By casting Richard (a York) as a villain Shakespeare is affirming to his Elizabethan audience of the emergent middle class and the nobility of the Tudor’s legitimate right to rule over England. The play also reflects the tension between providentalism and the growing secular interest in free will. This shift from God’s will to free will is particularly evident in the character of Richard as he fights for power and leadership, disregarding his conscience and religion. Al Pacino’s 1996 documentary Looking for Richard produced for an American audience that fails to see how Shakespeare is relevant to the world around them “It has always been a dream of mine to communicate how I feel about Shakespeare to others”. However like Richard III, Looking for Richard was set after another significant conflict in the Cold War.
IDEAS ABOUT LEGITIMACY, & THE STATUS OF ‘BASTARDS’. Illegitimacy was enshrined in the very fabric of the Tudor monarchy! It is clear Shakespeare was challenging the low status of bastards – although Edmund’s fate may suggest upholding the status quo. Eg: Act 1 Scene 1 discussion of Edmund and his origins. Edmund’s bastard ‘apologia’ Act 1 Scene 2 and linguistic analysis of the speech… IDEAS ABOUT NATURE, MAN’S RELATIONSHIP TO IT AND THE NATURAL ORDER.
Evil was a potent force which intended to hurt and destroy, against the expectations of society which were usually based on Christian views. On the other hand, to be good was to act in a charitable and caring way for others, displaying the qualities of a faithful Christian. In this way, it could be said that to be 'morally ambiguous' is to merge the two; to integrate good and evil into a personality to such an extent that it is not possible to label such a person as one or the other. There are different types of morality which seem to be contrasted with each other in the novel. Joseph represents one of these: the conventional, institutionalised notion of morality based on religion and the word of the bible.
The connections in the mentioned themes demonstrates how shared ideas impact differently on individuals in different contexts. Shakespeare’s work deals with the identity of Kingship and monarchical authority and in ‘Richard II’ we see the character Richard struggle with self identity as his throne is threatened to be taken from him. As Bolingbroke takes the crown Richard believes that he is a thief of more than just his kingship, but takes everything of him, as without his role, he has no persona and no existence. We see how much Richard values the relationship between his identity and title and names as he states , while disorientated after losing his kingship ,“Nor no man’s lord! I have no name, no title.
Iago, who is known as the Machiavellian villain perpetuates the tragedy by bringing forward a hamartia or a fatal flaw from Othello. As soon as the play begins, Shakespeare used dramatic irony to illustrate Othello’s view of Iago as an honest and trustworthy man through his repeated description of “honest Iago” and “a man of exceeding honesty” to the audience. Of course that is not the case, the audience views Iago to be “Janus-faced” and deceptive through his constant declaration of “I am not what I am” and how he “hates the moor”. This juxtaposition is created so that the audience can empathise with Othello. I know I can definitely empathise with him.
More than these, I think Lear is motivated by his idea that he is a good man. One thing that supports is when Kent says “I’ll tell thee thou dost evil,” (Act I, Scene I, Line 175) and Shakespeare writes the king as reacting in a frenzy, going so far as to say “This moment is thy death,” (Act I, Scene I, Line 190). By portraying the king in this way, Shakespeare causes us to judge him as unstable and mental. While his actions thus far have been rash, him reacting in this way, and him banishing his daughter saying, “Here I disclaim all my paternal care, Propinquity and property of blood,” (Act I, Scene I, Lines 117-118). From these thing, it is made clear that Lear is not only rash and insecure but also thoughtless and stupid.
In Hamlet’s third soliloquy, there are echoes of struggle and disillusionment which are illustrated as important concepts in dealing with Shakespearean language throughout the play of HAMLET. The quote, “To be, or not to be: that is the question” (ACT 3 SCENE 1)– Hamlet, illustrates the rhetorical questioning, a feature of dramatic struggle, of Hamlet about asking of ‘being’ in the first line. He points out that this is the question that we must all ask ourselves all the time. It is in this first line that it is noted that the soliloquy is a set piece on life and suicide rather contrasted to Hamlet’s ‘feigned’ madness which is recurred throughout the
Starting from the Prologue, the title “A Street in the Capital of Szechwan” provides the setting of the play. Keeping in mind Freytag’s pyramid of plot structure the prologue serves as an ‘Exposition” of the play in which we have been introduced to major themes and the Protagonist. The Wang serves as a narrator and sometimes s Author’s voice can be felt in between the speeches made by characters E.g. When the gods talk about their secret mission, this mission is direct reference to author’s mission of finding an answer of his question. The tone of the author is ‘mocking and he seems to criticize religion and god in these lines: “They are well nourished” (pg # 185, primary source) `The Prologue also provides us the ‘main action’ i.e.
God put rulers over us for a reason. In Article 36 of the Belgic Confession, God says that “he wants the world to be governed by laws and policies so that human lawlessness may be restrained and that everything may be conducted in good order among human beings.” This is exactly what the law is for, to promote good, to protect people’s rights and freedoms, to solve conflicts, and to make a better world. These last few reasons are from a secular point of view, but still have the truth in them. From a Christian point of view, the law is to convict people of their sin, serve as a guide for the Christian mind and conduct, to maintain order and punish wrongdoers, as well as to promote good. In the Ten Commandments, God tells us to honour our father and our mother.
“Madness is a painful and necessary path to self knowledge” Is this true in King Lear and Macbeth? In order to assess accurately whether ‘madness’ is the necessary path to self-knowledge we must first consider the starting point of both King Lear and Macbeth’s journey. Once we have analysed the path of events we can then judge whether they were indeed painful for each character. Throughout the development of both plays, the protagonists King Lear and Macbeth experience a significant change in character as a result of experiences derived from a series of aberrant events. Consequently, they achieve a certain degree of self awareness and knowledge that they did not possess before.