Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Shakespeare and his treatment of kingship
Shakespeare and his treatment of kingship
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Richard II - The Rape of a Nation
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.
John of Gaunt's speech takes place from his deathbed. This setting heightens the resonance of his denouncement of Richard, for as Gaunt says, "Where words are scarce they are seldom spent in vain / For they breathe truth that breathe their words in pain" (2.1.8-9). By referring to himself as "a prophet new-inspired," (2.1.31) Gaunt realizes his opportunity to speak with immunity, since there is no physical harm Richard can do him. Every disparaging truth he utters is a lethal arrow aimed directly at Richard's overblown sense of power.
The first section of his monologue deals explicitly with identifying the nature of Richard's vices. Gaunt alludes to Richard's character by employing several brief end-stopped aphorisms that rely heavily on metaphors of self-destruction. This staccato like ...
... middle of paper ...
...se very problems not only signified a fundamental change in the concept of autocratic rule in England, it also paved the way for the development of a more socially equitable system of parliamentary democracy, for once the will of the people is finally recognized, kings are reduced to mere anachronisms.
When kings the sword of justice first lay down,
They are no kings, though they possess the crown.
Titles are shadows, crowns are empty things,
The good of subjects is the end of kings. --Daniel Defoe
Works Cited
Defoe, Daniel. The True-Born Englishman 2.313. From Bartlett's Familiar Quotations. 15th ed. Ed. Emily Morrison Beck. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1980, 318.
Shakespeare, William. Richard II. The Norton Shakespeare. Ed. Stephen Greenblatt. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1997, 943-1014.
As one of the few white men supportive of Hawaii’s monarchy, Claus Spreckels set a great example for others. His life started in Germany and took him to all over the United States. He formed many businesses and helped try to keep Hawaii a monarchy. He was close friends with King Kalakaua and Queen Liliuokalani and fought for them to remain Hawaii’s leaders. His legacy and influence live on to this day, yet most people don’t even know his name.
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.
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.
Richard starts of persuading Lady Anne to marry him. After killing her husband and dad, he still blames her for not accepting his love. With great confidence, he tells her to either kill him or marry him. “Arise,
...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.”
The first argument Galileo made was that while the Bible could never be wrong, the implications of its words could be misunderstood. He maintained that the Holy Scriptures are “often very abstruse” and that interpreting them verbatim could cause one to “fall into error”. Galileo supported this claim by stating that all theologians seemed to agree with this notion. Moreover, he argued that if his belief were not true, then the interpreters of the Bible should have never disagree...
It is not terribly odd to see directors adapt Shakespearian plays to a different era. In fact, contemporary elements in films like Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo and Juliet and the most recent Much Ado About Nothing by Joss Whedon have definitely bring valuable new readings to the text. Embracing this trend, Richard III (1995) by Richard Loncraine shifts its background to 1930s Britain. Starring Ian McKellen as Richard, the movie makes an undeniable connection to Nazi Germany; very details include costume design, set and prop, and cinematography choices all closely relate Richard to Hitler, an equivalent villain from modern history. The choice of blending Hitler into Richard puts viewers now into the shoes of audience from Shakespeare’s time to better understand Richard’s evil; although Richard III is quite ancient, Hitler is still a new scar.
Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us describes how Hare began his career in a prison and first realized he was face to face with a psychopath named Ray, who was a prisoner. At that time, Hare believed the inmates could be rehabilitated. Ray was Hare’s first patient and they worked together for several months before Hare realized Ray was manipulating him. Hare used his own practices, diagnoses, as well as interviews from serial killers to let readers know what a psychopath was really like. Hare also believed a psychopath is not crazy or insane, but the decisions made by a psychopath are conscientiously made. Hare goes onto stress that not all serial killers are psychopaths, that some are actually insane. According to Hare, “psychopathy cannot be understo...
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.
Factitious disorder is a condition in which a person will act as if he or she has a physical or mental illness when he or she is not sick. The person or patient will be consciously and deliberately creating, exaggerating, fabricating signs and warnings of the illness for the purpose of simulating the sick character. The patient with factitious disorder will knowingly fake symptoms for psychological reasons, not for monetary. The patient in undertaking the sick role may go from one medical facility to another medical service in order to receive attention and treatment. Patients with this condition will sometimes be ready to undergo painful and risky tests and operations in order to gain sympathy and individual attention that is typically given to a person who is truthfully sick.
"therefore, since I can not prove a lover, To entertain these fair well spoken days, I am determined to be a villain".As a villain Richard must be heartless, he can not let his emotions interfere with his actions.
William Shakespeare's Richard II tells the story of one monarch's fall from the throne and the ascension of another, Henry Bullingbrook, later to become Henry IV. There is no battle fought between the factions, nor does the process take long. The play is not action-packed, nor does it keep readers in any form of suspense, but rather is comprised of a series of quietly dignified ruminations on the nature of majesty. Thus, the drama lies not in the historical facts, but in the effects of the situation on the major characters and the parallels drawn by Shakespeare to other tales. The outrage felt by Richard and his fellow royalists is not due from a modern sense of personal loss, but from the much more important sense of loss of order, which came most predominately from the strictly Catholic sensibilities of the time. In Richard's time kings were believed to be divinely appointed and "not all the water in the rough rude sea can wash the balm off from an anointed king" (III.iii, 54-5). This disparity between the perceived will of God and the way in which the events unfold creates trouble in the minds of the characters and the audience. Shakespeare makes it clear that this is not just a simple switch of power, rather a series of events whose meanings and effects penetrate far deeper than the mere surface of the story.
From the outset of the play, it is obvious that Richard subscribes to the majority of the Machiavellian principles. Certainly, he is not ashamed or afraid to plot heinous murder, and he does so with an ever-present false front. "I do mistake my person all this while,"1 he muses, plotting Anne's death minutes after having won her hand. He will not even entertain the ideas in public, demanding they "Dive...down to [his] soul."2 He knows that he must be cunning and soulless to succeed in his tasks. Richard also knows it is essential to guard against the hatred of the populace, as Machiavelli warned.
I often wonder what style is, and how does a person know when they are in possession of it. Style is one of the many things that seem to change form day to day for me, and I'm never sure where it might lead me. I think we all have our own style, but how can we get away from having the same style that other people have? When I look through magazines, all I read is the same thing over and over, in a little different style, or voice. Then, when I look out the window, I see people dressed in about the same fashions. These fashions may change from group to group, and age to age, but the idea of having ones own style seems to be hard to find. I think the only place where a person can have their own style is the home. But then we could fall victim to the Crate & Barrel style. For those who don't know, Crate & Barrel is a furniture store for people who like to copy the unique style of one another. So where this leads me is to the idea that the only real place where people can create their own style is in themselves.
This is a prime example of Richard using his authority by way of rulings and pronouncements rather than action, even to the point of disallowing an action. Bolingbroke, on the other hand, is quite ready to do battle no matter what the consequences. Moments before Richard puts a stop to the proceedings, Bolingbroke says, ". . . let no noble eye profane a tear / For me, if I be gorged with Mowbray's spear" (1.3.58-59). Here is a man who is resolved in his intent.