When Edmund challenges himself to conjure up the worst prophecy he can think of for the upcoming eclipse, he not only anticipates King Lear's plot, but also highlights the fears of Tudor political society in saying no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay Lack of naturalness between child and parent; death, famine, the dissolution of old friendships; divisions in the state, threats and curses against the king and the nobles; unnecessary distrust, banishment of friends, dissipation of cohorts, marital breakups, and I don't know what. These fears do not call into question the valorization of the different state apparatuses, but rather the upheaval of the order. Threats and curses against a king are immediately an act of malevolence, whatever their objectives, simply because they seek to upset the political balance (Edmond's fictional prophecy clearly involves a certain perversion in relation to his own intentions). Here, kingship is seen as an end – the head of the body politic, the representative of God on earth whose legality must not be questioned. This assumption of a particular order inevitably leads to a host of problems; society will have to reconcile the actions of a king, whether deemed good or bad, and judge whether the claims of a potential usurper are valid. Because if a credible alternative to the current king is found, then this immediately defines kingship. as a means to achieve greater goals rather than simply as a position to occupy. And if a candidate is judged more worthy than the current king, it remains to be determined by what criteria he is judged. In the last century, ideology conferred legitimacy on leaders; the narrower concerns of Shakespearean monarchs would have involved the maintenance of law, order, religion, and defense. The internal goals of a king or aspiring king cannot be altruistic; the personal will to power, with its psychological benefits, is always a considerable factor when it comes to networks of human relationships. A secret political manifesto may not be in the service of the state and would require great skill in using political mechanisms to employ it from the position of the king. Nowhere are these questions more compellingly addressed than in King Richard II and King Richard III, where five contrasting kings figure in power struggles still relevant in Shakespeare's world and bringing together ideas of divinity, State, ambition and self. An obvious and crucial difference between the two plays is that one of the main characters is a king, and the other wishes to be king. Richard II's position of power gives him the strength of power, but with the problem of being judged on the results of his policies, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, on the other hand, can afford to make empty promises about what he intends to do. The evidence for Richard II's political outlook is unlikely to be set out in detail, as it would not really serve Shakespeare's intentions as a professional playwright, but there is evidence of his pursuit of particular policies. Although Shakespeare uses the war in Ireland solely as a function of the narrative, he frames its inclusion in terms that show Richard as a monarch who defends his kingdom, as part of his responsibilities as king; “We must supplant these rough-headed kern, / Who live like venom.” Green describes them as "rebels" and if Richard tolerated them he would endanger the security of the state. The moral validity of war is of no interesta king, whose responsibility lies with the exclusive ruling order. However, while the suppression of rebellion is prudent, the means by which he finances the war are contrary to the system he preserves. , and the crucial mistake that leads to his downfall. Although the audience never learns what Northumberland calls "These grievous accusations and crimes / Committed by your person and your followers / Against the State and the profit of this land" that Richard is asked to read aloud, many his follies are evident from the discussion between the rebel nobles RossThe commons were plundered with heavy taxes and completely lost their hearts. The nobles were fined for old feuds and completely lost their hearts. .(...)The Northumberland wars did not waste him, because he did not go to war,(...)RossHe has no money for these Irish wars, despite his heavy taxes, but by the theft of the banished duke This financial irregularity not only demonstrates a lack of political competence, but is also indicative of a king who considers his power to be absolute and incontestable. The rebellion of the nobles therefore shows that they consider the. royalty not as an incontestable end, but as an end. signifies justice, legal succession and financial prudence. The treatment of Bullingbrook would be of particular concern to the nobles as the injustice of his banishment, opposition to his marriage, and loss of his inheritance in an attack on the society upon which their position is based. is based. Richard's position as absolute ruler is compromised from the start with his involvement in the murder of the Duke of Gloucester. A fratricide surely cannot claim authority from God and thus renders his position as lawgiver imperfect. He compounds this initial injustice with the banishment of Bullingbrook and the subsequent theft of Bullingbrook's inheritance from John of Gaunt. Such disruption of the patrimonial line of succession constitutes a serious dereliction of responsibility, as even the conservative Duke of York warns Richard; “How art thou king / But by fair sequence and succession?”