Relationships In Shakespeare'sTitus Andronicus And Henry IV Part 1

In Shakespeare’s play Romeo and Juliet, two young lovers take their lives after their family feud reignites . A variety of decisions along with circumstance no one person could account for set the story of Romeo and Juliet up to be a tragedy. Many of the decisions in the play are made quickly and while emotions are running high, so frequently they result in bad outcomes. So, the rash and impulsive decisions made by men in Romeo and Juliet create the problems within the play.

One might think that masculinity is only a mental and ethical issue, yet throughout the tragic play of Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare, masculinity proves to be a two headed beast that not only is a mental but also physical problem. All the way from the beginning in scene 1.1 to the final scene of act 5, there was constant conflict occurring with short breaks of love and triumph collapsed by more ensuing conflict. Furthermore, a majority of this clash between the two families, Capulets and Montagues, was indirectly or directly evoked by the masculine behavior exerted by the men in the story. All things considered, the tragedy where two lovers upon many others meet their ultimate fate of death would have never been a tragedy without all of the masculinity that all of the men characters seem to exude. All throughout this essay, it will become more apparent that the idea of the internal and external need for masculinity in the men has consequently kindled the fire of conflict between the Montagues and Capulets in the tragedy because of the status quo, disrespect for women, and mindset of a masculine man.

Titus Andronicus is a play renowned for its bloodshed and human suffering. Shakespeare’s strategic use of diction, literary devices such as alliteration and rhyme heightens the dark ambiance. The dark and lifeless images which pervade Tamora’s monologue explores the breakdown of human goodness and familial relations and loyalty. Titus Andronicus demonstrates the dangerous force of vengeance. Furthermore, Shakespeare’s underscores the complexity of gender roles that can impede female liberties through enduring patriarchal societal values who elevates a prudent woman over the ‘wildly’ lustful woman susceptible to her sexual appetite.

The relationship between a father and his son is an important theme in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part One, as it relates to the two main characters of the play, Prince Hal and Hotspur. These two characters, considered as youths and future rulers to the reader, are exposed to father-figures whose actions will influence their actions in later years. Both characters have two such father-figures; Henry IV and Falstaff for Prince Hal, and the Earl of Northumberland and the Earl of Worcester for Hotspur. Both father-figures for Hal and Hotspur have obvious good and bad connotations in their influence on the character. For example, Falstaff, in his drinking and reveling,

William Shakespeare is the world’s pre-eminent dramatist whose plays range from tragedies to tragic comedies, etc. His general style of writing is often comparable to several of his contemporaries, like Romeo and Juliet is based on Arthur Brooke’s narrative poem, “The tragical history of Romeo and Juliet”. But Shakespeare’s works express a different range of human experience where his characters command the sympathy of audiences and also are complex as well as human in nature. Shakespeare makes the protagonist’s character development central to the plot.

In the time this play was set, a man’s daughter was seen as the man’s property, therefore the father was allowed to give his daughter to whom he thought was suitable. The daughter refusing her father’s instructions was seen as dishonourable and embarrassing for the father, for this shows a lack of power and control over his own daughter.

King Lear and Hamlet, by William Shakespeare, are two plays that reveal similar thematic elements, yet possess fundamentally different plot structures. Driven by the suffering and rage of two complementary characters, both plays suggest injustice through ‘good’, but ultimately flawed characters. This shared overarching theme is, however, conveyed differently within each of the works, as one employs two mainly disparate plot threads, while the other relies more heavily on the interaction between the two central plots. Yet the ultimate purpose of this dualism remains the same within both King Lear and Hamlet, in that Shakespeare’s use of the double plot illuminates the tragic elements within both plays, emphasizing core injustices through

Much of the text is dated or archaic and is initially unknown to the typical student. Yet upon thorough study, the student will gain a deeper knowledge and understanding of Shakespeare's words and the English language.Despite the difficulty that dated text presents, the passions and emotions described by Shakespeare touch the hearts of his readers and audience, students included. Vivid imagery and poetic descriptions are presented effectively and have a great impact on the audience. Readers are provided with the opportunity to step into the lives of his characters; to feel their emotions and understand their motivations, a rewarding experience for the student.Although Shakespeare's wrote his plays more than 350 years ago, the relevance of their themes and subjects still exists.

