Have you ever read or watched a shakespeare play? Richard III to be exact? Ever wonder if Richard III actually did all those gruesome things in the play, or if Shakespeare was exaggerating his personality and character in general? Well studies have proven that in fact Richard III has some backstory to it, and all of it is not miserable. Shakespeare has in fact overstated Richard III as a person in general by the features, horrible deeds, and evilness. Some of Richard III’s physical features in the play are in fact exaggerated. In the article “Richard III’s spine was twisted not hunched.” it states, “When Shakespeare wrote of Richard III as a "bunch back'd toad," he didn't have the benefit of actually seeing the king, who had died in the previous century.”(Landau). Considering that Shakespeare didn’t see Richard’s bones in person, he probably went to search for sources that were around during his time and since they didn’t have much about the king around that time Shakespeare probably went for the first source that he found. Another quote to support my argument …show more content…
Even if he did all of the horrible deeds in the play, his heart wasn’t 100% evil. Evidence to support that is the article “Adapted from the Brief Biography and Introduction to Richard's Reputation.” it asserts,”“King Richard worked to reform the legal system of England, supported the poor of England and he founded the College of Arms, to train knights.”(Moorhen). As I said earlier if he was a true “evil” person then why did Richard support the poor of England and found a College of Arms? Also, in the same article it also has another quote that inserts,“Tudor quickly realized that he needed to build up his own reputation and make King Richard III look like a wicked tyrant.” (Moorhen) This makes sense because Richard didn’t have a lot of backstory that the people knew about him, so it makes it more easier to make up lies and seem that it’s
If he was trying to portray Richard as a evil person he would make him look as one too,for example the witch in a Wizard of Oz is green, wrinkled, all hunched over with a shill sounding voice. He could've been doing the same thing with Richard. Some even say Richard was a good man and a great leader! Richard died in the battle of Bosworth,during battles there are soldiers, any abled bodied man. The average man lived to the age of 36, Richard died at the age of 32 in a battle, very believable, yes but around 1000 soldiers died from the York side and 100 from lancaster. Out of 1100 people at least one could have back
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
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
The Contribution of the Supernatural to Richard III During the Renaissance period people were very superstitious and England on a whole was an extremely religious country; people believed in both God and the Devil and Heaven and Hell. They also believed in prophecies, supernatural and curses. A modern audience would have reacted very differently to the play than a Shakespearean audience. The events contained within Richard III must have seemed very real to a Shakespearean audience as it depicts the historical events of the rise and fall of Richard III. For a Shakespearean audience these events happened only a century earlier.
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’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.
As Machiavellians, Richard III and Henry V become actors, acting differently in certain situations to be able so that they will benefit, but in these situations Henry V has noble aims. Richard’s goal just seems to become the King(1.1.140-148). In a true Machiavellian fashion, he deceives several people like his brothers and the common people to try and advance his goal. When he is talking with Clarence his imprisoned brother he tells him, “your imprisonment shall not be long; I will deliver you.” He is
While his heart must be black, Richard must convey the appearance of a humble and gracious ruler. He will say or do anything to gain and then to keep his crown. Perhaps the most striking examples of this Jekyl and Hyde farce are his pledges of undying love for two women he plans to have killed, claiming that all the heinous acts he's committed were only for their love.
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.
Richard kills his own brother because he feels it is necessary if he is going to take the throne, and to hide his motives he is quite adept at putting up facades of love. Early on in the play Richard is talking to his brother Clarence regarding his imprisonment, telling him that “...your imprisonment shall not be long. I will deliver you or else lie for you...simple, plain clarence, I do love thee so that i will shortly send thy soul to heaven” (Richard-I. i. 117-23). To prevent Clarence from interfering with his elaborate plan to steal the throne, he is going to kill him. Richard emphasizes his lack of morality by doing whatever he deems necessary to take the throne, with no regard to who he has to kill. By appearing to be a loving brother, he takes suspicion off of himself for when Clarence is killed. When the murderers Richard hires to kill Clarence
William Shakespeare’s Richard III is a historical play that focuses on one of his most famous and complex villainous characters. Richard III or The Duke of Gloucester, who eventually becomes king, is ambitious, bitter, ugly and deformed. He manipulates and murders his way to the throne and sets the tone for the whole play with his very first speech, which is the opening of the play.
Richard, the main character of the Shakespeare’s play, Richard III is portrayed as socially destructive and politically over-ambitious. His destructive potential is depicted by the way he relates with the other protagonists in the play and also by what he confesses as his intentions.
It is only during his deposition and his imprisonment that Richard shows his greatest strength as a dramatic figure. Although occasionally he seems to demonstrate self-pity, he also reveals himself to have an acute awareness of the ironies and absurdities in the structure of power of his kingdom. He still compels the court to reconsider his initial claim that the crown is divinely appointed: “Not all the water… can wash the balm of an anointed king (3.2.55)”. Although he keeps reminding those present of his God-given mandate to rule, he seems also to take pleasure in passing on the trails of kingship to his successor. As a King, He does have a God-given position of being the king. But as a king one should know the difference between moral values and ethics values. Just because Richard is King and is appointed by God doesn’t give him any rights to be an awful ruler. He can’t always fight a problem by saying that he is
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.
Call of the Wild is a novella written by Jack London that is ironic about life and the way we look at it. We look at life as humans and other things are just living in our world, that nothing else has a say in the world because we do not speak the same languages. Example of this is how we “own” dogs, cats, horses, etc; we do not “own” them, they are their own being with goals of their own. We may not be able to understand what they are saying or what they are thinking, but as London explains throughout his novella, one dog in particular has such high aspirations for himself that he will not quit for anything and his name is Buck. Never giving up on what you want in your life is the real message in this story that is being portrayed through the life of Buck.