Richard’s Fall
Comments(2) Richard is a symbol of plain, evil gesture driven to his downfall by his own manner in obtaining power and his conscience.
Acts 4 & 5 of Shakespeare’s Richard III deal with Richard’s fall as the first three acts dealt with his successful seizing of the throne. Richard wooed, schemed and killed to gain his throne in which he sat “falsely set.” Each deed he put into action was a level worse than the last and when he finally did claim the throne, he was left with a kingdom with a shaky foundation, built upon deceit and betrayal.
Ornstein, in his essay Richard III found in the back of the Signet Edition of the play, points out that “His is the politics of faction and corruption. His plots feeds the intrigues and rivalries of the Court.” This can be seen in his court’s slow dwindling of members, symbolized in him having loyal Buckingham killed. Before long, he was alone and confronted himself as his own worst enemy. He doubts himself, an abrupt about face from the Richard we had gotten to know before Acts 4 & 5. He questions himself; “Who do I fear? Myself? There’s no one else by,” contradicting himself in being unable to answer whether or not he sees a murderer. His conscience “hath a several thousand tongues, and every tongue brings in a several tale, And every tale condemns him for a villain.” (5.3.183-196) His own multiplicity is bewildering to him, a steep fall from the confident Richard earlier in the play and a display of his lone nature being overwhelmed by the company of grief he had created, the Ghosts whom visited him a reflection of his guilt.
It is fitting his conscience is what does him in, as the lack of one prior finally catches up to him in the form of Richmond’s morally superior direction, orating to his troops that “God and his good cause fight upon our side.” (5.3.241) There is a strict contrast between the two and Shakespeare places the battle within a good vs. evil context. The play still centers around Richard III even at his very lowest, shambling through Bosworth field and faced with overwhelming odds, the same odds which propelled him to the crown initially. Richard excels against stiff challenge and that is the one things that never changes throughout the play, no matter if he’s doubtful or stalwart.
The site I am posting is a youtube parody of Richard III; the reason I’m posting it, besides the comedic aspect, is because around minute 3:40, Richard III voices some doubt as to himself being leader. I link this to Richard’s soliloquy at the end of the play (5.3. l.182-205)where he has a conversation with himself; in that scene he tips the scale towards schizophrenia as he tries to figure out how to flee from himself. I find this interesting because it makes me wonder if Shakespeare’s Richard III was really just following the line “fake it till you make it”. This strikes a chord with me, because even after Richard made it to be King, I felt very much that he was faking it and had no clue what the hell he was doing. Depending on one or the other, can he still be considered “plain evil”?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV6FcxMmI9I
“All unavoided is the doom of destiny:” do we agree?
While I feel King Richard’s inevitable demise was anticlimactic—based on previous class discussions, the efficacy of cursing (illustrated by Queen Margaret’s cursing of Richard to Richard’s fateful self-cursing) and incantations (“Despair and die,” anybody?) does play a part in the course of events, I’d like to play around with something Nick brings up in his post: Shakespeare’s treatment of “conscience.” Throughout Richard III, conscience undergoes a variety of translations: from Queen Margaret’s cursing of Richard, “The worm of conscience still begnaw thy soul!” (I. iii. 221); the argument between the first and second murderers likening conscience to “the devil” (I. iv. 128-153); then finally to the character who can use it most, Richard himself: “Conscience is but a word that cowards use, Devised at first to keep the strong in awe” (V. iii. 310-311). I’m sure there are other examples in the play, but, isn’t it interesting how a single word goes beyond Shakespeare’s usual bag of word trickery (double entendres and homonymic associations)? Depending on the characters’ position on the social ladder—between the peripheral, has-been queen, hired-hand murderers, and a man of nobility’s (due to familial ties NOT personal virtue(s)) treatment of language as “honey words,” the self-same signifier of “conscience” dons a variety of meanings…or does it?
What did Shakespeare want his audience/readers of Richard III to take away about conscience (if anything at all)? Does conscience as worm/devil/cowardice prevail as a means of order restoration? I feel that answering yes would somehow point to an overarching power beyond Richard’s machinations. Call it fate…destiny…God…or is it a means of comeuppance to those perceived as villains (Aaron, Shylock, and Richard share this category) because they challenge the structures of power? My thoughts are starting to get jumbled and convoluted, so I’ll it at that…