“Many directors have chosen to cut the key ‘female’ scenes and with good reason: they offer little
in terms of drama and are full of passive depictions of women.” Using your knowledge of the play
as a whole, show how far you agree with this view of the play Richard III.
Largely characterised by a certain powerless passivity, yet balanced subtly with elements of linguistic
capabilities, and moral reasoning, the women in Richard III are both neglected and disregarded, yet integral
to exposing certain nuances and features of the plot. For the first time in his writing career, Shakespeare
allows one character to dominate the proceedings, a feature many have deemed to be a structural
weakness. With Richard assuming such a vital role, other characters, perhaps most notably the women,
can seem flat and are, on the surface, disempowered as was typical in the historical, androcentric 15th
century society. Indeed, as Mark Eccles notes, Richard speaks over a third of the plays' lines and appears
in fourteen of twenty-five scenes, such that "his shadow hangs over the rest." Nonetheless, while women in
the play lack political influence and independence, they wield intense emotional force and speak a
vigorous, powerful language as the underlying voices of morality. After all, in the words of Dollimore,
"Richard III is unusual among the history plays in the prominence of its female characters'', and thus, with
Margaret’s prophetic cursing and Elizabeth Woodeville’s vivid imagery driving home the venal nature of
Richard’s machinations, there is a compelling argument to be had regarding their theatrical significance.
On the one hand, the passivity of the female characters is difficult to overlook, and is perhaps their most
dominant feature, or at the very least, the most blatant. Largely serving as part of the chorus in which their
only power of any note is that of cursing, the women, in many ways, appear to lack certain capacities for
virtue and integrity and hold little political power, distinct from that gained through their relationships to
important men. Peter Smith, a late 20th Century critic touched on “the fickle stupidity of women '', a
characteristic encapsulated by Anne who, in many instances, serves as the epitome of such weakness.
Appealing to her personal vanity as the “sweet saint, for charity” her propensity to inspire passion, and her
maternal ambition, Anne allows herself to succumb to Richard’s manipulation, despite her previously brutal
cursing of him as the “foul devil”, who “know'st no law of God nor man”. In this sense, the presence of her
character appears to exist solely as a means of both showcasing Richard’s verbal powers of persuasion. A
similar lack of female resilience takes place in act 4 as Queen Elizabeth learns that Richard, who has
claimed the kingship, has denied her the right to see her sons in the tower. Citing her familial relationship,
she notes that “I am their mother. Who shall bar me from them?”. That being said, Elizabeth does not
attempt to gain access to her sons, understanding that as a woman she holds no power in the face of
Richard’s cunning. Her ability to make decisions about her children is not only proscribed by her
subordinate role in society, but the lack of initiative she chooses to take as a result, in turn, condemns her
to an inevitably passive role.
Nonetheless, it may be equally possible that the cursing and prophetic power, unique to the women, offers
a degree of dominance, not only distinct from that of the male characters, but one which serves to enrich
the play with the female characters at its emotional core. Whilst male characters negotiate political action,
the women articulate the emotional tolls and consequences such actions precipitate; imbuing the play with
a greater sense of vitality, whilst also encouraging a certain moral evaluation from both modern and
contemporary audiences. As more modern, feminist readings come to light, there is an argument to be had
regarding the subversive, contradictory elements of the text, for its self-conscious theatricality, and in
exploring women who have been dealt with dismissively. Whilst contemporary critics largely considered the
roles and functions of the women to be merely that of feebly, uninteresting victims, subsequent readings
have turned to the power of female characters to divert sympathy from Richard in the second half of the
play, with Bruce W. Young suggesting that women have power in that they seem to be beyond Richard’s
control, as his mother’s vehement curses, for instance, help to “bring about his downfall”. Ironically,
Richard’s fiercest critic shares some of her enemy’s characteristics. Margaret is a forceful rhetorician,
whose intrinsic understanding of wordplay enables her not only to express passion and dismay regarding
her current situation, but also, to establish a sense of verbal dominance and control which could be said to
equal and combat Richard’s strong, calculative approach. In an impassioned response to Rivers’s attempt
to discredit and demean her, exclaiming “were you well served, you would be taught her duty," Margaret
turns to mirroring his words and using his statement against him, commenting that "you serve me well, you
all should do me duty ... / O, serve me well and teach yourselves that duty!" Her invective is powerful and
eloquent, ironically, like her enemy Richard, she employs the same inversion technique that Richard made
use of during his exchange with Lady Anne. The use of the imperative “serve me well” implies a level of
in terms of drama and are full of passive depictions of women.” Using your knowledge of the play
as a whole, show how far you agree with this view of the play Richard III.
