CHAPTER I1 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The writer of the thesis is going to discuss Richard as a villainous protagonist. To support her study, the writer is going to discuss Richard's charac- ters and actions in observing his post as a villainous protagonist through some critics an opinions which are related to the topic of her thesis. In the first part of this chapter, the writer intends to discuss the history of the English Monarchy. In the second part of this chapter, the writer discusses related theories, such as tragedy, characterization, characteristics, the idea of villainous protagonist, and conflict. Then, in the third part of the thesis, the writer may discusses the related study.

2.1. The History of English Monarchy Shakespeare's Richard I11 covers events in the latter years of the from the and execution of George, Duke of Clarence, in 1478 to the defeat of Richard I11 at Bosworth Field in 1485. This war was the dynastic struggle between the and the . Actually, The Lancastrians never adopted the Red Rose as their symbol. It having been used first by Henry Tudor (Richmond) in 1485. Head of the White Rose party was Richard Plantagenet, third Duke of York, whose claim to the throne was an impressive one. On his motherJs side of the family, he was descend- ed from Lionel, Duke of Clarence, elder brother of John of Gaunt, from whom the Lancastrians were descended. Unfortunately for Richard, parliament had declared for the younger line, which had the advantage of straight descent through the males. Richard of York was able to capitalize upon Henry VIJs weakness as a ruler and his misfortunes. He was hailed as a popular champion because of his opposition to Duke of , who conducted affairs for the king. By the year 1453, when Henry became quite ill, the Duke of York succeeded in getting control of the government and was appointed "Protector and Defender of the Realmw by parliament. But the king recovered late in the next year and York was replaced by his rival Somerset. He did not remain quite for long. When a council was summoned to make provisions "for the safety of the King against his enemies," the duke led a force of his supporters in a march on London. Somerset, joined by the king and a host of nobles, led an army from London to meet the threat, and the two forces met at St. Albans. The Wars of the Roses had begun. Somerset was killed, and Margaret of Anjou, Henry's energetic queen, emerged as head of the ~ancastrianparty. During the next four years, England experienced a period of restiveness before warfare broke out again. Although York was supported by the powerful , head of the house of Neville, the York- ist were defeated and the duke himself fled to Ireland. However, King Henry's government, now controlled by Margaret and her council, proved anything but efficient. Faced by poverty and disaster, the average Englishman yearned for the return of Richard of York. In June, 1460, Warwick and Edward, Earl of March, the duke's eldest son, moved on london and were joined by York, who again claimed the crown. However, Margaret was not to be repressed. She succeeded in mustering a strong force in the north and met the Yorkists at Wakefield. In this battle, the duke lost his life. Then, the young Edward, from the House of York, was declared king by citizens and lords of . Subsequent events worked in Edward's favor, Marga- ret's Lancastrian forces were defeated near Towton in

York on March 29, 1461. Henry and his son fled to Sco- tland. By 1464, Edward was full master of England. Nevertheless, his position was jeopardized by his mar- riage to Elizabeth, a widowed daughter of Richard Wood- ville. Henry had returned to England in 1465 and had been placed in the Tower of London. Not long thereafter, the former king was released and Edward was forced to flee to Holland. At the end, Edward was able to muster a force and to return to England. The results were Henry was imprisoned; warwick's army was defeated; the earl himself being slain. To cap all this, the Lancastrians suffered a devastating defeat at Tewkesbury on May 4, 1471. Margaret was taken prisoner and the young prince was put to death. Henry VI was reported to have died "of pure displeasure and melanch~ly,~but actually Edward IV ordered that he be put to death. For The Traaedv of Richard 111, Shakespeare picked up the story with the attainder of the Duke of Clarence, who had married Warwick's daughter and had served his father-in-law from to 1469 to 1471, and who had been involved constantly in quarrels with the king and with his other brother, Richard of Gloucester. According to Raphael Holinshed, the historical Richard was not so black as he was described by William Shakespeare: it still an unsolved question whether he committed any of the murders charged against him by his enemies. (1964, 183) The writer sees that the real Richard I11 is not as bad as William Shakespeare's Richard 111. Since he is never committed guilty for the murders.

