Parallel Lives: Hamlet, Macbeth, and Richard III

Written for a class on Shakespeare.

Please read my usage policy before asking for permission to use this piece.

Murder. Greed. Ambition. Power. These are just some of the common themes embodied in the characters of Hamlet, Macbeth, and Richard III. Though these three men move in different settings and among different people, their stories and personalities share many common traits. In this essay I will compare and contrast their motives, methods, and personalities.

Hamlet

We will begin with Hamlet, the prince of Denmark. Of the three characters we are focusing on, Hamlet is the only one who is directly in line for the throne at the beginning of his play; he is, ironically, the only one not interested in the throne. Though Hamlet is implied to be fairly young (he is a student at a university when the play begins), he is apparently old enough to assume the throne. But Hamlet shows no interest in taking charge of Denmark; he is consumed with mourning for his father. Unlike Macbeth and Richard, Hamlet is content to leave power and prestige to others. It is ultimately revenge, not ambition or greed, which prompts him to kill the king.

Hamlet’s views on death and murder stand in direct contrast to Richard and Macbeth’s views. Hamlet views murder as an act which must be well thought over before being committed. When Hamlet’s spectral father appears to tell his son of his (the father’s) murder, Hamlet is beside himself with rage, yet refrains from rushing off to kill his uncle right away. Instead he waits, mulling the matter over in his mind and playing devil’s advocate with himself to try and poke holes in the ghost’s tale. He will not kill Claudius until he is absolutely certain of his uncle’s guilt; as a way of proving this he stages a play mimicking the crime and watches his uncle’s reaction as a measure of Claudius’ guilt. Satisfied as to his uncle’s guilt, he goes to kill him; finding Claudius at prayer in a chapel, he stays his own sword, reasoning that he must wait a little longer until Claudius’ soul “may be as damned and black / As hell whereto it goes” (Hamlet 3.3.94-5). Hamlet has now placed himself almost equal to Richard in his cold-blooded restraint and stony resolve.

Armed with what he perceives as proof of his uncle’s villainy, Hamlet is no longer hesitant. When, in his mother’s chambers, he hears a hidden Polonius cry out from behind a drapery, he draws his sword and stabs the man through the drapery, crying out “Is it the king?” (Hamlet 3.4.25) Finding he has killed Polonius instead of Claudius, Hamlet shows no regret; he even cracks a few jokes as he drags Polonius’s body from the room. Escaping punishment by fleeing to England, Hamlet deftly exchanges the execution order his uncle had intended for him with an order to execute Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, his two schoolmates-turned-tattletales. When Hamlet finally returns to Denmark, he is greeted with news of Ophelia’s death, the shock of which prompts him to quarrel with her brother Laertes. We see now Hamlet’s hot temper and propensity to violence; having settled the philosophical questions earlier in the play, he has become quick to anger and equally quick to act upon his rage. When, in the final scene, Hamlet’s mother is accidentally killed with a poison provided by Claudius and meant for Hamlet, the prince explodes, stabbing his uncle and forcing him to drink the rest of the poison. Hamlet then expires, leaving his friend Horatio to relate the tale of murder and revenge. We are left with the impression that, when the story is told, Hamlet will be considered a hero and/or a martyr. This, then, is what really separates Hamlet from the other two characters considered in this essay: the people (and the audience) sympathize with Hamlet and his motives. Even though he has committed wicked acts, we understand and condone his reasons for committing them. Though Hamlet is a reluctant hero, he is a hero nonetheless.

Macbeth

Hovering between Hamlet’s philosophical conscience and Richard’s ruthless temperament is Macbeth. Macbeth’s path to the throne is steeper than the paths of Hamlet and Richard; he is not in line for the throne, and apparently is not even a relation to King Duncan. Barring his way are two adult princes and their families. Yet, through a combination of murder and intimidation, he manages to gain the throne.

Like Hamlet, Macbeth’s journey begins with a supernatural encounter: the three “weird sisters,” who prophecy to Macbeth and his friend Banquo that both will become close to the throne, Macbeth through himself and Banquo through his heirs. The seed of ambition has now been planted in Macbeth. At first he is averse to murdering Duncan; he reasons that “If chance will have me king, why, chance may crown me / Without my stir” (Macbeth 1.3.144-145). Lady Macbeth stimulates her husband’s greed by alternately taunting and coaxing him. Even as he plots Duncan’s murder, Macbeth argues against it; he knows he is doing something unconscionable, yet he cannot seem to stop himself. Even as he creeps towards Duncan’s chambers to murder him, he tells himself that he is simply following a spectral dagger, simply fulfilling the destiny prophecied by the three witches. In the same way as some people justify their actions by claiming they do God’s work, Macbeth seeks to excuse his atrocities by blaming them upon a malevolent supernatural force. In his own way, Macbeth is claiming that “the devil made him do it.”