A lot of people would see insanity and corruption to play the most important role in Hamlet. However, other people may argue that the main theme in Hamlet is Shakespeare’s use of actors and acting and the way it is used as framework on which insanity and corruption are built. Shakespeare demonstrates the theme of actors and acting in his characters, the illusion that the individuals assume and the introduction of the ‘play within a play’. This connection allows certain characters to wield the actions and thoughts of others.

In the play "Titus Andronicus", the theme of parents and children is clearly visible, and the audience get to see a humanitarian side of the presumably purely evil Aaron, that he shows towards his son. Unlike the hero of the play, Titus, who does not hesitate to "slay his son in a wrongful quarrel"(Shakespeare 1.1.294) and disown him:"Nor thou, nor he, are any sons of mine; my son's would never so dishonour me"(Shakespeare 1.1.295-296), Aaron refuses that his son be killed, and makes it clear that he "shall not die"(Shakespeare 4.2.81) and that he who touches his son "will die upon his scimitar's sharp point"(Shakespeare 4.2.91-92).Some might argue that Aaron's actions towards his son are simply egotistical ,and that he sees

An individual's response to conditions of internal and external conflict is explored throughout literature. In his play, Hamlet, Shakespeare delves into the themes of appearance versus reality, lies versus deceit, rejection versus self doubt and tragedy, and in doing so attacks the frivolous state of humanity in contemporary society. In order to explore these themes, however, he uses several forms of conflict to project his opinions and expand his ideas relating to the themes of the play. Internal conflict, as well as external conflict are dominant features of his works, and in Hamlet are made evident through a succession of dire events which can attack and destroy

All the persons Shakespeare depicts in Titus are two dimensional, either good or bad. The dividing line falls between those who support Titus, the tragic warrior hero, and those on the side of Tamora, the evil Queen-empress. The former are noble and selfless, demonstrating roman pietas, while the latter are ignoble and selfish. In Jack E. Reese's essay, The Formalization of Horror in Titus Andronicus, he makes the point that Tamora and her sons' allegorical dressing-up as "Revenge, Murder, and Rapine can be viewed as a symbol of the characterization of the entire work" (Horror 79). In this scene, they are as they are, the symbol is exactly the same as the person. The only two characters who might be said to escape the dichotomy are Titus and Aaron the Moor. In Rome, Titus "sacrifices" both his son and his daughter, says Miola, "on the alter of his own personal honor" (Family 67). It is fair to say that personal honor is his concern in killing his offspring, for Mutius represents shameful filial disobedience (or mutiny) and Lavinia represents his inability to protect her and is a reminder of a shameful act done not only to her, but to her whole Andronici family too. It

There is such a considerable amount of violence in Titus, varying in intensity and degree that it might seem hard to draw any firm conclusions about its impact. One can, however, obtain the idea that the violence within the play has a far greater impact on both the audience and the on-stage characters when accompanied by a rhetoric or language that either juxtaposes or reinforces the brutality. The way in which characters react to violence, evident through their speech and imagery, can manipulate our responses to them and instil either an affinity or indifference to their personalities. Titus' first appearance in Act I Scene I is an example of this manipulation. His cold, calculating rejection of Tamora's plea for her son's life, juxtaposed with the solemn, funeral rhetoric give us the impression of a character who can flit between brutality and normality very easily, and who demonstrates little compassion when doing so.

By sacrificing Tamora’s eldest son in order to appease his gods, Titus sets off a chain of events that will lead to further death and pain. Shakespeare questions the norms of society and how morals come into play in all facets of life. With the pressure from society as well as self-expectations, one’s self-identity can come into question, and often illustrates their true character.

Shakespeare deals with a parent-child relationship in the historical plays of Henry IV Parts One and Two in the characters of Henry Bullingsworth (Henry IV) and his son Hal (Prince of Wales, later Henry V). The fact stands clear in the development of the son, Hal: the son's success in life is not dependent on his relationship to his father politically, but success is demonstrated when there is a realization of both parties on the level of parental love. Hal is not living up to his name, but also to blame in his father's failure to love. Our discussion is based solely on the text itself, based primarily on three main dialogues between Hal and his father.