When Edmund challenges himself to conjure up the worst prophecy he can think of for the impending eclipse, he not only anticipates King Lear's plot, but also highlights the fears of political society Tudor to say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Unnaturalness between the child and the parent; death, famine, dissolution of ancient friendlies; state divisions, threats and curses against kings and nobles; useless distrusts, exile of friends, dissipation of cohorts, marital breakdowns, and I don't know what. These fears do not call into question the farewell of the various state apparatuses, but rather the upheaval of order. Threats and curses against a king are immediately an act of malevolence, regardless of their purposes, simply because they seek to upset the political balance (Edmund's fictional prophecy clearly has some perversion to its own intentions). Here kingship is seen as an end: the head of the body politic, God's representative on earth, whose legality cannot be questioned. This assumption of a particular order inevitably leads to a series of problems; society will have to reconcile a king's actions, regardless of whether they are deemed right or wrong, and judge whether a potential usurper's claims are valid. Because if a credible alternative to the current king is found, then this immediately defines kingship. as a means to greater ends rather than simply a position to be maintained. And if a candidate is deemed more worthy than the current king, it remains to be assessed by what criteria he will be judged. Over the past century, ideology has provided legitimacy to leaders; the narrower concerns of Shakespearean monarchs would have been with the maintenance of law, order, religion and defence. The internal goals of a king or would-be king may not be altruistic; the personal drive for power, with its psychological benefits, is always a considerable factor when dealing with networks of human relationships. A hidden political manifesto may not be in the service of the state and would require great skill in using the mechanisms of politics to employ it from the position of the king. Nowhere are these questions addressed more convincingly than in King Richard II and King Richard III, where five conflicting kings star in power struggles that were still relevant in Shakespeare's world and brought together ideas of divinity, status, ambition and self . An obvious and crucial difference between the two works is that one of the titular characters is king, and the other wishes to be king. Richard II's position of power provides him with the strength of power, but the problem of being judged by the results of his policies, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, on the other hand can afford to make unnecessary promises about what he intends to do. The evidence for Richard II's political outlook is unlikely to be fully stated, as this would not really serve Shakespeare's intentions as a professional playwright, yet there is evidence of his pursuit of particular policies. Although Shakespeare uses the war in Ireland only as a function of in the narrative, he frames its inclusion in terms that show Richard as a monarch defending his kingdom, as part of his responsibilities as king; “We must supplant those rough, wrinkle-headed nuts, / Which live like poison.” Green describes them as "unruly" and, if Richard tolerated them, he would jeopardize the security of the state. The moral validity of war is not of interest to a king, whose responsibility is towards the exclusive dominant order, however, while the repression ofrebellion is prudent, the means by which it finances war are contrary to the system it preserves, and the crucial mistake that leads to its downfall. Although the audience never learns of what Northumberland calls "These charges and these grievous crimes / Committed by yourselves and your followers / Against the state and profit of this land" that Richard is asked to read aloud, many of his follies are evident from the discussion among the rebellious nobles. Ross Ordinary people have been saddled with burdensome taxes and have lost heart. nobles he fined for ancient quarrels and completely lost his heart. (...) The Northumberland wars did not waste him, for he did not fight, (...) Ross, he has no money for these Irish wars, despite his burdensome taxes, but with the theft of the banished duke. This financial impropriety not only demonstrates a lack of statesmanship, but is indicative of a king who views his power as absolute and unquestionable. The nobles' rebellion therefore demonstrates that they view kingship not as an incontrovertible end, but to mean justice, legitimate succession, and financial prudence. The treatment of Bullingbrook would be of particular concern to the nobles because of the injustice of his exile, the opposition to his marriage and the loss of his inheritance in an attack on the society on which their position is based. it is based. Richard's position as absolute ruler is compromised from the beginning with his involvement in the murder of the Duke of Gloucester. A fratricide certainly cannot vindicate God's authority, and therefore makes his position as a lawgiver imperfect. He redresses this initial injustice with Bullingbrook's exile and John of Gaunt's subsequent theft of Bullingbrook's inheritance. Such a disturbance in the line of patrimonial succession constitutes a serious breach of his responsibilities, as the conservative Duke of York also warns; "how are you a king / But with right sequence and succession?". Words involving "only" appear in the play a total of nine times, 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 "justice and severe