Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
richard iii according to Shakespeare
richard iii according to Shakespeare
into the wild character analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: richard iii according to Shakespeare
Lord Hastings: A Justification to Omit Regret
We, the audience, lend our ears and nod our heads at the exactness of Lord Hastings's uttering:
I think there's never a man in Christendom,
Can lesser hide his love or hate than he,
For by his face shall you know his heart. (3.4.51-53).
Ironically, we do not assent to his words because they are exactly in the right, but because they are exactly in the wrong. By Act III, Richard III exhibits a pallet of personalities including the devoted brother, the witty wooer, and the loyal subject. We see that these almost Platonic ideals are tarnished black under the rule of Richard's perfectly evil intent to manipulate. Lord Hastings, however, could not see until it was too late. The time to weigh the validity of the supernatural signs and omens in Stanley’s dream had past. Before his death, Lord Hastings misperceives the "subtle, false, and treacherous" Richard, and only saw the face (i.e. the theatrical abilities of Richard), not the heart (1.1.37). Why, then, do we nod at wrongness? The answer lies in the fact that we are plummeted into absolute awe. We have reached a catharsis of our emotions in response to the summit of Richard’s manipulative character, where Lord Hastings had actually believed that Richard was a man incapable of manipulating. Our response is a sign of assent because Lord Hastings is completely justified for trusting Richard and ignoring Stanley’s forebodings entirely. If Lord Hastings had the chance to relive his death scene, he would have two choices: to reiterate his regret for not listening to Stanley, or take a different course, and omit his regret. The study of this paper involves what types of justification Lord Hastings could offer if he had the opportunity to omit regret. His justification would necessarily contain an assessment of Richard’s compelling theatrical abilities. In other words, Lord Hastings would have to prove that Richard was too good of an actor for anyone to realize his acting.
Lord Hastings now carries the burden of proof on his shoulders. Lord Hastings would probably refer to the ideal representation of brotherly love Richard shows to Clarence. “We are not safe Clarence, we are not safe,” Richard says, probably placing his hand on his brother’s shoulder while stressing “we”(1.1.70). In those words, Clarence felt warmth, despite the cold chains draping from his wrists; felt security, despite his insecurities about the reason as to why he was placed under arrest.
Oliver Cromwell was a well known military dictator. He helped the Parliamentarians win the First Civil War and was named Lord Protector. He died in 1658 but many people still remember him as one of the best leaders in history although others believe he was a harsh tyrant and always wanted too much power for himself. Throughout the years, numerous historians have changed their views on whether he was a good leader or not. This work will look at three interpretations from different people on who Cromwell was and what he was like and compare them.
The main objective of this essay is to show how well Richard fits the figure of vice character in the Shakespeare’s play. We are going to examine this aspect of Richard from two dimensions. First of all, through his expressed intentions, motivations and deeds. Secondly, through what other characters accuse him of and their attitudes towards him. It will not be possible for us to revisit each character and how he or she relates with Richard. However, Anne, Margaret, the Duchess of York, citizens, the ghosts and finally Richmond will be examined.
“I am determined to prove a villain / and hate the idle pleasures of these days. / Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous, / by drunken prophecies, libels and dreams.” Richard III, the evil Duke of Gloucester, is fighting a bloody road to the crown in Shakespeare's dramatic play. Stopped by nothing and with brilliant intelligence, Richard fights his way to the king’s position, clothing his villany with “old odd ends stolen out of holy writ.” With no one to fully trust, Richard breaks many hearts by killing all people in his way, and becomes the unstoppable villain. He hides behind a shield of kindness and care, but when he is alone, his real soul comes alive. Sending murderers, or killing people himself, he has no mercy. Manipulating Lady Anne to marry him and promising Buckingham rewards for his deeds, he knows what he is doing, and won’t stop until the crown lies at his feet.
Riddled with ambiguity by its very nature, the text of William Shakespeare's Hamlet has been a commonly debated subject in literary circles since its first performance. The character Hamlet undergoes intense physical and emotional hardship in his quest for revenge against his despicable uncle. This hardship, some argue, leads to an emotional breakdown and, ultimately, Hamlet's insanity. While this assessment may be suitable in some cases, it falls short in others. Since Hamlet is a play, the ultimate motivation of each of the characters borrows not only from the text, but also from the motivations of the actors playing the parts. In most respects, these motivations are more apt at discerning the emotional condition of a character than their dialogue ever could. Thus, the question is derived: In Kenneth Branagh's film adaptation of Hamlet, does the character Hamlet suffer from insanity? Giving halt to the response, this paper will first endeavor to establish what insanity is and will then provide sufficient examples both from the text, film, and Branagh's own musings on his motivations as proof that Hamlet's character, at least in Branagh's version of the play, is not insane.
