Shakespeares Pericles - Essay Example

There are contrasts in the contests though because in Act I, Pericles must solve a riddle, while in Act II, he must win a jousting tournament. In both competitions, Pericles fights many other suitors for the love of one maiden. In love, there is war among numerous suitors, and whoever wins get the most beautiful prize. Second, Act II has a parallel with Act I because they both demonstrate the intimate, but contrasting, relationship between a father and a daughter, which Pericles resolves and proves to all.

In Act I, Antiochus offers a riddle, which Pericles solves. The riddle reveals incest between Antiochus and his daughter, where Pericles compares them to serpents because of their mortal sins: “And both like serpents are, who though they feed/ On sweetest flowers, yet they poison breed” (Shakespeare 1609, 1.1:184-185). Pericles learns that Antiochus and his daughter are serpents because of the sins they bear, where they sinfully pluck the sweetest flower of sexual pleasure, thereby breeding poison that consumes their souls.

Act II shows an opposite father-daughter relationship, where Simonides loves his daughter not through incest, but by ensuring that she marries the one who truly loves and cherishes her. Despite knowing that Thaisa already loves Pericles, he still tests Pericles’ sincerity to make sure that he is a dignified man who deserves his daughter. After learning that Pericles is wise and virtuous enough to not take advantage of a fraudulent love letter from Thaisa, Simonides declares that Pericles is the best man for his daughter because he is, “As great in blood as [himself]” (Shakespeare 1609, 2.5:1102). Again, Pericles proves that he is an intelligent and decent man whom an equally virtuous man would love to be his son-in-law.

Act II parallels Act I because of similarities and differences that match the action of the two. Pericles is in pursuit of a maiden’s heart for both Acts, where he reveals intimate connections between a father and his daughter. In Act I, the relationship is incestuous, while in Act II, the relationship is virtuous. Part 2: Response to Gibbons I agree with Gibbons that the action in Act II supports Act I because deception and incest are not present in Act II, while they are primary themes in Act I, but I disagree with him that the daughter is forced into incest because the play is clear that the incest is mutual.

First, I agree with Gibbons that Act II parallels the action in Act I in terms of the opposite actions of the kings and relationships between fathers and their daughters. Gibbons is right that compared to King Antiochus, King Simonides is not deceiving the suitors because he truly wants for someone to win his daughter’s hand in marriage and he even wants these suitors to be happy during the feast, even when they are competitors, while Antiochus deceives his daughter’s suitors with a fake contest for his daughter’s hand.

It is a fake contest because Antiochus does not want any suitor to win for he wants her for himself. King Simonides is a good king, not just a good