punishment", he means it in the most modern sense, that is, to correctly condemn Mowbray as Gloucester's murderer according to the moral law. Similarly, Northumberland's response to the contention that Bullingbrook is poor in title and money is "Rich in both, if justice had her right." Alternatively, Richard uses "fair" as a synonym for "loyal": "we make, in the absence of ourselves, / Our uncle York lord governor of England; / For he is fair and has ever loved us well", or in relation to the his personal enforcement of the law, as he responds to Gaunt, "Why, according to our justice, do you then seem to love?" (bold added). The other use is that in reference to a divine or natural justice, to which Richards publicly appeals to decide the dispute between Bullingbrook and Mowbray "Since we cannot atone for you, we will see / Justice will draw the victor's chivalry", Richard then cancels this justice by deciding the contest himself. After being captured by Bullingbrook under the guise of having bribed the king, Green consoles himself by declaring that "My comfort is that heaven will take our souls / And will plague injustice with the pains of 'hell.' Green knows he will not be executed for bribing the king, but for supporting Richard's right to the throne, his appeal to heaven raises the question of divine right which constitutes Bullingbrook's greatest obstacle. The idea of divine appointment is an absolutely imperfect concept today, but it was a real belief in Shakespeare's worldissue was not to be used as a flexible political tool, but was considered essential to the power structure. In Act IV, Carlisle, as bishop, forcefully argues that only God 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 presents Bullingbrook with a problem. The reply comes abruptly from Northumberland: "Well, you have argued, sir, and for your sufferings / For capital treason we arrest you here", so the argument was forcibly ended and the matter was ignored. However, the question remains and underlines much of the debate in Henry IV Parts 1 and 2 and also in Henry V plays on Henry's conscience enough for him to declare "...Not to-day, O Lord, / O, not to-day , do not think of the fault / that my father has committed in conquering the crown!" .Where Richard may have neglected his secular duties as king, there are indications that Bullingbrook will be able to fulfill them. Richard himself notes Bullingbrook's popularity with the common man: "How he seemed to dive into their hearts / With humble, homely courtesy, / What reverence he cast away upon the slaves." Richard views this behavior as an unnecessary extension of a noble's role, which debases his rank and is dubious in its intentions. However, he demonstrates a political skill that Richard lacks and shows Bullingbrook's understanding of what power is built on. It can be argued that Bullingbrook sees power as built from below, while Richards sees it as 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 unjust measures Richard must resort to. This political attitude is extended when Bullingbrook declares that he is ready to pardon Mowbray and welcome him back to England."...Norfolk shall be abrogated. Abrogated shall he / And, though my enemy, restored again / To all his lands and lordships " . This respect for Norfolk's hereditary rights transcends their personal differences and restores order to the state. Maintaining the established order, Bullingbrook highlights the concept of the king's two bodies, where the king's position as head of state is confirmed as the structural end of the hierarchy of power, but the man occupying the role is expected to employ means for this status quo to continue. Bullingbrook's apparent political subversion is actually a measure to ensure that the system of power remains the same, after all, Shakespeare was writing while the succession to the English throne was a matter of concern and less than 60 years after Richard II, the England was king-minus. If Bullingbrook's rise fits neatly into the Foucauldian power/subversion relationship and the continuation of the political structure has been assured, then the techniques used to gain power are of greater interest, and none of Shakespeare's protagonists shows greater mastery of the maneuvers policies of Richard III. Richard's dominance over Richard III is the driving force of the play, demonstrated right from the start by his opening soliloquy, which immediately outlines his intentions and nature. Of course, the character of Richard predates the action of Richard III, and is present in Henry VI, parts 2 and 3, as a loyal Yorkist. It is here that the revelation of himself emerges as he declaresAnd yet, between me and my soul's desire--The title of the lustful Edward buried--There are Clarence, Henry, and his son young Edward,(...)Well , I can smile , and murder while I smile, (...) I can add colors to the chameleon, change shape with Proteus for advantages, andsend the murderer Machiavelli to school. rich This conscious and unashamed understanding of his 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 what is beneficial to one's cause. Richard's confident boast that he can overcome the deception of the chameleon, Proteus, and Machiavelli is exemplary of Greenblatt's idea of ​​"self-fashioning." Key to this idea is the dichotomy within Renaissance culture between "submission to an absolute power or authority" and "something perceived as foreign, strange, or hostile", concluding that "self-fashioning occurs at the meeting point between an authority and an alien". In Richard's case, the "alien" is the authority and the "authority" is himself. This perversion of these two concepts leads Ronald Levao to observe that "Richard is surely a demonic parody of Renaissance man's more optimistic self-image. He is the example of a world in which malevolent desire replaces [altruistic love]". The prospect of Richard as a king supported by this combination of desire and skill is repugnant to many of the other characters, who make frequent connections between Richard and the underworld. He is variously described as "terrible minister of hell", "son of hell". , "A Hellhound" and "Make Him Hell." 