The Play Richard II - Essay Example

Name: Instructor: Course: Date: Richard II Question Two In the play Richard II, the renowned writer, William Shakespeare tries to present the ancient forms of ruling, which seemingly portray modern trends. These distinctions are majorly brought to light through the characters of King Richard II and Bolingbroke his cousin. Whereas Richard II portrays an ancient leadership style where the rulings were commonly made from a collective sitting of elders, Bolingbroke presents the contemporary form of ruling; he presents a utilitarian leader. Shakespeare draws his writings from the happenings around him; this is mostly during the rule of Queen Elizabeth. However, he artfully designed his characters not to present the rulers directly. His play, Richard II is seemingly based on the rule of King Richard III. Bolingbroke is represented as unattractive, a vessel of clay, durable, and a utilitarian leader. William Butler portrays Bolingbroke as a realistic leader who comes in time of need. Following his banishment from England, Bolingbroke plots to overthrow the king and take over his rightful place in the throne. By considering Bolingbroke as unattractive, William Butler tries to reveal him as an unnecessary evil out to disrupt God’s plan for the people. Richard is seemingly the just leader who has been ordained to rule the people of England. In trying to overthrow the king, Bolingbroke appears to be unattractive to the reader. He tends to take the leadership in a wrong way that upsets the divine plans. Contrary to this view, Bolingbroke is a utilitarian leader. This shows that he is of use to the people at their time of need. Following the rule of Richard II, the people had no say in the way the rulers exercised their powers. However, when Bolingbroke seized power to rule, he enabled the people to share in the leadership of the nation. His ruling was intended to bring about political constancy. By describing Bolingbroke as durable, William tries to reveal the modern concept of leadership. This is to mean, in the present day ruling, people seem to desire a proactive leader. Bolingbroke took a step in revitalizing the nation’s process of ruling. By being described as a usurper, the author presents an audacious leader, an aspect that presents him as a favorable ruler to Richard II. William Butler further presents King Richard II as being fragile, impractical, and exquisite. According to divine intervention, Richard II was chosen to rule over the people. His kingship was a right from supreme powers. However, he is considered fragile and non-durable. This is because of the events that lead to his fall. Following overtaking of the throne by Bolingbroke, Richard II willingly gave in to his demands and let go his ordained leadership. This is a cowardly move seeing that he did not put up any resistance. Subsequent to usurping the leadership position, Bolingbroke sentenced Richard to prison, which led to his premature death; this is evident when he says, “Go, some of you, convey him to the Tower…” (Shakespeare 110). This reveals the King as being fragile and non-durable. Richard II is put in a compromising position. William considers Richard II impractical; this can be attributed to the ruling he gives when he was presented by a conflict between his people. Instead of solving the conflict between Bolingbroke and the Duke of Norfolk, Richard chooses to banish them from the kingdom. This is when he says, “… Therefore, we banish you our territories…,” which is impractical because the offended fails to obtain justice for the wrong done to him (Shakespeare 22). William views Richard II as being exquisite; in this context, Richard II is the ordained ruler of the people. His leadership is considered special and unique. As a vessel of porcelain, Richard II is meant to last in the throne for long. However, this does not happen. In essence, the play presents a distinctive reflection of the present day experiences. Through Richard II, we are presented with real life occurrences; betrayal and defeat whereas Bolingbroke presents a political revitalization. Through both characters, we are able to learn the historical mode of leadership, which has seemingly led to the development of the present day leadership. Richard II can be considered a reflection of the contemporary human existence; it paints a picture of humanity, which mostly encompasses veracity, falsehood, truth, and literature (Flachmann par. 6). Conversely, the rebellion by Bolingbroke has been attributed the political pandemonium of 1399-1485. This presents Richard II as the appropriate leader for the nation. Despite his incompetence, the nation is assured of a peaceful existence unlike the rule of Bolingbroke. The Tempest (question one) Imagery is a literal style of