. Words implying "just" appear a total of nine times in the play, and their use highlights the uncertainty of the kings' rights, as different characters use the word in different senses. When Bullingbrook describes the blood of the Duke of Gloucester crying out to him for "justice and severe punishment", he means in the most modern sense correctly condemning Mowbray as the murderer of Gloucester according to the moral law. Similarly, Northumberland's response to the claim that Bullingbrook is poor in titles and money is "rich in both, if justice had its way". Alternatively, Richard uses “just” as a synonym for “loyal”: “we create, in the absence of ourselves, / Our uncle York, lord governor of England; / For he is just and has always loved us well,” or in relation to his personal application of the law, as he responds to Gaunt: “Why then does it seem to our justice? (emphasis added). The other usage is that in reference to a divine or natural justice, to which Richards publicly appeals to decide the contest between Bullingbrook and Mowbray "Since we cannot atone for you, we shall see / Justice conceive the chivalry of the victor". ", Richard then undoes this justice by deciding the contest himself. After being captured by Bullingbrook on the grounds that he had corrupted the king, Green consoles himself by declaring that "My comfort is that heaven will take our souls / And plague injustice with the pains of hell". Green knows that he is not executed for corrupting the king, but for supporting Richard's right to the throne, his call to heavenraises the question of divine right which constitutes the greatest obstacle in Bullingbrook. The idea of ​​divine appointment is a completely erroneous concept today, but it was essentially a belief in Shakespeare's world. The issue was not to be used as a flexible political tool, but was seen as central to the power structure. In Act IV, Carlisle, as bishop, forcefully sets out that God alone can judge the king and that Bullingbrook, as a subject of the divine king, is automatically a traitor. His defense is long, logical and eloquent and poses a problem for Bullingbrook. The answer comes abruptly from Northumberland: "Well, have you argued, sir, and for your punishment / Of capital treason we arrest you here", so the argument is ended by force and the matter ignored. However, the question remains and underlines much of the debate in Henry IV parts 1 and 2 and even in Henry V it plays on Henry's conscience enough for him to declare "...Not today, O Lord , / O, don't -day, don't think of the fault / My father did in circling the crown! Although Richard may have neglected his secular duties as king, there is some evidence that Bullingbrook will be able to fulfill them. Richard himself notes Bullingbrook's popularity with the common man: "How he seemed to sink into their hearts / With humble, homely courtesy, / What respect he cast on the slaves." Richard views this behavior as an unnecessary extension of a noble's role, one that devalues ​​his rank and is dubious in intent. However, this demonstrates a political ability that Richard lacks and shows Bullingbrook's understanding of what power is built on. It can be argued that Bullingbrook sees power as constructed from below, whereas Richards sees it simply descending from above in tradition, an irrefutable chain. Whether Bullingbrook is naive or not does not diminish the fact that popular support prevents suspicion and the kind of unfair measures to which Richard must resort. This political attitude extends when Bullingbrook declares that he is prepared to pardon Mowbray and welcome him back to England. "...Norfolk be repealed. It shall be repealed / And, though my enemy, restored again / In all its lands and lordships." This respect for the hereditary rights of the Norfolk people transcended their personal differences and restored state order. In maintaining the established order, Bullingbrook puts forward the concept of the two bodies of kings, where the position of the king as head of state is confirmed as a structural end of the hierarchy of power, but where the man who occupies this role is supposed to employ means to ensure that this status quo continues. Bullingbrook's apparent political subversion is actually a measure to ensure that the system of power remains the same. After all, Shakespeare was writing then that the succession to the English throne was a matter of concern and less than 60 years after Richard II, England was king. -less. If Bullingbrook's rise fits perfectly into a Foucauldian power/subversion relationship and if the sustainability of the political structure has been assured, then the techniques used to access power are of greater interest, and none of the protagonists of Shakespeare displays no greater mastery of political maneuvering than Richard III. Richard's dominance over Richard III is the force that drives the play, demonstrated from the start by his opening monologue, which immediately describes his intentions and nature. Of course, the character of Richard predates the action of Richard III, and he appears in Henry VI, Parts 2 and 3, as a loyal Yorkist. This is where the revelation of himself emerges as he states And yet between my soul's desireand I - Edward's lecherous title is buried - Clarence, Henry and his son young Edward, (...) Well, I can smile, and kill while I smile, (...) I can add colors to the chameleon, Changing shape with Proteus to gain advantages, And sending the murderous Machiavelli to school.rich This conscious and unashamed understanding of one's desire is what Stephen Greenblatt describes as "improvisation", the ability to deceive by assimilating the surrounding culture through "empathy" and using it pragmatically to achieve whatever is advantageous to your cause Richard's boast that he can surpass the deception of the chameleon, Proteus and Machiavelli. is an example of Greenblatt's idea of ​​"self-formation". Key to this idea is the dichotomy within Renaissance culture between "submission to absolute power or authority" and "someone". something perceived as foreign, strange or hostile", concluding that "the formation of the self occurs at the moment of the encounter between an authority and a stranger". In Richard's case, the "outsider" is the authority and the "authority" is himself. This perversion of these two concepts leads Ronald Levao to observe that "Richard is just as surely a