Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
the complex character of richard ii
essays on richard the iii
essays on richard the iii
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: the complex character of richard ii
Richard II in William Shakespeare
The plays of William Shakespeare are generally easy to categorize, and the heroes of these plays are equally so. However, in the history play Richard II, Shakespeare’s king is more ambiguous than Hamlet or Romeo– there is no clear cut answer to whether Richard II is a tragic hero... or simply a tragedy. Historically, Richard II was crowned at a very young age, forced into the role of monarch, and thrust without hesitation into the murky world of political intrigue, which perhaps lends his character sympathy because he had no choice in his fate. However, despite his forced role in life, Richard II seems to rely on the concept of divine right to secure his throne, making no effort to sustain it once it is “irrevocably” his. Richard II is both the tragic hero and the tragedy– simply playing the role of King for the majority of the play, but only coming into his own after he is deposed, and only then to fight for his own existence.
From the beginning of the play, Richard II is apathetic at best in his royal role. By exiling Bolingbroke and...
Shakespeare constructs King Richard III to perform his contextual agenda, or to perpetrate political propaganda in the light of a historical power struggle, mirroring the political concerns of his era through his adaptation and selection of source material. Shakespeare’s influences include Thomas More’s The History of King Richard the Third, both constructing a certain historical perspective of the play. The negative perspective of Richard III’s character is a perpetuation of established Tudor history, where Vergil constructed a history intermixed with Tudor history, and More’s connection to John Morton affected the villainous image of the tyrannous king. This negative image is accentuated through the antithesis of Richards treachery in juxtaposition of Richmond’s devotion, exemplified in the parallelism of ‘God and Saint George! Richmond and victory.’ The need to legitimize Elizabeth’s reign influenced Shakespeare’s portra...
Anne is quite like a modern woman in the way that if a man tells her
Instead of a powerful physical image, like Queen Elizabeth I, Richard implements elegant soliloquies, engages in witty banter, and attunes the audience to his motives with frequent asides. This flexibility demonstrates Richard's thespian superiority and power over the rest of the play's cast, making him a unique character in the play, but why does he do it? This constant battle between characters to claim mastery over a scene leaves the audience with a seemingly overlooked source of power for an actor [clarify/expand].
In conclusion, it is apparent that Richard III is quite a moral play. The characters in it are able to repent their own transgressions, and condemn those of others, and finally, retribution and judgement are always carried through. This text fully demonstrates a social morality that is, early on, ignored, but culminates in the fulfilment of a natural justice, and thereby endorses the moral codes it shows us.
At the exit of the Groom, one more remark gives place for us to sympathize with Richard. In contrast to Richard, who has referred to the Groom as a noble friend throughout their brief interaction, when the Keeper enters the room, Forker points out in a footnote that he “addresses the Groom as an inferior,” calling him “fellow,” rather than peer (471). His remark only contrasts all the more sharply with Richard’s kind reception of his peer the groom, a man he quite recently ruled over with a less than a kind hand. This scene sparks what becomes the paradigm shift that ends the play. No counterargument tries to re-convince the audience of the tyranny of King Richard II; that is said and done with the deposition of the tyrant. Were that the laudable
The task which Shakespeare undertook was to mold the hateful constitution of Richard's Moral; character. Richard had to contend with the prejudices arising from his bodily deformity which was considered an indication of the depravity and wickedness of his nature. Richard's ambitious nature, his elastic intellect, and his want of faith in goodness conspire to produce his tendency to despise and degrade every surrounding being and object, even as his own person. He is never sincere except when he is about to commit a murder.
Richard Loncraine’s rendition of William Shakespeare’s Richard III is memorable in its appeal to modern viewers partly because it relocates the action of the play to a fantasized Nazi Germany-styled England of the 1940s, rather than keeping fifteenth-century England as the setting as Shakespeare originally intended. But while this approach undoubtedly allows the story of Richard III to be broadcasted to a more diverse audience, its total rejection of historical fact, along with the way in which Loncraine skips around the text, cuts scenes, and adds small but important details to the aesthetics of Shakespeare’s play may mislead the audience and thus distract them from the original piece. Therefore, it is for this reason that although the 1995 movie adaptation of Richard III is, for the most part, a very enjoyable rendition of the play, the various modernizations to which Loncraine subjects the script and setting lessen the potency of this famous story for not only those who have read Shakespeare’s Richard III, but also for the ones who have not.