presenting mental descriptions from a work of art (Olshansky par. 1). The use of imagery has been noted to help readers in understanding the literal works of art and the authors to present their writings in an attractive way. In the work of Shakespeare, The Tempest, this writing style has been employed to present various things. For instance, in scene five where Prospero reveals Miranda and Ferdinand playing a game of chess. The chess game has been used to present a romantic setting between two lovers. Similar to the normal scenery, the game presents a situation where individuals in love pursue each other. Additionally, it presents the basis of the story where Alonso and Prospero betray each other to take the duke position. Imagery can be represented in a number of forms; metaphorically by presenting a direct comparison to something or through similes by employing words, such as ‘like’ and ‘as’ that bring out the similarities between two things. For instance, Alonso refers to Miranda as ‘a goddess’. This metaphoric comparison can be taken to refer to her beauty. Additionally, imagery can be categorized into auditory, kinesthetic, olfactory, and gustatory as well as tactile (Olshansky par. 2). Auditory descriptions symbolize sound whereas kinesthetic imagery denotes movement. According to Alonso’s words, “..and brought us thus together,” Miranda is being portrayed as a link that made Alonso and Ferdinand meet after a long time of separation. Alonso seemingly employs the use of kinesthetic imagery together with metaphors. Olfactory imagery signifies smell. Gustatory imagery symbolizes taste and the tactile imagery signifies touch. In his part, Ferdinand mostly employs metaphors. He refers to Miranda as being mortal. This reveals to Alonso that she is not a spirit as he had previously referred to her as a goddess, but human; “Sir, she is mortal...” In his reference to Miranda as human, Ferdinand tries to reveal his feelings. In the line, “…but immortal providence…” Ferdinand is trying to bring in the aspect of Alonso referring Miranda as a goddess (Shakespeare 137). Alonso and Ferdinand’s use of imagery reveal the role of Miranda in this play in various ways. She is the daughter of Prospero, a renowned magician. In this context, Miranda is presented as the joining factor between father and son when Alonso refers to her as a goddess. Through her father’s magic, Miranda is made to meet with Ferdinand who considers her a means through which he has to have a second father. This is after he is separated from his father following an accident at sea. The two fall in love and plan to marry. By comparing Miranda to a goddess, Alonso reveals to the reader her beauty. The reference to her as a goddess can also be taken to refer to the victory her love to Ferdinand presents to her father. Prospero is able to regain his title and royalty after the engagement of Miranda and Ferdinand. The title goddess seemingly brings about her father’s luck and ends their turmoil. When Alonso refers to her as, “the goddess that hath served us, and brought us thus together,” he tends to portray Miranda as a guide that has made them meet again. Similarly, Ferdinand attributes his meeting with Miranda as a blessing. This is because of the opportunity she has given him to have a second father. In her role, Miranda acts as the connection point between the two men. We can attribute her role to be that of a conciliator in that, throughout the play, she tends to connect people back together: Alonso and Ferdinand, her father and his title as well as all the people lost at sea. Through her relationship with Ferdinand, Alonso meets his long lost son. In this context, we can also acclaim Miranda as the cause of the meeting and redemption of her father’s royalty. This is because, through her, Prospero manipulates the ship’s accident and cause Alonso to meet with his supposed dead son as well as ability to regain his rightful title as the duke. Overly, the use of imagery in this play has helped to create a scenic role of Miranda. She is presented as the center of the action; all happenings in the play revolve around her. Her father manipulates other people to regain his duke title; Alonso meets with Ferdinand at her new home. Shakespeare appears to have designed Miranda as the solution to everyone’s turmoil. Works Cited Flachmann, Michael. Richard II: Distorting and Redefining to Deepen Understanding By Michael Flachmann From Midsummer Magazine. 1993. Web. 29 Sept. 2012. . Olshansky, Beth. Image making within the Writing Process. Web. 29 Sept. 2012. . Shakespeare, William, and Robert T. Petersson. The Tragedy of King Richard the Second. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957. Print. Shakespeare, William. The Tempest. Plain Label Books, 2009. Print. Read More