Daniela Figliano
999193965
Professor Matthew
Sergi
ENG331
13 February 2014
The Function of the Duke of
Clarence’s Dream In Shakespeare’s Richard the Third
In
Shakespeare’s Richard III, the objective of the dream experienced by the
Duke of Clarence is to provide insight towards the plot on a subconscious
level. Thus, it transcends the barriers of the immediate plot in order to
create a sub-sequence of events that are brought to the forefront during the
passage. Brian Carroll’s Richard as
Waking Nightmare: Barthesian Dream, Myth and Memory in Shakespeare’s Richard
III provides further justification for the impact of the dream within the
play. According to Carroll, Shakespeare “used dreams as image, and image as a
prism through which to ask questions about power, vision, artifice, and
illusion, therefore reality” (29); however, I will argue that Shakespeare employs
dreams in order to portray an extension of reality, as opposed to mere insight.
Due to its juxtaposition on a separate level of cognition (Carroll 29) making
it outside of the diegesis, the dream remains separate from the immediate plot,
and forms a sub-sequence of events that are relevant in driving the plot, but
unclear in meaning. Consequently, this insight provided into the interiority of
the mind allows for fragmentation of the plot, specifically in regards to the
reversal of Clarence and Gloucester’s characterization as polarities of good
and evil. Shakespeare allows for the roles of the two characters to be reversed
in the dream by Clarence’s statement that “Gloucester, in falling, struck me
overboard into the tumbling billows of the main” (Shakespeare 1.4.19). He then
paints Gloucester as innocent, and represents him as blameless in contrast to
what the reader has previously established of his character outside of the
dream. Although contained within the passage, this conflicting depiction of
Clarence and Gloucester provides not only subconscious insight to the piece,
but also unveils an alternate perspective of the categorization of characters
as purely good or evil. Thus, he destabilizes the assumptions of
pre-established characterization by forcing this passage to be viewed as a
parallel reality in which the characters are contradictory to themselves.
Although
Carroll touches upon the notion that Clarence’s dream contains “seeds of reality”,
he describes it merely as a “telescope into his psychology” (37). Thus, he
dismisses the notion that the dream is given weight apart from the subconscious
or manifests a reality outside of Clarence’s mind. As a result of this, Carroll
undermines the ability of the dream to create a realm outside of the immediate plot,
in which the characterizations of Clarence and Gloucester are altered. Despite
this proposal, the use of dramatic irony and foreshadowing reinforce the
transposition of Clarence and Gloucester. Carroll asserts that dreams are
implemented in order to create shifts in time, cast a depiction of history and
ultimately to determine the future (30), thus it is notable that through the
dream’s ability to foreshadow events, it also ties sequences of events together.
This is displayed specifically through Gloucester’s opening soliloquy and
Clarence’s death, in which the dream acts as a connecting vein. In other words,
when examined exclusively, the dream sequence simply reveals a depiction of
Clarence’s death; however, due to the opening soliloquy of the piece, in which
Richard states Clarence should “closely be mewed up/ About a prophecy which
says that G/ of Edward’s heirs the murderer shall be” (Shakespeare 1.1.38-40),
dramatic irony is detectable because the reader is previously informed of Gloucester’s
intent. Ergo, dramatic irony remains as the fulcrum in which the role-reversal
of both characters is enabled. It is given value due to the conflicting
variations of Clarence’s death; his own interpretation through the element of
dreaming in contrast to the reality within the plot that is premeditated by the
reader. As a result of Gloucester’s speech being the cause of dramatic irony,
it is apparent that reality is merged with the dream in order to bestow deeper
significance. Thus, dramatic irony necessitates the role-reversal of Clarence’s
dream, and causes it to be viewed as a tangible reality as opposed to
speculation.
As
a result of this dramatic irony and foreshadowing, Clarence’s dream sequence is
elevated to a higher level of importance within the piece due to its
contribution to the plot since it allows for a dissimilar interpretation of the
concerning characters. Despite this, the dream cannot be interpreted as pure
reality, as previously stated by Carroll (29), but as an extension of it. Therefore,
since dreaming is primal and instinctive, it simply cannot be disregarded as
meaningless, but remains as information provided to the intended audience on a
subconscious level. This is exemplified through Clarence’s adherence to his
dream in the immediate plot, as he recalls it by stating, “I trembling waked/
and for a season after could not believe but that I was in hell/ such terrible
impression made my dream” (Shakespeare 1.4.61-63). Thus, the subconscious is
merged with the conscious as the dream is brought into the direct plot and is
interpreted by Clarence as a variation of reality and not simply an imagined
fabrication. Shakespeare uses this notion to his advantage, as the dream becomes
a vehicle for presenting a stream of consciousness onstage in a theatrical
production. In other words, the dream is used to illustrate the interiority of
the character, and the retelling of it to the keeper allows it to be
transmitted to the audience, inspiring it to be interpreted as increasingly realistic
when presented on this front. This is because of the impact the dream maintains
on Clarence once he is awake. As a result of the mergence of dream and reality,
the role reversal of Clarence and Gloucester is maintained as increasingly
visible, as it is brought to the attention of the intended audience.
