Locke and Shakespeare

It is distinguished to none that Lockes Second Treatise on G everyplacenment is fully rooted on something ideological and ta tabby parts of it piece of ass of the inning be considered inappropriate, speci eithery, because the circumstances Locke laid on his work varies form that of Richard II. Knowing this, Richard II nominate besides be analyze with reference to some archetypes found on Lockes philosophy rather than an genuine application or portrayal of such. sideline the flow of Lockes work, I depart start with his concept of the bring up of warf be. Locke indicated that a state of war is in blood with the natural tendency of men to take up-to doe with life. On the other hand, there be certain situationors that may threaten a person and may lead him to war or destruction, just never license him to do so. He supposes that proper perfor earthly concernce of the law and punishment stick out hold back war.During the on coif of the take all over, it is clear that Richard II has make an erroneous error in not being able to settle and hold a fair judgement on the dispute between Bolingbroke and Mowbray. When there is a clear indication that law has been lost and that punishment has no basis or bearing and thus, altered, questions leave arise and subsequently bring forth war.More of this can be discussed when I go into the compass point of political and civil purchase order and the dissipation of the political relation later in this paper. My point here is that Richard IIs forgiveness of reducing Bolingbrokes sentence to 6 years, no matter how justified, is an act extraneous of the law that he, himself, should inculcate and practice. Not to correspond that the trial by combat that was set for Bolingbroke and Mowbray did not handle place upon the faggots discretion.I understand that at the time this play was written, the King is someone ordained by Heaven to district and so, has the pay off to grant mercy, create laws, charter war, etc I believe, on the other hand, perhaps, in one modality, or another, similar to Locke, that military unit is a gift that should never be ab apply and should always be used for the benefit of the natural while. A state of character has existed and can never be repellight-emitting diode from. In a lawful stage, at this time, that recoverms very unlikely, and so it does, in Richard II, and so, the coterminous turn of correctts.The next is Lockes concept on property. He pre-supposes that valet de chambres right on land came from the position that he bespeaks it to survive and he testament work to have got and accommodate it for himself. Knowing that there was a swarm of land for everyone, he assumes that each can be afforded an equal share and that citizenry are not supposed to take more than shooted. He discussed that the value attributed to land, i.e. gold, flatware or diamonds is nothing compared to the master(prenominal) employment survival.The application of this concept is obvious in consideration of the concomitant that during the time the play was written colonization and acquisition of land, in the name of the King was like a trend. My point in mentioning this though is that incorrect allocation of funds, seizure of property as well as the war to Ireland are all part of the picture that led Richard II to his tragic ending.While the priorities of the male monarch is largely different from that of the prevalent man, the main truth in surrendering ones fate to the king is for reasons of survival. Locke has discussed that a mans title for property is his own labor. The king however, thinks otherwise. I think that a king believes that everything under his kingdom is considered his possession.In the ideal sense, this is true because knowing that the king holds the title to everything means the king has to protect, procreation and make sure that his kingdom is nutrition the good life. In Richard IIs case, it seems different. Wel l, maybe, for that entire period, expanding the land and winning over arrangement is the main aim of the king. The bottom line is that while the king is ill-tempered making sure he owns and rules a larger kingdom, the multitude are in use(p) criticizing what the king should do.Moving on, Lockes news on the political and civil purchase order and the dissolution of giving medication is the main writing of Richard II as well as of this assignment. Locke primarily said that a political relation exists when people decides to resign their individual rights to the government. He however, explicitly points out that there is no place for absolute monarchy in a civil society. This is because having the rights of all depend on one or few people means that judgement is overseen.Knowing that the convention is also the maker and implementer of laws mean that the principle is not subjected to any judge the ruler cannot judge himself, perhaps only by conscience, but seemingly, the ruler becomes above of everything he has set. And so, such may lead to anarchy, uprising and the disintegration of the government.The type of government merely is already a subject of backchat for if Locke doesnt believe in monarchy, then the judicature of Richard II is already considered a true government. Perhaps that was the reason why anarchy, as Locke has discussed, took place later on. in the first place in this paper, Ive mentioned that the kings priorities are different from the common man. It is all important(p) to note that even Locke agrees that the common man will not understand this. The common mans concern is manifestly his/her survival it doesnt matter how, where, when, as long as they have the right to land and live well, then all should be well.I think this is where Richard II failed as a king. He understands the need for war (land), the ways (funds) and even the need for strong governance (resolving conflict and governance) but he did not see things in a bigger picture, he did not use Lockes unreserved interpretation of things. He didnt listen to the needs of the people and focused only on his needs as king.The way the play has progressed revealed how all of Lockes descriptions and/or principles come into perfect merge with the ultimate ending. As I have discussed with his principles on the state of war and of property, it is clear that Richard II has brought his fate upon himself when he acted upon his assumptions. If he hasnt ordered the death of the Duke of Gloucester, atomic number 1 wouldnt have had the opportunity to accuse Mowbray with betrayal (diversion of funds and the Dukes death).If he has elect to let the law decide on the fate of both, he wouldnt have faced the dilemma of banishment. Perhaps it was guilt, for Henrys accusation was true, perhaps, it was because he failed to forbid the course of evens and thought that banishing Henry will be a good-of-a-solution to keep his popularity with the commoners from increasing, or perhaps, it was simply because he was just a weak king.Locke also discussed that the dissolution of the government as a result of tumult does not necessarily mean that the government will cease to exist. It means that switch over is needed and a new governance is required. Perhaps, this is why Richard II chose to tone of voice big bucks without the need for violence and allowed Henry to rule. deal to think of it, if he didnt step down, he wouldnt have had fair to middling power and manpower to protect him anyway, for even his own army was easily swayed with statement that he was dead.It is on that change of governance that Locke finished his discussion. The play however progressed encourage into the tragedy it is known for the shoot of Richard II. I think this part can be associated to Lockes early discussion on mans state of nature. It is quite funny that in spite of the fact that a political and civil society (at least if we are to forego the fact that its a monarchy ) already exists in Richard II, mans state of nature where he believes that he has power over someone weak and/or has the right to subject someone who has offended him will always be part of it.And so, Sir force killed Richard II, thinking it is what Henry desires, which is actually true, but in any case, has caused his banishment. This simply proves that man no matter what state he or she is, will always be man, just as Locke attempted to floor when he discussed his theory.If youll come to think of it, this at long last scenario is not so much different with the onset of the play where Mowbray was accused of murder and was banished. The irony of such similarity may simply mean that unless the government is changed, the serve well will repeat.