Advertisement

Rules of Charity: Richard III and the Counterfeit-Disability Tradition

  • Lindsey Row-Heyveld
Chapter
Part of the Literary Disability Studies book series (LIDIST)

Abstract

This chapter analyzes the most famous disabled character in early modern drama: Shakespeare’s Richard III. While Row-Heyveld does not challenge the authenticity of Richard’s disability, she nevertheless maintains that the counterfeit-disability tradition animates this play. Richard performs his deformity in such a way as to prey upon his spectators’ charity, employing the strategies conventional to the counterfeit-disability tradition. The play locates its central dramatic power not in Richard’s virtuosic performances but in the reactions of his audiences. Reading Richard III within the counterfeit-disability tradition clarifies why Richard’s manipulative abilities suffer after becoming king: He is no longer able to use his body to evoke dangerous pity. The play presents an early modern notion of the non-standard body that resists determinism. Instead, by dissembling disability with his authentically impaired body, Richard III reveals that performance—rather than predestination—makes Richard truly threatening.

References

  1. Adelman, Janet. Suffocating Mothers: Fantasies of Maternal Origin in Shakespeare’s Plays. New York: Routledge, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. Carroll, William C. Fat King, Lean Beggar: Representations of Poverty in the Age of Shakespeare. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. Carson, A. J., ed. Finding Richard III: The Official Account of the Research by the Retrieval and Reburial Project. Horstead: Imprimis Imprimatur, 2014.Google Scholar
  4. Charnes, Linda. Notorious Identity: Materializing the Subject in Shakespeare. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  5. Comber, Abigail Elizabeth. “A Medieval King ‘Disabled’ by an Early Modern Construct: A Contextual Examination of Richard III.” In Disability in the Middle Ages: Reconsiderations and Reverberations, edited by Joshua Eyler, 183–96. Burlington: Ashgate, 2010.Google Scholar
  6. Crawford, Patricia. “Women, Religion and Social Action in England, 1500–1800.” Australian Feminist Studies 13, no. 28 (October 1998): 269–80.Google Scholar
  7. Davies, C. S. L. “Slavery and Protector Somerset: The Vagrancy Act of 1547.” The Economic History Review 19, no. 3 (December 1966): 533–49.Google Scholar
  8. Day, Gillian M. “‘Determinèd to Prove a Villain’: Theatricality in Richard III.” Critical Survey 3, no. 2 (1991): 149–56.Google Scholar
  9. “Denier, n. 3.”. OED Online. December 2016. Oxford University Press. Accessed 1 April 2017. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/49971?rskey=iK2rBu&result=3&isAdvanced=false#eid.
  10. Dionne, Craig, and Steve Mentz, eds. Rogues and Early Modern English Culture. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004.Google Scholar
  11. Freud, Sigmund. “Some Character-Types Met with in Psycho-Analytic Work.” In The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, vol. 14, translated by James Strachey, 309–33. London: Hogarth Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  12. Garber, Marjorie. Shakespeare’s Ghost Writers: Literature as Uncanny Causality. New York: Routledge, 1987.Google Scholar
  13. Greenblatt, Stephen. “The Shape of a Life.” The New Yorker, February 5, 2013. Accessed 4 April 2017. http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-shape-of-a-life.
  14. Hobgood, Allison P. “Teeth Before Eyes: Impairment and Invisibility in Shakespeare’s Richard III.” In Disability, Health, and Happiness in the Shakespearean Body, edited by Sujata Iyengar, 21–40. New York: Routledge, 2015.Google Scholar
  15. Hunt, Maurice. “Ordering Disorder in Richard III.” South Central Review 6, no. 4 (Winter 1989): 11–29.Google Scholar
  16. King Richard in Leicester. “The Retirement of King Richard III—Live.” Accessed 3 April 2017. http://kingrichardinleicester.com/the-reinterment-of-king-richard-iii-live/.
  17. Kostihova, Marcela. “Digging for Perfection: Discourse of Deformity in Richard III’s Excavation.” Palgrave Communications, vol. 2 (September 2016). Accessed 4 April 2017. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2838748.
  18. Lund, Mary Ann. “Richard’s Back: Death, Scoliosis, and Myth Making.” Medical Humanities 41, no. 2 (December 2015): 89–94.Google Scholar
  19. MacKinnon, Dolly. “‘Charity is Worth It When It Looks that Good’: Rural Women and Bequests of Clothing in Early Modern England.” In Women, Identities, and Communities in Early Modern Europe, edited by Susan Broomhall and Stephanie Tarbin, 79–93. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008.Google Scholar
