Richard III, Shakespeare, and the Making of a Disabled Stereotype

Sam Shepherd
1 day ago
8 min read

By Summer Bianchi

Born in 1452, Richard III was the shortest-reigning monarch in England’s history, ruling for only 26 months [1]. As a controversial political figure, Richard III and his disability became powerful tools for Tudor propaganda [2]. This article will examine how Richard III’s disability has been historically portrayed and how Shakespeare’s historical plays, titled Richard III and Henry VI, had a real political and philosophical influence on the treatment of individuals with disabilities, including Robert Cecil.

Richard III’s reign was marked by controversy. His deposition of his brother, Edward VI, and his imprisonment of Edward‘s two sons were swift and shocking [3]. He faced both private and public opposition, as well as competition for the throne from Henry Tudor [4]. After his death at the Battle of Bosworth and Henry's subsequent rise to the throne, Richard is portrayed as a calculating and unjust tyrant [5]. Historians Polydore Vergil, John Rous, and Thomas More depict Richard in a highly negative light, and it is these accounts that Shakespeare references when writing his historical plays, including Richard III [6].

While Shakespeare’s writing heavily shapes Richard III’s character, how he is perceived before his plays gives historians further insight into the perception of disability. A key aspect of historical accounts of Richard III is the emphasis on his physical disability. Richard was said to have scoliosis, causing him to be shorter, with one of his shoulders higher than the other [7]. Rous’ history adds details that enhance ideas about Richard’s physical differences, saying that he was in his mother’s womb for 2 years and was born with teeth [8]. He relates Richard to the Antichrist, implying a connection between physical differences and immorality [9]. Vergil directly establishes this connection: Richard’s teeth are used to demonstrate his evil thoughts, and his right arm, which is slightly higher, is the one that holds a dagger [10]. To Vergil, Richard’s immorality is mirrored in his physical body, creating the association that those who are physically disabled are inherently evil [11]. Thomas More goes further: Richard’s birth is changed to a cesarean section to portray his birth as unnatural; his left arm is described as shriveled, and his back is hunched [12]. This association of morality and physical appearance continues to impact history’s view of Richard. Richard’s appearance changes in later portraits: his shoulders are edited to be more uneven, his stature is shortened, and his face is changed to appear more menacing [13]. Richard’s physical appearance is then an important part of Tudor propaganda. By using his disability as a reasoning for immorality, and then by enhancing his perceived physical differences, the Tudor rule legitimizes itself by creating Richard as a character villain. His physical disability is a way to highlight his immorality and reinforces false ideas about the nature of disabled individuals.

This villain archetype is reinforced through Shakespeare’s historical plays. In Early Modern theater, disability is used as a narrative plot point, but also as a way to create a stereotypical character [14]. Shakespeare’s character of Richard III is based on More’s accounts, and while these accounts do focus on his political exploits, More creates the narrative that Richard was deformed and evil from birth [15]. Richard III’s first appearance in Shakespeare’s Henry VI reflects this, as he is a “crookback” who is self-described as morally corrupt to match the supposed crookedness of his body [16]. For Shakespeare, Richard’s disability is not a sign of his evilness, but the cause [17]. He plans to take revenge on the world that has put him at a disadvantage, becoming a calculating, sadistic villain [18]. Shakespeare is both working with and creating the stereotype of a physically disabled villain. The ideas of physical difference and moral difference have become intertwined, and blur the line between an individual’s decisions and the inherent nature of an entire group. This is because Richard’s choices are said to be a direct reflection of his outward appearance, which applies to many more characters and individuals other than Richard. This creates a process of othering physically disabled people by creating the assumption that physically disabled people are inherently different from abled-bodied people. Henry VI then combines the negative bias towards the historical figure of Richard III and translates him into an ableist caricature.

