Volu m e I - Purdue University Calumet

him, which are certainly not the actions of woman who has some kind of agenda that involves Richard
wooing her, especially when he is doing just that as she spits on him and calls him a demon.
Machiavelli also stressed the importance of action and preparation as a means of maintaining power
and control over the world around you, writing: “The prince, who has relied solely on their words, without
making other preparations, is ruined…” (The Prince XVII). Shakespeare, likewise, seems to take a very
similar position in Richard the Third. For instance, as much of a villain as Richard is, no one is able to stop
him specifically because of their unwillingness to act. Margaret relies on curses, Elizabeth hopes to reason
with him, and Anne and Hastings make no attempt to stop him. Even the young princes knowingly go
along with Richard’s plan, regardless of the fact that they know Richard is, with the young prince going so
far as to say, “I do not like the tower, of any place: Did Julius Ceaser build that place my lord?” (Richard the
Third III.i.80-81) Richard’s treacherous nature is so apparent to the young children that one of them makes
a direct reference to one of the most classic tales of betrayal and murder in the English imagination, yet they
do nothing to prevent the events that would transpire after this. Again, here the idea of willing
complacency simply does not offer an adequate explanation for the young prince’s actions. Later in that
scene, the young prince is informed that his father has perished and that he is now sovereign of England.
Unlike Anne, he has nothing to gain by playing Richard’s game. The young prince is now the young king,
yet still is willing to go along with Richard despite having absolutely no incentive to do so.
We can claim that Richard is a villain, but there is no real hero to the play, save possibly Richmond,
who never serves as a direct counterpoint to Richard. Until the very end (an end that Richard ultimately
brings upon himself) the rest of the cast is unable to stop him, and comes across as no better than Richard
despite the deplorable nature of his actions, simply because they are either incapable or unwilling to stop a
known evil. Richard may be evil, but in their refusal to oppose him, character such as Hastings, Anne and
Elizabeth only come across as weak-willed, impotent characters, whose tragic failing is not being
Machiavellian enough to oppose the Machiavellian villain. Several characters are well aware of Richard’s
264