Internal and External Loss of Control in Richard III, Macbeth and King Lear

This paper seeks to examine the ways in which the external pressures cause internal
conflict and loss of control among the kings of Shakespeare's plays Richard III, Macbeth and
King Lear. This paper will then compare the three plays with respect to the impact of female
characters, highlighting the misogynistic tone of the collective women. The comparison of the
three plays will continue by illuminating the similarities and differences between three kings
with respect to the natural or supernatural forces that affect their emotional stability.
Richard III begins with his opening speech detailing Richards deformed, unfinishd
body that was sent before [his] time/ Into this breathing world, scarce half made up (I.i.1).
Shakespeare is insinuates Richards premature birth and undeveloped body are uncontrollable
forces that influence his determination to be the villain. Richard III states that he is not shaped
for sportive tricks, and that he is rudely stamped (I.i.14, 16). He is bitter because he is
cheated of feature by dissembling Nature (I.i.19). He continues in the introductory soliloquy:
Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace / I am determined to prove a villain / And hate the
idle pleasures of these days. (I.i.1) Analyzing his words, Richard blames nature for his outer
physical deformity that instills a bitterness, which will manifest into an inner distortion of self.
Continuing, this distortion influences his behavior throughout the play that will lead to his loss of
control.
The next external force is seen elements of the supernatural world that create an
atmosphere of intense dread to mirror the malice and evil of Richards inner self. The other
supernatural forces include: Margarets prophetic curses, Clarence and Stanleys prophetic
dreams, the allegations of witchcraft Richard levels at Elizabeth and mistress Shore, the
continual association of Richard with devils and demons, Richards comparison of himself to the
shape-shifting Proteus and most significantly the parade of eleven ghosts that visits Richard and
Richmond the night before the battle. Beginning with Margarets prophetic curses in the opening
of Act I, Scene iii, Shakespeare introduces a variation upon the theme of Richards taking control
of the stage; in this case, the audiences expectations are aroused by his ominous presence in the
mind of the queen, who describes him as A man that loves not me nor none of you (). While
the protagonist may first disdain and then ignore the curses Queen Margaret has hurled at him,
the audience cannot overlook the temporal sequence she introduces, in which Richards own
fathers curses have already taken effect and in which downfall awaits all of Margarets stage
audience (Shellenberg 286). Brian Vickers The Power of Persuasion: Images of the Orator,
Elyot to Shakespeare discusses the irony of Richards individualistic construct being, that
Richard, the archindividualist, and the archenemy of love, is not a self alone after all but the
unknowing victim of the scheme of retribution neither he nor anyone else in the play seems to be
able to control (Vickers 423). While Richard may control the frame of the scene, Margaret has
rhetorical control of the climactic center. He immediately identifies Margaret as his opponent, on
the stage, exclaiming, Foul wrinkled witch,What makst thou in my site? (164). Their battle for
control of the scene emphasizes the irreconcilable principles they represent: Richard the
individuals capacity to construct himself and his context; Margaret the shaping forces of history
and community (Shellenberg 287). Although Margaret makes only one more appearance in the
play, her words hover over the moment of events from this time forward, weaving individual
rises and falls into the structure of a pre-ordained pattern. The connection between Queen
Margarets first curse and Richards downfall is underlined by her reappearance, in which she
teaches the Duchess of York and Queen Elizabeth to curse their own kinsman and former ally
against her House of Lancaster.

The plays ending soliloquy by Richmond connects to the beginning prophetic curse by
Queen Margaret, in which she refuses to recognize the legitimacy of Richards rule because it
disrupts the royal lineage believed to be established by God. Richmond says in Act V, Scene v:
O Thou, whose captain I account myself / Look on my forces with a gracious eye / Ere I let fall
the windows of mine eyes / Sleeping and waking, O, defend me still! (V.v.2) Analyzing this
quote, Richmond and his men are portrayed as Gods army. He's careful to keep saying that the
praise for any victory will belong to God, but there is something paradoxical in the anointing of
oneself as God's messenger. This not only positions Richard in opposition with Richmond, but
also molds to the historical context of the play. Although the Divine Rights of King was yet to be
ordered, there had been a long standing notion of God being the only supernatural force to
endow the legitimacy on royalty. Another notable supernatural force is the visits from the eleven
ghosts of his previous murder victims. Each ghost recalls what Richard has done to them and
condemns him to the death in the Battle of Bosworth Field. Although Richard says to Ratcliffe
that the apparitions strike more terror to the soul of Richard/Than can the substance of ten
thousand soldiers" (V, v, 171-172), he shows no remorse for his murders. The ghosts that appear
before Richard III and Richmond before their battle create an atmosphere of dread and suspense,
causing Richard to lose self-control psychologically.
