Structuralist Shakespearean Analyses: Richard III

Richard III First Impressions

            I found myself writing more notes for Richard III than I did any of the plays under discussion, primarily because there are so many different messages that Shakespeare tries to convey in it (and I learned that it’s the 2nd longest in his oeuvre). Interestingly, many of said notes were related to evolutionary psychology. This subject comes up even in the opening monologue when Richard gives the audience key insights into some of his motivations from which the play's action stems. When introducing the audience to Henry, his brother, and the person from whom he must wrest the crown, Richard says, "now, instead of mounting barbèd steeds… / He capers nimbly in a lady's chamber / To the lascivious pleasing of a lute. But I… am not shaped for sportive tricks "(I.i.10-14). This sentiment speaks to one of the deepest jalousies engrained in our species: the desire to be at the top of hierarchies – particularly that of sexual selection. Because Richard details how he thinks he will never move up this hierarchy due to his physical deformities, he resorts to subterfuge and murder to do so. Obviously, though, this tactic doesn't work out for Richard in the end, hence his total isolation and eventual loss of both the crown and his life.

In addition to Act I, scene I, one of my favorite scenes from this play was Act I, Scene IV. Firstly, this scene is arguably its only overtly queer one, which is strange, given that some evolutionary biologists now believe that one of the many reasons why evolution hasn't precluded homosexuality in humans is because, at least at one point, it prevented brothers from doing what Richard does; that is, in-fighting over sexual and dominance status. This proclivity is one of the reasons why the likelihood a child will be gay increases exponentially with the number of older brothers he has (O'Keefe).

I also thought that Clarence's description of his dream in this scene was one of the most shocking things I've read in a long time. To begin with, if one keeps with the theme of psychology, the exchange where he tells his keeper that "Gloucester stumbled, and in falling / Struck me, that thought to stay him, overboard Into the tumbling billows of the main" (I.iv.19-21) has fascinating implications. In addition to all of the other dreams that the characters throughout the play have, one of the remarkable things about this is that it is not just an instance of foreshadowing: Clarence is processing something that only his unconscious mind has been able to perceive. Namely, Richard is not to be trusted and will eventually stab him in the back in his descent into evil and self-destruction. This insight is yet another one in which Shakespeare anticipates strains of intellectual discourse that wouldn't be explicitly codified for hundreds of years, in this instance, in the form of Freud's seminal text, The Interpretation of Dreams.

            While on the subject of anticipating 20th-century developments, when reading Richard’s various machinations, I was immediately reminded of the truly horrible but also somewhat ingenious ways authoritarians have held on to and centralized power throughout the past century. For instance, when Richard uses Buckingham to assume the throne and then orders him executed when he hesitates to follow him to new depths of depravity, I was very much reminded of some of the double dealings and backstabbing that people like Joseph Stalin and Saddam Hussein used to assume power (Hitchens). The resultant power dynamic keeps everyone who isn’t the sovereign completely terrified and loyal to the dictator. While this may work in the short term, Shakespeare impresses upon the reader that this is not a tenable long-term solution – an observation that, remarkably, also has evolutionary roots.

The question of whether Iago or Richard III is the better villain is a complex one, and, despite my aforementioned affinity for Othello, I am tempted to go with the latter. I say so partly because of the grand scale of Richard’s deception. Whereas Iago’s aim throughout the play was mostly to manipulate Othello (mainly using Cassio, Roderigo, and Emilia to do so), Richard had to cut down King Edward IV, Queen Elizabeth, Prince Edward, Richard the Younger, Clarence, Buckingham, Lady Anne, the list goes on, to achieve his ends. The incredibly intricate plot of this play was challenging enough to follow just by reading/listening to it, so I can only imagine how hard it would supposedly be to devise Richard’s various machinations and have the forethought to wrangle his way to the crown in the manner he did, albeit briefly.

Richard actually made a similar, quasi-utilitarianistic argument in Act IV, Scene ii. In it,  he says, while reflecting on Buckingham's hesitance to kill Henry's sons because they're children, "I am in / So far in blood that sin will pluck on sin. / Tear-falling pity dwells not in this eye" (IV.ii.66-68). Here, Richard says that he's so completely seeped in the blood of everyone that he's killed on his way to the crown that no other sin could condemn him further – something that I'm not sure Iago could say of his crimes. This sentiment is actually a profound theme throughout the play: that evil begets evil and eventually turns inward on itself and implodes. I believe this is a consequence of the increasing complexity of one's life the more one deceives both others and themselves – something that is borne out in the play because Richard's calumnies and violence eventually become too much for him to maintain, resulting in his loss of the throne.

In Laurence Olivier's famous 1955 production, he also chose to splice a few lines from Henry VI, Part III into Richard's opening soliloquy that illustrates the aforementioned point. In them, Richard says that he's "disproportion(ed)… in every part" (III.ii.162) and that he "know(s) not how to get the crown" (III.ii.174). Both phrases denote an intrapsychic state twisted in on itself due to not knowing how to manifest one's self or goals – things that are only exacerbated by deception. I thought this was particularly interesting because overwhelming intrapsychic complexity has also been a way that depression has been conceptualized. Perhaps this is an instance of Shakespeare, yet again, unconsciously making a comment on the nature of evil and pain that would take centuries for the rest of society to understand fully.