Despite
being presented on a level of subconscious to the reader, in the dream in Richard
III, the aforementioned mergence
of dream and reality is further strengthened through the use of symbolism.
Carroll places a strong reliance on symbolism and metaphor in his article as he
states “it is important not to underestimate the value and power of metaphor as
not only a rhetorical device but as a way of seeing and relating to the world”
(30). Therefore, he asserts that dreaming is the vessel in which metaphor is
altered into the concrete to be compared to and reasoned with (31). This notion
contradicts his theory that dreams are simply telescopes into psychology (37)
as he addresses the concreteness of dreams and describes them worthy of
consideration. Thus, Clarence’s dream must be considered a form of tangible
reality. As a result of this, it becomes visible that Clarence’s transfer of
his dream experiences into reality gives symbolism in the dream importance.
While speaking of this dream Clarence admonishes, “I have done these things/
that now give evidence against my soul” (Shakespeare 1.4.65-66). This illustrates
his view of himself as tainted, devoid of virtue and ultimately, a murderer.
Thus, the audience is provided with the notion that Clarence believes himself
to be impure, and it is then given credibility and resonates with the observer.
Consequently, Clarence’s negative views of himself propel the dream into
reality, as he speaks of it while he is awake. Furthermore, the symbolism
imbedded in Clarence’s very name, referring to the word “clarity”, is relevant
as Shakespeare uses it strategically. His death at the hands of his brother in
the dream can be seen as his moment of lucidity in the play, or a moment in
which an alternate reality is presented to him. Therefore, the function of
symbolism within the piece is revelatory to the reader or audience and provides
a sense of justification for the role reversal of Clarence and Gloucester.
The
reversal of character traits in the dream maintains a strong presence within
the play, but it also resonates outside of the piece. In other words, the dream
world’s ability to portray an extension of reality also allows it to be used by
Shakespeare as a commentary on society. In this case, the commentary provided
is perceived on a subconscious level and arises to the forefront only when the
death of Clarence comes to fruition. Thus, the commentary is embedded in the
mind of recipient and is indirect. As a result of this, Shakespeare uses this
tactic in order to destabilize the notion of being purely good or purely evil.
This pertains to Carroll’s assertion that, “members of the same family are
thought of to have the same blood, and descents their bloodlines, a signifier
so strong that it alone has justified royal heirs to their throne” (34).
Clarence’s depiction as less than pure in this passage displays this belief as Shakespeare
casts him in an uncharacteristic negative light. Thus, he is presented as a
brother of the same blood and therefore, likeness of Gloucester. According to
Carroll, “it is important that as creations of and for the imagination…dreams
are utterly of Shakespeare’s imagining” (40). Shakespeare places himself in the
mind of Clarence in this dream allowing him to utilize Clarence’s subconscious
in order to convey a strategic message. Ergo, Shakespeare uses the dream in
order to relay a version of reality that is manifested and presumably believed
by him. This belief is that the lines remain blurred between being virtuous and
deceptive within figures of royalty in the play and on a larger scope, society
as a whole.
Clarence’s
dream in Richard III is presented in a manner that causes the reader to
question the division between the subconscious and reality. Due to the emphasis
on this particular dream in the play, as it is the longest Shakespearean dream
sequence (37), the pervasive nature of the passage is seen. The reversal of
characterization of Clarence and Gloucester as the embodiments of good and evil
brings the dream to actuality, as Shakespeare uses them as a commentary that
functions within the plot. Therefore, the dream imposes a strong effect on the
play as a whole due to its underlying message and presence throughout the piece
leading up to the death of Clarence.
This pervasiveness brings the role reversal of Clarence and Gloucester’s
characterization to the forefront during the passage and forces it to be
recognized not merely as a self-contained scenario, but as a separate reality
that drives the plot forward.
Work Cited
Carroll, Brian. "Richard as Waking
Nightmare: Barthesian Dream, Myth, and Memory in Shakespeare's
Richard III." Visual Communication Quarterly 20.1 (2013): 28-45.
Web. 13 Feb. 2014
Shakespeare, William ed. Peter Holland. The Tragedy of King Richard the Third. New
York: Penguin
Books Inc., 2000. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment