A Man For All Seasons Corruption Essay

• It is the notion of the corruptive nature of power which Shakespeare draws on

Upon Richard's return to England, he learns of the events that had transpired in his absence. At first his own arrogance allows him to believe that since it is his God given right to rule as King, he will be protected. But then just as quickly, Richard's arrogance turns into despair upon the realization that Henry has gained support of the nobles and the people of England. Henry and Richard finally meet at Ramparts Castle leading to the climax of the play. Henry demands retribution for the allocation of his families' possessions and

the audience may agree with this as they may feel More does not take a

The misuse of power in Hamlet exemplifies the corruption in the upper class due to their suppressive nature towards the plorient class. The upper class or bourgeoisie such as the monarchy in Hamlet believe their stance in the social ladder subjects them to all the power. In various cases throughout history the bourgeoisie ruled at the same level as God. For instance, Claudius showcases the abuse of power the bourgeoisie exudes onto the proletariats when he confesses to murdering his brother to obtain “[his] crown… and [his] queen”, which also displays his lack of morals for gaining access power (III.iii.58). He killed his own brother in order to achieve political, social, and economic power, which further presents his corrupt desire for authority. Also, the event reflects the Marxist lens because of the proposal that economic gain is the motive for all political and social acts. This desire for total control results in a corrupt upper class and government because their only concern is themselves. During Shakespeare's time writing Hamlet Claudius’s turpitude acts can be correlated to his era when “the corruptions of a declining feudalism were beginning” (Fribleman 142). Shakespeare’s experience with a corrupt higher class whose only regard is acquiring power lives through the unethical character of Claudius. By having the upper class reach a substantial amount of power they gain even more political influence over the proletarians because of their dominance in economic and social systems.

    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.

William Shakespeares Hamlet, is set in a world much like an unweeded garden. It is a world full of treacheryand deceit, so much so that one may smile, and smile and still be a villain. However, amidst all this corruption, several characters of integrity, such as Hamlet, and his loyal comrade, Horatio, are still able to rise above the other characters in nature, and be true to their own selves. Thus, Shakespeare assigns them with honourable ends, unlike the other members of the court, who are condemned with shameful deaths. Yet is integrity the most

Ambition is an earnest desire for achievement. Both texts are self reflexive and emphasise Richard’s obsessive ambition, desire and longing for the throne. Each Richard strives towards capturing the throne regardless of consequences and bloodshed. Richard is depicted in both texts as an ambitious character who strives to gain power and independence through deception and self confessed villainy. ‘Since I cannot prove a lover. . . I am determined to prove a villain’ This obsession which drives Richard to commit horrific evils to gain and then protect his claim to the throne. His ambition, power and evil blinds him and inevitably is responsible for his downfall in both of the texts. A connection is formed between Looking for Richard and King Richard III in the final scenes Al Pacino’s interpretation and ‘Hollywood’ background influences an ending which can be interpreted as portraying Richmond as a coward. Elizabethan audiences

There are many conflicts that arise due to decisions characters make. The characters in The Crucible by Arthur Miller all have one thing in common corrupting the entire town and is all at fault for most of the actions decisions, and conflict displayed in the book. This corruption can be described in one word: Greed. Driving the town to go after one another greed in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible is the true antagonist of the book, for it provokes most of the conflict in the book. This can all be proven with definitions and impacts of greed tot all of the characters, examples and how it relates back to the plot of the book.

However, he has not planned for a false testimony from Richard Rich at his trial. Rich testifies that More has committed the act of treason by rejecting the authority of King Henry VIII as head of the Church in England.

The play, "An Inspector Calls", uses moralistic irony to reflect on achievements made today. He reveals the weaknesses and wickedness not only in society, but in the individual characters; which I explain

Richard’s aspiration for power caused him to sacrifice his morals and loyalties in order to gain the throne of England. Shakespeare refers to the political instability of England, which is evident through the War of the Roses between the Yorks and Lancastrians fighting for the right to rule. In order to educate and entertain the audience of the instability of politics, Shakespeare poses Richard as a caricature of the Vice who is willing to do anything to get what he wants. As a result, the plans Richard executed were unethical, but done with pride and cunningness. Additionally, his physically crippled figure that was, “so lamely and unfashionable, that dogs bark at me as I halt by them,” reflects the deformity and corruption of his soul. The constant fauna imagery of Richard as the boar reflected his greedy nature and emphasises that he has lost his sense of humanity.

One of the strengths of good theater is its ability to mirror the problems and conditions shaping its time. In The Merchant of Venice, William Shakespeare reflects two important aspects of Elizabethan society: the corrupting influence of prosperity and the increasingly vengeful nature of Venetian justice. To address the former issue, Shakespeare downplays the importance of wealth by associating its involvement in romance with superficial and insubstantial advantages. He characterizes prosperity as a deceiving agent, citing its ability to introduce shallowness into a relationship. Shakespeare reasons that genuine romance depends on sacrifice and emotion, not wealth. The problem with justice is equally striking. In the play, justice is

Rich's family life at those times was very strenuous. His father with all the stresses of the common world, plus the new ones added by his child prodigy would often lead to physical confrontations in the household. Rich was often abused as a result of this (as were his brothers). This ultimately would help to contribute to his arrogance as an adult (Torme 2)

A defining feature between these two men’s fate is Richard’s dependence on good fortune through divine intervention, whereas Henry and Machiavelli rely on free will, what they themselves can do to manipulate the situation. Richard calls upon God to defend him, thinking that he can manipulate God’s will to fit his desires, “angels fight, weak men must fall, for heaven still guards the right” (III.ii pg 409) This idea of unearthly abilities that allow him to manipulate nature itself, even England is stupid and shows how incompetent he is. Compared to Henry in this play, he is someone who wants to serve England, not how England can serve them; in other words what you can do for your country. Machiavelli states that “so long as fortune varies, and men stand still, they will prosper while they suit the times, and fail when they do not”, Richard in all ways fills this statement, his reliance on fortune seals his fate in the end (Machiavelli 148). Shakespeare shows this antiquated idea to show how much England needed a change of leadership and rule, the end of medievalism and the rise of Machiavellianism.

The 16th century was a time of political upheaval, a time of conflict and corruption … and a time of heroes? All these elements are visibly present in Bolt’s book, A Man for All Seasons. As I was reading this story I was thinking that it could probably apply to our day and age but that begged the question. Why did Robert Bolt decide to use a 16th century character rather than a present time period character and setting? I believe that Bolt chose this man and his era because there things that he liked abut the man, there was no shortage of conflict and the he was worthy of being a hero. He fits into one of the archetype heroes. These three things I will touch upon in my seminar and I hope that my ideas will prove to be informative and