Gifted with the darkest attributes intertwined in his imperfect characteristics, Shakespeare’s Richard III displays his anti-hero traits afflicted with thorns of villains: “Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous / By drunken prophecies, libels, and dreams” (I.i.32-33). Richard possesses the idealism and ambition of a heroic figure that is destined to great achievements and power; however, as one who believes that “the end justifies the means”, Richard rejects moral value and tradition as he is willing to do anything to accomplish his goal to the crown. The society, even his family and closest friends, repudiate him as a deformed outcast. Nevertheless, he cheers for himself as the champion and irredeemable villain by turning entirely to revenge of taking self-served power. By distinguishing virtue ethics to take revenge on the human society that alienates him and centering his life on self-advancement towards kingship, Richard is the literary archetype of an anti-hero.
The undeniable pursuit for power is Richard’s flaw as a Vice character. This aspect is demonstrated in Shakespeare’s play King Richard III through the actions Richard portrays in an attempt to take the throne, allowing the audience to perceive this as an abhorrent transgression against the divine order. The deformity of Richards arm and back also symbolically imply a sense of villainy through Shakespeare’s context. In one of Richard’s soliloquies, he states how ‘thus like the formal Vice Iniquity/ I moralize two meanings in one word’. Through the use of immoral jargons, Shakespeare emphasises Richard’s tenacity to attain a sense of power. However, Richard’s personal struggle with power causes him to become paranoid and demanding, as demonstrated through the use of modality ‘I wish’ in ‘I wish the bastards dead’. This act thus becomes heavily discordant to the accepted great chain of being and conveys Richard’s consumption by power.
Written during a time of peace immediately following the conclusion of the War of the Roses between the Yorks and the Lancasters, William Shakespeare’s play Richard III showcases a multi-faceted master of linguistic eloquence, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, a character who simultaneously manages to be droll, revolting, deadly, yet fascinating. Richard's villainy works in a keen, detestable manner, manifesting itself in his specific use or, rather, abuse of rhetoric. He spends a substantial amount of time directly interacting and therefore breaking the fourth wall and orating to the audience in order to forge a relationship with them, to make members not only his confidants of murderous intentions, but also his accomplices and powerless, unwilling cohorts to his wrongdoings. Through the reader’s exploration of stylistic and rhetorical stratagem in the opening and final soliloquies delivered by Richard, readers are able to identify numerous devices which provide for a dramatic effect that make evident the psychological deterioration and progression of Richard as a character and villain.
Shakespeare, William. Richard III. The Norton Shakespeare. Ed. Stephen Greenblatt. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1997
According to many, Shakespeare intentionally portrays Richard III in ways that would have the world hail him as the ultimate Machiavel. This build up only serves to further the dramatic irony when Richard falls from his throne. The nature of Richard's character is key to discovering the commentary Shakespeare is delivering on the nature of tyrants. By setting up Richard to be seen as the ultimate Machiavel, only to have him utterly destroyed, Shakespeare makes a dramatic commentary on the frailty of tyranny and such men as would aspire to tyrannical rule.
William Shakespeare’s Richard the III revolves around the Duke of Gloucester, Richard, and his treacherous plan of lying, cheating and murdering in order to become king. In this excerpt of Act 1 scene 2, Richard has just completed one of his first major steps to becoming a villain; he has succeeded in wooing lady Anne, a potentially important political figure in the future, to his side. Alone on stage, he remarks on how surprisingly easy a task it was. He is now confident in becoming a villain to achieve his goals. The scene is meant to reveal Richard’s character through a variety of literary devices, as he starts to develop a sense of arrogance and sense of superiority. He now is starting to believe that he has a full understanding of how
Nevertheless, as a man of action, Bolingbroke has achieved for himself the goal of retrieving his father Gaunt's estates and much more. He, in the end, is king, King Henry IV. And though Richard as king was full of pomp and ceremony, those things were no match for ambition carried to its fullest. His strong words belied incompetence as a ruler, and he could not hold his position. It seems that it was inevitable that Bolingbroke would be the victor at last. Richard should have taken more note of his usurper, before he was such, this man he called "[Gaunt's] bold son" (1.1.3).
The tragedy of Hamlet, Shakespeare’s most popular and greatest tragedy, presents his genius as a playwright and includes many numbers of themes and literary techniques. In all tragedies, the main character, called a tragic hero, suffers and usually dies at the end. Prince Hamlet is a model example of a Shakespearean tragic hero. Every tragedy must have a tragic hero. A tragic hero must own many good traits, but has a flaw that ultimately leads to his downfall. If not for this tragic flaw, the hero would be able to survive at the end of the play. A tragic hero must have free will and also have the characteristics of being brave and noble. In addition, the audience must feel some sympathy for the tragic hero.