“Shakespeare’s Richard III presents a cynical view of conscience.”
Do you agree?
“Richard III” explores the idea of conscience in great detail. With the growth of Protestantism under the Tudors, the notion of the importance of individual conscience became supremely important to the Elizabethans. Conscience gives the characters in the play an innate sense of what is right and wrong, especially in relation to their actions and motives; it strips away outward show to reveal their true feelings. Shakespeare’s portrayal of conscience is also closely knit with God’s interaction. Richard is presented as a symptom of a larger reality- his hellish origins contrast with references to heaven, angels and saints. Furthermore, Queen Margaret, who is the voice of the ‘Nemesis’, prophesies that vengeance shall befall the Yorks. Amidst such grave portrayals of conscience, Shakespeare ensures the audience that Richmond, an agent of divine justice sent by God, will cleanse England and restore sanity.
Despite his nature Richard becomes king and is representative of God on earth. Theology was forced to reconcile the belief in a good and just God with a country suffering under a cruel and tyrannical king. This leads to the idea that Richard is the “Scourge of God” as he takes a deliberate decision to ignore the constraints of morality in his quest for the crown. Richard’s ‘hellish’ nature is exemplified in his wooing of Anne. Anne’s reaction to Richard’s entrance combines two of the most potent Elizabethan fears: the power of the supernatural and of eternal damnation. Anne demonizes Richard in her opening words to him. He is a “fiend”, “the devil” and a “minister of hell.” The blameless mourner is forced to play the accuser as she invokes first superstitious belief, then revenge, “heaven with lightning strike the murderer dead” and finally hellish possession, “his hell-governed arm.” Shakespeare wants us to see that Richard shows absolutely no remorse in his wooing of a grieving lady who has had her husbanded murdered by him; thus depicting his immorality. The entrance of Margaret immediately draws the audience’s attention to the hatred and desire for retribution that is directed towards the house of York for the wrong doings done to the house of Lancaster. As Margaret acts as the voice of the “Nemesis” the audience is instantly made aware that Richard is its agent; he has the political power to destroy his enemies. Margaret has much in common wit the chorus in Greek tragedy, resurrected by Shakespeare to crystallize past events. Richard and Margaret use similar language as they curse and accuse each other of past horrific crimes, exemplified when Margaret calls Richard a “dog”, an “elvish-marked, abortive, rooting hog.” Margaret’s continuous lamentation, cursing and prophecies echo the defining pattern of Greek drama where the workings of fate brought suffering and death. Ultimately, Shakespeare wants us to see that Richard is at the centre of the action as death follows death, but he fails to see that he is part of the pattern and it is inevitable that he too must die. As Richard describes his own fate to Elizabeth, “As I intend to prosper and repent, so thrive I in my dangerous affairs”, he is ironically unaware of its truth.
Dreams and omens reveal the future and often foreshadowed sinister events. Clarence’s dream prior his murder is a sustained meditation on the consequences of sin for the Christian soul, with its vision of damnation and everlasting suffering in hell for evil deeds committed in life. The grim humour of the two murderers’ prose as they debate the ethics of Clarence’s murder contrasts with the poetic blank verse of Clarence’s heartfelt agonizing. The first murderer is eager to perform the task but the second murderer feels some remorse. His literal interpretation of Christian belief would be well understood by an Elizabethan audience. He fears that on the Day of Judgment God will discover the sins of the dead and the souls of those who have sinned and will be condemned to hell, “damned.” He has a dilemma; the warrant gives him secular authority to murder Clarence, but this will not prevent God from judging him guilty. But Shakespeare shows how such uneasy qualms of conscience are overcome at the thought of money, “Remember our reward when the deed’s done…Come, he dies, I had forgot the reward.” Clearly, Shakespeare is reinforcing the fact that characters, such as the murderers who are driven by self-interest, choose to ignore their conscience. Clarence argues that he has not been found guilty of any crime and that killing him will condemn both murderers to eternal suffering. The divine law of “The great Kings of kings” is above the secular power of an earthly monarch. But in fact Clarence is guilty of the crime he begs the murderers not to commit. Both Clarence and Richard murdered Edward, Prince of Wales, after the battle of Tewkesbury. Clarence has perjured himself by swearing then breaking an oath to his father-in-law Warwick. Thus the murderers’ reminder to Clarence of his murder and perjury makes the First Murderer’s question unanswerable, “How canst thou urge God’s dreadful law to us when thou hast broke it in such dear degree?” At this point, Clarence inevitably gives in to his conscience, he acknowledges the importance of his immortal soul and makes the correct moral choices before he dies; he confesses his sins. It is evident that Clarence’s final actions emphasize Shakespeare’s cynical view of conscience.
Shakespeare is primarily concerned with reinforcing the legitimacy of the Tudor regime and therefore Richmond, who becomes the first Tudor king, is presented as a man deeply concerned with living out the ordinances of the ‘Divine’ king and thus he is a character who portrays the glorious nature of conscience. Richmond enters by offering a stirring oration, urging his supporters to fight in God’s name; immediately, Shakespeare wants us to realize that this is an optimistic scene. Richmond is as resolute as Richard but speaks with the gracious ceremony that defines a victor. Richard’s vilification as the “wretched, bloody and usurping boat” who has destroyed England’s peace is contrasted with Richmond’s image as the saviour of the realm, who has the Almighty on his side. The idea that Richmond represents all that is “Good” reinforces the gratifying nature of his conscience. Richmond interprets the promise of a fair weather, “a goodly day tomorrow”, as an optimistic omen for the next day’s battle, suggesting that the sky will shine on him but frown on Richard. He is courteous to those under his command calling Blunt “good” and “sweet”. There is no doubt that Richmond is portrayed as a hero with a moral conscience who will end Richard’s evil reign. When Stanley enters, he acts as a catalyst to reveal the moral differences between Richard and Richmond. Richmond is portrayed as God’s servant as exemplified in Richmond’s prayer to God, “Look on my forces with a gracious eye.” On the other hand, Richard is once again depicted as the “Scourge of God”, someone who has plundered the land and now kills and feasts on his own people as he ravages England. Shakespeare makes it extremely clear that it will be Richmond who will “reap the harvest of perpetual peace.” Richmond’s final actions and language are intended to bring peace after a bloody civil war. He enquires after George Stanley, orders the proper burial for the nobles and offers pardon to enemy soldiers who submit to him. His actions are typical of someone with integrity and moral compassion. By concluding the play with a resounding “Amen”, Shakespeare intends to leave us with the notion that although during corrupt times the worst of men’s conscience is displayed; it is the struggle to seize peace and prosperity that will bring out the incorruptibility nature of conscience.
The idea of conscience is portrayed in a variety of ways throughout the play. The audience is ultimately encouraged to realize the importance of conscience, which redeems those who repent. Although Richard ignores all aspects of conscience in his quest for domination, it is argued that he is also destroyed by his own conscience. Even if there does not seem to be much overt goodness to rely on in “Richard III”, Richmond’s representation of conscience highlights the importance of having strong moral values. It can be seen that Shakespeare is trying to teach us a very clear moral lesson: man must admit and act on his own powerful conscience.
Words: 1404
Many thanks!
Home
Help
Search
Login
