The Power of History and Prophecy in Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Richard the Third: Rethinking Women’s Agency

By: Tori Carlisle

In Allison Machlis Meyer’s article “Richard III’s Forelives: Rewriting Elizabeth(s) in Tudor Historiography”, she claims that unlike in earlier writings about the defeat of Richard III and the start of the Tudor monarchy, Shakespeare changes Elizabeth Woodville  into “a voice of the past who insists on the predetermined nature of future events”(Meyer,173). Meyer felt that women lacked agency in Shakespeare’s play and were “fixed... in history as helpless mourners” (174-5). While it is true women in Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Richard the Third are voices of the past and insist on “the predetermined nature of future events” (173), it is not for the reasons that Meyer lists.  I will argue that women have an enormous amount of agency in this play because by having women voice both the historical events that precede the events of the play and those   that will happen during the play as curses and symmetrical/ cyclical prophesies the events of history are attributed to female cursing as opposed to male action. 

By voicing the past and prophesising the future, the women in this play are able to demonstrate that the events of history depicted are cyclical and symmetrical. Queen Margaret demonstrate the cyclical nature of the events of the War of the Roses when she states that she will enter the play in order to enact a “repetition of what thou hast marred” (Shakespeare, 1.3, 165), and then proceeds to curse all the characters on stage to lose exactly what they have taken from her, this curse points to the symmetrical losses that both York and Lancaster have and will suffer by the end of the play (1.3, 196-214). Though Margaret’s speeches can be viewed as a vengeful, defeated queen laying a curse, they are also historical events that Shakespeare is depicting, and by including both her references to past events that took place before the play began, and by having her prophesize the future events of the play, he is able to show that the historical events and casualties of the War of the Roses contain literary elements in that they are structurally symmetrical. If one was to examine Margaret’s curse that she lays on Elizabeth Woodville in Act 1.3 and read it without thinking of it as a prophecy, the lines , “Edward thy son, that now is Prince of Wales,/ For Edward our son, that was Prince of Wales,/ Die in his youth by like untimely violence./ Thyself a queen, for me that was a queen,/ Outlive thy glory, like my wrenched self./ Long mayst thou live to wail thy children’s death/ And see another, as I see thee now,/ Decked in thy rights as thou art stalled in mine./ Long die thy happy days before thy death,/ And, after many lengthened hours of grief,/ Die neither mother, wife, nor England’s queen.” (1.3.199-209) can be seen as a list pointing to the symmetrical losses that Margaret has already experienced in the past before the play begins, and the losses that Elizabeth will suffer by the end of the play and which are discussed in Act 4.3, but which the audience watching the play would recognize as true historical events. Therefore, this speech points to the fact that Shakespeare was not interested in stripping women of their agency, but meditating on the conventions by which writers convey the past as undisputable fact by pointing to the idea that history sometimes contains literarily structural elements. This speech also does not strip women of agency because by having Margaret voice future historical events as curses; it gives her incredible control over the events of the play and by extension the events of history.

