The Relationship Between Richard II and The Myrroure for Magistrates The relationship between Richard II and The Myrroure for Magistrates is considered here predominantly in the context of the differences between the two texts.[1] The function of each text is discussed initially, the didactic purpose of the Myrroure contrasted with the function of Shakespeare’s play as, primarily, theatrical entertainment. The conflicting accounts of certain events from Richard’s reign are looked at subsequently and the manner in which they reflect the different function of the texts. Finally, consideration is given to the different way in which the Myrroure and Richard II each reflect upon the theme of kingship through their portrayal of Richard’s reign. In relation to each of these points of discussion, it is argued that Richard II delivers a more complex, multi-dimensional portrayal of character, events and themes than the Myrroure. The Myrroure is imbued with moral didacticism and Richard II’s reign is employed to encourage rulers to govern virtuously and lawfully. Rulers must abide by ‘right’ and ‘lawe’ (l. 32), observe ‘faythful counsayle’ (ll. 35) and beware ‘false Flatterers’ (l. 33). Richard, however, is portrayed as a king who ‘ruled all by lust’ (l.31), ‘passing not a straw’ (l. 35) to those who sought to counsel him. He himself recounts how ‘I set my mind to feede, to spoyle’ (l. 37) and ‘my realme I polde’ (l.41), as a result of which he was ‘brought to care’ (l. 30). The form of the poem reinforces its didactic function. The use of a single voice results in a largely one-dimensional portrayal of Richard, no allowance made fo... ... middle of paper ... ... Johnson (eds.), A Shakespeare Reader: Sources and Criticism, Macmillan Press Ltd., London: 2000, pp.7-9. Throughout this discussion the extract is referred to as ‘the Myrroure’. [2] ‘Telling’ refers to the technique of having a narrator telling what happens while ‘showing’ permits the reader to see the character act and speak. For a discussion of these two terms, applied in the context of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, see Pam Norris, ‘Reading Pride and Prejudice’, in Dennis Walder, The Realist Novel, Routledge, London: 1995, pp. 33-34. [3] See Margaret Healy, ‘Richard II’ in Kiernan Ryan (ed.), Shakespeare: Texts and Contexts, Macmillan Press Ltd., Basingstoke: 2000, p. 50. [4] Ibid., p. 53. [5] See Katherin Eisman Maus, ‘Richard II’ in The Norton Shakespeare, p. 948. [6] Ibid., p.943.
Richard III's Usurpation and His Downfall Richards rule was always unstable due to his unlawful usurpation to the throne and his part as far as the public was concerned in the death of the two princes. As a result right from the start he didn't have the trust or support from his country. As soon as he became King people were already plotting against him. After he was crowned he travelled the country trying to raise support by refusing the generous gifts offered to him by various cities. However unknown to him a rebellion was been planned in the South.
Composers throughout various zeitgeists are linked by different representations of universal human concerns, and their texts simultaneously embody certain values and agendas individual to themselves. An exploration of Shakespeare’s King Richard III (1592) and Al Pacino’s Looking for Richard (1996) allows for a greater understanding of the composer’s respective contexts, along with their intended agendas, through the lens of their own societal values and concerns. The manipulation of Richard III’s persona, whether by authorial adaptation of historical sources related to his character, or through the differing views of Richards motives, are universal concepts, that when studied in relation to the differing time periods, accentuates the context and our understanding of recurrent aspects of the human experience.
Over the course of history, power in the hands of new leaders and how new leaders deal with power have been deeply analyzed topics; however, as Abraham Lincoln once said, “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” In the idealistic novel A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur’s Court by Mark Twain, the nature of power and rule directly reflects many of the ideas presented in the philosophical and non-fiction novel The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli. These two writings intertwine authoritative concepts including new leaders taking up residence in the new state, defending the weak, rising to supremacy through fear, and never avoiding war to delay controversy.
Today some people can get away with just about any small crime with no punishments, but in the Elizabethan era you'd think twice before committing a crime. For stealing fruit in the Elizabethan era you can lose your hand. Today you would get community service or some other small punishment. The punishment you were given had to do with the crime, your wealth, and who you were connected to.
It has been shown again and again throughout history and literature that if there is a perfect human he is not also the perfect ruler. Those traits which we hold as good, such as the following of some sort of moral code, interfere with the necessity of detachment in a ruler. In both Henry IV and Richard II, Shakespeare explores what properties must be present in a good ruler. Those who are imperfect morally, who take into account only self-interest and not honor or what is appropriate, rise to rule, and stay in power.
Through the 15th and 18th century, Royal Absolutism was the dominant political structure in western society, and personified France and King Louis XIV.