Largely characterised by a certain powerless passivity, yet balanced subtly with elements of linguistic
capabilities, and moral reasoning, the women in Richard III are both neglected and disregarded, yet integral
to exposing certain nuances and features of the plot. For the first time in his writing career, Shakespeare
allows one character to dominate the proceedings, a feature many have deemed to be a structural
weakness. With Richard assuming such a vital role, other characters, perhaps most notably the women,
can seem flat and are, on the surface, disempowered as was typical in the historical, androcentric 15th
century society. Indeed, as Mark Eccles notes, Richard speaks over a third of the plays' lines and appears
in fourteen of twenty-five scenes, such that "his shadow hangs over the rest." Nonetheless, while women in
the play lack political influence and independence, they wield intense emotional force and speak a
vigorous, powerful language as the underlying voices of morality. After all, in the words of Dollimore,
"Richard III is unusual among the history plays in the prominence of its female characters'', and thus, with
Margaret’s prophetic cursing and Elizabeth Woodeville’s vivid imagery driving home the venal nature of
Richard’s machinations, there is a compelling argument to be had regarding their theatrical significance.
On the one hand, the passivity of the female characters is difficult to overlook, and is perhaps their most
dominant feature, or at the very least, the most blatant. Largely serving as part of the chorus in which their
only power of any note is that of cursing, the women, in many ways, appear to lack certain capacities for
virtue and integrity and hold little political power, distinct from that gained through their relationships to
important men. Peter Smith, a late 20th Century critic touched on “the fickle stupidity of women '', a
characteristic encapsulated by Anne who, in many instances, serves as the epitome of such weakness.
Appealing to her personal vanity as the “sweet saint, for charity” her propensity to inspire passion, and her
maternal ambition, Anne allows herself to succumb to Richard’s manipulation, despite her previously brutal
cursing of him as the “foul devil”, who “know'st no law of God nor man”. In this sense, the presence of her
character appears to exist solely as a means of both showcasing Richard’s verbal powers of persuasion. A
similar lack of female resilience takes place in act 4 as Queen Elizabeth learns that Richard, who has
claimed the kingship, has denied her the right to see her sons in the tower. Citing her familial relationship,
she notes that “I am their mother. Who shall bar me from them?”. That being said, Elizabeth does not
attempt to gain access to her sons, understanding that as a woman she holds no power in the face of
Richard’s cunning. Her ability to make decisions about her children is not only proscribed by her
subordinate role in society, but the lack of initiative she chooses to take as a result, in turn, condemns her
to an inevitably passive role.
Nonetheless, it may be equally possible that the cursing and prophetic power, unique to the women, offers
a degree of dominance, not only distinct from that of the male characters, but one which serves to enrich
the play with the female characters at its emotional core. Whilst male characters negotiate political action,
the women articulate the emotional tolls and consequences such actions precipitate; imbuing the play with
a greater sense of vitality, whilst also encouraging a certain moral evaluation from both modern and
contemporary audiences. As more modern, feminist readings come to light, there is an argument to be had
regarding the subversive, contradictory elements of the text, for its self-conscious theatricality, and in
exploring women who have been dealt with dismissively. Whilst contemporary critics largely considered the
roles and functions of the women to be merely that of feebly, uninteresting victims, subsequent readings
have turned to the power of female characters to divert sympathy from Richard in the second half of the
play, with Bruce W. Young suggesting that women have power in that they seem to be beyond Richard’s
control, as his mother’s vehement curses, for instance, help to “bring about his downfall”. Ironically,
Richard’s fiercest critic shares some of her enemy’s characteristics. Margaret is a forceful rhetorician,
whose intrinsic understanding of wordplay enables her not only to express passion and dismay regarding
her current situation, but also, to establish a sense of verbal dominance and control which could be said to
equal and combat Richard’s strong, calculative approach. In an impassioned response to Rivers’s attempt
to discredit and demean her, exclaiming “were you well served, you would be taught her duty," Margaret
turns to mirroring his words and using his statement against him, commenting that "you serve me well, you
all should do me duty ... / O, serve me well and teach yourselves that duty!" Her invective is powerful and
eloquent, ironically, like her enemy Richard, she employs the same inversion technique that Richard made
use of during his exchange with Lady Anne. The use of the imperative “serve me well” implies a level of