            Women are given agency in this play through their roles as voices of the past and by their ability to use this voice to prophesize future events of the play. Every time a female character is onstage, history is discussed not only by them but by the male characters on stage as well. What Meyer calls Shakespeare’s “wailing queens” ( Meyer, 173) allows him an opportunity to discuss events of the past and the familial dynamics of the Yorks and Lancasters, such as in 1.3. when Richard and Elizabeth attack each other’s loyalty to Edward IV. This exchange reveals the dynamics and motivations between the different loyal Yorkist factions under Edward IV, in that Clarence and Richard felt that Elizabeth and her family were being ennobled by the king even though they had previously been allied with the Lancasters while Richard and George who had fought and helped him get his throne were not (1.3. 121-148). This historical dynamic between Yorkist factions is revealed when Richard states, “Let me put in your minds, if you forget. / What you have been ere this, and what you are; Withal, what I have been, and what I am.” (1.3.131-133). Women are indeed voices of the past, but by comparing the events of the past they are able to foreshadow the future events of the play. Meyer claims that women’s  lamenting the past and the losses they suffer during the play “had no impact beyond the women themselves” I would argue that women’s contextualizing of the past into curses and prophecies  gives them power to influence the events of the play. For example, Anne curses the murderer of her first husband and his future wife, not realizing that she is to become his wife, but though she curses herself this does not mean that she lacks agency but that she is a victim of her own power to bring about changes in the play (1.2, 1-32). The women lamenting the events of history and their personal losses are necessary in this play because it opens up the literary qualities of the historical events discussed. In this play women are the voices of the past, not as Meyer suggests because they cannot affect future events, but because they are the survivors of male ambition and the male dominated historical events, and therefore are the only ones that can (Meyer, 173). When Margaret and Elizabeth compare everyone they’ve lost it is because their sorrow allows them access to the past(1.3, 170-173, 196-209), Margaret voices this need to represent sorrow as a way to relate past to present, when she says to Elizabeth and the Duchess of York, “If ancient sorrow be most reverend,/ Give mine the benefit of seniority/And let my griefs frown on the upper hand./If sorrow can admit society,/Tell over your woes again by viewing mine.” (4.4, 35-39)She then goes on to list the symmetrical losses that all the women of the play have suffered due to male ambition, she states, “I had an Edward, till a Richard killed him;/ I had a husband, till a Richard killed him: / [To Queen Elizabeth] Thou hadst an Edward, till a Richard killed him;/Thou hadst a Richard, till a Richard killed him”(4.4, 40-43) then the Duchess of York joins in the lament as well, pointing to Margaret’s point that the history of the War of the Roses is cyclical and that if Elizabeth and the Duchess want to express their losses they can tell their “woes again by viewing” Margaret’s(4.4,44-45; 4.4, 39). The women’s laments do give them agency because even though they voice and lament Richard’s actions, and though Meyer argues they can do nothing to stop him, they plan his demise or at least see it coming (Meyer, 173). The duchess of York and Margaret agree that “at hand at hand, Ensues his piteous and unpitied end” (4.4, 73-74) and just before Richard enters  Elizabeth and the Duchess agree that they will do everything in their power to “smother/ my son that thy two sweet sons smothered”(4.4, 133-134) which shows that women do voice resistance in this play. It is also important to note that Margaret has incredible agency in that she is a vanquished figure that comes back to take her revenge on those that have wronged her (1.3, 4.4). Meyer calls the women of this play “helpless mourners” that were “fruitless in [their] resistance to Richard” (Meyer,173) and his manipulations, but women were able to resist Richard and influence the events of the play through recognizing and using to their advantage the cyclical nature of history. One of the examples that Meyer gives of women’s inability to resist Richard  is that Elizabeth hands over her daughter to Richard even though he has just killed her sons(Meyer,175-177) but what Meyer sees as Richard’s successful manipulation of Elizabeth, can be seen as resistance. This resistance is evident when in Act 4.1. Elizabeth finds out that Richard is proclaiming himself king, she immediately sends her son Dorset to go live with Richmond because she feels that in order to “outstrip death”(4.1. 41) he must “go across the seas,/And live with Richmond, from the reach of hell.” (4.1. 41-42), she sees the only way to save her remaining son is to send him to Richmond. This foreshadows Elizabeth and Richard’s later conversation in  Act 4.4. in which Richard says that the only way to save her children’s lives is for her daughter to marry him, when in fact Richmond has already saved the life of one of her children, pointing to the fact that he could help save Elizabeth of York  and by extension all of England from Richard as well(4.4. 236-430).

            Through women’s ability to become “voice[s] of the past who insist on the predetermined nature of future events”(Meyer, 173)  Shakespeare shows that historical events  can be structurally symmetrical and cyclical. By having women voice the past and prophesize the events that will take place in the play he gives them incredible agency because the action of the play is then attributed to their curses and prophecies as opposed to the battles the men engage in or Richard III’s scheming.

           

           

 

 

Works Cited

Machlis Meyer, Allison. “Richard III’s Forelives: Rewriting Elizabeth(s) in Tudor Historiography.” Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England 26, (2013): 156-183.

Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Richard the Third. Ed. Peter Holland. New York: Penguin, 2000. Print.