The Court of King Arthur in the Tales of Lanval and Sir Gawain the Green Knight
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Richard III as King of England In April 1493, Edward IV died suddenly and Richard was appointed ‘protector’ over his son who was too young to govern on his own. Richard gained the throne by he imprisoned the two sons of Edward and may even have had them executed. Like many Kings he murdered nobles (Hastings and Rivers) and their predecessors but the difference is his predecessor was a child. The usurpation was too ruthless and too ambitious that it coloured everything that he did during his reign. He tried to court popularity by the promotion of Justice, especially for the poor with the appointment of a master of requests.
Shakespeare's Richard III is a play pervasive in figurative language, one of the most notable being the symbolic image of the sun and the shadow it casts. In an examination of a short passage from the text, it will be argued that Richard is compared to a shadow in relation to the sun, which has traditionally been held as a symbol of the king. The passage is significant not only because it speaks volumes about the plots of Richard, but also because it is relevant in understanding the overall plot of the play, which in the first few acts is almost indistinguishable from the plot of the scheming Duke of Gloucester.
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.
To explore connections between texts is to heighten understanding of humanity’s progressing values and the underlying relevant themes that continue to engage societies regardless of context. William Shakespeare’s King Richard III (1592) (RIII) and Al Pacino’s docudrama Looking for Richard (1996) (LFR) demonstrate how opinion is created through comparative study, both explore the struggle for power within differing contexts to determine the duplicity of humanity. Ultimately, despite the divergent eras of composition and textual form, these connections expose the relevant social commentaries of their composers, highlighting innately human values, which remain constant.
The content and construction of texts are inexorably influenced by the plethora of social, cultural, and historical factors relative to a composer’s context. Context thus becomes the principle medium for deciphering the complex and often didactic meanings within texts. Through the comparative study of Shakespeare’s historical tragedy King Richard III and Al Pacino’s postmodern docudrama Looking For Richard, both texts explore the various connections explored through the protagonist Richard with respective societal influence affecting their portrayal. Shakespeare’s text strongly conveys a sense of providentialism which was influential by the Tudor monarchy whilst Al Pacino thorough the implement of modern day media portrays these influences to a secular, postmodern audience.
By bowing down to the needs of his subjects, a king allows others to dictate his actions and hence compromises the essence of his power. Paradoxically, failing to heed the desires of his subjects transforms a king into a self-indulgent tyrant and propels his kingdom towards ruin and decay. Can a sovereign rule his subjects without considering their general welfare? If a king rules unconscionably, do his subjects have the right to replace him? William Shakespeare's Richard II considers this authoritarian quandary at great length. In particular, John of Gaunt's "other Eden" monologue (2.1.31-68) delves into the perilous nature of unfettered autocracy. Gaunt proclaims that King Richard should relinquish his crown, because he has figuratively raped "mother" England by exploiting the loyalty of his subjects and debasing the grandeur of "this blessed plot" (2.1.50) for his own personal glory.
Throughout the historical literary periods, many writers underrepresented and undervalued the role of women in society, even more, they did not choose to yield the benefits of the numerous uses of the female character concerning the roles which women could accomplish as plot devices and literary tools. William Shakespeare was one playwright who found several uses for female characters in his works. Despite the fact that in Shakespeare's history play, Richard II, he did not use women in order to implement the facts regarding the historical events. Instead, he focused the use of women roles by making it clear that female characters significantly enriched the literary and theatrical facets of his work. Furthermore in Shakespeare’s history play, King Richard II, many critics have debated the role that women play, especially the queen. One of the arguments is that Shakespeare uses the queen’s role as every women’s role to show domestic life and emotion. Jo McMurtry explains the role of all women in his book, Understanding Shakespeare’s England A Companion for the American Reader, he states, “Women were seen, legally and socially, as wives. Marriage was a permanent state” (5). McMurtry argues that every woman’s role in the Elizabethan society is understood to be a legal permanent state that is socially correct as wives and mothers. Other critics believe that the role of the queen was to soften King Richard II’s personality for the nobles and commoners opinion of him. Shakespeare gives the queen only a few speaking scenes with limited lines in Acts two, four, and five through-out the play. Also, she is mentioned only a few times by several other of the characters of the play and is in multiple scenes wit...
On June 28th, 1491, a boy was born in Greenwich Palace to Henry VII and Elizabeth of York. (Scarisbrick 1968) They named their son Henry VIII, after Henry VII. Henry was the second of the four sons that Elizabeth and Henry would have but he was the only one to survive to adulthood. His older brother was Arthur, and his two sisters were Margaret and Mary, and they would be the only ones who survived infancy. However, every ruler has a weakness, and Henry’s was women. The impact of women on Henry would show, even in his reign as king.