Shakespeare manipulates our response to Richard by implying in the text that he poisoned his wife Anne in order to gain a political marriage to his niece, Elizabeth of York. He is a master of dissembling and a man undeniably without charm, regardless his physical deformity. Finally, he possesses a sense of irony and a sardonic wit, which extensively explains his connection with audiences and readers. Shakespeare’s use of soliloquies enables us to see Richard’s duplicitous nature. He masterfully manipulates our response into having a grudging admiration for his skilful use of language.
The Fool appears to speak the mind of the audience, informing Lear of his rash and unwise decisions- “Thou hast pared thy wit o’both sides and left noting i’th’middle.” This honesty spoken by the Fool interrupts the natural order of being as in Elizabethan times Lear was seen the ‘the embodiment of God- his equal on earth’ therefore such a ‘lowly’ person as the Fool would not be permitted to be so blunt and honest. Thus the theme continued through King Lear of the inverting of things- the reversal of the great chain of being, throwing things into chaos. In contrast however is Kent’s language and attitude toward the King, the audience becomes very aware of the selfless attitude Kent possess and he shows this by his repeated attempts for Lear to see the error of his ways. At the beginning of Act 1 scene 4, Kent disguises himself and acts as servant to Lear- this selfless act shows a huge loyalty in Kent’s attitude to Lear. Although Lear spoke badly towards and banished Kent, he still humbles himself and becomes a servant in a constant attempt to impact the king… “If thou canst serve where thou dost stand condemned so may it come thy master, whom thou lov’st, shall find thee full of labours.” Kent makes a desperate attempt to present imagery, rather than use blunt language, to Lear in a last appeal for him to see thatalthough he is king, he is still
Hamlet observes that “a king may go a progress through the guts of a begger.” Obviously, he has annoyed the King, the theme that he suggested as well is saying that the King is of no more importance than a beggar and is worth nothing. Suggesting that something as big has the same equal value of something big. 5. The King contrived Hamlet’s death by sending Hamlet away to England of which where Claudius has sent a letter telling the King to kill him. 6.
And you must needs have hear, how I am punished with a sore distraction. What I have done that might your nature, honor, and exception roughly awake, I here proclaim was madness. (5.2 243-246)” Here Hamlet apologized to Laertes saying that his madness was at fault for the murder of his father. A person who was insane would neither realize that he/she is mad nor would know that their actions were uncontrollable. Hamlet showed that he was sane when he was with specific characters, such as his best friend, Horatio.
Julius Caesar dismissed the multiple warnings to beware the Ides of March. Consequently, a group of conspirators sent daggers through the body of the ancient Roman leader. All these conspirators conspired and executed their plan due to selfish and jealous motives, excluding the play’s tragic hero. In William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Brutus fulfills the role of the tragic hero because he possesses qualities of a good person, and he has a sense of commitment. Through words and actions William Shakespeare paints the picture that Brutus is a virtuous individual who believes in and stands by certain moral traits.
We must tell him, it will cause more damage if we don’t tell him soon. Come Stylistic Techniques Shakespeare uses personification in line 78 with “his doublet all unbraced”, though unbraced is referring to his shirt it can also be directed to Hamlet himself unbracing reality. A strong image is used in line 83 when Ophelia refers Hamlet to being “ loosed out of hell” this leads us to believe that not only is Hamlet insane but now angered. Syntax is used in line 84 when again Ophelia says that Hamlet “is to speak of horrors”, this again is trying to show Hamlets hostel intentions.
It is due to his feelings, Orgon rejects any logical explanation of actions of Tartuffe, he is absolutely unreasonable in his judgments concerning Tartuffe because he is guided by his emotions and feelings. In stark contrast, Tartuffe perfectly understands the power of emotions over Orgon and he uses this weakness for his own benefits. Even when Damis, the son of Orgon, denounces Tartuffe’s plans to seduce Elmire, the wife of Orgon, Tartuffe effectively uses his reason and plays with religious feelings of Orgon admitting the weakness of his spirit. Overall, this was a very enjoyable play to read and review. I was thoroughly entertained
Javier Acosta Dr. Rutledge English 2521 Is King Claudius an immoral monster whoʼs every intention is to do evil? To answer this, the deﬁnition of someone bound on evil and someone who is a moral weakling would have to be very clearly deﬁned as different audiences have different conceptions of each. Readers of Shakespeare have various examples on which to judge immoral monsters, such as Aaron the moor from Titus Adronicus who claims “If one good deed in all my life I did, I do repent it from my very soul” (V.iii.189-190) When Claudius is placed next to someone like him, we have to judge with different scales. Not to say that the kings crimes are not evil, for they surely are, but to say his attitude after the crimes have been committed are that of a man who wants to repent but can not seem to bring himself to do so. A man whoʼs twisted conscious haunts him by placing him in a state of paranoia, confusion, and weakness.
The curtain rises on the two conspirators in secret conference. The King is supposed to have narrated to Laertes what the audience knows well already: namely, that in an attempt at his life, Hamlet had in mistake slain Polonius. In consequence, Claudius claims the friendship and alliance of Laertes; since both are animated by the same purpose of revenge. Laertes, however, cannot understand why the King, even when impelled by his own safety, did not vindicate the law against so capital an offence. Claudius assigns two reasons: the one on the
Hamlet Has a Flaw? Hamlet was highly intelligent, and I think his intelligence was only challenged by that of Horatio, who is Hamlet’s most trusted friend. Hamlet being as smart as he was he thought things just for his own good, and thus making Hamlet's fatal flaw procrastination. Hamlet also happened to fall in the category of two the seven deadly sins, and that would be wrath, and pride. When Hamlets father's apparition appeared before him he was giving a task to kill his uncle, so it would be involuntary wrath.