In Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of King Richard the Third, Richard proves to be the bane of his own existence and causes his own defeat by Henry, the Earl of Richmond. To begin, the ghosts haunting Richard in his sleep can be interpreted as psychological impediments to his success. In other wards, the ghosts are the memories of those he killed or setup to be killed, which is the guilt weighing down on him. Thus, Richard losses sleep and becomes weakened before meeting Richmond on the battlefield. Despite Richard having the larger army and advantage, the exhausted Richard fails to properly lead and distribute his forces against the united and virtuous army of Richmond. Even Richmond declares the importance of proper slumber before jumping into action: “I’ll strive with troubled thoughts to take a nap, / [l]est leaden slumber peise me down tomorrow, / [w]hen I should mount with wings of victory” (5.5.57-59).
Regarding the prophecies of “G” as the murderer, Richard Gloucester proves to be the murderer of countless individuals, including the murderer of himself. For example, he slaughters the humanity within himself and contradicts his Christian faith. He prays to Saint George to inspire his forces with the rage of “fiery dragons,” (5.7.80) which is symbolic of feasting his minions with the angry flames of Hell. Moreover, it’s ironic because he’s asking the holy saint for assistance right after sentencing little George Stanley to his untimely death. Condemning one George is condemning the other. Richmond fights with Saint George on his side because he’s faithful to Christianity and doesn’t sin like Richard. Thus, Richard simultaneously coordinates the murder of an innocent child and dooms himself to eternally burning in the flames of Hell.
Furthermore, Richard’s ruthless desire for unwavering loyalty is the result of his own insecurities as a human being. For instance, he sentences his most faithful followers to death for second guessing his orders only for a second. To Richard, Buckingham asks, “Give me some little breath, some pause, dear, / [b]efore I positively speak in this. / I will resolve you herein presently” (4.2.25-27). Buckingham’s hesitation to immediately follow Richard’s orders to murder King Edward’s children causes Richard to become furious and question Buckingham’s dedications, despite his unwavering support to Richard’s ascension to the throne. In fact, Richard’s merciless actions are attempts to deny his own guilty feelings, which ultimately catches up to him in the shape of the ghosts haunting him in his sleep. Moreover, he fails to avoid the accumulation of guilt by ordering others to carry out his dirty work. During the entire play, Richard doesn’t kill anyone and tries detaching himself from any guilt by having, say, Tyrrell murder Edward’s children; and even Tyrrell himself doesn’t kill the children because he has others smother them for him. Hence, Richard unsuccessfully separates himself from the haunting memories in the shape of ghosts and becomes the weakly scared human being that he despises most when waking up from his nightmares, saying, “O Ratcliffe, I have dreamed a fearful dream. / What thinkest thou, will all our friends prove true?” (5.5.166-67) and “Ratcliffe, I fear, I fear” (5.5.168). He becomes this vulnerably little creature like Edward’s innocent children, but without the innocence.
I think your analysis of what causes Richard’s downfall is very insightful. I agree with your conclusion that Richard is the cause of his own downfall in many ways, and I think it is interesting to consider what would happen had he acted differently. What if Richard was more ruthless and carried out the numerous murders of this play himself? If he were able to act free of guilt, would he have been successful? Or what if Richard was more likable? What if instead of ruling through fear he ruled through respect? Would his desire to take the crown have manifested? If so would this difference in character result in a more successful outcome for Richard?
I especially liked your interpretation of the ghosts as psychological manifestations of guilt. I read them as purely supernatural at first, but I definitely agree that there is room in this play for some serious psychoanalysis.