In his play Hamlet, William Shakespeare leads the reader to believe during the first four Acts that the objectionable judgment of the characters therein and resulting action are acceptable to the reader. However, in Act V, the world of Hamlet is turned upside-down, leaving the reader completely baffled. By closely examining Hamlet, it becomes apparent that Shakespeare uses repetitive images of the eyes and the ears as the source from which action stems. A lack of coordination between these two senses is largely responsible for the ensuing state of things in the first four Acts. In Act V, Shakespeare decides to shake things up and toy with the reader in a manner similar to his characters, by limiting the coordination of their two central faculties- sight and sound. In order for the reader to interpret the actions that take place in Hamlet, in its entirety, the reader must, “Set up a comparison between the eye and the ear as two faculties by which sense data are transmitted to the reason” (Anderson).
While in Hamlet and others of Shakespeare's plays we feel that Shakespeare refined upon and brooded over his thoughts, Macbeth seems as if struck out at a heat and imagined from first to last with rapidity and power, and a subtlety of workmanship which has become instructive. The theme of the drama is the gradual ruin through yielding to evil within and evil without, of a man, who, though from the first tainted by base and ambitious thoughts, yet possessed elements in his nature of possible honor and loyalty. (792)
William Shakespeare is widely known for his ability to take a sad story, illustrate it with words, and make it a tragedy. Usually human beings include certain discrepancies in their personalities that can at times find them in undesirable or difficult situations. However, those that are exemplified in Shakespeare’s tragedies include “character flaws” which are so destructive that they eventually cause their downfall. For example, Prince Hamlet, of Shakespeare’s tragedy play “Hamlet,” is seemingly horrified by what the ghost of his father clarifies concerning his death. Yet the actions executed by Hamlet following this revelation do not appear to coincide with the disgust he expresses immediately after the ghost alerts him of the true cause of his death. Thus, it is apparent that the instilled self doubt of Prince Hamlet is as the wand that Shakespeare uses to transform an otherwise sad story to an unfortunate tragedy.
Charles Dickens' literary works are comparable to one another in many ways; plot, setting, and even experiences. His novels remain captivating to his audiences and he draws them in to teach the readers lessons of life. Although each work exists separate from all of the rest, many similarities remain. Throughout the novels, Oliver Twist and Great Expectations, the process of growing up, described by the author, includes the themes of the character's ability to alienate themselves, charity given to the characters and what the money does to their lives, and the differences of good and evil individuals and the effects of their influences.
One of the most famous scenes in Henry IV: Part I is the scene in which Prince Hal and Falstaff put on a play extempore. This is often cited as the most famous scene because it is Hal’s turning point in the play. However, the scene is much more than that. The play extempore is a moment of prophecy, not epiphany because is cues the reader in to the play’s major themes, and allows readers to explore the possibilities of the play’s continuance.
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.
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...
Instead of a powerful physical image, like Queen Elizabeth I, Richard implements elegant soliloquies, engages in witty banter, and attunes the audience to his motives with frequent asides. This flexibility demonstrates Richard's thespian superiority and power over the rest of the play's cast, making him a unique character in the play, but why does he do it? This constant battle between characters to claim mastery over a scene leaves the audience with a seemingly overlooked source of power for an actor [clarify/expand].
Throughout literature, relationships can often be found between the author of a story and the story that he writes. In Geoffrey Chaucer's frame story, Canterbury Tales, many of the characters make this idea evident with the tales that they tell. A distinct relationship can be made between the character of the Pardoner and the tale that he tells.
The royal prerogative is a source of constitutional law; it is derived from common law powers that have been handed down from the monarchy to the executive. The significance of the prerogative in constitutional law is that it provides the executive with considerable power to act without following ‘normal’ parliamentary procedures. As Dicey explained, the prerogative is ‘every act which the executive government can lawfully do without the authority of an Act of parliament’.
Hamlet is one of Shakespeare’s most well-known tragedies. At first glance, it holds all of the common occurrences in a revenge tragedy which include plotting, ghosts, and madness, but its complexity as a story far transcends its functionality as a revenge tragedy. Revenge tragedies are often closely tied to the real or feigned madness in the play. Hamlet is such a complex revenge tragedy because there truly is a question about the sanity of the main character Prince Hamlet. Interestingly enough, this deepens the psychology of his character and affects the way that the revenge tragedy takes place. An evaluation of Hamlet’s actions and words over the course of the play can be determined to see that his ‘outsider’ outlook on society, coupled with his innate tendency to over-think his actions, leads to an unfocused mission of vengeance that brings about not only his own death, but also the unnecessary deaths of nearly all of the other main characters in the revenge tragedy.