‘Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this sun of York’ (Richard III, 1.1.1). The famous opening scene of the ‘history play’ Richard III is known throughout the world and not a few spectators have been fascinated by the character of Richard described by Greenblatt as the ‘monster of evil’ or the ‘virtual devil incarnate’ (1997, p.507). In the play itself, Richard is characterized by Margaret as ‘elvish-marked, abortive rooting hog’ (1.3.227). The play focuses on Richard, who murders his way to the crown. Shakespeare’s Edmund in King Lear shows as well a high amount of ruthlessness. Greenblatt, again, states that ‘language’ and ‘social order’ are ‘merely arbitrary constraints’ or ‘obstacles’ in the way of the ‘triumph of his will’ (1997, p.2309). He ‘seethes’ with ‘murderous resentment’ over the advantages of his brother Edgar, who is a legitimate child (Cohen 1997, p.2309).
Whilst generally agreeing on the villainy of both characters, scholarly attention given to them has been generally less convergent over the years. According to Oestreich-Hart (2000), Richard has been described as an ‘intrepid warrior’, a ‘comic or satirical Vice’, a diabolic Machiavel’, ‘a heartless villain of Senecan melodrama’, ‘a proficient rhetorican’ or even a ‘spurned child’ (p.242). Edmund, the subplot character of King Lear, has been described as ‘a most vile’ (Utterback 1976, p.203) or ‘most toad-spotted traitor’ (5.3.137).
Due to the fact that both characters show tendencies making them extremely atrocious and unpredictable, the aim of the essay, in contrast, is to explore the idea of Richard and Edward (Folio- version) being psychopaths according to our understanding of the term in our modern world. Psychopaths in literature are quite common and they are extremely fascinating, because they ...look and dress the same way as most businessmen, they may even use the same language. Some of these people are fairly persuasive, they can manipulate, they’re very charming, some of them even charismatic. And a lot of people, they like them, they think they’re kind of fun to be around, but it takes a long time before you can figure out that something is really amiss here. (R. Hare, Abc Radio National,, July 18, 2004) These features make psychopaths extremely interesting and compelling. Does Shakespeare portray characters who remind of psychopaths as well?
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Definition of a Psychopath
3. Psychopathic tendencies of Richard III
3.1 Emotional/ Interpersonal
3.2 Social Deviance
4. Psychopathic tendencies of Edmund
4.1 Emotional/ Interpersonal
4.2 Social Deviance
5. Conclusion
6. References
Research Objectives and Themes
This essay explores the extent to which Shakespeare's characters Richard III and Edmund (from King Lear) can be classified as psychopaths based on modern clinical definitions of psychopathic personality traits. The study investigates whether these complex literary figures align with established diagnostic criteria or if such a label fundamentally reduces the depth and intentionality of Shakespeare's characterization.
- Analysis of psychopathic personality traits in classic literature.
- Comparative study of Richard III and Edmund as potentially psychopathic figures.
- Examination of emotional, interpersonal, and social deviance characteristics.
- Discussion on the limitations of applying modern psychological labels to Shakespearean drama.
- Evaluation of character complexity and the evolution of villainy in tragedy.
Excerpt from the Book
3. Psychopathic tendencies of Richard III
Richard is a compelling character. It seems to be his keenest pleasure to murder his brother, his nephews and to manipulate his environment. Although he shows psychopathic tendencies, it is nevertheless problematic to refer to him as a definitive psychopath.
3.1 Emotional/ Interpersonal
Besides the ‘irresistible conviction that the play relates to history’ (Richmond 1989, p.7), Richard has ‘held so many audiences spellbound’ (Eccles 1964, p.22), because he is a ‘devil masked as a man’, according to Eccles (1964, p.22). He deceitfully appears as the ‘loyal brother’ to George, as the ‘impassioned lover’ to Lady Anne, and as the ‘kindly uncle’ to his nephews (Eccles 1964, p.23). He lacks remorse or any sign of guilt as he plots their destruction in order to be King.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter provides an overview of the characters Richard III and Edmund and establishes the essay’s primary goal of examining them through the lens of modern psychopathy.
2. Definition of a Psychopath: This section defines the clinical concept of the psychopath, specifically focusing on emotional, interpersonal, and social deviance traits as identified by researchers such as Hare and Cleckley.
3. Psychopathic tendencies of Richard III: The author evaluates Richard's character by analyzing his lack of empathy, manipulative behavior, and social deviance throughout the play Richard III.
4. Psychopathic tendencies of Edmund: This section investigates Edmund's actions and motivations in King Lear to determine if his behavior aligns with the psychopathic profile established earlier.
5. Conclusion: The concluding chapter synthesizes the findings, arguing that while both characters exhibit psychopathic tendencies, labeling them as definitive psychopaths simplifies their complex nature and artistic purpose.
6. References: A comprehensive list of the academic sources and editions used to support the analysis.
Keywords
Shakespeare, Richard III, King Lear, Psychopath, Psychopathic tendencies, Emotional traits, Interpersonal behavior, Social deviance, Manipulation, Villainy, Character analysis, Literary criticism, Clinical definitions, Moral depravity, Character complexity.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper examines whether Shakespeare's characters Richard III and Edmund display traits consistent with the clinical definition of a psychopath as understood in modern psychology.
What are the primary areas of analysis?
The study analyzes character traits such as emotional instability, interpersonal manipulation, lack of remorse, and social deviance.
What is the central research question?
The research asks to what extent these specific Shakespearean characters can be accurately identified as psychopaths and whether this classification provides meaningful insight into their characterization.
Which scientific framework is used?
The author applies Hare’s and Cleckley's modern psychopathic checklists and diagnostic criteria to the behavior of the two characters.
What is covered in the main body?
The main body is divided into examinations of Richard III and Edmund, looking at specific scenes—such as the seduction of Lady Anne—to measure their behavior against psychopathic indicators.
What are the key descriptive terms for these characters?
The analysis utilizes keywords like manipulative, ruthless, egocentric, deceitful, and lacking in remorse to categorize their behaviors.
Does the author conclude that Richard III is a psychopath?
No, the author concludes that while Richard shows psychopathic tendencies, labeling him a "definitive psychopath" is reductive and ignores his unique character evolution and the play's dramatic structure.
How does the author view the character of Edmund?
Edmund is described as a complex personality whose actions are often motivated by the social stigma of his birth, making a clinical label of "psychopath" insufficient to explain his full arc.
Why does the author mention Shylock?
Shylock is used as a counter-example to demonstrate that Shakespeare’s protagonists are intentionally complex and cannot be reduced to simple, one-dimensional categories or modern psychological stereotypes.
- Quote paper
- Tanja Lins (Author), 2005, Shakespeare - The disturbing world of Richard III and Edmund, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/48571