  20. Marienstras, Richard. “Of a Monstrous Body.” In French Essays on Shakespeare and His Contemporaries: ‘What Would France with Us?, edited by Jean-Marie Maguin and Michele Willems, 153–74. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  21. Mitchell, David T., and Sharon L. Snyder. Narrative Prosthesis: Disability and the Dependencies of Discourse. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  22. Moulton, Ian Frederick. “‘A Monster Great Deformed’: The Unruly Masculinity of Richard III.” Shakespeare Quarterly 47, no. 3 (1996): 251–68.Google Scholar
  23. Oestreich-Hart, Donna. “‘Therefore, Since I Cannot Prove a Lover.’” Studies in English Literature, 1500–1900 40, no. 2 (2000): 241–60.Google Scholar
  24. Olson, Greta. “Richard III’s Animalistic, Criminal Body.” Philological Quarterly 82, no. 3 (Summer 2003): 301–24.Google Scholar
  25. Opie, Iona Archibald, and Peter Opie, eds. “140.” In The Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes, 178–9. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  26. Pitts, Mike. Digging for Richard III. London: Thames & Hudson, 2015.Google Scholar
  27. Plasse, Marie A. “Corporeality and the Opening of Richard III.” In Entering the Maze: Shakespeare’s Art of Beginning, edited by Robert F. Wilson, Jr., 11–25. New York: Peter Lang, 1995.Google Scholar
  28. Rackin, Phyllis. “Engendering the Tragic Audience: The Case of Richard III.” Studies in English Literature, 1500–1900 26, no. 1 (Spring 1993): 47–65.Google Scholar
  29. ———. “Women’s Roles in the Elizabethan History Plays.” In Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare’s History Plays, edited by Michael Hattaway, 71–88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  30. The Richard III Society. “About the Society.” Accessed 16 December 2016. http://www.richardiii.net/aboutus.php.
  31. Robb, Hannah. “Purses and the Charitable Gift.” Journal of Social History 49, no. 2 (December 2015): 387–405.Google Scholar
  32. Ross, Herbert, dir. Neil Simon’s The Goodbye Girl. 1977; Burbank: Warner Bros. Entertainment, 2010. DVD.Google Scholar
  33. Semonin, Paul. “Monsters in the Marketplace: The Exhibition of Human Oddities in Early Modern England.” In Freakery: Cultural Spectacles of the Extraordinary Body, edited by Rosemarie Garland-Thomson, 69–81. New York: New York University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  34. Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Edited by Ann Thompson and Neil Taylor. Arden Shakespeare, 3rd series. London: Thomson, 2006a.Google Scholar
  35. ———. King Henry VI, Part 3. Edited by John D. Cox and Eric Rasmussen. Arden Shakespeare, 3rd series. London: Bloomsbury, 2001.Google Scholar
  36. ———. King John. Edited by E. A. J. Honingmann. Arden Shakespeare, 2nd series. London: Methuen, 1954.Google Scholar
  37. ———. Richard III. Edited by James R. Siemon. Arden Shakespeare, 3rd series. London: Methuen, 2009.Google Scholar
  38. ———. The Sonnets. Edited by G. Blackmore Evans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006b.Google Scholar
  39. ———. Titus Andronicus. Edited by Jonathan Bate. Arden Shakespeare, 3rd series. London: Thomson, 1995.Google Scholar
  40. “Shape.”. OED Online. December 2016. Oxford University Press. Accessed 1 April 2017. http://www.oed.com/search?searchType=dictionary&q=shape&_searchBtn=Search.
  41. Slotkin, Joel Elliot. “Honeyed Toads: Sinister Aesthetics in Shakespeare’s Richard III.” Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies 7, no. 1 (Summer 2007): 5–32.Google Scholar
  42. Smith, Kristen M. “Martial Maids and Murdering Mothers: Women, Witchcraft, and Motherly Transgression in Henry VI and Richard III.” Shakespeare 3, no. 2 (2007): 143–60.Google Scholar
  43. Stavreva, Kirilka. “Epilogue: Margaret’s Bitter Words and the Voice of (Divine) Justice, or, Compulsory Listening.” In Words Like Daggers: Violent Female Speech in Early Modern England, 147–56. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2015.Google Scholar
  44. Targoff, Ramie. “‘Dirty’ Amens: Devotion, Applause, and Consent in Richard III.” Renaissance Drama 31 (2002): 61–84.Google Scholar
  45. Torrey, Michael. “‘The Plain Devil and Dissembling Looks’: Ambivalent Physiognomy and Shakespeare’s Richard III.” English Literary Renaissance 30, no. 2 (2000): 123–53.Google Scholar
  46. West, William N. “What’s the Matter with Shakespeare?: Physics, Identity, Playing.” South Central Review 26, no. 1/2 (Spring–Summer 2009): 103–26.Google Scholar
  47. Williams, Katherine Schaap. “Performing Disability and Theorizing Deformity.” English Studies 94, no. 7 (November 2013): 747–72.Google Scholar
  48. Wilson, John Dover. “A Note on Richard III: The Bishop of Ely’s Strawberries.” Modern Language Review 52 (1957): 563–4.Google Scholar
  49. Wood, David Houston. “‘Some Tardy Cripple’: Timing Disability in Richard III.” In Richard III: A Critical Reader, edited by Annaliese Connolly, 129–54. London: Bloomsbury, 2013.Google Scholar
  50. Woodbridge, Linda. Vagrancy, Homelessness, and English Renaissance Literature. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lindsey Row-Heyveld
    • 1
  1. 1.Luther CollegeDecorahUSA

Personalised recommendations