Richards loss of control is also seen in the plot and structure of the play itself. Sparked
by outward movement of the plot pushing away from his control, Richards inward spiral
completes the separation of the usurping king and his audience. His presence in the play
diminishes as the audience begins to realize the action is shaping into a mirror or Margarets
detailed plan. Richard struggles to accept the paradigm of Margarets curses with its underlying
suggestion that he might be the flawed instrument of a retributive God. Despite his refusal to
submit to the larger scheme of history, the newly removed audience is forced to recognize the
overall plot structure follows Margarets plan and not Richards. Donald G. Watsons Richard III
considers the significance of rhetoric and setting in Richards rise and fall. Richard is present in
only two of the last six scenes; he shares the stage and actions with Richmond in one of these
scenes and is thereby depersonalized as the descending arm of a historical balance (Watson 308).
The external influences push Richard to lose control internally, which is marked by his
rhetorical failures. Language is manipulated, confused and controlled by Richard as he gains
political power. Interestingly, language also seems to be the only defense against Richard. Act
IV, Scenes ii and iv show the internal downfall of Richards numerous rhetorical failures that are
initially caused by Richards difficulty in controlling Margaret and her accusations. The first
notable rhetorical failure is Buckinghams deliberate inability to understand the language of
innuendo, which has served Richard so well with his allies, in the exchange tha tends with the
kings exasperated Cousin, thou wast not wont to be so dull:/ Shall I be plain? I wish the
bastards dead (IV.ii.17-18). Continuing with his powerful loss of persuasion, Queen Elzabeth
manipulates Richards plea for her daughters hand in marriage with an ambiguous response,
essentially reversing their traditional roles within the play. Now, he is unpersuasive in bargining
his own future as Elizabeth says, Swear not by time to come for that thou hast/ Misusd ere usd
by times ill-usd oerpast (IV.iv.395-6). Richard is crippled by her words, and can no longer find
his self, his past or his God to swear by in response to the memory, which shapes her rhethoric
(Shellenberg 289). Richards rhetorical errors persist as his commands change from powerful to
imcompetent blunders, and his monologues to the audience change from passionate and
persuasive to personal ramblings. As messagengers inform the King of Richmonds imminent
attack and the rebellion of his countrymen, he is unable to formulate a single coherent order

before retreating into invective against Richmond. Verbal manipulation gives way to increasing
physicality in Richards actions, and his power of persusion continuies to crumble. His former
asides to the audience have now become seemingly insignificant conversations with himself as
he resolves to converse [solely] with iron-witted fools / And unrespective boys (IV.ii.28-9).
Unlike his brother, Richard chooses to defy the conscious and the divine judgment it
represents in favor of the assertive self by unquestioningly accepting the ghosts appearance.
Richard does not repent for his crimes nor tries to appeal to the others sympathies; instead, he
attempts to shatter the ghosts prophecies by continuing with his battle plans. However, as the
ghosts prophecies are seemingly being fulfilled, Richard appears resigned to his fate and says
that he has set [his] life upon a cast (V, viii. 9). In his final despairing soliloquy, he turns not
against God, but against himself as the author of his own destiny. Despite his resolute denials,
however, the Kings obsession with shadows and the blackness of the day is reminiscent of
Clarences terror at the shadow like an angel in his dream (I.iv.53), suggesting that the external
supernatural forces that Richard has mocked are in fact the opponents indicated in the beginning.
Similar to Richard III, Macbeth suffers from internal loss of control is influenced by
external forces. In this play, Shakespeare presents the competing forces of fate and character for
the audience to determine which leads to the ultimate downfall of Macbeth. Character in
Macbeth is viewed with respect to his mental and psychological state. Macbeths self-control
vanishes in an attempt to control the external forces. The argument for fate in Macbeth is
strongly led by external pressure that is marked by an intense maternal power, and separated into
supernatural and physical forces; the three sisters represent a metaphysical force and his wife
Lady Macbeth controls the physical space.
