Much of Shakespeare’s tribute to England in “Richard II” involved patriotism and the wish to please the audience. There was only a small amount of xenophobia involved. He often praised England and regarded it as a “demi-Paradise” (Shakespeare, “Richard II” 3) that was “built by Nature for herself.” (Shakespeare, “Richard II” 4) The compliments also served to please the audience since the audience often liked it if someone gave compliments about their country. There were only two lines that can be considered xenophobic: “As is the sepulcher in stubborn Jewry” (Shakespeare, “Richard II” 16) and “against the envy of less happier lands.” (Shakespeare, “Richard II”
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
Richard III's Usurpation and His Downfall Richards rule was always unstable due to his unlawful usurpation to the throne and his part as far as the public was concerned in the death of the two princes. As a result right from the start he didn't have the trust or support from his country. As soon as he became King people were already plotting against him. After he was crowned he travelled the country trying to raise support by refusing the generous gifts offered to him by various cities. However unknown to him a rebellion was been planned in the South.
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.
The word "seduce" according to Webster's Dictionary means to "tempt and draw away from proper conduct." This is exactly what Richard, Duke of Gloucester/King Richard III accomplishes in Richard III. In Richard's life he does not only move from deformed "hedgehog" to husband, but from "beast" to King. One may ask how such deeds were performed. However, a second look may make the deeds look simple. Richard demonstrated a strong power of seduction throughout the play that not only seduced Lady Anne, but many others.
The attack of "conscience" that King Richard suffers in Act 5, Scene 5 of Shakespeare's Richard III (133-157) can be seen as the psychological climax of the drama, one that is critical to both Richard's development as a character and the play's ultimate success. Richard's struggle to reconcile the many different roles he attempts to play into one unified self, reflected in the tone and composition of his speech, adds depth and humanity to his character; at the same time, his ultimate failure to maintain his "self-made" identity simplifies the play in a way that allows the author to satisfy his audience by punishing the villain and reaffirming the world views that Richard's character appears to challenge (Luxon). While examining his own vision of himself, Richard finds his identity at a breaking point, and is forced to rely on the very ideas he used for his own advantage to judge himself. As the king, who seemed to be above the "afflict[ion] of "coward conscience" (5.5.133) is overwhelmed by the many different conceptions of who he is that are presented in the play, the audience cannot help but feel a mixture of sympathy and relief.
The Foreshadow in the Death of Richard III in Shakespeare Shakespeare’s tragedy of Richard III is a play where death is one of the central themes. It is therefore essential that Shakespeare makes this theme obvious to the audience even before characters die, and his primary way of doing this is through the foreshadowing of these deaths. He does this through dreams, language forms, imagery, curses, character and broken oaths. Due to these devices, the audience is already aware that certain characters will die, enabling Shakespeare to create dramatic irony. The context of the play is fundamental in ensuring that foreshadowing is taken seriously.
The content and construction of texts are inexorably influenced by the plethora of social, cultural, and historical factors relative to a composer’s context. Context thus becomes the principle medium for deciphering the complex and often didactic meanings within texts. Through the comparative study of Shakespeare’s historical tragedy King Richard III and Al Pacino’s postmodern docudrama Looking For Richard, both texts explore the various connections explored through the protagonist Richard with respective societal influence affecting their portrayal. Shakespeare’s text strongly conveys a sense of providentialism which was influential by the Tudor monarchy whilst Al Pacino thorough the implement of modern day media portrays these influences to a secular, postmodern audience.
Shakespeare Richard III was a traitor, a murderer, a tyrant, and a hypocrite. The leading characteristics of his mind are scorn, sarcasm, and an overwhelming contempt. It appears that the contempt for his victims rather than active hatred or cruelty was the motive for murdering them. Upon meeting him he sounds the keynote to his whole character. " I, that am curtailed of this proportion, cheated of feature by dissembling nature, Deform'd, unfinish'd sent before my time Into this word scarce half made up"( 1.1.20-23)
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...
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 Shakespeare's The Tragedy of King Richard the Third, the historical context of the play is dominated by male figures. As a result, women are relegated to an inferior role. However, they achieve verbal power through their own discourse of religion and superstition. In the opening speech of Act 1, Scene 2, Lines 1-30 Lady Anne orients the reader to the crucial political context of the play and the metaphysical issues contained within it (Greenblatt, 509). Lady Anne curses her foes, using strong language to indicate her authority. She speaks in blank verse, by which she utilizes imagery to emphasize her emotions and reinforce her pleas. Her speech clearly illustrates the distinction between the submissive female role within the male sphere of war and the powerful female voice within the realm of superstition.
I would like to add just a little fun fact: while I was doing some research for my presentation on Richard III, I discovered that the Disney movie The Lion King was partially inspired by Shakespeare’s Richard III, especially when it comes to the character of Scar. In fact, both Scar and Richard are physically deformed and both are ready to do anything to become king ‒ even to commit some terrible
At first glance, sixteenth century Shakespearian drama and the nineteenth century dialectic philosophy expressed by Marx and Engels share no probable relationship to one another. Upon closer examination, however, developments in contemporary Shakespearian England illustrate that the social and economic centralization that generate the necessary characteristics of a proto-modern nation state were emerging in sixteenth century England. The unprecedented urbanized demographic shift created by the Enclosure Acts, which enabled the systematic destruction of the feudalistic relationship between the peasantry and the nobility; the emergence of a state sponsored market economy; the destruction of the Spanish Armada in 1588 and the resulting ascendancy of English navel power; and the galvanizing image of English nationalism contained in the figure of Queen Elizabeth I all provided a compelling backdrop for the existence of modern class based antagonisms within Shakespearian dramatic themes.
Throughout the historical literary periods, many writers underrepresented and undervalued the role of women in society, even more, they did not choose to yield the benefits of the numerous uses of the female character concerning the roles which women could accomplish as plot devices and literary tools. William Shakespeare was one playwright who found several uses for female characters in his works. Despite the fact that in Shakespeare's history play, Richard II, he did not use women in order to implement the facts regarding the historical events. Instead, he focused the use of women roles by making it clear that female characters significantly enriched the literary and theatrical facets of his work. Furthermore in Shakespeare’s history play, King Richard II, many critics have debated the role that women play, especially the queen. One of the arguments is that Shakespeare uses the queen’s role as every women’s role to show domestic life and emotion. Jo McMurtry explains the role of all women in his book, Understanding Shakespeare’s England A Companion for the American Reader, he states, “Women were seen, legally and socially, as wives. Marriage was a permanent state” (5). McMurtry argues that every woman’s role in the Elizabethan society is understood to be a legal permanent state that is socially correct as wives and mothers. Other critics believe that the role of the queen was to soften King Richard II’s personality for the nobles and commoners opinion of him. Shakespeare gives the queen only a few speaking scenes with limited lines in Acts two, four, and five through-out the play. Also, she is mentioned only a few times by several other of the characters of the play and is in multiple scenes wit...
"What tongue speaks my right drawn sword may prove" is the sentence which concludes a short speech delivered by Henry Bolingbroke to King Richard II (1.1.6). These words are but the first demonstration of the marked difference between the above-mentioned characters in The Tragedy of Richard II. The line presents a man intent on action, a foil to the title character, a man of words.