2.2. Related Theories

2.2.1. Tragedy Chaucerrs Monk expresses in The Canterburv Tales that : Tragedy means a certain kind of story, As old books tell, of those who fell from glory, People that stood in great prosperity And were cast down out of their high degree Into calamity and so they died. This means that tragedy is a story which tells about the fell of man from glory and prosperity because of a sudden terrible that brings him to death. The thesis writer considers that Richard I11 is a tragedy. Then, she will classify tragedy into three parts in order to determine to which tragedy Richard I11 belongs to. There are three kinds of tragedy: 2.2.1.1. Classical Tragedy Aristotle defined tragedy as a dramatization of a serious happening- not necessarily one ending with the death of the protagonist. Aristotle seems to imply that the hero is undone because of some mistakes he commits, but the mistake need not be the result of a moral fault; it may be simply a miscalculation, for example, failure to foresee the consequence of a deed (Bentley, 1967:25). This means that the hero who runs the position because of wrong judgement, for instance to see what happen in the future as the consequence of his action. In many Greek tragedies, "the hero's harmatia is hybrid (or hubris), usually translated as 'over-weening pride.' The hero forgets that he is a fallible man, attribute to himself the power and wisdom of the gods, and is later humbled for his arrogance. On the other hand, a number of recent scholars have insisted that this self-assertiveness is not a vice, but a virtue, not a weakness but a strength; if the hero is destroyed for his self-assertion, he is nevertheless greater than the people around him, just as the man wl~o tries to stem a lynch mob is greater than the mob although he too maybe lynched for his virtue. (Bentley,19767:29) The writer sees that the hero falls into his own tragedy since he forgets that he is able to make a mistake. In other words, he has high opinion of himself because of his wealth, position, and abilities. Although he seems strong than the people around him, he is actually only a man who tries to stop a condition in which he has to put to death without a legal trial. It can be said that he is stated guilty of a crime for his goodness.

2.2.1.2. Elizabethan Tragedy In Endeavors of Arts, ~adeleineDoran states that: Elizabethan tragedy may be roughly divided into three main types according to theme and pattern: De Casibus tragedy, or the fall of the mighty, with ambition as a chief motivating force; Italianate Intrigue tragedy, with love or jealousy usually the central passion; and Domes- tic tragedy, or the tragedy of crime in the lives of ordinary citizens." (Doran, 1972:115) In this matter, the writer determines Richard I11 fulfill De Casibus pattern. Since is the basic pattern of much Elizabethan tragedy. In this pattern, only lords and kings and military heroes are capable of the emotions which produce tragedy. A citizen will not be moved to revenge by injuries done him since he has no 'honor.' In the play, Richard is member of English monarchy who is ambitious to be the king of England. 2.2.1.1.1. Villainous Protagonist Richard I11 is a historical tragedy. Tragedy usual- ly deals with a character called "protagonist." This character becomes the tragic hero in a tragedy. A tragic hero is a man who represents universal character, he is not a passive agent but an active one who becomes the victim of fate. The tragic hero is usually a man of admirable character but he possess a flaw or an error. I1The tragic hero is a goodman but not free from blemishtt (Hatlen, 1967:30). Therefore, he is a man who is trapped in deep conflicts and in facing struggle, he usually suffers and has unfortunate life. Through struggle, a man might learn something useful in his life. However, the struggle does not involve the economic and social problems, it involves the spiritual one (Hatlen,

1967 :29). It means that the man is put in a situation that causes him to choose and he has to take the consequences of his choice. In this case, Richard I11 chooses to become a villain since he cannot prove himself as a hero. The character who is central to the action is called the protagonist and his opponent is called the antagonist (Bentley, 1967:75). More often the protagonist is also the hero, defined as an admirable character who embodies certain human ideals. However, the protagonist is not always heroic and admirable. It depends on how he han- dles a difficult experience as to whether he wins the readers1 sympathy. Richard I11 is the central character in the play. This theory may show that Richard is a villainous protagonist. Since he does wrong things to reach his desire to be admired by other people.