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 thus turns his attention on them, defining himself by his ability to disturb power. Richard's opening soliloquy is often cited as the revelation of his personality, his neuroses, and his desire. Richard's understanding of himself is in relation to the power he desires; the ambiguity of the famous statement "I am determined to prove myself a villain" provides the essence of Richard's character from both an internal and external perspective. There is Richard's recognition of the determination and awareness necessary for success and the realization of his role as destabilizing the power structure. Furthermore, there are nuances of God's role in shaping Richard's destiny and the inevitability of his purpose as a product of a society ready to usurp kings. Richard has an aversion to the niceties 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 form the foundation of any psychoanalytic approach to his character. He does not view the activities of Edward's court as symptomatic of a decadent government, which might constitute a valid political objection, but is possessed by an envy that leads to a rebellion against the forces of nature that deemed him "unfit for tricks sportsmen / Nor made to woo a loving mirror /... Defrauded of features by dissimulating nature". Richard's positioning of himself in opposition to nature echoes his opinion within the play: "Thou who was sealed in thy birth / Nature's slave." Richard, Duke of Gloucester's opposition to court practices is shared by the Duke of York in Richard II, but in very different terms. York has a genuine political concern that the frivolities of court life contribute to Richard's flaw as king: "... [Richard's] ear is stopped with other flattering sounds, / As praises, of whose taste wise men are fond , / Lascivious meters , to whose poisonous sound / The open ear of youth is ever listening." York considers the "Reports of fashionsin proud Italy" as an infiltration of alien and corrupting influences. This difference between the older generation of York and Gaunt as stubborn statesmen and Richard as a leader more inclined towards poetry than war demonstrates Richard's attitude towards 'egocentrism rather than to the use of kingship as a means of furthering England's prosperity. Christopher Pye notes this indulgence when he comments that "Richard often seems attracted by the pathos of his downfall rather than by any affirmation of his glory." Richard's eloquence during his descent from the throne contrasts with Bullingbrook's increasing taciturnity as he develops into a statesman Just as Bullingbrook's rise relies on growing support through political legitimacy, Richard, Duke of Gloucester. is based on the employment of political techniques. Levao accurately judges that "he surpasses others with his extraordinary agility, his ability to create an expedient for every situation. Now he is a Petrarchan lover, now a wise old uncle". Even the mayor would consider Richard a man of the people; "Do, my good lord, your citizens beseech you" and religious adherent; "See where his grace stands, between two priests ". Through delusion, Richard garners support from powerful men such as the mayor and the bishops ("[To the bishops] Come, let us return to our sacred work") and uses promises of promotion to ambitious men such as Catesby and Buckingham to obtain trusted lieutenants . Where bribery or deception does not work, he resorts to violence to eliminate opposition. The execution of men who have greater legitimacy to the throne - which originates in Henry VI, part 3 with the killing of Henry and Edward, prince of Wales and continues with his brother Clarence and the key nobles Rivers, Gray and Vaughan - are productive political acts, regardless of their moral justification. Does this process of elimination present 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 position of king may have satisfied his desires, but without a broader political vision he has 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 boy princes. 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 morally reprehensible. Since Richard views being king as an end, justified not by God, but by himself, his fall from power becomes inevitable in light of what Levao sees as degeneration "from a creature of infinite variety to a creature of indeterminacy, its unlimited power descending into formless desire." The system Richard was trying to defeat ultimately defeats him; the ghosts of the people he killed 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? "victorious Richmond is sad and wooden compared even to a defeated Richard crying for a horse". However, Richmond promises a more stable and just government by the Tudor dynasty, which was, of course, still in power when Richard III was written. The desire for a more charismatic figure to conclude the play emphasizes the conflict between the dramatic expectation from the narrative and the restrictions in representing (relatively contemporary) historical figures. All discussion concerning the characters of men and the structure of the narratives in these historical works must be done with the cautious reflection that they are not an invention of, 1999.