Not unlike Henry VI, Richard III’s character in Shakespeare’s Richard III focuses on the social aspects of his physical disability [19]. However, Richard’s disability in Shakespeare’s Richard III is not as descriptive, as he is only described as “deformed” [20]. Shakespeare does not define Richard’s disability in order to show his cunningness and manipulation. Richard can mask his disability while trying to court Anne [21]. At the same time, Richard uses his disability to make others believe he is more honest, as his perceived inability to hide his disability leads others to believe he is unable to deceive or keep secrets [22]. For Shakespeare, disability is not stagnant and based solely on perceived physical differences, but also on how society perceives those who are disabled [23]. Richard’s ability to both exaggerate and disguise his disability plays into Early Modern theatrical trends of faking disability, which caused genuine untrustworthiness about the authenticity of disabilities [24]. Richard’s ability to change the extent of his disability works well for his schemes in Richard III, but casts a long shadow on those in society who do suffer from disabilities. In both plays, Shakespeare creates stigma about physical disabilities by directly linking perceived physical differences with negative connotations [25]. Disabled people are represented as both being inherently evil while also being cunning and deceitful. And while Shakespeare makes progressive strides in giving a voice to those who suffer from physical disabilities, he does so in a way that continues to perpetuate negative stereotypes.

These negative connotations influenced the contemporary world. Ideas about the morality of people with disabilities had an impact on the perception of Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury. Cecil, born in 1563 with splayed legs and a hunchback, was an important member of Elizabeth I’s government and therefore held significant political power [26]. While Cecil’s physical disability was preyed upon by political opponents while he was alive, after he died in 1612, Cecil was negatively compared to Richard III in both physical appearance and character [27]. Whether the public perception of Richard III came from histories or Shakespeare’s plays, the connection between physical difference and immorality had a continuous impact on contemporary politics. The idea that disabled people were inherently different in some way from able-bodied people became a powerful tool for the political opponents of both Richard III and Robert Cecil, and is a key example of how negative stereotypes impact real-world politics.

Along with political impacts, this view of disability impacts philosophical ideas about the nature of disability. Francis Bacon’s 1612 essay titled “On Deformity” is an important piece of evidence when studying Early Modern ideas about disability. Similarly to Shakespeare’s portrayal of Richard in Richard III, Bacon notes disability as a cause rather than a sign of immorality [28]. Bacon creates disabled people as a generalized category while also making the definition of disability highly personal [29]. Bacon’s portrayal of disability as deceptive and a cause for evil makes sense when put into the context of his life. Robert Cecil was Bacon’s cousin, and Bacon was jealous of Cecil’s political success [30]. This was noted by contemporary critics and explains Bacon’s emphasis on inherent difference and individual circumstances of disability [31]. Bacon frames Cecil and his disability the same way that historians framed Richard III and his disability: as the motive for inherent immorality [32]. Bacon also states that disabled people are often underestimated, and therefore have the upper hand over their able-bodied competitors [33]. Even though Bacon does equate physical disability in a less negative light than Shakespeare’s plays, those with physical disabilities are still seen as inherently different in some way from those who were born able-bodied. The language of difference in philosophy then becomes cemented and traceable through the interpretations of both Robert Cecil and Richard III, and shows the social impacts caused by linking outward appearance and inner morals.

The historical and fictional portrayal of Richard III had a great influence not only on the perception of his life, but on the lives and attitudes towards a larger category of disabled people. Richard III’s disability was used to fit a particular mode of political Tudor propaganda that fit with contemporary ideas about nature and morality. Shakespeare uses these ideas in both Henry VI and Richard III when he creates Richard III as both evil and manipulative because of his physical disability. Both these histories and plays create stigma about the honesty and morality of physically disabled people that influences both contemporary and modern individuals. This is seen through the depictions of Robert Cecil, a politically powerful aristocrat. His political opponents' relation to Richard III is an example of the continued relation of immorality, deceitfulness, and physical difference. Cecil also influenced Francis Bacon’s philosophical works on disability, which reinforced ideas about the inherent differences between disabled and abled-bodied people. Whether or not Richard III was an immoral person, or if his disability and self-image were a motive for any of his actions, is an important factor in history. However, Richard III’s life and disability were created through other people’s accounts of him, not his perspective, and many unfortunately focused on his physical differences and their moral interpretations of them. These interpretations were spread through histories, plays, politics, and philosophical works, and were both the influence and influencers of many contemporary and modern ideas about disabled people. When examining historical sources, such as Shakespeare’s historical plays, it is essential to evaluate the historical contexts, contemporary realities, and ongoing effects to understand how current harmful misconceptions about individuals with disabilities came to be, and the best way to move forward in rewriting harmful histories and creating a more equal and inclusive future.

Richard III, Shakespeare, and the Making of a Disabled Stereotype

Recent Posts

Donate

Helpful Links

Home

About

Our Board

Store

Contact Us

Contact Details

PO Box 4708
Mesa, AZ 85211-4708 USA

3DA is a member of the following coalitions