The employment of supernatural forces center on the presentation of Macbeth as he
progresses from ambition, to murder, then mental collapse and ultimately ends in selfdestruction. Joseph Jenkins Macbeth: Murderous Rivalry over Succession Control draws the
connection between the concept of supernatural forces and Macbeths tyranny. He theorizes that
Macbeths loss of control begins with the supernatural influence of the three weird sisters
(Jenkins 321). These three old sisters manifest supernatural devices with human qualities, with
the primary function of revealing the prophecy to Macbeth, arouse his ambition and steer him
onto immoral path of murder. Macbeth is manipulated the uncertainty of his future the
ambiguous language itself; but, he wants to clear this confusion: Stay, imperfect speakers, tells
me more (I.iii.70). The witches intentionally leave with Macbeth entranced in his thoughts, as
he fanaticizes murder unconscious of the danger. He questions not the purpose of the witches,
but the benefit of their prophecies in a paradox: Cannot be ill, cannot be good. If ill, why hath it
given me earnest of success commencing a truth? If good, why do I yield to that suggestion
whose horrid image doth unfix my hair and make my seated heart knock at my ribs against the
use of nature? (I.iii.132-137). The witches use their otherworldly appeal to provide suspense,
partially from the sense of confusion from the ambiguity of the witchs word and partially from
Macbeths personal disturbed thoughts. Though Macbeth speaks as if optimism arises from the
predictions, the nature of the witches presentation and their perplexing language only rouse ill
intent and unease.
The three witches role in Macbeth is appropriated by Lady Macbeth. Shakespeare's
characterization of Lady Macbeth plays a key role in Macbeth's mental decline, directly and
indirectly leading to his loss of control. Lady Macbeth's obsession and desperation to become
Queen of Scotland heavily influences her discussions with Macbeth on the subject, directly
leading to his eventual loss of control. Once Lady Macbeth hears her husbands prophecy, she

rushes Macbeth into trusting fate over his own character and this decision marks the rapid
acceleration of Macbeth's decline. Lady Macbeth devises the plot to murder Duncan because she
felt her husband was too much of a coward to devise and execute such a plan himself:
Glamis thou art, an Cawdor; and shalt be what thou art promisd. Yet do I fear thy
nature: it is too full o th milk of human kindness, to catch the nearest way. Thou wouldst be
great; Art not without ambition, but without the illness should attend it (I.v.15-20).
Then, Lady Macbeth begins to intimidates and crticizes Macbeth with several taunts,
questioning his manhood and will power by saying, Which thou esteem'st the ornament of
life, And live a coward in thine own esteem (I.vii.42). Shakespeare shows Macbeth's anger
and embarrassment at these words. This results in Macbeth's rushed and lack of initial
commitment to Duncan's murder. After successfully persuading Macbeth to continue with the
murder by ridiculing his virility, she convinces him with the false hope of success: We fail? But
screw your courage to the sticking-place, and well not failwhat cannot you and I perform
upon the unguarded Duncan? (I.vii.60-71). Macbeths loss of control is indirectly affected by
Lady Macbeths developing mental disability. She becomes virtually insane due to her guilty
conscious regarding her involvement in King Duncans murder. She begins mumbling while
walking in he sleep for an extensive period of time during the night, and eventually commits
suicide. She says in Act V, Out damned spot! Out, I say! One; two: why, then tis time to dot
(V.i.33-34). Her off-stage suicide is not mourned properly by Macbeth, who at this point is
driven to further violence by the same desperation that seems to have killed her. The now
widowed Macbeth begins to lose control over his position on the throne, which leads to his
fruitless murders in an attempt to maintain in control. In the final act Macbeth says, Cure her of
that; canst thou not minister to a mind diseasd, pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow, raze out
the written troubles of the brain (V.iii.39-42).