demonic parody of Renaissance man's most optimistic self-image. He is the model of a world where malevolent desire replaces [altruistic love].” The prospect of Richard as a king sustained by this combination of desire and competence is abhorrent to many of the other characters, who frequently draw connections between Richard and the underworld. He is variously described as "terrible minister of hell", "son of hell". , “A Hound from Hell” and “Foul Devil”. Richard's concept of kingship is the antithesis of the ideal model, where the monarch is naturally virtuous and appointed by God. He desires kingship for psychological pleasure, the Lancastrian dynasty he opposed has been replaced by his own family, and so he turns his attention to them, defining himself by his ability to disrupt power. Richard's opening monologue is often cited as revealing his personality, his neuroses and his desire. Richard's understanding of himself is linked to the power he desires; the ambiguity of the famous statement "I am determined to prove that I am a villain" provides the essence of Richard's character from an internal and external perspective. Richard recognizes the determination and awareness required to succeed and fulfill his role. as destabilizing the power structure. Additionally, there are connotations of God's role in shaping Richard's destiny and the inevitability of his goal as the product of a society ready to usurp kings. Richard has an aversion to the subtleties of courtly behavior from which his deformity excludes him. His deformity has no political significance in itself, but the psychological complex it gives him would constitute the basis of any psychoanalytic approach to his character. He does not regard the activities of Edward's court as symptomatic of a decadent regime, which might constitute a valid political objection, but he is possessed by an urge which leads to a rebellion against the forces of nature which 'not made for sporting tours'. Nor made to woo a loving mirror /... Deceived in functionality by concealing nature". Richard's positioning in relation to nature is echoed by the opinion of him in the play: "You who were sealed in your nativity / Nature's Slave'. Richard, Duke of Gloucester's opposition to judicial practices is shared by the Duke of York in Richard II, but in very different circumstances York has a genuine political concern that the. frivolities of court lifecontribute to Richard's failings as king: "...it [Richard's ear] is blocked with other flattering sounds, / Like praises, of which the wise are fond, / Lascivious meters, whose venom rings / The open ear of youth always listens.” York considers the “Reports on Fashions in Proud Italy” to be an infiltration of foreign and corrupting influences. This difference between the older generation of York and Gaunt as hard-headed statesmen and Richard as a leader more inclined to poetry than war demonstrates Richard's spirit. tendency towards self-centeredness rather than using kingship as a means to further England's prosperity. Christopher Pye notes this indulgence when he comments that "Richard often seems drawn to the pathos of his downfall rather than any assertion of his glory." Indeed, Richard's eloquence on his descent from the throne contrasts with Bullingbrook's increasing taciturnity as he becomes a statesman. Just as Bullingbrook's rise relied on growing support through political legitimacy, Richard, Duke of Gloucester relied on his employment of political techniques. Levao accurately judges that "he surpasses others thanks to his extraordinary agility, his ability to create a device for every situation. At one moment he is a lover of Petrarch; at another, a wise old uncle." The Lord Mayor would also consider Richard a man of the people; “Do, good monsignor, your fellow citizens beg you” and the religious adhere; “See where his grace lies, between two ecclesiastics.” Through illusion, Richard gathers the support of powerful men like the mayor and the bishops ("[To the bishops] Come, let us return to our holy work") and uses promises of promotion from ambitious men like Catesby and Buckingham to win trusted lieutenants. Where corruption or deception does not work, he turns to violence to eliminate opposition. The execution of men who have greater legitimacy to the throne - which begins in Part Three of Henry VI with the murder of Henry and Edward, Prince of Wales and continues with his brother Clarence and the leading Rivers nobles, Gray and Vaughan - are productive political acts. , whatever their moral justification. This process of elimination presents Richard with the throne, and a problem that Richard has overlooked? that of what to do with royalty. His abuse of the political structure and the position of king may have satisfied his desires, but without a broader political vision, he undermined the system of which he is a part. Richard's response is to continue his brutality, executing Buckingham for advising caution in murder. the two prince boys. The murder of the princes and Lady Anne (who stands in the way of a more advantageous marriage to Edward's daughter Elizabeth) is politically unnecessary and the murder of women and children is morally wrong. Because Richard views being king as an end, not justified by God, but by himself, his fall from power becomes inevitable in light of what Levao sees as a degeneration of "a creature of a infinite variety to a creature of indeterminacy, his limitless power "descending into formless desire". The system that Richard was trying to defeat ultimately defeats him; the ghosts of the people he murdered come back to haunt him, literally and metaphorically. Some Critics have noted the play's resolution, with Richmond's success, as a deflationary note on which to end? "The victorious Richmond is dreary and wooden compared even to a defeated Richard who cries for a horse". more stable and just government that emerged from the Tudor dynasty, which was, of course, still in power when Richard III, 1999.