Karen Cataluna
ENG331H1
Prof. Matthew Sergi
February 17, 2014
Brian
Carroll describes image as "a prism through which to ask questions about
power, artifice, and illusion, and therefore reality" (Carroll 28). He
claims that blood in Shakespeare's Richard
III is a powerful image that has primarily two functions (Carroll 34). At
its simplest level, it is "a bodily fluid [associated] with life and
vitality [linking] eras and people" (Carroll 34). On a much deeper level,
however, blood is a ritual substitute for red wine, particularly that which is
used in the Christian Bible (Carroll 34). Though Carroll only analyzes the
significance of blood at a page's length, I believe that unpacking further
implications of blood in Richard III
is valuable to this discussion. The Bible, as a secondary text, enhances a
deeper and more intricate understanding of the power of blood in Richard III. Mainly, a comparison between
both complicates the conventional binary of good and evil, thus denoting
Clarence as a failed hero and Richard as the failed villain.
ENG331H1
Prof. Matthew Sergi
February 17, 2014
Blood and Binaries: A Comparison of the Bible with Richard III
Richard III certainly borrows some elements
from the Christian narrative. Alongside blood, there is an allusion to the Last
Supper in a conversation between Buckingham and Hastings: "Hastings: Nay,
like enough, for I stay dinner there./Buckingham [Aside]: And supper too,
although thou know'st it not" (3.3.121-2). Buckingham here is alluding to
the Last Supper in the four gospels of the Christian Bible. By remarking the
words, "and supper too," he is foreshadowing a betrayal of the higher
good similar to the one between Judas and Jesus, one that will be enacted by Richard
of Gloucester. This betrayal, this deception that is necessary to fulfill the
greedy ambitions of Richard and Judas, eventually leads to a loss of innocent
blood.
Blood also creates a separation between groups of people. During the Passover in the book of Exodus, blood is painted over the doors of homes to signify its residents as members of the same group. The red substance serves to protect them from harm and evil. The physical act of staining blood on their doors demonstrates their intent to identify with an exclusive group harboring a common sacred interest, thus separating them from the outside world. The outward appearance of blood is a public declaration that consequently marks them as followers of God.
In the same way, blood separates the in-group with the out-group in Richard III. This book is remarkably about a war for the throne amongst men of royalty. Though the male cast in this book competing for the throne is all born of royal blood, there is a separation between them due to the quality of blood. It is the type of blood, then, that creates an in-group and out-group, as opposed to the physical appearance of it in the Bible. Consequently, Richard of Gloucester attempts to force young Elizabeth into a marriage in order to inherit her blood, and therefore her royalty. The value of blood is measured by its relations to royalty. Carroll articulates that blood “links eras and people”, and this is evident in both stories (Carroll 34).
Blood is also used in exchange for some aspect of the truth, whether it is completely discernible or not. Clarence is killed by Richard of Gloucester's allies, stabbed multiple times before he submits to his inevitable death (1.4.269-70). The second murderer calls this a "bloody deed" as it involves the literal loss of innocent blood in exchange for the truth (1.4.271). Before being killed, Clarence experiences a prophetic dream but is not allowed enough time to register the urgency of the situation or to assess Richard's true intentions. He is bestowed with the ability to foresee his death but is ironically too naïve to act appropriately upon it and prevent his own passing.
In the Bible, Jesus' blood is used in exchange for a premonition of his own death, similar to that of Clarence. Unlike Clarence, however, it serves a secondary purpose: it promises the salvation of present and future Christians. Both Jesus and Clarence are granted knowledge of their future and some image related to their own death, but must sacrifice their own blood in exchange. The spilling of Jesus' blood is not in vain, however, for by giving up his own blood he is able to grant life in eternity for his followers: "For God so loved the world He gave his one and only son, so that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16). Clarence, on the contrary, does not make any purchases with his own blood. He is 'good' and gives off the impression of being innocent in comparison to Richard of Gloucester, but can offer nothing to his world. Unlike Jesus, he saves no one. It is even questionable why he would experience such a vision because of his lack of comprehensive ability.
