Important Issues of Leadership in William Shakespeare's Richard II Richard II was one of Shakespeare's political works depicting the rise and fall of King Richard II. Richard became king of England as a boy at 10 years of age, although his advisors made most of the political decisions of the kingdom until he matured. During this maturation period, Richard was more interested in learning about aesthetic things in life rather than things more responsible to the monarch. He had very little experience and talent in the areas of military tactics and his decisions relating to the monarch seemed arbitrary. 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...
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...
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.
In the first scene of the play, Richard announces in a narration, his plan to become king. Richard plainly states that he is "Deformed, Unfinished, and sent before his time" and "since he cannot prove to be a lover; he is determined to prove a villain." As a villain Richard must be heartless, he cannot let his emotions interfere with his actions. He must also be intelligent and organized; a villain must know exactly what he has to do, when he has to do it and how he is going to do it. A villain must also be manipulative and persuasive so that if he is accused of a crime or if he finds himself between a rock and a hard place he is able to talk his way out or convince people that he did not commit the crimes in question. A villain must also have scapegoats to use if he is discovered or if he is in a dangerous situation. Richard devised a brutal stratagem to ascend the English throne. Brilliantly, he executed his plan. Heartlessly, he executed family, friends, and subjects. Richard did indeed display these characteristics and therefore fulfilled his goal to ascend the throne, as you will see in the paragraphs below.
Richard III, the infamous last Yorkist King of England, stigmatised throughout history as a tyrannical, urspring, monarchy. Hundreds of years after his death, he still arises in discussion as truth has been replaced by opinion. His portrayal has been distorted and therefore the legitimacy of the claims are debatable as to whether he was indeed authoritative or misunderstood. After Richard’s death in 1485 AD during the battle of the Bosworth Field, Henry VII seized the throne becoming the first Tudor king. To eradicate any honorable legacy of Richard Henry VII he planned a policy of Tudor propaganda which lasted for the next 100 years before the ‘Ricardians ’ began questioning the accounts. The notoriety he possessed originally arose from Tudor
... 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.
Richard III is a play written by William Shakespeare that involves the battle of two men by the names of Richard and Richmond. These two men are not simply rivals; however, they are in fact brothers who happen to both be fighting for the royal crown to become the next king. The word Machiavellian is defined as a person who is devious, two-faced, and scheming. Both Richard and Richmond attempt to make the other candidate appear to be inconsiderate and not of best fit for a position of power. Richmond is a more Machiavellian character in that he is a fighter which goes along with winning and he is trying to seize power to rule England.
The origin of Richard's evil is rooted in his premature birth. Due to his disabilities Richard has no self confidence and thus is “determined to prove a villain” because he “cannot prove a lover.” Shakespeare uses dramatic irony to exemplify Richards masterful use of language richard. Richards manipulative actions are thematic and frequent throughout the entire play. Shakespeare uses Richard as a universal lesson for society. And he believes humans that are corrupt and sin will be brought down by their own conscious. Richards manipulative actions eventually backfire when his conscious awakes him from his dreams thus proving Shakespeare's over arching philosophy.
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.
In the Shakespeare play Richard III was depicted as a malformed mean, ill looking, tyrant. But this was not the case. Richard
One vital characteristic of a leader, according to Shakespeare, is a sense of duty to others. Despite the fact that Shakespeare employs tactics which are “truly Machiavellian” (Roe 2), the events of Shakespeare’s plays are evidence of his belief that caring for others is a requisite of a prosperous ruler. This philosophy is almost a complete antithesis of Machiavelli’s observation that, “it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one of the two has to be wanting.” (Machiavelli 81). Nevertheless, it is clear that self-centered leaders in Shakespearean plays typically do not last long. Obviously, such a sense of duty is not common among leaders in Shakespeare’s plays, which is why the vast majority of them fare so poorly. For example, Iago,
Richard not only desires the throne and to rise to power, but also to have the unlimited ability to cause harm that comes with processing the power of being king. He wants to be able to “bustle in” the world as he
Ever since humanity created the idea of civilization, there has been an immense need for great leadership and it takes a remarkable person to be a leader adequate enough to handle all the nuances of leadership on such a grand scale. It requires a person so apt, that humanity has seldom seen any people virtuous and intelligent enough to rule over people so effectively as to create negligible problems. While numerous romanticize the position of a remarkable leader, it is a position that comes with copious downfalls and would, consequently, only be a life worth pursuing and living to a sparse few, seeing that, in the end, while those who lead nobly and intelligently may receive honor to the highest magnitude and a legacy that will last forever, the life of leadership doesn’t motivate a life of happiness. The life of leadership on a grand scale is defective in that a person in this position can no longer be themselves and live a life that is best for them, they are required to be what is best to gain and maintain their position.
The king tells his men to “whip these stragglers o’er the seas again”, which is a hyperbole for beating the enemy. His choice of words is very violent, such as ‘whip’ and ‘lash’. This shows how ruthless and violent he is. He then continues to abuse the opposing side’s men, and his diction includes various insults directed towards them. He calls them “famished beggars” and “poor rats”. This is an example of how Richard is feeling very insecure and unsure of himself, having to slander others in order to feel more confident. He also uses a polyptoton, telling his men that if they are to be “…conquered, let men conquer us”. His repetition of the word ‘conquer’ in different forms makes his soldiers feel shame and embarrassment, since it implies that Richmond’s soldiers, whom are not worthy, should not beat them. The king continues with a series of rhetorical questions. He demands, “Shall these enjoy our lands? Lie with our wives? Ravish our daughters?” These questions instill a feeling of defensiveness and protectiveness in his soldiers. It tells them how the enemy will hurt them and their families. It is also an example of a climax. Richard builds up to the things that matter to his men the most, so that they start to feel more and more angered by Richmond’s men. The king does not encourage his men with support and praise; alternatively, he uses intimidation and fear as a form of motivation. As well, Richard builds on their sense of inclusion, by using words such as ‘we’ and ‘our’ when referring to his own team, making his men feel possessive as if they one united force, all fighting for a noble cause, when in reality; Richard is just using them for his own
Due to the powerful influence of the monarchy, the nature, duties and responsibilities of kingship were of particular interest to Shakespeare. The mark of a bad king was the decline of the political, social and economic climates, while the mark of a good king was the blossoming of such worlds. Therefore, the characteristics of the person occupying the kingship were crucial to the health of the nation. Shakespeare explores this issue in many of his plays by examining the traits of poorly fulfilled kingships, and the political and social ramifications of such monarchical failures. He does this most notably in Macbeth and Richard II. In both plays Shakespeare ultimately concludes that tyrants are formed by their own lack of foresight, strong lusts for power, overly large egos, unstable natures and rash tempers. When a king fails his country it is because he has neglected his duties and responsibilities to the state. To do so is to spit in the face of God, the state and the people. Thus, in both Macbeth and Richard II, Shakespeare defines the nature, duties and responsibility of a successful kingship by exploring the ramifications and manifestations of a denial of or lack of such characteristics in the person occupying this position.
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.