Was Tamburlaine Ever Likable? Every character in any work of literature has a goal or purpose, whether it be heroically saving a princess from certain death, protecting a reputation, or even something as broad as antagonizing another character. Of course, all of these aspirations, as with any, require a certain degree of ambition and confidence. In the play Tamburlaine by Christopher Marlowe, we discover the somewhat far-fetched intentions of Tamburlaine and just how far he will push the cultural limits to reach his objective of becoming a King, and we as the audience are ultimately left to decide whether or not he is too ambitious or too confident for his own good. Before one understands the “cultural limits,” it is important to also understand …show more content…
For example, when he asserts “And we will triumph over all the world: I hold the fates bound fast in iron chains, and with my hand turn Fortune’s wheel about; and sooner shall the sun fall from his sphere than Tamburlaine be slain or overcome” (I, ii, 87-89). In this quote, it is clear that Tamburlaine is proclaiming how mighty he is and how much control he has (or thinks he has) over his fortunes. Of course, we as the audience recognize this as a fatal flaw because his fate cannot be changed, no matter how valiant an effort he gives it and no matter how arrogant he becomes in the process of trying to alter it. In fact, arrogance will normally make the end of a character even more brutal. This quote can arguably lean more towards the opinion that Tamburlaine is a disagreeable man. In this line, he is excessively ambitious and foolish, and it forces the audience to roll their eyes or audibly sigh in hopelessness, because he was off to a decent start at the very beginning, being smooth, sensitive, and gallant, but at this point, he is acting outwardly foolish. After this point, everything begins to travel downhill for Tamburlaine, and if his foolish manner in these lines was not enough for the audience to start thinking that he might no longer be likable, the excess brutality that he shows later on towards Zabina and Bajazeth will definitely change their
In the penultimate chapter of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Blithedale Romance, Coverdale offers a “moral” at the end of the narrative that specifically addresses Hollingsworth’s philanthropic and personal failures:
It has been shown again and again throughout history and literature that if there is a perfect human he is not also the perfect ruler. Those traits which we hold as good, such as the following of some sort of moral code, interfere with the necessity of detachment in a ruler. In both Henry IV and Richard II, Shakespeare explores what properties must be present in a good ruler. Those who are imperfect morally, who take into account only self-interest and not honor or what is appropriate, rise to rule, and stay in power.
Macbeth’s heroic deeds at the beginning of the play soon seem insignificant next to the primary event in the Act: the revelation of the witches’ prophecy. Their insightful proclamation that he will be king someday is both shocking and pleasing to Macbeth. Without this occurrence, this play might not have traveled a road of ambition and death, but instead one of calm acceptance and enjoyment of an already-elegant lifestyle. The seeds of desire were here planted, however, eliciting what became a bloody ordeal. The spark ignited, and a plan began to take shape.
Though King Richard II and King Henry V are both highly theatrical figures in their public performance as kings, both monarchs exemplify different “fictions of kingship.” In the two plays, Shakespeare effectively conveys divergent means by which a king can be a bad and tyrannical leader and by which a king can be a good and just leader. King Richard II proves to be an unsuccessful ruler, because he is too preoccupied with his own wants and desires and shows no redeeming qualities of suitable king. Contrarily, King Henry V proves to be a successful ruler, for his motives and actions are driven by politics and the overall well being of the common folk. While both monarchs are men of words, they use their rhetoric for profoundly different purposes. In contrasting the two men, it can be seen with clarity the distinguishing characteristics that separate the two kings from one another.
In a relationship, Love is a feeling that humans share with a special person. Some bonds could be mutual, while others are dissociated. During the Medieval period, love affairs were dominated by one gender, men, and the women had little or no control over decisions. Before a gentleman married a lady, the gentleman first boasted about her beauty, championed the cause of the lady, and did whatever the lady requested. The era was influenced by knights, and dictated by honor and chivalry that each knight had to display to their king and queen. As a gentleman, a knight had to be just at all times, especially toward ladies. At this time, there was a king named Arthur. King Arthur had a flourishing kingdom that abruptly ended. Later on, many authors recounted the story of the reign of King Arthur. Sir Thomas Malory published Le Morte d’Arthur, and Geoffrey Chaucer published The Wife of Bath’s Tale. Although both of these books recount the reign of King Arthur, the stories are very diverse and unique in their own way. Both stories demonstrate for a relationship to be successful, both partners must be submissive, must be brave, and must be willing to learn from mistakes.