The sharp contrast between Clarence’s innocence and Richard’s villainy places both brothers into a binary of good and evil. Because of the emphasis placed on Richard of Gloucester's villainy, Clarence can arguably be characterized as the 'good brother,' or perhaps even 'the hero.' In other words, Richard draws blood and Clarence spills it. Due to Clarence’s inability to use the powers bestowed upon him to save himself and those around him however, he becomes a failed hero and an unsuitable bearer of good and truth. He does not have evil intentions, but he is not necessarily good. On the contrary, Richard is malicious and strategically kills his brother to help secure his desired title as king. His open willingness to kill for potential kingship and his own acknowledgement of his capacity for immorality paints him as immensely evil. Shortly after being officially crowned a king, however, he loses grip of his criminal character: “I am a villain. Yet I lie: I am not” (5.3.192). Richard of Gloucester is not consistently evil. Upon deeper analysis, Richard almost evokes sympathy because of his deformity and the revulsion it incites. Just as Clarence is not a perfect representation of good, Richard is not a perfect representation of evil.
Clarence and Richard, therefore, complicate the binary of good and evil by producing shaky representations of it. Clarence cannot save anyone despite the opportunity to do so, while Richard cannot continue on in his reign of wickedness after fulfilling his ambitions. Each still retains the capacity for good and bad – whether it is merely a potential for good, or bad by means of ignorance. This consequently draws attention to ‘the quality of blood’ as a necessary signifier of royalty or character. Blood, necessarily, cannot be used to foresee one’s own character or temperament. By complicating the binary of good and evil, I believe that the idea of blood as royalty is being brought to the surface for scrutiny. Blood is an inappropriate measure of charismatic leadership because people are worth more than their lineage and the red flowing through their body. In the same way, the binary of good and evil is a defective method for discovering heroes and villains, for people are able to move outside of the labels attached to them.
All in all, blood has several functions: it divides people into groups, for example, and it is shed in exchange for a glimpse into the future. I believe that the Bible informs one understanding of blood and its implications in Richard III, and in turn assists in complicating conventional binaries that normally inform our reading of literature and our understanding of the world. Blood is used loosely in Richard III to mean royalty, damnation or the physical substance itself. While it can mean all or one, it is certain that blood as a physical substance and as a symbol of royalty keeps the cast of Richard III alive and contending for the throne, whether it is by physical violence or through the spirit of a ghost.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Carroll, Brian. “Richard as Waking Nightmare: Barthesian Dream, Myth, and Memory in Shakespeare’s Richard III.” Visual Communication Quarterly. Volume 20 (March 2013): 28-45. PDF.
Blood also creates a separation between groups of people. During the Passover in the book of Exodus, blood is painted over the doors of homes to signify its residents as members of the same group. The red substance serves to protect them from harm and evil. The physical act of staining blood on their doors demonstrates their intent to identify with an exclusive group harboring a common sacred interest, thus separating them from the outside world. The outward appearance of blood is a public declaration that consequently marks them as followers of God.
In the same way, blood separates the in-group with the out-group in Richard III. This book is remarkably about a war for the throne amongst men of royalty. Though the male cast in this book competing for the throne is all born of royal blood, there is a separation between them due to the quality of blood. It is the type of blood, then, that creates an in-group and out-group, as opposed to the physical appearance of it in the Bible. Consequently, Richard of Gloucester attempts to force young Elizabeth into a marriage in order to inherit her blood, and therefore her royalty. The value of blood is measured by its relations to royalty. Carroll articulates that blood “links eras and people”, and this is evident in both stories (Carroll 34).
