Discuss the following passage from Act 4 Scene 3, exploring Shakespeare's use of language and its
dramatic effects. [15]
Through Shakespeare’s use of graphic depictions, subjective and nuanced language choices, paired with
ones of intentional dramatic effect, this passage offers a vividly poignant account of the prince’s deaths
through a certain purpose and efficacy that succeeds in exploring themes of good versus evil, ambition,
and the corrupting influence of power. Marking a defining moment in terms of Richard’s morality, the extract
ultimately explores the seemingly perpetual nature of his unscrupulous machinations, alongside a
pervasive sense of unease towards the certainty of his future. Thus, it is in this scene, one may argue, that
Shakespeare’s use of lexis, in dramatically contrasting degrees of conscience and morality with Richard’s
unwavering, machiavellian pragmatism, fulfils, once and for all, his ambition to “prove a villain”.
Dominating much of the text, perhaps most notable, is the way in which the reported speech of Tyrell’s
soliloquiy, recounts the murder through language which is simultaneously graphic and macabre, yet
euphemistic and restrained. Indeed, Shakespeare’s use of adjectives “tyrannous” and “bloody” in reference
to the “arch deed of piteous massacre” never explicitly refer to murder, whilst Dighton and Forrest are
merely "two fleshed villains", untainted by any outward mention of their murderous act. The term
“massacre”, in particular, is distinctive for its potential to refer to both the numerous victims of Richard’s
harm, on a microcosmic level, alongside the macrocosmic, far-reaching impact of his evil on the nation. The
adjective “piteous”, on the other hand, serves as a more direct cause for expressing pathos and
commiseration towards the prince’s fate. In this way, Shakespeare appears to make use of highly graphic,
and thus, evocative language to imbue Tyrrel’s monologue, and the scene as a whole, with a reminder of
Richard’s villainy, and the extent of its repercussions. As such, though his use of such adjectives sets the
tone to some level, denoting a level of ruthless bloodshed and unimpeded evil, Shakespeare ultimately
leaves the events open to ambiguous interpretation, allowing the audience to envisage both the murder,
and its brutality in any conceivabe detail, an almost idirect use of hyperbole to dramatically heighten the
barbarity of Richard’s pursuit of power. After all, authentic classical drama rarely included scenes of
violence on the stage, depending instead upon reports, often made by a messenger. Thus, in many ways,
particular subtleties of language amidst Tyrrel's recital, and the capacity for exaggerated violence they
entail, is greatly effective as a means of inciting both pity and horror within the audience.
Just as Shakespeare’s use of language touches on both outward and underlying violence to encapsulate
the extent of Richard’s treachery, it may equally serve as a means for characterising the virtue of the
princes in such a way that dramatically contrasts Richard’s Machevallian qualities. The use of the term
“prime creation”, with its religious connotations, denotes the gravity of the prince’s deaths in characterising
them as possessing a certain righteousness, a sanctity that renders Richard’s act almost sacrelgious in
nature; worsening even the act of infanticide, particularly for an Elizabethan audience. The subsequent use
of the simile “their lips were four red roses on a stalk”, may connote a sense of naturalistic purity, and
innocence of “summer beauty”, a sharp contrast to the disruptive, unnatural nature of Richard’s villainy. In
this way, the thoroughness and length of this description, from a character who is otherwise distinctly
concise in expression, seems to afford the princes a level of value and respect which feels deservedly
bestowed upon them. In other words, Shakespeare’s structural use of language, alongside considered
linguistic choices, succeeds in directly influencing the way in which certain characters are received. Using
language to juxtapose the threatening viscioness of Richard’s actions paired with the seemingly inherent
gentless of the princes’ dispositions, exacerbates the immorality behind Richard’s actions, whilst evoking
pathos from the audience.
Crucially, a distinction in conscience and morality, more blatantly explored through language is the one
which arises between Richard and Tyrell. Despite his unfavourable first impression in Act 4, Scene 2, Tyrell
ends up being another foil to Richard’s ruthlessness who, unlike Richard, exhibits a level of crashing
remorse towards the event. Through the use of direct speech including “lay the gentle babes” and “within
their alabaster innocent arms”, the monologue is not only saturated with a solemn reminder of the
infanticide, but sets the foundation for a relatively poetic, and lyrical epitaph distintinguished by “conscience
and remorse”, thus strengthening the horror and pathos of the report. More specifically, the use of the
exclamation “But O! The devil” alongside superlatives “the most arch deed of piteous massacre” versus the
princes as the “most replenished sweet work of nature” characterises the monologue as a sort of crisis of
conscience, a crashing, burdening sense of guilt. On the other hand, Anne’s death, the marriage of
dramatic effects. [15]
Through Shakespeare’s use of graphic depictions, subjective and nuanced language choices, paired with
ones of intentional dramatic effect, this passage offers a vividly poignant account of the prince’s deaths
through a certain purpose and efficacy that succeeds in exploring themes of good versus evil, ambition,
and the corrupting influence of power. Marking a defining moment in terms of Richard’s morality, the extract
ultimately explores the seemingly perpetual nature of his unscrupulous machinations, alongside a
pervasive sense of unease towards the certainty of his future. Thus, it is in this scene, one may argue, that
Shakespeare’s use of lexis, in dramatically contrasting degrees of conscience and morality with Richard’s
unwavering, machiavellian pragmatism, fulfils, once and for all, his ambition to “prove a villain”.
