The Power of Performance: The Lasting Appeal of Evil in Shakespeare's Richard III

Graham Jaskula - 998909793

The Power of Performance: The Lasting Appeal of Evil in Shakespeare’s Richard III

           

Joel Slotkin argues in his article Honeyed Toads: Sinister Aesthetics in Shakespeare’s Richard III that the appeal of evil in Shakespeare’s Richard III remains in tact throughout the play even after Richard himself, the embodiment of evil, is destroyed by Richmond. Although he briefly notes it, he does not fully expand on the reason why no restoration of virtue takes place. The answer lies within the relation between form and content in the play, which is not as transparent as it seems at first glance. While the play at some level does present Richard as a physical representation of evil, it would be fallacious to say that his appearance exhausts the notion of evil in the play. Rather, Richard’s conscious awareness of his role as an actor and his focus on the performance of evil and deformity constitute the lasting appeal towards evil for the audience.

The term “sinister aesthetics” is used by Slotkin to describe the aesthetic conventions governing representations of evil in the play. These conventions, he claims, are socially constructed and historically specific sets of rules. (Slotkin, 6). In effect, the sinister aesthetics are what allow an audience to derive pleasure from the display of evil, and explain the positive reaction to the malice of Richard’s character. Among the most convincing pieces of evidence Slotkin presents for the sinister aesthetics constituting the appeal of the play is the advertisement in the First Quarto (1597). The title page describes the play as “The Tragedy of King Richard the Third. Containing his treacherous Plots against his brother Clarence: the pittiefull murther of his innocent nephewes: his tyrannicall usurpation: with the whole course of his detested life, and most deserved death” (Slotkin, 13). This advertisement makes no mention of the virtuous or redemptive qualities of other characters and rather focuses entirely on the malice of Richard. The draw of the play, as advertised, is in Richard’s performance of evil.

The relations between form and content are instructive on how the play constructs the appeal towards evil. Richard’s physical being is an obvious case of how outer appearance reflects inner moral identity. His deformed, ugly body hints towards the evil and malice that define his character. However, the way in which other characters respond to Richard’s appearance suggest the relation between form and content is not this clear cut. Most characters view Richard as a dichotomy between seeming and being, as if the appearances he adorns do not match the hellish nature of his soul. They can see something is amiss, because his appearance does not match what they believe to be his true self, as when he enters between two clergymen to give the appearance of a virtuous religious man (3.7). However, appearances such as this are merely physical constructions that other characters are encouraged to assess aesthetically, and as a result they fail at concealing his true nature. It is not Richard’s appearance itself that shows his malicious nature; this is only a suggestion of evil. The true evil is found inside Richard, at his soul, concealed by the appearances he performs. The attractive nature of Richard’s evil is not exhausted by his appearance, but rather, it is constituted by the content of his performance.

Richard is explicitly aware of his position as an actor, as is evident by his adorning of false appearances and numerous asides to the audience. The performances and artful poetics he displays show the true nature of his soul. It is through performance that Richard is able to create the sinister aesthetic that endures and elicits a positive response from other characters in the play and from the audience. Richard’s asides to the audience are instructive in this regard. When speaking with the young Edward, Richard shares with the audience his self-comparison to the conventional figure of vice, iniquity (3.1.82). Consciously addressing the audience in this manner solidifies his role as an actor, but also reveals his true intentions and beliefs about his character.

Richard appears to be his truest self when consciously acting.  The wooing scene with Anne is among the more obvious instances of Richard engaging in performance. After Richard offers Anne his sword, and she has it positioned against his chest, he says to her “Nay, do not pause, for I did kill king Henry” (1.2.179). It seems as though Richard is instructing Anne on how to act out the scene, giving her reasons and context for the action she is to perform. It is Richard’s idea to hand her the sword in the first place, as if he is directing blocking as well. In this moment of explicit acting, Richard reminds Anne of his past crimes. He does not try to hide his evil nature as he does when constructing false appearances, but instead brings it to the forefront.

Strangely, This is how Richard wins Anne’s favor. The key again is in the nature of Richard’s performance, which is highlighted when compared to the second wooing scene with Elizabeth. Richard’s poetics are by no means that of a traditional love struck wooer, as his declarations of love are constantly juxtaposed with his past evil: “This hand which for thy love did kill, thy love / Shall for thy love kill a far truer love” (1.2.189). He forces Anne to confront his past crimes, but does so using his powerful rhetoric and artful ability to perform. This artificial performance of the lovesick poet combined with a partially veiled glimpse of malice provides the ultimate temptation for Anne, and subsequently, the audience. The success of his venture relies on the emphasis of his performance, as is evident when compared to his attempt to gain the favor of Elizabeth to marry her daughter. When Elizabeth brings up his horrible deeds, he attempts to use the same strategy he used on Anne: “Say that I did all this for love of her” (4.4.288). This strategy fails on Elizabeth, as she rejects the proposal claiming her daughter would have no option but to hate him “Having bought love with such bloody spoil”(4.4.290). The difference in the effectiveness of the two scenes is that Richard is able to actively perform for Anne, while he can only hypothetically conjecture to Elizabeth. Richard’s power and appeal towards a sinister aesthetic stems from his ability to perform.

The fact that Richmond physically destroys Richard has little effect on repressing the sinister aesthetics Richard embodies. There is no restoration to a normative aesthetic, one in which the beautiful and virtuous are appealing. The key is that Richard’s physical being was never fully constitutive of the sinister aesthetic he represents.The true soul of Richard comes out in his performing: his conscious acting and his artful poetics uncover the malice that makes Richard such a powerful figure. Just as Anne tells Richard concerning the corpse of King Henry, “Thou hadst but power over his mortal body; / His soul thou canst not have” (1.2.47). The destruction of Richard’s body has no effect on the evil he spreads, stemming from his inner being. Richmond and Richard never confront each other verbally, and so the power of Richard’s poetics remains in tact.

Works cited

Shakespeare, William, and Peter Holland. The Tragedy of King Richard the Third. New

York, NY: Penguin, 2000. Print.

Slotkin, Joel Elliot. Honeyed Toads: Sinister Aesthetics in Shakespeare’s Richard III.

Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies, Volume 7, Number 1, Spring/Summer 2007, pp. 5-32 (Article)