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.
Indeed, it could be argued that the intrigues and machinations of the imperial court were the defining characteristics of the Julio-Claudian period. This therefore explains why the discussions of motives behind decisions during the Julio-Claudian era have been so controversial. Due in part to his brother Germanicus being a highly regarded member of the soldiery, Claudius was bestowed the role of Emperor after the assassination of Caligula, despite his perceived feebleness and having limited military or any administrative experience at all. It is furthermore suggested that he was potentially intended to be a ‘puppet emperor’ for the Praetorian Guard’s benefit, “The Praetorian Guard sat at the very heart of Rome, and usually reported only to the emperor of Rome himself and it wasn't long before they started to abuse this power”. Initially considered too incompetent to rule, Claudius arose to the role of emperor in an admirable manner for his condition; he was always ill, and was said to have possessed neither natural dignity nor authority.
Henry V Pro or Anti War? Is Shakespeare’s Henry V pro or anti war? I personally think that the play is a bit of both. Although some people believe that the play “glorifies” war and is all about fighting there’re some points in the play where it can turn and be anti war. I don’t think the play was written to show how King Henry V was a fanatic about going to war with other countries, but I think that it was also wrote to show how understanding he could be about war.
Richard shows a dangerous capacity for poor judgment and fascination with luxury, which deviate from the expectations of royalty. The servile followers that Richard is surrounded by also play an integral role in his incompetence. Moreover, there is mirrored imagery when Shakespeare discusses Bolingbroke’s determination to depose Richard with the Earl of Essex’s rebellion to overthrow Queen Elizabeth. However, the Earl of Essex’s rebellion was unsuccessful, as his supporters had deserted him before arriving at London whereas Bolingbroke’s uprising was successful due to the support of the nobles. Bolingbroke strives to preserve his family honour and retrieve his rightful land, thus his ambitions prove him to be a competent co-ordinator.
When Europe finally emerged out of the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance, Europeans despised everything about the Middle Ages. In the Middle Ages, queens and kings were decided by “divine power” which opposes the notion of rulership in Machiavelli’s The Prince. Erasmus, another key player in the Renaissance, once stated, “Men are made, not born” which totally contradicts the idea of divine power. Another new idea Machiavelli developed in The Prince that goes against Middle age thought was to use soldiers that one possesses in their state, instead of using mercenaries or auxiliary soldiers. In the Renaissance, the humility of the Middle Ages was completely thrown out, only to be replaced with people wearing extravagant clothing and consuming themselves in their image.
Machiavelli understood that obtaining such a government could not be done without separating political morality and personal morality. The Prince became this ideology of a totalitarian government that rules and acts immorally. As opposed to all previous political writings, the predominant view of Machiavelli is that the ends justify the means. Good and evil become relative to the state system, not absolute concepts that the state needed to adhere to. Efficiency took the place of good.
Othello, the moor of Venice, is a great warrior and a leading general who make his name and glory is war. He finds himself facing not only military problems but domestic ones. Othello becomes jealous, but we can defectively avoid the argument about whether he was naturally jealous or not, by looking for error of judgment rather than moral flaw. Shakespearean tragedies are all concerned with conflict which terminates in catastrophe. In his tragedies Shakespeare is concerned with seeming and being, with appearance versus reality, which in Othello these are epitomized in the hypocrite Iago: Hypocrisy is the only evil that walks invisible except to God alone.
Further, Othello’s invocation of his own military triumphs might be seen as another example of Othello dangerously misordering his priorities. He seems to position his political reputation as his biggest concern, as he did in Act III, scene iii, lines 353–355, when, having decided that Desdemona does not love him, he exclaimed, “Farewell the tranquil mind, farewell content, / Farewell the plumed troop and the big wars / That make ambition virtue.” At the same time, however, Othello’s final speech does seem to restore to him somewhat the nobility that characterized him at the beginning of the play. From almost the first time he opens his mouth, Othello demonstrates—and the other characters confirm—his hypnotic eloquence when he speaks about his exploits in battle. Othello’s final speech puts us in mind of his long speech in Act I, scene iii, so that we see him, even if only for a moment, as we saw him then. This process of conflating two different times and views of Othello is similar to the rhetorical effect achieved by Othello’s dying words, where he makes his suicide seem a noble and heroic deed by conflating it with the killing of a Turk in service of the state.
In Richard III, Shakespeare gives an account of Richard's character that was popular opinion of him as an evil deformed schemer, until late in the 20th century. Historians now view this account as a dramatic plot device, necessary for the “villain role” that Shakespeare had given him. It is not consistent with what is now known of Richard III, who in many ways showed himself to be an enlightened and forward-thinking King. With the opening words of Richard III, "Now is the winter of our discontent," Shakespeare lays the groundwork for the portrayal of Richard III as a man who is unhappy in a world that hates him. Later, he describes himself as "Deformed, unfinished, sent before his time into this breathing world, scarce half made up."
How could anyone in a clear state of mind desire marriage after being exposed to such a brilliantly devised sequence of bitter-sweet remarks on the institution of marriage? In essence, when the bubble fireworks are out, Wilde’s play reveals its thorns, and they are aimed directly at the institution of marriage. Despite the happy ending, The Importance of Being Earnest takes a perfectly satirical stance in regards to the institution of marriage. Oscar Wilde takes pleasure in deconstructing the pristine facade built around the concept of marriage by Victorian society, and he is fearless in attacking its conventions. Wilde’s play does not celebrate marriage as the ultimate alliance by love, instead preferring to expose its “unstylish” side stained by hypocrisy and shallowness.