Additionally, I argued with Othello that Iago embodied the limits of human consciousness and fulfillment. However, Iago was merely the voice/progenitor of these limits and Otello the stage upon which they played out. With Richard III, he is both, as he thinks that his subterfuge and assumption of the crown will result in something akin to sublimity, only to find that his hold on it is tenuous and comes at the cost of everyone around him (to say nothing of himself). Queen Margaret most succinctly sums up this dynamic in Act I, scene iii, when she remarks, “They that stand high have many blasts to shake them, / And if they fall, they dash themselves to pieces” (I.iii.275-276). These are just a few among the many reasons why I believe the depths of Richard’s depravity and the scope of his manipulations are slightly greater than Iago’s.

I also think it’s fascinating that Shakespeare decided to make Richard a sympathetic villain, similar to what he did with Shylock (with whom I think he shares many other parallels). Besides maybe being the most beautiful and economical instance of exposition I can think of, Richard's opening monologue is integral in making the audience feel sympathy for him. I'm specifically referring to the section of his soliloquy when he says, "I… am curtailed of this fair proportion, / Cheated of feature by dissembling nature, / Deformed, unfinished, sent before my time / Into this breathing world scarce half made up" (I.i.18-21). I think this is a sentiment that many can empathize with – I certainly find myself often wishing that I was smarter, more attractive, more talented, or less disposed to neuroticism; the list goes on. Like I think is partly the message of Othello, though, lending too much credence to this kind of thinking spells disaster – something that Richard's story certainly bears out if we are to take this as one of his primary motivations for his desire to seize the crown.

Again, like with Othello, I thought I would link my favorite performance (albeit only an excerpt) of Richard’s opening monologue. It’s performed here by Henry Irving, who was perhaps the most well-respected English actor of the late Victorian era. His affective range and almost operatic mastery of the phonatory process always astounds me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax7nZuHN8X8.

Works Cited

Hitchens, Christopher. “Iraq's 1979 Fascist Coup, Narrated by Christopher Hitchens.” Youtube. Axis of Evil, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CR1X3zV6X5Y.

O'Keefe, James. “Homosexuality: It's about Survival - Not Sex.” Youtube. TEDx Talks, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Khn_z9FPmU. Accessed 24 Dec. 2021.

&

Richard III As Mephistopheles and the Embodiment of the Malice Within Us All

            As the second-longest work in Shakespeare’s oeuvre and arguably one of the most narratively dense, several messages undergird the plot of Richard III. However, at its heart is Shakespeare’s characterization of Richard of Gloucester. Specifically, through Richard’s various machinations that eventually lead to his demise, Shakespeare presents Richard as both a quasi-Mephistophelian embodiment of pure evil and a somewhat sympathetic villain. In doing so, he intends to convey the malice and desire for power present in all of us and the ruin that lies in our surrender to them.

            At the beginning of this play and in that which precedes it, Henry VI: Part III, Shakespeare characterizes Richard as quite pitiable, thereby instilling feelings of empathy and identification in the audience. To this effect, in Henry VI: Part III, Richard says, “Since this Earth affords no joy to me… / I’ll make my heaven to dream” (III.ii.167-170). This sentiment is an incredibly sad one, but also very relatable, particularly to people with artistic penchants, which those that comprise this play’s audience must have to some extent, or else they wouldn’t take the time to watch it. Consequently, it is a fascinating encapsulation of the creative and aesthetic processes in and of themselves. However, Shakespeare also brings up both dreams and the afterlife here, which are central themes throughout Richard III. While here and in many of his other works, Shakespeare depicts eternity as paradisiacal (though usually in the context of the love object-subject dyad), the Earl of Gloucester’s dreams and those of others he touches are anything but, as the audience will see, by the end of this play. Instead, Richard’s evil ways result in a hell of his own making, which is borne out in the dreams throughout the story – both in their content and in the fact that they all come true eventually and result in their experiencer’s death.

            The two most stark moments where the aforementioned dynamic is at play are in Act I, scene iv, in the form of Clarence’s dream, and Act V, scene iii, in the form of Richard’s. In the case of the former, after being manipulated and imprisoned by Richard, Clarence has a dream wherein he describes drowning over and over again and staring into the “slimy bottom of the deep” (I.iv.33) before being taken “Unto the kingdom of perpetual night” (I.iv.48). He goes on in one of the most beautiful sentences in the play to say that “methought a legion of fowl fiends / Environed me, and howled in mine ears / Such hideous cries that with the very noise / I trembling waked, and for a season after / Could not believe but that I was in hell” (I.iv.60-64). Here, he is unconsciously describing the type of hell that Richard’s deceit has created for him, thereby conjuring the image of Mephistopheles. This link is not only attributed to Mephistopheles’ common conflation with the Christian devil (Goebel 150), who supposedly holds dominion over and leads people to hell but also because of the etymology of his very name.

