Richard III Act 1 - Questions/Analysis

 

27 April 2005

 

William Shakespeare

“The Tragedy of King Richard the Third”

 

 

Act 1.1

 

1. How do lines 1-40 or Scene 1 serve as a Thesis?

What does Richard claim he wants to do?

 

           Since Richard can not prove a lover because of his deformity, he determined to prove a villain (line 30). He wants to be subtle, false, and treacherous if King Edward be as true and just. Hence, Richard has laid plots of dangerous inductions that his brother Clarence and the king hate the one against the other (line 32-35); He has made drunken prophecies to say that one of his heirs named G shell murder Edward (line 39-40).

 

 

2. What logical fallacy is made when Richard say since he can’t be a lover, he’ll be a villain (pg. 6)?

 

           Richard’s statement made three logical fallacies. First, Non sequitur - his idea is not necessarily connected that he doesn’t have to be a villain because he can’t be a lover. Second, Reductive fallacy - it oversimplifies the relation between causes and effects. He can’t be a lover; this reason can not be a cause to be a villain. In order to be a villain, it has to have more than one reason. Third, Post hoc fallacy, it is assuming that because A preceded B, then A must have caused B. He can’t be a lover: it must have caused he’ll be a villain.

 

 

Act 1.2

 

3. How does Richard overcome Anne’s objections? How does he persuade her to marry him? What appeals does he make? Can you detect any fallacies in his argument?

 

          Richard overcomes Anne’s objections with fallacies. Every time Anne says about her hatred of Richard, he replies to her with fallacious statements that he pretends to understand her words opposite way. Moreover, his fallacy statement is concluded by her love made him to kill her husband. Therefore, she killed her love which states, “This hand, which for thy love did kill thy love.” Furthermore, he asks her to kill him or kill himself stating,  “Shall for thy love kill a far truer love,” appealing his love toward her desperately. He persuades her to marry him that his love for her can not stop to kill her husband (19).

Fallacies: “I know none, and therefore am no beast” (14). This statement is both non sequitur and reductive fallacies that his ideas are not connected, and the relation between causes and effects is oversimplified. Even though a beast doesn’t know any other beast, a beast is still a beast. It doesn’t mean he is not a beast.

 

 

Act 1.4

 

4. What issues of law come up?

 

           Clarence states, “Before I be convict by course of law, to threaten me with death is most unlawful,” asserting that there is no evidence to accuse him to slay (43). Lawful quest should be pronounced by verdict in front of judge.

 

 

5. How does the killer’s problem with conscience help further define Richard’s character?

 

           Second Murderer states, “Faith, some certain dregs of conscience are yet within me,” that “it fills a man full of obstacles.” The killer executes to slay Clarence because of reward from Richard. However, his Faith of God made him to hesitate to do. Clarence illustrates killers’ mind stating, “Have you that holy feeling in your souls, to counsel me to make my peace with God” (46).

 

 

6. How might Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu apply?

 

           Richard’s behaviors are mostly resembled of Machiavelli’s rhetoric. He kills every enemy even his own brothers in order to be a king. Also in order to have his lover, he killed her husband.