Dominating much of the text, perhaps most notable, is the way in which the reported speech of Tyrell’s
soliloquiy, recounts the murder through language which is simultaneously graphic and macabre, yet
euphemistic and restrained. Indeed, Shakespeare’s use of adjectives “tyrannous” and “bloody” in reference
to the “arch deed of piteous massacre” never explicitly refer to murder, whilst Dighton and Forrest are
merely "two fleshed villains", untainted by any outward mention of their murderous act. The term
“massacre”, in particular, is distinctive for its potential to refer to both the numerous victims of Richard’s
harm, on a microcosmic level, alongside the macrocosmic, far-reaching impact of his evil on the nation. The
adjective “piteous”, on the other hand, serves as a more direct cause for expressing pathos and
commiseration towards the prince’s fate. In this way, Shakespeare appears to make use of highly graphic,
and thus, evocative language to imbue Tyrrel’s monologue, and the scene as a whole, with a reminder of
Richard’s villainy, and the extent of its repercussions. As such, though his use of such adjectives sets the
tone to some level, denoting a level of ruthless bloodshed and unimpeded evil, Shakespeare ultimately
leaves the events open to ambiguous interpretation, allowing the audience to envisage both the murder,
and its brutality in any conceivabe detail, an almost idirect use of hyperbole to dramatically heighten the
barbarity of Richard’s pursuit of power. After all, authentic classical drama rarely included scenes of
violence on the stage, depending instead upon reports, often made by a messenger. Thus, in many ways,
particular subtleties of language amidst Tyrrel's recital, and the capacity for exaggerated violence they
entail, is greatly effective as a means of inciting both pity and horror within the audience.
Just as Shakespeare’s use of language touches on both outward and underlying violence to encapsulate
the extent of Richard’s treachery, it may equally serve as a means for characterising the virtue of the
princes in such a way that dramatically contrasts Richard’s Machevallian qualities. The use of the term
“prime creation”, with its religious connotations, denotes the gravity of the prince’s deaths in characterising
them as possessing a certain righteousness, a sanctity that renders Richard’s act almost sacrelgious in
nature; worsening even the act of infanticide, particularly for an Elizabethan audience. The subsequent use
of the simile “their lips were four red roses on a stalk”, may connote a sense of naturalistic purity, and
innocence of “summer beauty”, a sharp contrast to the disruptive, unnatural nature of Richard’s villainy. In
this way, the thoroughness and length of this description, from a character who is otherwise distinctly
concise in expression, seems to afford the princes a level of value and respect which feels deservedly
bestowed upon them. In other words, Shakespeare’s structural use of language, alongside considered
linguistic choices, succeeds in directly influencing the way in which certain characters are received. Using
language to juxtapose the threatening viscioness of Richard’s actions paired with the seemingly inherent
gentless of the princes’ dispositions, exacerbates the immorality behind Richard’s actions, whilst evoking
pathos from the audience.
Crucially, a distinction in conscience and morality, more blatantly explored through language is the one
which arises between Richard and Tyrell. Despite his unfavourable first impression in Act 4, Scene 2, Tyrell
ends up being another foil to Richard’s ruthlessness who, unlike Richard, exhibits a level of crashing
remorse towards the event. Through the use of direct speech including “lay the gentle babes” and “within
their alabaster innocent arms”, the monologue is not only saturated with a solemn reminder of the
infanticide, but sets the foundation for a relatively poetic, and lyrical epitaph distintinguished by “conscience
and remorse”, thus strengthening the horror and pathos of the report. More specifically, the use of the
exclamation “But O! The devil” alongside superlatives “the most arch deed of piteous massacre” versus the
princes as the “most replenished sweet work of nature” characterises the monologue as a sort of crisis of
conscience, a crashing, burdening sense of guilt. On the other hand, Anne’s death, the marriage of