Blood is also used in exchange for some aspect of the truth, whether it is completely discernible or not. Clarence is killed by Richard of Gloucester's allies, stabbed multiple times before he submits to his inevitable death (1.4.269-70). The second murderer calls this a "bloody deed" as it involves the literal loss of innocent blood in exchange for the truth (1.4.271). Before being killed, Clarence experiences a prophetic dream but is not allowed enough time to register the urgency of the situation or to assess Richard's true intentions. He is bestowed with the ability to foresee his death but is ironically too naïve to act appropriately upon it and prevent his own passing.
In the Bible, Jesus' blood is used in exchange for a premonition of his own death, similar to that of Clarence. Unlike Clarence, however, it serves a secondary purpose: it promises the salvation of present and future Christians. Both Jesus and Clarence are granted knowledge of their future and some image related to their own death, but must sacrifice their own blood in exchange. The spilling of Jesus' blood is not in vain, however, for by giving up his own blood he is able to grant life in eternity for his followers: "For God so loved the world He gave his one and only son, so that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16). Clarence, on the contrary, does not make any purchases with his own blood. He is 'good' and gives off the impression of being innocent in comparison to Richard of Gloucester, but can offer nothing to his world. Unlike Jesus, he saves no one. It is even questionable why he would experience such a vision because of his lack of comprehensive ability.
The sharp contrast between Clarence’s innocence and Richard’s villainy places both brothers into a binary of good and evil. Because of the emphasis placed on Richard of Gloucester's villainy, Clarence can arguably be characterized as the 'good brother,' or perhaps even 'the hero.' In other words, Richard draws blood and Clarence spills it. Due to Clarence’s inability to use the powers bestowed upon him to save himself and those around him however, he becomes a failed hero and an unsuitable bearer of good and truth. He does not have evil intentions, but he is not necessarily good. On the contrary, Richard is malicious and strategically kills his brother to help secure his desired title as king. His open willingness to kill for potential kingship and his own acknowledgement of his capacity for immorality paints him as immensely evil. Shortly after being officially crowned a king, however, he loses grip of his criminal character: “I am a villain. Yet I lie: I am not” (5.3.192). Richard of Gloucester is not consistently evil. Upon deeper analysis, Richard almost evokes sympathy because of his deformity and the revulsion it incites. Just as Clarence is not a perfect representation of good, Richard is not a perfect representation of evil.
Clarence and Richard, therefore, complicate the binary of good and evil by producing shaky representations of it. Clarence cannot save anyone despite the opportunity to do so, while Richard cannot continue on in his reign of wickedness after fulfilling his ambitions. Each still retains the capacity for good and bad – whether it is merely a potential for good, or bad by means of ignorance. This consequently draws attention to ‘the quality of blood’ as a necessary signifier of royalty or character. Blood, necessarily, cannot be used to foresee one’s own character or temperament. By complicating the binary of good and evil, I believe that the idea of blood as royalty is being brought to the surface for scrutiny. Blood is an inappropriate measure of charismatic leadership because people are worth more than their lineage and the red flowing through their body. In the same way, the binary of good and evil is a defective method for discovering heroes and villains, for people are able to move outside of the labels attached to them.
All in all, blood has several functions: it divides people into groups, for example, and it is shed in exchange for a glimpse into the future. I believe that the Bible informs one understanding of blood and its implications in Richard III, and in turn assists in complicating conventional binaries that normally inform our reading of literature and our understanding of the world. Blood is used loosely in Richard III to mean royalty, damnation or the physical substance itself. While it can mean all or one, it is certain that blood as a physical substance and as a symbol of royalty keeps the cast of Richard III alive and contending for the throne, whether it is by physical violence or through the spirit of a ghost.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Works Cited
BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.
Carroll, Brian. “Richard as Waking Nightmare: Barthesian Dream, Myth, and Memory in Shakespeare’s Richard III.” Visual Communication Quarterly. Volume 20 (March 2013): 28-45. PDF.
Shakespeare, W. (2000). The Tragedy of King Richard the Third. (P. Holland, Ed.) Toronto, ON: Penguin Group.
No comments:
Post a Comment