“No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity”: Compassion and the Nonhuman in "Richard III"

• Authors: Anne Sophie Refskou

Abstracts

EN

When Lady Anne accuses Richard of cruelty in the wooing scene of act one in Richard III, she claims that even the fiercest beast will demonstrate some degree of pity. Her attempt to categorize Richard as somehow both less than human and less than a beast, however, leaves her vulnerable to Richard’s pithy retort that he knows no pity “and therefore [is] no beast” (1:2:71-2). The dialogue swiftly moves on, but the relation between the emotional phenomenon known as pity or compassion and the nonhuman, briefly raised in these two lines, remains unresolved. Recent scholarship at the intersection of early modern studies, historical animal studies and posthumanism has demonstrated ways in which the human-animal binary is often less than clearly articulated in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Building on such work, and adding perspectives from the history of the emotions, I look closely at the exchange between Anne and Richard as characteristic of pre-Cartesian confusion about the emotional disposition-in particular compassion-of animals. I argue that such confusion can in fact be traced throughout Richard III and elsewhere in the Shakespeare canon and that paying attention to it unsettles the more familiar notion of compassion as a human species distinction and offers a new way to read the early modern nonhuman.

Keywords

EN

Richard III; compassion; emotion; posthumanism; human-animal binary

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
• Journal: Multicultural Shakespeare: Translation, Appropriation and Performance
• Year: 2021
• Volume: 24
• Issue: 39
• Pages: 121-135

Dates

published

2021

Contributors

author

Anne Sophie Refskou

• Aarhus University, DK

• https://orcid.org/0000000253105573

References

• Alkemeyer, Bryan. ‘“I am the Dog”: Canine Abjection, Species Reversal, and Misanthropic Satire in The Two Gentlemen of Verona’. The Routledge Handbook of Shakespeare and Animals. Ed. Holly Duggan and Karen Raber. London and New York: Routledge, 2021. 34-44 https://doi.org/10.1590/0101-3173.2021.v44dossier.15.p265
• Bovilsky, Lara. ‘Shakespeare’s Mineral Emotions’. Renaissance Posthumanism. Ed. Joseph Campana and Scott Maisano. New York: Fordham University Press, 2016. 253-282.
• Campana, Joseph and Scott Maisano. Introduction. Renaissance Posthumanism. Ed. Joseph Campana and Scott Maisano. New York: Fordham University Press, 2016. 1-44.
• Derrida, Jacques. ‘The Animal That Therefore I Am (More to Follow)’. Trans. David Willis. Critical Inquiry 28.2 [1997] (2002): 369-418 https://doi.org/10.1086/449046
• Descartes, René. Discourse on the Method. Trans. John Veitch. New York: Cosimo Classics, [1637] 2008.
• Duggan, Holly and Karen Raber, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Shakespeare and Animals. London and New York: Routledge, 2021.
• Fudge, Erica. Brutal Reasoning: Animals, Rationality, and Humanity in Early Modern England. Ithaca, New York, and London: Cornell University Press, 2006.
• Fudge, Erica. Perceiving Animals: Humans and Beasts in Early Modern English Culture. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave, 2000.
• Fudge, Erica. Pets. Stockfield: Acumen, 2008.
• Fudge, Erica. Quick Cattle and Dying Wishes: People and their Animals in Early Modern England. Ithaca, New York and London: Cornell University Press, 2018.
• Fudge, Erica, ed. Renaissance Beasts: Of Animals, Humans and Other Wonderful Creatures. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2004.
• Haraway, Donna J. When Species Meet. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, 2008.
• Ibbitt, Katherine and Kristine Steenberg, (eds.). Compassion in Early Modern Literature and Culture: Feeling and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021.
• Kott, Jan. Shakespeare Our Contemporary. Trans. Boleslaw Taborski. London: Methuen & Co, 1965.
• Montaigne, Michel de. The Complete Essays. Trans. M.A. Screech. London: Penguin, [1580] 2003.
• Paster, Gail Kern. ‘Melancholy Cats, Lugged Bears, and Other Passionate Animals: Reading Shakespeare’s Psychological Materialism across the Species Barrier’. Reading the Early Modern Passions: Essays in the Cultural History of Emotions. Ed. Gail Kern Paster, Katharine Rowe and Mary Floyd-Wilson. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. 113-129.
• Raber, Karen. Animal Bodies, Renaissance Culture. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013.
• Raber, Karen. Shakespeare and Posthumanist Theory. London and New York: The Bloomsbury Arden Shakespeare, 2018.
• Rosendahl Thomsen, Mads and Jacob Wamberg. Introduction. The Bloomsbury Handbook of Posthumanism. Ed. Mads Rosendahl Thomsen and Jacob Wamberg. London and New York, Bloomsbury, 2020. 1-10.
• Shannon, L. The Accommodated Animal: Cosmopolity in Shakespearean Locales. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2013.
• Steenbergh, Kristine. ‘Compassion and the Anthropocene’. Compassion in Early Modern Literature and Culture: Feeling and Practice. Ed. Katherine Ibbitt and Kristine Steenbergh. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021. 293-301.
• Topsell, Edward. The historie of foure-footed beastes. London: William Iaggard, 1607.
• Wright, Thomas. The Passions of the Minde in Generall. Corrected, enlarged, and with sundry new discourses augmented. London: Valentine Simmes and Adam Islip for Walter Burre and Thomas Thorpe, 1604.

Identifiers

DOI

10.18778/2083-8530.24.08

Biblioteka Nauki

2048114