2.2.1.1.2. Flaw According to S.C. Boorman, Shakespeare puts Richard

I11 in the play works very effectively as its centre, and an assortment of mainly type characters ranged around him as predetermined victims of his villainy. (1987, 71)

Patrick Murray points that the sequence of actions (they must be significant ones, of the kind men are constitutionally liable to perform, thus expressive of human nature) accompany- ing the passage of the hero from good to bad fortune is generally seen as the product of some initial and fundamental 'error' (flaw, false step, miscalcula- tion, defect of character, misjudgment) on his part. (Murray, 1978:168) In other words, Elizabethan tragedy shows groups of actions which are arranged in order to perform certain men in their life as a hero or protagonist from good to bad fortune. This process is the result of the basic mistake such as flaw. Flaw is the main feature in Elizabethan drama as the source problem who brings one into his downfall. Patrick Murray states that human's flaw is the major thing that can make man fall into his own tragedy, Flaw can be stated as human weaknesses (vice, stupidity, mistake, blindness) and external forces ( fate and accident).

(1978: 169) The writer uses this theory to analyze Richard's flaw which make him considered as a villainous protagonist.

2.2.1.3. Modern Tragedy According to Raymond Williams in Modern Traaedv, individuals suffer because of what they are and what they naturally desire, rather than because of what the try do. In addition, Robert W. Corrigan states in his book, Traaedv: Vision and Form, that a hero in modern tragedy is a hero who is ready to lay down his life in order to secure his personal dignity. The hero is also struggling to get his 'rightful' position in his society. The hero of modern tragedy is afraid of being displaced and not being 'what' and 'who' he thinks he should be. (Corrigan,

1981:168-69) Furthermore, Raymond Williams says that the charac- teristics which bring about the downfall are the struggle for money, the rebel against a false society and the act on his own and for his own reasons to get self- fulfillment which the society cannot give them.

(Williams, 1969:94-95) In short, modern tragedy stresses in man's problem. Man's difficulties is because of their position in the society and their ideals to face life rather than what they have done. In this case, he never satisfies of his own ability. He wants to be recognised of what he is and who he is.

2.2.2. Characteristics Characteristics may be implied by reporting the characters' sayings and deeds which demonstrate a trait, or the characters' thought may be revealed. The effects of the character on other personalities, plus their comments on him are delineated. ( Barry, 1966:lS) A character's action should be consistent with his individuality, and his motivations should provide the basis for conflict in the plot. The characterization of the individual people in a play is largely a matter of their action and reaction (Hatlen, 1967:22). Shake- speare, in his plays, uses descriptions of one character by another one. Thus, language can be pointed as ac- tion. ( Hatlen, 1967:22) The writer uses this theory because Shakespeare's description about his characters make characters' action and reaction clear.

2.2.3. Conflict According to Projection in Literature, the term of conflict means " a struggle between opposing forces that can be a clash of actions, ideas desires, or values." (1967, 518) A conflict may take place between a character and outside force such as nature and society, or within the character himself. Conflict also implies the motivation for the conflict of some goals that it achieves. ( Barry t 1978:118) There are two kinds of conflicts, the inner and outer conflict. A character is in an inner conflict when it occurs in himself "which battles with some elements of his personality." (Writing Themes through Literature, 1969: 35) He is in an outer conflict when he has to struggle with "an external force such as another character, nature or society." (Writing Themes through Literature,36) 2.3. Related study The character of Richard is accented and punctuated throughout the play. He is a symbol of fear to all round him where the idea of being King obsesses him. A.P. Rossiter describes that there is an inter working of Nemesis that shows the genius of Shakespeare in handling retribution: These four Nemesis Actions (the first center around Clarence; the second, the King; the third, Hastings; the fourth, Buckingham), it will be observed, are not separate trains of incidents going on side by side, they are linked together into a system, the law of which is seen to be that who triumph in one nemesis become the victims of the next, so that the whole suggests a chain of destruction, like that upon one another.(l964, 234)

In Greek Mythology, Nemesis is a goddess of law and justice, personifying especially divine retribution for violations of law and justice. Sometimes Nemesis was represented as winged, with the wheel of fortune, or borne in a chariot drawn by griffins. By extension she is popularly regarded as a goddess of inevitable. (The New Century Handbook of English ~iterature,1956). As a whole, the writer can state that the theories of tragedy, characteristics, idea of villainous protago- nist, conflict will become a useful bridge to guide her to analyze the play. In other words, the theories above provide information and understanding which help the writer to get a clear picture of the play and know how to apply the theories in analyzing the play.