Love, before we can talk about it we must define it; then we can dissect it and reference it. Love is defined in the dictionary as an intense feeling of deep affection. Throughout several of Shakespeare’s plays he speaks about love. It is a common theme throughout Shakespeare’s plays, both comedies and tragedies, and we can see that Shakespeare is infatuated with love. Shakespeare and I, though poles apart, raised in different times, places, and even of different genders have one thing in common; we both seem to be hopeless romantics. In Shakespeare’s plays love seems like a very obtainable reality, love conquers all if you believe in it and fight for it. This seems to go against societal structure in a time where marriages were arranged by parents for financial support. Shakespeare, however, wrote about couples who choose each other and love in preference to money and social status. They prove their love through crazy antics and tender loving words.
In A Midsummer Nights Dream right from the begining we see the romance and drama unfold with the characters Lysander and Hermia, both madly in love but both threatened during the pursuit of their love. Hermia is told by her father not to marry Lysander but to marry Demetrius instead a man she has no interest in. Lysander tells his paramour, “Ay me, for aught that I could ever read, Could ever hear by tale or history, the course of true love never did run smooth: But either it was different in blood” ("Complete Pelican Shakespeare " 260) Lysander tells his love that true love is never easy, and in all good love stories the lovers must battle for their love to achieve its rewards. This is common in love even today. Fathers disapprove of certain men that court their daugh...
... middle of paper ...
... skillful argumentation. Even though she knows that he is responsible for the death of her first husband, she marries Richard III none the less. Richard III displays useful qualities. He is brilliant, clever, and charismatic. Yet, he uses them for killing and evil. Richard III is far from the ideal king and strays from any kind moral conduct.
I believe that Shakespeare would have choose King Richard II as the better king, because he was naïve. Being naïve is not good quality, however, compared to the alternative of the ruthless King Richard III, whose maniacal brilliance, and sadism is extremely dangerous, it is the preferable choice. Out of the two choices, King Richard II is the wiser and less threatening choice. I believe that King Richard II, if surrounded by the right advisors, could be convinced into making the better choices for England and its people.
When love is in attendance it brings care, faith, affection and intimacy. This is proved true in the spectacular play A Midsummer Night's Dream written by William Shakespeare. This play displays the facts about lust, hatred, jealousy and their roles in something powerfully desirable. It is entitled love. Love is present everywhere, in every form, in every condition and even when one least expects it.
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.
These traits that Richard displayed were not befitting to a king and a man who was suppose to lead. Rather than look out for the interests of his people, Richard was more inclined to favor the interests of the rich and greedy. He implemented excessive taxing, and took profits by appropriating other peoples land for his own benefit and to fund a foreign war. Richard also went as far as alienating himself from his most important supporters, the nobleman. Ultimately, this led to...
...e was also writing in Tudor England and seemed to have openly dislike Richard III. In other portions of his writing he describes Richard as an unattractive deformed man who was born with a full set of teeth. He writes that he had a “sour countenance , which seemed to savour of mischief, and utter evidently craft and deceit.”
Richard the II has been a central play to analyze and revise due to the continuous debate of King Richard's personality. The debate revolves around the difference in King Richard's public versus private self, whether he was as powerful as he appeared on the throne compared to behind curtains. Margaret Shewring, author of Shakespeare in Performance: Richard the II
Staying true to one's love is so very important when one believes in their true love with every fibre of their being. Hermia and Lysander are so in love that nothing else seems to matter. They want to be together at all costs and they will not let anything get in their way, this is true especially for Hermia. In this example she is defending her true love and standing up for herself, “I do entreat Your Grace to pardon me./ I know not by what power I am made bold,/ Nor how it may concern my modesty/ In such a presence here to plead my thoughts;/ But I beseech Your Grace that I may know/ The worst that may befall me in this case/ If I refuse to wed Demetrius” (Shakespeare 1.1: 58-64). This shows that although she has no way of controlling what happens to her future she still wants to let others know of her convictions. No woman in that time period would ever attempt to defy the command of her father and the law, but in this case Hermia's true love has taken over. She wants the world to know that her and Lysander share this same true love. She is willing to sacrifice her life and become a nun or even face the ultimate finale of death in order to get what she wants at this point. Lysander also came up with an idea to temporarily get them out of this situation, “A good persuasion. Therefore, hear me, H...
Shakespeare's Richard III is from the outset a very moral play. It opens with an introduction to the character of Richard in his "Now is the winter..." speech. In this we are first introduced to the idea of a man becoming evil from his own free will, excused (by him) on the grounds of his inability to fit in with the physical ideals of society, saying, "And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover... I am determined to prove a villain." Although we are not, at this point, given a definite indication of Shakespeare's opinion on this moral position, it is the opening for a discussion on what is morally acceptable, which is continued quite decisively throughout the play.
...in themes similar to those found in the two Henry IV plays, such as usurpation, rebellion, and the issue of lineage of royal right. But Richard II and King Henry V are decidedly more serious in tone, and in comparing them to I Henry IV and II Henry IV, the argument can be made that it is these two latter plays which resound with greater realism with the broader spectrum of life which they present. Shakespeare carefully balances comedy and drama in I Henry IV and II Henry IV, and in doing so the bard gives us what are perhaps the most memorable characters in all of English literature.
... bloody pathway to kingship. Filled with scorn against a society that rejects him and nature that curses him with a weakened body, Richard decides to take revenge and ultimately declares a war between himself and the world. By achieving goals for the mere sake of self-advancement, a self-made hero, an ambitious king, and an atrocious villain were created. Richard assumes that love forms a bond which men can break, but fear is supported by the dread of ever-present pain (Machiavelli ch. XXIV); thus, for true success the hero must be a villain too. Richard III becomes one of literature’s most recognized anti-heroes under the hands of Shakespeare as he has no objective or thought to take up any other profession than the art of hatred; however, ironically being a representative of a heroic ruler sent by God, he is made to commit murder to redeem society of their sins.
...ities. Love is a long hard road and cannot be reached by taking a straight, clear-cut path. Even though throughout the scene Hermia and Lysander are in constant conflict, a resolution is eventually reached. Hermia and Lysander remain in love, proving that true love can prevail.
Although Hermia’s father did not want her to marry Lysander, she was madly in love with him and wanted to go against her fathers’ wishes just to be with him, and she did just that. By the end of the play, Hermia and Lysander’s relationship with one another was a success. True love is defined as a love worth fighting for and that is exactly what Hermia and Lysander did, they fought for each other.
Shakespeare Richard III was a traitor, a murderer, a tyrant, and a hypocrite. The leading characteristics of his mind are scorn, sarcasm, and an overwhelming contempt. It appears that the contempt for his victims rather than active hatred or cruelty was the motive for murdering them. Upon meeting him he sounds the keynote to his whole character. " I, that am curtailed of this proportion, cheated of feature by dissembling nature, Deform'd, unfinish'd sent before my time Into this word scarce half made up"( 1.1.20-23)
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...
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.
Richard II serves as a model to show that having a powerful sense of carelessness as a duke can bring tremendous consequences. King Richard was terribly