ObjectivesThis article sets out to explore the revengeful, retribution logic of Shakespeare's Richard III. MethodsThe method consists in a review of the literature (critical essays, psychiatric and psychoanalytic writings) on this historical play so as to define the central issue. This well-known figure of Shakespearean drama leads us to explore the question of perceived grievances and litigious or querulous paranoia (see Sérieux & Capgras, Clérambault, Lacan, etc) underpinning demands for one's for rights. On this point it is useful to recall the distinction between querulous delusion and interpretation delusion. ResultsMoving from the initial wrong or grievance sustained to a feeling of injustice and then on to the hateful claims precipitating the character into his criminal course, Richard III provides all the clinical components that enable this tragedy to be read in the light of querulous paranoia. The querulant – who sees himself as a victim of the Other – following in from the initial wrong, throws himself body and soul into obtaining reparation (the querulous paranoid subject can be summed up as “reparation is owed to me”). The trajectory chosen by Richer III takes him from being “deformed, unfinished, sent before my time into this breathing world” to “being determined to be a villain” by removing anyone standing in his way to the throne – or suspected of doing so. DiscussionThus the central element at the outset is the wrong or prejudice sustained (“I that am curtailed of this fair proportion”) that demands retribution at all costs. Richard III, deformed from birth, accuses the Other (“dissembling Nature”, his mother) and wants that Other to pay what is owing, thus inflicting on others the initial injustice. His bloodthirsty, destructive frenzy, his murderous enterprise devoid of any form of empathy, regret, or guilt, the details provided on his childhood and youth, his relationships with the law and with others all contribute to making Richard III above all a querulant or a persecuted persecutor with illusions of grandeur. Thus the central element in the discussion relates to the harm or prejudice sustained – damage that can also be encountered in other forms of psychosis, such as melancholy. The prejudice is interpreted and processed differently according to the person, and in particular according to whether the subject relates the wrongdoing to himself or accuses the Other of being responsible. For Richard III, the Other must be subjected to crime and punishment. ConclusionThe dark figure of Richard III, however terrible, criminal, and full of hate he may be, is even so not indifferent to us, and not without echoes for us. Freud analyzed him in this manner in 1916. In fact, any subject carries within him some sort of feeling of injustice, any subject “has the right” to lay claim to some form of harm or prejuduce, and in a way we are all, on a small scale, querulous subjects. But Richard II shows us in a sense that according to the type of clinical profile to which we belong, the harm or prejudice and the resulting claims for retribution take on very different forms. The morbid claims for retribution by Richard III suggest an egocentric querulous aranoia, or perhaps egocentric querulous psychosis where an “idealism of justice” (Dide) predominates: the subject is intent on justice being done to him.
Read full abstract