The contrasting argument for fate is character, being led by Macbeths troubled
conscience and the internal conflict that strip him of self-control. At the urging of his wife Lady
Macbeth, Macbeth aims to take control of his own fate that is established as the root of his
problems. The external supernatural forces are not constrained to only witchcraft and are visible
throughout Shakespeares particular focus on Macbeths psychological change and mental
deterioration.
The beginning of the play professes Macbeth as a trustworthy, compassionate and brave
hero; this early depiction shows the audience a title character that is at the peak of his mental
strength. This initial self-control begins to fade with his first interaction with the three witches
where they deliver three prophecies: All hail Macbeth, hail to thee, Thane of Glamis / All hail
Macbeth, hail to thee, Thane of Cawdor / All hail Macbeth, that shalt be king hereafter
(I.iii.49-51). Shakespeare uses these prophecies to show Macbeth's mental struggle between
character and fate influenced by the temptation of kingship over Scotland. Macbeth fears himself
as he struggle in reaction to the news of appoint as the Thane of Cawdor. Illusions of the dagger
represent a different force within the supernatural, initiating Macbeth into the world of evil and
symbolically justifying usurpation by murder. In Act 2 Scene 3, Macbeth hallucinates. The
dagger bewilders his senses: Mine eyes are made the fools oth other senses, or else worth all
the rest (II.i.45-46). He now requires horror as a necessary condition for mental survival. Only
by blinding his senses, and also emotions, cold murder can be committed and a conscience
suppressed. Again, the dagger is a visible presentation of Macbeths mental struggle, violence
and murder prevails. William Cains Murderous Thinking in Macbeth argues violence and
murder are part of the normal environment of Macbeth; not only do they precede the dramatic

action, they will continue after its end (Cain 190).

The next crack in Macbeths self-control affecting his mental physique is the murder of
King Duncan. His mind is constantly troubled by this and says, Then comes my fit again: I had
else been perfect; Whole as the marble, founded as the rock, As broad and general as the casing
air: But now I am cabin'd, cribb'd, confin'd, bound in To saucy doubts and fears (III.iv.22). The
death of King Duncan, which was heavily influence by Lady Macbeth and the witches
prophesizes, mark the complete psychological break for Macbeth into a place of continuous
mental paranoia. While his assent to the throne had previously been mere discussion, the murder
of Duncan was the first action taken by Macbeth to gain power. Shakespeare demonstrates this
break of Macbeth's paranoid nature with the refusal to return the daggers to Duncan's chamber
due to fear. Continuing, Macbeths increasing impatience and anxiety leads to the murder of
Banquo; a decision that highlights his loss of conscience. The supernatural forces the haunt
Macbeth in the form of Banquos ghost to complicate his diminishing conscience. This mental
collapse is evident when the ghost of murdered Banquo appears at Macbeths seat during his
banquet saying: Thou canst not say it: never shake / thy gory locks at me(III.iv.49-50).
Macbeth confesses the truth; though he did not murder Banquo, he bought the death of his friend.
This is the climax of Macbeth; all goes ill for Macbeth from this moment on. Contrary to the
dagger, which gives Macbeth the strength to commit murder, the ghost of Banquo shatters his
disguise and makes his fears more apparent to his own subjects. Hence, the supernatural forces
and powers of evil in Macbeth turn against Macbeth, for he is now consummated by the
supernatural from outside and the lust for power from inside.
The most powerful of the supernatural forces, the spirits that are evoked by the witches,
is the final and most decisive contribution to Macbeths self-destruction. Macbeth comes
willingly in his second visitation to the heath after the trauma of Banquos ghost, indicating his
full trust in the superstitions that have arisen from the witchs predictions. Two apparitions that
the spirits present sound the alarming bell to Macbeth, yet he neither comprehends nor believes
them: Macbeth shall never vanquish be until Great Birnam Wood to high Dunsinane hill / For
none of woman born shall harm Macbeth (IV.i.92-93, 81). The supernatural force speaks the
truth, but by equivocating and by ambiguity, they have blinded Macbeth by elongating his pride
and led him to be embodied with invincibility. When Macbeth meets Macduff in the final battle
in Act 5 Scene 8, still feeling, proud of killing Young Siward, he reiterates his invincibility: I
bear charmed life, which must not yield / to one of woman born (V.viii.12-13). Shakespeare
isolates Macbeth in a power hungry web of suspicion, impatience and desperation. Macbeth's
final fight symbolizes the point at which he abandons all reason, wholly believing the prophecy
that he is invincible against any man that is woman-born; this is the lowest point of in his mental
security and his complete loss of self-control.
