King Richard As A Fool In Oedipus The King

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

According to the article History and Tragedy in Richard II, written by Elliot, he writes “Richard is a failure as a king not because he is immoral, nor because he is too sensitive and refined for the job, but because he misunderstands the nature of kingship (260)”. Richard’s downfall is not all his fault but as a king he should have understood the idea of what a great king needs to do to succeed in the life of royalty.

The Greek drama “Oedipus The King” evidently leads to the unveiling of a tragedy. Oedipus, the protagonist of the play uncovers his tragic birth story and the curse he had been baring his whole life. Oedipus is notorious for his personal insight that helped him defeat Sphinx, which lead him to becoming the king of Thebes. He is admired by the people of Thebes and is considered to be a mature, inelegant and a rational leader. From his birth, his story began with a prophecy that Oedipus would grow up to kill his father and marry his mother. Through out the play numerous people, who tell him of his unknown past, visit Oedipus. Blind to the truth he casts them away until a blind man named Therisis gives a sight of truth to Oedipus. As Oedipus learns the truth he realizes the great evil his life carries. After finding his wife and also mother hung in her bedroom, Oedipus blinds himself with the gold pins that held Jocasta’s robe. Oedipus blind to the truth is finally able to see when the old blind man visits him and tells him the truth about his life. Both metaphorically and physically sight plays a significant role in understanding the irony of a blind man seeing the truth while Oedipus who isn’t blind doesn’t seem to the truth that’s right in front of him.

    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.

The texts King Richard III and Looking for Richard both accept the centrality of power and the yearning for it, as a central plot driver and an assumed part of the human condition. However, each presents a different perspective as to the nature of power; its origins and morality.

Late 14th century English king Richard II lost all of his power towards the end of his reign as a result of his exploded sense of self-importance and godly association, which led to fatal opposition from multiple prominent aristocrats and eventually England as a whole. This gradual growth of opposition can be seen in the persecution of Richard’s most favored advisors; the aftermath of fear and apprehension that followed Richard’s execution of the Lord’s appellant in 1397; and his swift and universally encouraged abdication by Henry Bolingbroke, future Henry IV.

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.

According to Higginbotham’s article, the King lacks knowledge and experience when it comes to economical leadership, he considers his character to be wasteful, selfish, wild and unwise. “Gaunt figures Richard’s extravagant spending as a “blaze of riot” that like a fire flames high initially but quickly subsides, with the expectation that Richard must soon “burn out”. This image captures both the wildness of Richard’s behavior (since his excessive spending is likened to a “riot”) and its dangerousness (since the height of a blaze still destroys, even if it is likely to dwindle to nothing” (Higginbotham

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.

Richard II is an authoritative and greedy king of England, and he is living in a period of transition that medieval knights who are swearing total loyalty to a king has been disappearing and an aristocracy starts to gain a power for their own good. However, Richard II keeps believing the power of kingship, and he also is too confident himself. He overestimates his authority and power; furthermore, he ignores the periodical change. Therefore, he speaks confidently how firm his position as king is to the people in Wales, but his attitude changes when he suffers a defeat by Henry Bolingbroke that he

The play, Oedipus the King by Sophocles, bases its plot around dramatic irony. Dramatic irony is a literary device in which the audience is aware of a series of events or characteristics that the characters themselves are not yet aware of. This device was used to shape the tone of the work and furthermore the reader’s reaction to it. In the play, dramatic irony is used to tell the story and affects the reader's perception of the protagonists. These characters especially include Oedipus and Queen Jocasta. The writer depends on dramatic irony to set up the tragedy.

In the play King Lear by William Shakespeare, the Fool is introduced as an lower-class character as he acts carefree and speaks in riddles. However, the Fool’s role in the play is not as plain and simple as it seems. Considering the Fool’s excellent relationship to Lear, he plays a significant role in supporting Lear’s sanity, thus he has the time to figure out the truths. The Fool takes on the important role of sustaining Lear’s sanity by staying loyal to Lear, providing comic relief to Lear, and teaching Lear of his faults.

is a trait viewed as being favorable to a character at first, but it leads to their later downfall. It was often used in ancient Greek tragedies to show that mankind was susceptible to flaw. This was present in Sophocles 's tragedy, Oedipus the King. The protagonist of the tragedy,Oedipus, was not exempt from his own flaws. Oedipus’s traits of excessive pride and desire for knowing the truth were advantageous to him in the beginning, yet were the very things that contributed to his tragic downfall.

A general conclusion of most critics is that Richard II is a play about the deposition of a "weak and effeminate" king. That he was a weak king, will be conceded. That he was an inferior person, will not. The insight to Richard's character and motivation is to view him as a person consistently acting his way through life. Richard was a man who held great love for show and ceremony. This idiosyncrasy certainly led him to make decisions as king that were poor, and in effect an inept ruler. If not for this defect in character, Richard could be viewed as a witty, intelligent person, albeit ill-suited for his inherited occupation.

A general finish of most pundits is that Richard II is a play about the affidavit of a "frail and feminine" ruler. That he was a feeble ruler, will be yielded. That he was a mediocre individual, won't. The understanding to Richard's character and inspiration is to see him as a man reliably acting his way through life. Richard was a man who held extraordinary love for show and function. This peculiarity positively drove him to settle on choices as lord that were poor, and in actuality a maladroit ruler. Notwithstanding this imperfection in character, Richard could be seen as a clever, wise individual, yet illsuited for his acquired occupation.