Gifted with the darkest attributes intertwined in his imperfect characteristics, Shakespeare’s Richard III displays his anti-hero traits afflicted with thorns of villains: “Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous / By drunken prophecies, libels, and dreams” (I.i.32-33). Richard possesses the idealism and ambition of a heroic figure that is destined to great achievements and power; however, as one who believes that “the end justifies the means”, Richard rejects moral value and tradition as he is willing to do anything to accomplish his goal to the crown. The society, even his family and closest friends, repudiate him as a deformed outcast. Nevertheless, he cheers for himself as the champion and irredeemable villain by turning entirely to revenge of taking self-served power. By distinguishing virtue ethics to take revenge on the human society that alienates him and centering his life on self-advancement towards kingship, Richard is the literary archetype of an anti-hero.
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.
Crawford, Alexander W. Hamlet, an ideal prince, and other essays in Shakesperean interpretation: Hamlet; Merchant of Venice; Othello; King Lear. Boston R.G. Badger, 1916. Shakespeare Online. 20 Aug. 2009. < http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/hamlet/hamletmelancholy.html >.
Crawford, Alexander W. Hamlet, an ideal prince, and other essays in Shakesperean interpretation: Hamlet; Merchant of Venice; Othello; King Lear. Boston R.G. Badger, 1916. Shakespeare Online. 20 Aug. 2009. (April 30 2014) < http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/othello/othelloessay2.html >.
But while the histories’ plots are largely concerned with the acquisition of political power, their themes can be said to focus more on the exercise of such power. At its heart, the Great Tetralogy is a discourse on the qualities of the ideal ruler. A comparison of Richard II and Henry V, and the way each wields political power, will serve to illuminate this point. Ultimately, Henry V is an effective king bec...
William Shakespeare attained literary immortality through his exposition of the many qualities of human nature in his works. One such work, The Merchant of Venice, revolves around the very human trait of deception. Fakes and frauds have been persistent throughout history, even to this day. Evidence of deception is all around us, whether it is in the products we purchase or the sales clerks' false smile as one debates the purchase of the illusory merchandise. We are engulfed by phonies, pretenders, and cheaters. Although most often associated with a heart of malice, imposture varies in its motives as much as it's practitioners, demonstrated in The Merchant of Venice by the obdurate characters of Shylock and Portia.
An interesting aspect of the famous literary work, "The Canterbury Tales," is the contrast of realistic and exaggerated qualities that Chaucer entitles to each of his characters. When viewed more closely, one can determine whether each of the characters is convincing or questionable based on their personalities. This essay will analyze the characteristics and personalities of the Knight, Squire, Monk, Plowman, Miller, and Parson of Chaucer's tale.
Macbeth, who at the beginning of his play’s plot is in a position of some honor and power, obtains position as king of Scotland through secretive foul play, spurred on by some external manipulation as well as personal ambition. “Macbeth’s ambition is unchecked by both moral and legal considerations-he will stop at nothing to get what he desires… Macbeth’s unbridled ambition is the root of the play’s evil because he is willing to throw the world into chaos in order to satisfy his personal desires.” (Thrasher, 92). His rebellion is heinous, but so long undiscovered. His ambition, though present in some degree from the beginning, metastasizes within him through the play as more obstacles to his retention of royal status crop up. “He begins well…but this...
Throughout William Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet, Hamlet’s behavior and actions cause readers to question his sanity. Hamlet’s character can be interpreted in many different ways. It could be said that he is indeed insane, or it can be disputed that he, as he made known, is simply putting on a good act. The complexity of knowing Hamlet’s true character derives from the fact that we, as readers, are unable to read Shakespeare’s or Hamlet’s minds. Therefore, judgments could be made solely by reading and interpreting his behavior and coming up with a satisfactory conclusion. Taking into consideration incidents such as Polonius’ murder and Hamlet’s contemplating suicide, it is natural for individuals who perform such acts to be categorized as crazy. Ignoring Hamlet’s actual actions, and paying keen attention to what altered his character, one can debate that Hamlet is not at all insane. It is important to consider the situations which triggered Hamlet’s different actions. By giving discreet thought to Hamlet’s position and what he endures, one will realize that he is not demented, but he is actually an angry, betrayed and emotionally devastated fatherless son.
According to Niccolo Machiavelli’s, The Prince, there are five traits that make up a successful leader. The five traits that are necessary in determining a leader’s success involve being feared, being virtuous, having the support of the people, having intelligence and the use of arms. In this paper, I will argue that the Duke Vincentio of William Shakespeare’s, Measure for Measure, is an ineffective leader because he loses virtue acting deceitful and spying on his subjects as a friar. Also, when he realizes that his people do not fear him, he allows for Angelo to come so that he can win their respect by becoming the better option of the two. It is portrayed by his constant presence in the play as the friar, that instead of earning the support of his people, he treats them as puppets and himself as the master puppeteer.