Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay Richard 2. Shakespeare
the major characters in shakespeare's richard2 and themes
Essay Richard 2. Shakespeare
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay Richard 2. Shakespeare
Richard in William Shakespeare's Play
In Richard's opening speech, Shakespeare tells us some things that you
need to know about Richard, but not all. The opening speech gives a
hint as to what is going to happen, as what Richard says in his
opening speech is seen later on in the play. However, there are some
things we don't find out until later in the play.
In Richard's opening speech we learn that he has laid 'plots', and
'inductions dangerous'. We later learn that the 'plots' are to kill
Clarence, and to seize the crown. The 'inductions dangerous' are to
kill all that stand in his path to the throne. This is seen later when
the princes, Clarence and Hastings are murdered as they threaten to
foil Richard's plans to snatch the crown. The princes are heirs to the
throne and Hastings supports them, so they must be disposed of at
Richard's hands.
Richard's opening speech also tells us that he is 'subtle, false and
treacherous.' This is very true, as he is often false, lying about
many things. For example, when persuading Lady Anne to marry him, he
tells her how much he loves her, saying how beautiful she is, and how
he killed King Henry, Anne's father-in-law, and her husband Edward
because of her beauty - it was her 'heavenly face that set him on.'
This is all lies; he only wants Anne to be his wife as another step
towards the throne - a king needs a wife.
He is 'subtle' because he very subtly worms his way to the throne. We
see this when he makes everyone think he is friendly, and this also
ties in with his being 'false'. For example, in Act 3, scene 4,
Richard sends Ely for strawberries, trying to prove he is kind and
make a good atmosphere, so he does not seem to be a suspect. This is a
very 'subtle' way of appearing friendly.
The way Richard blames the Woodvilles constantly is very subtle too -
"It is the queen and her allies that stir the king against the duke my
reason he is trying to marry her is to get closer to the crown. We
In his article, "Shakespeare 's King Richard III and the Problematics of Tudor Bastardy", Maurice Hunt gives a convincing (dare I say legitimate!) argument for why he believes Shakespeare took a large risk writing and performing his play King Richard III during the life of Queen Elizabeth I. Knowing the challenges Elizabeth faced during her childhood and into her reign because of her father, King Henry VIII 's ever-changing mind whether or not she was a legitimate heir or a bastard, I agree with Hunt in the fact Shakespeare took a huge risk with his performances of Richard III, if in fact she did see the performance which is something I will be touching on later on, but for the sake of the review of his article I will be focusing on his argument based on Elizabeth being present. Hunt also spends a great deal explaining the history of bastardry in the Tudor family so that we can understand why that
At the exit of the Groom, one more remark gives place for us to sympathize with Richard. In contrast to Richard, who has referred to the Groom as a noble friend throughout their brief interaction, when the Keeper enters the room, Forker points out in a footnote that he “addresses the Groom as an inferior,” calling him “fellow,” rather than peer (471). His remark only contrasts all the more sharply with Richard’s kind reception of his peer the groom, a man he quite recently ruled over with a less than a kind hand. This scene sparks what becomes the paradigm shift that ends the play. No counterargument tries to re-convince the audience of the tyranny of King Richard II; that is said and done with the deposition of the tyrant. Were that the laudable
Compare the behavior and reactions of Richard, Anne and Elizabeth in Act One Scene Two and Act Four Scene Four.
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.
Tragedies in the Greek theater when compared to tragedies in the Renaissance theater varied in similarities and differences. Greek theater encouraged the use of religious figures while Renaissance theater was supposed to be strictly pagan in its ideologies. Theater was most dominantly used to depict the social and religious constraints of the time period. For example, Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex are both portrayals of deceit, murder, and revenge all of which lead to the demise of its leading characters. Hamlet is depicted as a young man who is seeking revenge for his fathers death. Oedipus is a king who means to free the people of Thebes from a disease that has been plaguing them. They share similarities in that each of their love interest are conduits of their pain and anguish, further pushing the protagonists over the precipice. The voice of reason that they share is Creon in Oedipus Rex and Horatio in Hamlet. Their tragic flaw is that they are both ultimately and utterly doomed and no amount of guidance will steer them away from what has been predestined by fate. They are ultimately doomed to be their own Achilles heel.
One of Shakespeare’s great pieces of work, Hamlet, has been divided to alternate versions Quarto 1and Quarto 2. Focusing on Act I Scene iii, apparently the differences in these two versions are mainly on the way the characters are formed and the language that is used. Quarto 1 is a much more compact version that has weakly defined characters and uninformed language. As for Quarto 2 this lack of complexity is not so. This version has a higher quality of character depth and a language that is more comprehensible to allow more meaning to the play. Nonetheless the mutuality between these two versions main idea are clearly the significant mutilations to these scene are factors that make the play have a different meaning. The Quarto that would be most appealing to actors and the one that would be more fulfilling to the reader would be the second one because of it richness in characters and language.
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.
William Shakespeare's Hamlet Perhaps the greatest uncertainty in William Shakespeare's Hamlet is the character of Queen Gertrude. Undoubtedly a major player with regard to number of lines and contribution to the action of the play. her personality is nonetheless basically undeveloped. It is also notable that Gertrude is perhaps the only character besides Hamlet. with enough power over all of the characters to stop the play's tragic.
Shakespeare’s Hamlet revolves around the title character’s undeniable obligation to immediately avenge his father’s death by killing Claudius. Yet much time elapses before Hamlet finally does slay his evil uncle, leading to a fundamental question: what causes the hero to delay before eventually managing to salvage some retribution? The answer is that Hamlet’s reoccuring state of impractical contemplation renders him incapable of any decisive action that could have brought quick revenge.
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.
Shakespeare’s plays were grouped into three categories: comedies, tragedies and histories. The histories were those plays based on the lives of English kings. Shakespeare was one of the first writers to write about English history. According to Garber, “before Shakespeare’s time there were few history plays such written in England--- England history was told in verse and prose chronicles (239)”. It’s considered that Richard II is one of the early “historical plays”. The play became so iconic that even Queen Elizabeth said that she was “Richard the second, know ye not that”. Richard II tells the story about a king’s downfall.
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
of his true intentions and that he does not plan to 'keep her long' we
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.