambition, power and evil blinds him and inevitably is responsible for his downfall in both of the texts. A connection is formed between Looking for Richard and King Richard III in the final scenes Al Pacino’s interpretation and ‘Hollywood’ background influences an ending which can be interpreted as portraying Richmond as a coward. Elizabethan audiences

The texts King Richard III and Looking for Richard both accept the centrality of power and the yearning for it, as a central plot driver and an assumed part of the human condition. However, each presents a different perspective as to the nature of power; its origins and morality.

Throughout my comparative study of texts and context, I have explored various connections shared between William Shakespeare’s ‘Richard the 3rd’ and Al Pacino’s ‘Looking for Richard’. As both of these items are based on the same character, King Richard the 3rd, they share a lot in common. The connection that I have chosen to concentrate on though is the idea of power, and how both texts explore this theme.

Richard’s aspiration for power caused him to sacrifice his morals and loyalties in order to gain the throne of England. Shakespeare refers to the political instability of England, which is evident through the War of the Roses between the Yorks and Lancastrians fighting for the right to rule. In order to educate and entertain the audience of the instability of politics, Shakespeare poses Richard as a caricature of the Vice who is willing to do anything to get what he wants. As a result, the plans Richard executed were unethical, but done with pride and cunningness. Additionally, his physically crippled figure that was, “so lamely and unfashionable, that dogs bark at me as I halt by them,” reflects the deformity and corruption of his soul. The constant fauna imagery of Richard as the boar reflected his greedy nature and emphasises that he has lost his sense of humanity.

A defining feature between these two men’s fate is Richard’s dependence on good fortune through divine intervention, whereas Henry and Machiavelli rely on free will, what they themselves can do to manipulate the situation. Richard calls upon God to defend him, thinking that he can manipulate God’s will to fit his desires, “angels fight, weak men must fall, for heaven still guards the right” (III.ii pg 409) This idea of unearthly abilities that allow him to manipulate nature itself, even England is stupid and shows how incompetent he is. Compared to Henry in this play, he is someone who wants to serve England, not how England can serve them; in other words what you can do for your country. Machiavelli states that “so long as fortune varies, and men stand still, they will prosper while they suit the times, and fail when they do not”, Richard in all ways fills this statement, his reliance on fortune seals his fate in the end (Machiavelli 148). Shakespeare shows this antiquated idea to show how much England needed a change of leadership and rule, the end of medievalism and the rise of Machiavellianism.

Shakespeare adapts these tenants to construct a power thirsty character. Consequently, while the London elite was introduced to these ideals, Shakespeare shaped the overall plot of the play to exemplify the discussed the power quest introduced by Machiavelli. This results in Richard’s actions that lead him to kill his brother and manipulate his family into getting the throne.

Richard II is an authoritative and greedy king of England, and he is living in a period of transition that medieval knights who are swearing total loyalty to a king has been disappearing and an aristocracy starts to gain a power for their own good. However, Richard II keeps believing the power of kingship, and he also is too confident himself. He overestimates his authority and power; furthermore, he ignores the periodical change. Therefore, he speaks confidently how firm his position as king is to the people in Wales, but his attitude changes when he suffers a defeat by Henry Bolingbroke that he

A general conclusion of most critics is that Richard II is a play about the deposition of a "weak and effeminate" king. That he was a weak king, will be conceded. That he was an inferior person, will not. The insight to Richard's character and motivation is to view him as a person consistently acting his way through life. Richard was a man who held great love for show and ceremony. This idiosyncrasy certainly led him to make decisions as king that were poor, and in effect an inept ruler. If not for this defect in character, Richard could be viewed as a witty, intelligent person, albeit ill-suited for his inherited occupation.