Richard III challenges notions of how history is created and presented. Shakespeare's play depicts the infamous Richard not only at odds with the other characters, but also fighting for a different interpretation of history. Richard and Margaret function as two opposite characters as far as the story is concerned; Richard tries to hide the past while Margaret tries to expose him. However, the creation and acceptance of history is largely based on more common figures. In particular, the scribe, an apparently secondary character, becomes an integral figure who creates the documentation of the story, cementing the written version as truth. The scribe, charged with writing the documents falsely accusing Hastings at Richard's request, approaches the audience in Act III, scene 6 and laments his position of having falsely created a legal document interpreted as the truth, and manifests the complicated truth of history. The position of the scribe as the figure entrusted with written truth is observed with respect to both Richard's approach to history through his language and to the work as a whole: a figurative text with propagandistic interests with the Tudor line. The scribe scene, with its focus on recorded history, highlights Richard's verbal tricks and the play's reliability as a historical document. While critics including Paige Martin Reynolds and Linda Charnes have identified both Richard and Margaret of Anjou as figures who interact with and distort history, the minor characters perform similar vital functions. Overall, Charnes and Reynolds contribute a lot to the historical conversation within the text and are essential to this particular reading, however the level on which the scribe works as a character contributes to... middle of the paper... .ga in their favour, and in creating the Hastings prosecution, they must create another “device” to place public opinion in the hands of the court (3.6.11). The audience, however, knows that prejudice exists, illustrated by the scribe's questions to the audience. In depicting this figure, the scribe invites the audience to recognize the authorial control of historical narratives. The question remains as to what the public should think of this mess of historical narratives. Should they attribute a Derridan-like lack of truth to the whole affair? Should they postulate historical significance outside the context of Richard III, relying solely on finished historical texts that the scribe questions? What remains to be addressed here is the question of meaning with characters who create and question the very nature of truth in story and drama.