Similar to the kings of Richard III and Macbeth, uncontrollable external forces mark the
internal loss of control for King Lear. Unlike to two other plays, the emphasis is place solely on
nature. Nature, characterized as a physical storm in King Lear, is the external force that heavily
impacts Lears internal loss of control. As Lear wanders about a deserted heath in Act III, a
storm begins to rage overhead. The ambiguous essence of the storm embodies the powerful
forces of nature compelling the powerless king to recognize his own mortality and weakness to
cultivate a sense of humility for the first time. Strange Weather by Steve Mentz focuses on the
role of nature, specifically, weather in King Lear. He suggests the storm is unique because it
remains in the natural, or earthly realm with no obvious connection to the demonic, divine or
supernatural (Mentz 142). King Lears storm spans several scenes over two acts, remains utterly

indifferent to the characters, provokes Lear to rethink his ontological status and precipitates the
decline of a king and the ruination of the kingdom. The complex storm scenes begin with the
direction Storm and Tempest. It occurs in 2.2 when Lear refuses to relinquish his entourage in
exchange for a lodging and refuses to weep at the fact that his daughters have issued him with an
ultimatum: You think Ill weep / No, Ill not weep. [Storm and Tempest ] / Or eer Ill weep. O
fool, I shall go mad (2.2.474-478). Instead of weeping, Lear opts to go out in the storm with the
Fool following close behind. In act three, the storm still rages as Lear attempts to take control of
nature. In Act III Scene I, also under the direction Storm still, Lear literally standing within the
storm. King Lear, Act 3: Storming the Stage by Charles Hallet illuminates the significance of the
storm scene in King Lear. He discusses the Lears extensive dialogue with the storm and he tries
to understand his position in relation to it. He continues by saying Lear begins by commanding
the elements in the same way he commanded the court in the first scene, calling upon the
authority of the heavens to flatten the world in order to banish all those who do not show
gratitude (Hallett 134): Blow winds and crack your cheeks! Rage, blow! / You cataracts and
hurricanoes, spout / Crack natures moulds, all germens spill at once / That make ingrateful man
(3.2.1-9). Lear instructs the heavens to destroy the world, with a barrage of powerful and violent
verbs: blow, crack, rage, drench, drown, singe, strike and spill. First, he mimics the power of a
king who has control of the storm to no avail. He then tries to persuade the storm to agree with
him, and then curses the storm for siding with his daughters. Again, the storm does not respond.
Lear is a rounded character that transforms from a bad natured or unnatural back to good
nature or natural. When analyzing the title character, it is evident that Shakespeare presents two
opposing Lear characters in this play: the foolish, selfish Lear vs. the wise, unselfish Lear. King
Lears internal loss of control is influence by nature and its storm, causing the metamorphosis in
his character marked by the awareness of his mortality. In Act III Scene I, a knight describes the
physical effect of the storm upon Lear: Contending with the fretful elements And bids what
will take all (III.i.4-15). He is exposed to a storm that is utterly indifferent to his cries. Although
the storm makes nothing of Lear, he is transformed by the time within the storm, shown in a
close reading. The essay title Nobody, Somebody and King Lear by Peter Womack juxtaposes
King Lear with the idea of nothing. He says, the storm provides Lear with a material force to
contend with and a means by which he becomes aware of his natural body Womack 195).
Once stripped of all his royal materials and reduced to the condition of a ragged, homeless
madman, Lear admits that he is but a poor, infirm, weak, and despised old man (III.ii.20) or a
very foolish fond old man (IV.vii.60), still convinced he is a man more sinned against than
sinning (III.ii.60). He is no longer a fool as his gains awareness of those around him, including
his evil daughters filial ingratitude (III.iv.14). Seeing the Fool still accompanying him in the
cold outdoors, he says, Poor Fool and knave, I have one part in my heart/Thats sorry yet for
thee (III.ii.72-73). He even takes pity on all those naked wretches that have to bide the
pelting of this pitiless storm with only their houseless heads and unfed sides (III.iv.28-30).
