Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Critical essay on richard iii deception
Richard III character analysis
Critical essay on richard iii deception
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Critical essay on richard iii deception
Many rulers throughout time have ruled unjustly or incompetently. When rulers do not rightfully rule, not much can change, since kings act as the deputy of God. William Shakespeare beautifully tackles this idea of when and how a king should lose his kingship, through allegories, in his play Richard II. Allegories have an effectiveness in revealing a political notion, that simply stating it does not have. Richard has allowed his garden, or his kingdom, to become a tangled mess, showing his ineffectiveness as a ruler. Shakespeare strategically slips in some allegories that try to tell the reader what to do about an ineffective ruler, like Richard. Unlike the queen, who has no knowledge of Richard’s whereabouts, the gardeners have an ample amount of knowledge about Richard’s downfall. While weeding and tending to the garden the gardeners talk of politics: Go, bind thou up young dangling apricokes Which, like unruly children, make their sire Stoop with oppression of their prodigal weight… I will root away The noisome weeds. (3. 4. 32-41) One gardener tells the other gardener to bind …show more content…
The gardeners both converse about what should happen to an inefficient ruler: “[Richard] that hath suffered this disordered spring / Hath now himself met with the fall of leaf”(3.4.52-53). While talking to one gardener, the other gardener states that Richard has ‘suffered’ meaning allowed the ‘disordered spring’ which symbolizes the tangled garden called the English government. The gardener then says that Richard has “met with the fall of leaf” meaning he has met the end of his reign. Similar to the natural changes in season the allegory of the garden suggests that Richard should naturally lose kingship, similar to the natural change of seasons. Then again, a gardener must pick out unwanted plants, that infest the garden, which might also suggest that a ruler might have to physically become
Anne is quite like a modern woman in the way that if a man tells her
to behave in the same way as King Richard, and since he is acting this way, the
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.
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.
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.
Humanity's version of entertainment undeniably reflects a violent history rife with bloody quests for power. However, the stage has never seen a more villainous protagonist than in Shakespeare's Richard III. Our antihero, Richard of Gloucester, immediately engages the audience with a sweet soliloquy, his plot, filled with goals of betrayal and murder effectively forming a bond between himself and his listeners— a bond built on the illusion of truth. [Queen Elizabeth info] The illusion of truth is the goal of any successful performer, and Richard's ability to influence his listeners, both the audience and the characters in the play, demonstrates his power as a performer, which deteriorates once he is crowned king. His facade cracks and ultimately breaks down once he no longer has an audience to perform for, leaving Richard a victim of his own undoing.
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.
Casting a darkly mythical aura around Richard III, supernatural elements are intrinsic to this Shakespearean history play. The prophetic dreams of Clarence and Stanley blur the line between dream and reality, serving to foreshadow impending doom. The ghosts that appear before Richard III and Richmond before their battle create an atmosphere of dread and suspense, and they also herald Richard's destiny. The curses of three female royalties are fulfilled at the end, serving as reminders that the divine powers are stronger than Richard's malice. Together, the supernatural elements of dreams, ghosts, and curses unify the plot of Richard III and allow the divine to triumph over evil.
Written one year apart from the other, one cannot fail to recognize the parallels between William Shakespeare's tragedies Julius Caesar and Hamlet. To begin, they are both stories of assassinations gone horribly wrong. Although the details of the plays are different, the two assassins (Brutus and Hamlet) provide interesting comparison. Through these two killers, Shakespeare reveals the different levels of justice; one’s personal sense of justice; others’ perception of justice; the justice of the monarchy that supports Shakespeare’s craft. Through this, the audience realizes that a just person is not always a humble one, a condition that may turn out to be a fatal flaw in the end. When a man decides to play God by taking justice into his own hands, the world can unravel much more quickly than he had ever imagined.
which now totally corrupt, this can be seen when Hamlet says “ Tis an unweeded garden, That grows to seed; things
Compare the behavior and reactions of Richard, Anne and Elizabeth in Act One Scene Two and Act Four Scene Four.
Shakespeare’s Hamlet indicates “There’s divinity that shapes our ends, Rough-hew them how we will” [5,2,10] given that “the devil hath power”. [2,2,188] These comments demonstrate that power is often in the hands of those who will abuse it and yet, the abuse of that power will not necessarily bring desired rewards. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that fate will treat the abuser kindly, and ‘divinity’ is in control of how the characters ends are shaped. This power abuse is demonstrated both through Claudius’ manipulation of Hamlet, Gertrude and Laertes in order to maintain his authority now that he is King; and, through Hamlet and Claudius’ use of their implicit power over women, which is an entitlement granted to them simply because they
From the beginning of the play, Richard II is apathetic at best in his royal role. By exiling Bolingbroke and...
Hidden in the shadows, flitting from window to wall to door and beyond, monsters creep into the world and turn it inside-out and upside-down. As can be seen in Richard III by William Shakespeare, the monster exists as a corporeal and analytical creature that has a tendency to hide from the general population. Richard, the Duke of Gloucester, is arguably the most prominent and alluring monster in the book. Despite his deformities—the bent spine, unbalanced shuffle, and shrunken arm—Richard manages to overcome his perceived bodily hindrances by using his mind to play different roles. This suggests that it might not be an unfinished body that makes him monstrous, but rather a duplicitous mind. Richard’s case clarifies the common notion that monsters
King Lear by Shakespeare portrayed the negative effects of power resulting in destruction caused by the children of a figure with authority. Through lies and continual hatred, characters maintained a greed for power causing destruction within their families. The daughter’s of Lear and the son Gloucester lied to inherit power for themselves. Edmund the son of Gloucester planned to eliminate his brother Edgar from his inheritance.