In both Edward II and Richard II, both playwrights analyze the concept of flattery as a vice. In Edward II flattery is a social corruption, depicted by Gaveston and Spencer, while in Richard II flattery is a moral corruption, depicted by Bushy, Bagot and Green. These flatterers then act as a catalyst for impending rebellion over the King. However, despite having a reason to rebel, both plays subtly question whether these antagonists are justified in doing so. Both plays, using the vice of flattery in different ways, argue the same point: that flattery is the act of taking advantage of personal weakness while rebellion is the act of taking advantage of political opportunity. Therefore, flattery and rebellion are similar vices because they both take advantage of a flaw in a single person, the King. Throughout Edward II and Richard II, the term flatterer is never defined, but is rather assumed to be general negative force on the King and the overall state. In the beginning, both Shakespeare and Marlowe both present foolish Kings who, due to the influence of flatters, do not listen to reason. This description automatically lays out the assumption that a flatterer is someone within the King’s circle. However, not all people in the King’s inner circle are considered flatterers. In both plays, neither Queens, who are in the court of the King, are considered flatterers. Marlowe even goes so far as to make the Queen one of the leading figures of the rebellion. The drastic difference between what is considered a flatterer and what is not, in both plays, is the repercussion of their influence. Although flattery is a negative influence, both playwrights emphasize its capability as a sin or a vice. “Friendship demands absolute sincerity and... ... middle of paper ... ...ies, leaving a series of foolish kings left clueless in the middle. Thus, flattery and rebellion become the same vice due to the fact that they both take advantage of the weaknesses of a single person, the King. Works Cited Atsma, Aaron J. Phaethon. 2010. 11 November 2013 . Figgis, John Neville. The Divine Right of Kings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914. Marlowe, Christopher. Edward The Second. Cambridge: Harved University Press, 1938. MiKisack, May. The Fourteenth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1959. Mills, L.J. "The Meaning of "Edward II"." Chicago, The University of. Modern Philology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1934. 25. Prestwich, Michael. The Three Edwards. London: George Weidenfield & Nicolson Ltd, 1980. Shakespeare, William. Richard II. New York: Bantam Dell Classics, 2004.
From different contextual standpoints, both William Shakespeare’s King henry IV part 1(1597) and Barry Levinson Man of the year (2006) both represent a unique similarity in discussing power rather than truth. Shakespeare invokes an appreciation of strategic manipulation for both King Henry IV and prince Hal. King Henry struggles of breaking divine lineage whilst Prince Hal appearance vs reality allows Shakespeare to explore the political strategies upheld by politicians within the Elizabethan era. Similarly, in Man of the year, Tom Dobbs use of short and verbose colloquial language exhibit his demagoguery approach to candidacy epitomizing political succession within the 21st century.
Prince Hal is initially portrayed as being incapable of princely responsibilities in light of his drinking, robbery and trickery. Yet, Shakespeare reveals that Hal is in fact only constructing this false impression for the purpose of deceit. Prince Hal’s manipulative nature is evident in his first soliloquy, when he professes his intention to “imitate the sun” and “break through the foul and ugly mists”. The ‘sun’ Prince Hal seeks to ‘imitate’ can in this case be understood as his true capacity, as opposed to the false impression of his incapacity, which is symbolised by the ‘foul and ugly mists’. The differentiation of Hal’s capacity into two categories of that which is false and that which is true reveals the duplicity of his character. Moreover, Hal is further shown to be manipulative in the same soliloquy by explaining his tactic of using the “foil” of a lowly reputation against his true capacity to “attract more eyes” and “show more goodly”. The diction of “eyes” symbolically represents public deception, concluding political actions are based on strategy. It is through representation and textual form that we obtain insight into this
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...
“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.
Lately, it would be difficult to find a person who speaks in the elaborate way that nearly all of Shakespeare’s characters do; we do not describe “fortune” as “outrageous” or describe our obstacles as “slings and arrows,” neither in an outward soliloquy or even in our heads. Lately, people do not declare their goals in the grandiose fashion that members of royal family of Thebes proclaim their opposing intentions: Antigone’s to honor her brother and Kreon’s to uphold his decree. Lately, people do not all speak in one unified dialect, especially not one that belongs specifically to the British upper class; Jack and Algernon’s dialogue is virtually identical, excepting content. Unlike the indistinguishably grandiose, elaborate, fancy way characters speak in Shakespeare’s plays, Antigone, The Importance of Being Earnest, and other plays written before the turn of the twentieth century, more recently written plays contain dialogue that is more unique to its speaker. This unique dialogue indicates a change in the sort of characters which drama focuses on which came with a newly developed openness to those who are different from us. Moving away from recounting tales of nobility, royalty or deities brought the lives of a common, heterogeneous populace to the stage and, with these everyday stories, more varied speech patterns.
Throughout Shakespeare’s play Hamlet, the revelation of Claudius’ betrayal of the late King Hamlet becomes the causation of a slippery slope of events that revolve around a revenge on Claudius for his betrayal against the late King. Consequently, this key act of betrayal forms the plays overall theme of revenge while also showing the connection between power and corruption and the idea that ‘”what goes around, comes around.”
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.
	Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was the brother of King Edward IV of the House of York. The House of York had been in control of the throne of England for some time now, but with the entry of the Woodvilles, was in somewhat of a decline. Elizabeth Woodville, now queen to Edward, was thought of surrounded by sorcery, influencing Edward to the bidding of the Woodvilles and their rise to power. Edward's eldest son was in the primary care of the Woodvilles at the time of Edward's death, and had become very attached to influential lords in the family. These included his uncles, Rivers and Grey. They were rising lords who sought to control the young heir and supplant the House of York of their control of the throne. Thus enters Richard.
In Chaucer’s The Nun’s Priest’s Tale he attempts to warn the reader about the dangers of flattery. He makes this clear with the statement, “Read Ecclesiatus on flattery; Beware my Lords, beware of treachery (Chaucer 215). In the story Russell the fox uses his charm to deceive Chanticleer the rooster of his ill intentions. Flattery is dangerous because it is used to deceive and trick for selfish purposes. Just as the Bible Says, “To flatter friends is to lay a trap at their feet (NLT Prov.29.5). Once the Russell the fox has deceived Chanticleer with his flattering words, Chanticleer foolishly trusts that the fox is as he says “Good sir, where are you off to? I’m your friend!”(Chaucer 214). The trap the fox sets by the use of flattery causes Chanticleer to be snatched up. “Chanticleer began to flap his wings enchanted by the fox’s blandishments and flattery…Stretching his neck; and with ...
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].
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.
Although the stories are based on tyrants and their ability to gain power and pride through the scarification of others, I believe that the authors also attempted to describe the tyrants need to feel praised and express passion and anger. Their determination of reaching what is most important to them, is the reason the two tyrants were able to reach absolute power, at different points in their command.
In William Shakespeare's tragic play Julius Caesar, an under appreciated factor of flattery and persuasion plays an important role in the choices of the leaders. Cassius uses flattery with Brutus. Decius uses flattery with Caesar, and Antony uses flattery with Brutus.
Compare the behavior and reactions of Richard, Anne and Elizabeth in Act One Scene Two and Act Four Scene Four.