The mad Lear in the last three acts of the play does speak mad words and act madly. Cordelia
describes him as mad as the vexed sea (IV.iv.2). On the other hand, Edgar observes the mad
Lear is matter and impertinency mixed; /Reason in madness (IV.vi.172-3). When the audience
sees the repentant Lear who sympathizes with other good suffering fellows, the connection can
be made to his initially presented character. With respect to the first two acts of the play, Lear
was really externally mad with his conscious acts. This was seen when Kent said, be Kent
unmannerly,/When Lear is mad (I.i.144-5) while defending Cordelia against Lears fury and
unwise dispensation of his kingdom.

All three kings in Richard III, Macbeth and King Lear have dysfunctional relationships
with women. Female characters in Richard III and Macbeth directly influence the respective
kings loss of control; conversely, the three daughters of Lear have an indirect impact on his loss
of control. Briefly defining misogyny for the parameters of this argument, Adrienne Rich has
written of misogyny as organized, institutionalized, normalized hostility and violence against
women (Rich 249). By scrutinizing the portrayal of female characters in Shakespeares plays,
we can sense the misogynistic side of Shakespeare as he illustrates weakness, deception,
irrationality, and mistrust of women.
The theme of misogyny is highlighted in Richard III, in which women are used as
scapegoats and represented as foolish and powerless without men and sorcery. King Richard
blames women for every problem when he feels threatened. For example, he views women as
deceitful and scheming as he tries to convince his brother Clarence that King Edwards wife is
the reason behind Clarences trouble: why, this is when men are ruld by women tis she that
tempers him (I.i.64-66). Misogyny is also clearly depicted in Lady Annes wooing scene that
serves to illustrate the irrationality and foolishness of Anne in accepting Richard as a husband
and the power of persuasion that Richard possesses. In other words, Shakespeare deliberately
demonstrates the foolishness of women who allow themselves to be easily seduced by flattery.
Another example is characterized with Margaret who is trapped in the misery of losing her
identity after the death of her husband and son. She is powerful only by relying on superstition
and she is represented as a scary witch whom prophesizes and foreshadows the ending of the
play. In addition, the play depicts the world of women in relation to men. Women marry men to
gain power, which is evident when Margaret curses Elizabeth, Die, neither mother, wife, nor
Englands queen (I.iii.206). She admits that women are completely worthless without men, and
thus, reflects Shakespeares misogynistic view. Richard seeks to marry both Lady Anne and
young Elizabeth due to their position in relation to men. The female serves as a piece to be
moved by others and a piece having value only in relation to others (Bloom 251).
In Macbeth, Lady Macbeth is all woman, and Shakespeare, seems to use her, and the
Witches, (something wicked this way comes) to undercut Macbeths idea that undaunted
mettle should compose / Nothing but males (I.vii.7374). Shakespeare portrays women as
crafty, who use female methods of achieving power that is, the notion of manipulation to
further their supposedly male ambitions. Women, the play implies, can be as ambitious and cruel
as men, yet societal constraints deny them the means to pursue these ambitions on their own.
Masculinity is defined in the play by ambition and power two qualities that Lady Macbeth
possesses in abundance. By constructing the character in this way, Shakespeare challenges our
preconceived views of masculinity and femininity.
The misogyny of King Lear comes in when we consider the contrast between the
male and female characters. Kathleen McLuskies The Patriarchal Bard: Feminist Criticism and
Shakespeare: King Lear and Measure for Measure labels Shakespeare's King Lear as a
misogynistic play as she claims that the central scenes all depend upon an audience accepting
an equation between 'human nature' and male power(McLuksie). Lears characterization of his
madness as the mother (II, ii, 246), which must be controlled and his dismissal of tears as
womans weapons (II, ii, 465) are early indications of the feminization of emotions. McLuskie
also says in order to experience the proper pleasures of pity and fear, they must accept that
fathers are owed particular duties by their daughters (McLuskie). McLuskie sees Goneril and
Regan as characters constructed by Shakespeare to be despised by the audience. Albanys angry
confrontation with Goneril (IV, II) and Edgars moralistic comments on womens lust (Act IV,

Scene VI, 266) demonstrate the position against women in general through the demonization of
the two sisters. The connection from individual women to all women leads to characterization
the plays structure as misogynistic. Shakespeares mistreatment of women shows through to the
ending of the play as no woman is left living in the new society of Edgar and Albany.