            The origin and meaning of the name “Mephistopheles” have been the subject of much debate over the centuries. One old interpretation derived from Greek and later, Latin, translates to English as “in order to understand himself as great and to want to stand out above others,” a moniker that would certainly characterize Richard (Goebel 149). Another interpretation that has been posited is also derived from Greek roots, which, when converted to German and then English, signify “(he) who does not love the light” (Goebel 149). Arguably, this is also a sentiment that Richard directly references in his opening monologue when he says, “Since I cannot prove a lover… / I am determined to prove a villain/ and hate the idle pleasures of these days” (I.i.28-31). Though these lines read as those of someone who is depressed, instead of choosing to love others and what he describes as “the idle pleasures” of life (in this case, “light”), Richard decides to lie and cheat and kill to get what he wants.

            Clarence's dream is not the only instance where Shakespeare implies that Richard has this Mephistophelian connotation. Throughout the play, he portrays Richard as the enemy of language/logos – a phenomenon that has long had divine connotations (Ruether 324). For instance, in Act I, scene III, before Clarence's executioners go into his cell to fulfill their charge, and after he refers to himself as the devil (I.iii.358), Richard says, "Withal obdurate; do not hear him plead, / For Clarence is well-spoken and perhaps / May move your hearts to pity if you mark him" (I.iii.368-369). Here, among many other instances, such as when he convinces the townspeople to support him or when he bribes an assassin to kill Henry's children, Richard uses and attacks language or reason to achieve his various evil ends, which carries heavy religious connotations.

            It’s not until the final act, whereupon he has his aforementioned dream, that all of Richard’s scheming finally catches up to him. After the dream, he proclaims, “I am a villain” (V.iii.203); a natural conclusion to his line from his opening monologue, when he said, “I am determined to prove a villain” (I.i.30). However, he immediately afterward says, “Yet I lie; I am not” (V.iii.203). Upon first hearing it, this line may come across as the ramblings of a madman – one that has either lost his critical faculties or is a complete sociopath. However, this statement lies at the crux of this paper: that Richard’s desires are no more villainous than those of anyone else – he just has given into them and, as a consequence, has lost everything. Despite what he’s done throughout the play, Shakespeare succeeds in making the audience feel a twinge of empathy for Richard when he says, “If I die no soul will pity me. / And wherefore should they, since that I myself / Find in myself no pity to myself?” (V.iii.213-215). Not only does this line cause the audience to once again identify with Richard, thereby making them recognize him in themselves, but it also conveys the living hell that they will find themselves in if they, like him, give in to their demons.

            Though Shakespeare has characterized him as a Mephistophelian figure throughout the play, it's in this scene that the gravity of his actions hit Richard. This dynamic is most perfectly encapsulated by the lines where he says, "My conscience hath a thousand several tongues, / And every tongue brings in a several tale, / And every tale condemns me for a villain. / Perjury, perjury, in the highest degree; / Murder, stern murder, in the direst degree; / All several sins, all used in each degree, / Throng to the bar, crying all "Guilty, guilty!" (V.iii.205-211). Here, he anthropomorphizes the emotional consequences his various "sins" have had on him, and, like the furies that Clarence mentioned in his dreams, the resultant beings subject him to the worst psychological torment one can feel. In the following two scenes, this kind of corporeal hell culminates in Richard's total isolation, panic, deposition, and decapitation.

            Like all of Shakespeare's characters, Richard is clearly a complex and multi-faceted one. It wouldn't be correct to say that he is merely insane, nor is it true that he has no semblance of humanity, though he certainly displays elements of both features. Instead, Shakespeare portrays him as a Mephistophelian embodiment of pure evil – albeit an evil that is all too relatable. As a consequence of his inability to mediate the malice inherent in the human condition, however, Richard suffers the repercussions. Eventually destroying himself, he is unable to stop pursuing his nefarious ends, even at the cost of his own life and metaphorical soul -- embodied in his repeated cry, "A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!" (V.iv.7).

Works Cited

Goebel, Julius. “The Etymology of Mephistopheles.” Transactions and Proceedings of the

American Philological Association, vol. 35, [Johns Hopkins University Press, American Philological Association], 1904, pp. 148–56, https://doi.org/10.2307/282658.

Ruether, Rosemary Radford. “The Liberation of Christology from Patriarchy.” New Blackfriars,

vol. 66, no. 781/782, Wiley, 1985, pp. 324–35, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43247830.

Shakespeare, William. “Henry VI, Part 3.” The Folger Shakespeare, Folger Shakespeare Library, 9

July 2021, https://shakespeare.folger.edu/shakespeares-works/henry-vi-part-3/.

Shakespeare, William. “Richard III.” The Folger Shakepeare, Folger Shakespeare Library, 12 Nov.

2021, https://shakespeare.folger.edu/shakespeares-works/richard-iii/.