After Duncan’s murder, Macbeth is a changed man. He has grown cold-blooded and depressed, hating himself for his growing list of crimes and yet adding to it without hesitation. He gains the throne, but is forced to commit murder after murder in order to keep it; like Richard, Macbeth feels that “sin will pluck on sin” (Richard III 4.2.66), a darkly resigned “in for a penny, in for a pound” view of his actions. He kills friends, women, and children. Macbeth’s personality cannot stand the strain of this guilt; he is almost mad with remorse. Facing a battle with the true heirs of the realm, he swings between giddy self-assurance and terrified self-doubt. Moments before entering his final battle he is told of his wife’s suicide; his response is a speech dripping with pessimism and the resignation of a man who knows he is doomed to die soon. When he finally meets Macduff upon the battlefield and realizes that the final supernatural prediction of the witches (his death at the hands of a man “not of woman born”) must come true, he surrenders all hope of living and fights with abandon, preferring to die than to live as a subordinate to the true king.

Richard III

Outranking the two previous characters in both scheming and villainy is Richard, who holds the rank of Duke of Gloucester at the play’s inception. Richard begins his play with a soliloquy astonishing in its frankness; in the space of a few minutes we learn who he is, what he looks like, and what he intends to do. “I am determinéd to prove a villain” (Richard III 1.1.30) he tells us, and a few lines later remarks that he is “subtle, false and teacherous” (Richard III 1.1.37). He almost seems to brag about his villainy, flaunting it for the audience even as he plays the innocent for his family and peers. He is determined to prove that he has no conscience, that he can kill women and children without batting an eye, that the ever-growing number of murders has no effect whatsoever on his soul.

The definitive difference between Richard and the other two characters is Richard’s fearlessness. Hamlet fears moral sin; Macbeth fears the supernatural; Richard appears fearless through most of the play, repeatedly swearing holy oaths in the name of God and openly inviting heaven to strike him down if he is being false (which he invariably is). In contrast to Macbeth, who seeks to blame his actions on malevolent supernatural forces, Richard gleefully views himself as a malevolent force in human form.

As the play progresses and the body count rises, however, Richard begins to crack. He shows a disinclination to hear others talk about his victims or tell of his crimes, attempting to drown out his female relatives’ accusations with music and brusquely interrupting Elizabeth when she speaks of her murdered children. His conscience is finally revealed the night before his final battle, when his guilt and the world of the supernatural conspire to frighten and dishearten him. Hamlet’s conscience is at the foreground throughout the play; Macbeth’s conscience dogs him but cannot seem to prevent him from evil actions; Richard’s conscience lies dormant, only to wake with sudden and disarming ferocity. Upon waking, Richard is displeased with this evidence of his guilt and remorse; he is disappointed that he is not the heartless, evil being he has so carefully cultivated himself to be. But this moment of vulnerability and self-doubt is quickly past, and Richard is once again confident in his abilities.

Like Macbeth before him, Richard fights courageously in his final battle. Though it is increasingly obvious that he will not survive the fight, he is nevertheless determined to kill his enemy Richmond at all costs. But, like Macbeth, he is ultimately vanquished.

Regicide

The thread connecting all three characters is, of course, regicide. All three must kill their regent in order to accomplish their goals. Their views on regicide vary widely. Hamlet is more concerned with King Claudius’s moral character than with his position; it does not seem to trouble Hamlet that he is plotting to destroy a sovereign king. Macbeth is initially repulsed by the idea of murdering King Duncan; he argues to himself that the king has done much good, is well-loved by his subjects, and has treated Macbeth kindly and shown him much favor. But Macbeth reminds himself that Duncan is old and feeble, no longer capable of ruling a kingdom; this argument allows Macbeth to tell himself that he is actually doing the kingdom a favor by snuffing out Duncan’s life. Richard, ever the cheery villain, shows no repulsion to the idea of killing a man who is both king and brother.

We have examined these three characters, compared their personalities, dissected their motives, and traced the parallel paths of their lives. Though their motives and methods were different, many of their actions and their ultimate fates were strikingly similar. They are, in a sense, a classic trinity of personalities: good, middling, and evil.

E-mail Feedback

Tell me what you think! Fill out this form to send me a private e-mail comment.

(required)

(required)


(required)

Check off this box if you are not a spammer:

No HTML allowed

You can also e-mail me directly at moc.srehtaef-tuohtiwnull@nullymor.

 

See Also