This paper sought to examine the ways in which the external pressures cause internal
conflict and loss of control among the kings of Shakespeare's plays Richard III, Macbeth and
King Lear. This paper will then compare the three plays with respect to the impact of female
characters, highlighting the misogynistic nature of the collected plays. In Richard III , the
external forces of the supernatural world create an atmosphere of intense dread to mirror the
malice and evil of Richards inner self including. The external control was pulled from Richard
by: Margarets prophetic curses and the parade of eleven ghosts that visits Richard the night
before the battle. Richards loss of control is also seen in the plot and structure of the play itself
with his presence in only two of the last six scenes. The external influences push Richard to lose
control internally, which is marked by his rhetorical failures. Language is manipulated, confused
and controlled by Richard as he gains political power. Shakespeare constructs Macbeth's mental
decline from two different angles. The first is the stark contrast between his characterization at
the beginning of the play and that at the end. The other angle shows the change when comparing
Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's characterization throughout the story. Nature, characterized as a
physical storm in King Lear, is the external force that heavily impacts Lears internal loss of
control. The ambiguous essence of the storm embodies the powerful forces of nature compelling
the powerless king to recognize his own mortality and weakness. This weakness allowed Lear to
cultivate a sense of humility for the first time. The comparison of all three plays look at the
misogynistic portrayal of female characters. Each illustrates weakness at some point, deception,
irrationality, and mistrust of women. Female characters in Richard III and Macbeth directly
influence the respective kings loss of control; conversely, the three daughters of Lear have an
indirect impact on his loss of control.

Works Cited
Bloom, Harold. Richard III in the Twentieth Century. Blooms Shakespeare through the Ages:
Richard III. Ed. Marson, Janyce. Troy NY: IBT Global, Inc., 2010. Print.
Cain, William E. "Murderous Thinking in Macbeth." Literary Imagination 10.3 (2008): 255-263.
Rpt. in Shakespearean Criticism. Ed. Michelle Lee. Vol. 136. Detroit: Gale, 2011.
Shakespearean Criticism Online. Web. 17 Nov. 2014.
Jenkins, Joseph S. "Macbeth: Murderous Rivalry over Succession Control; Inheritance of Grace
As State of Exception." Inheritance Law and Political Theology in Shakespeare and
Milton. Farnham: Ashgate, 2012. 67-88. Rpt. in Shakespearean Criticism. Ed. Lawrence
J. Trudeau. Vol. 157. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale, 2014. Shakespearean Criticism Online.
Web. 17 Nov. 2014.
Hallett, Charles A. "King Lear, Act 3: Storming the Stage." Acts of Criticism: Performance
Matters in Shakespeare and His Contemporaries; Essays in Honor of James P. Lusardi.
Ed. Paul Nelsen and June Schlueter. Madison, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press,
2006. 126-143. Rpt. in Shakespearean Criticism. Vol. 112. Detroit: Gale, 2008.
Shakespearean Criticism Online. Web. 17 Nov. 2014.
Kathleen McLuskie. "The Patriarchal Bard: Feminist Criticism and Shakespeare: King Lear and
Measure for Measure." Shakespeare Quarterly 53.1 (2002): 132-135. Project MUSE.
Web. 17 Nov. 2014.
Mentz, Steve. "Strange Weather in King Lear." Shakespeare 6.2 (June 2010): 139-152. Rpt. in
Shakespearean Criticism. Ed. Michelle Lee. Vol. 148. Detroit: Gale, 2012.
Shakespearean Criticism Online. Web. 17 Nov. 2014.
Peter Womack (2007). Nobody, Somebody, and King Lear. New Theatre Quarterly, 23, pp 195207. doi:10.1017/S0266464X07000103.
Adrienne Rich, from a 1981 letter to Ann Snitow, Christine Stansell and Sharon Thompson about
the publication of her 1979 essay Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence,
included in Henry Abelove et al (eds.), The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader, (New York
& London: Routledge, 1993), p.
249.