Abstract
Honor, the central theme in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 1, is embodied primarily in the two main characters. This essay compares and contrasts the concept of honor as lived by Hotspur and Prince Hall, making frequent use of quotes to substantiate claims. Other characters, King Henry and Falstaff, who Shakespeare finds useful in this major treatment of honor, are also discussed.

From the Paper
"One of the main themes around which Shakespeare dramatizes the history of his country in The First Part of King Henry IV is honor. To the Elizabethans honor was a major topic of debate as it had been to Englishmen of all ages. Honor is a complex subject, highly personal to some, highly public to others. Honor can be something for which one quietly stands, or about which one shouts in flowery language. The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast some of the various forms taken by honor as represented in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part I."

Tags:falstaff, hal, hotspur, prince, Shakespeare, Henry, IV, honor, Elizanethans

Abstract
This paper discusses how Shakespeare's characters always cause us to wonder, and how, in his play, "Henry IV Part I", it is interesting to consider how Hotspur and Hal's lives would have been changed had they become friends. It looks at how, certainly, both would have benefited greatly from the experience. Hal could have taught Hotspur to relax and enjoy life a little bit more, and Hotspur could have taught Hal how to be more serious about life, especially his duties as prince. By examining both characters, it shows how we can easily see how each character's weaknesses and strengths could have contributed to a friendship that may have achieved peace in a different way.

From the Paper
"On the other hand, Hal is slow to move toward his position as prince. He prefers to spend time in the tavern with Falstaff and our first impression of him is that he is quite lazy. He has fun with his friends and even repays the travelers the money that was stolen from them. In essence, Hal does not seem to want to grow up. This is most obvious in the scenes at the tavern. Hal seems to be aware that the happiness he finds at the tavern is something he will not or cannot find in a courtly life. He can also be himself there. He can drink and have fun. He tells the others, "I am now of all humors that have showed themselves humors since the old days of good man Adam to the pupil age of this present twelve o'clock midnight" (II.v.82-4). Although we have no problem understanding why Hal likes his life at the tavern so much, we also realize that Hal is not exactly eager to fulfill his duties."

Tags:falstaff, friendship, prince

Abstract
The essay attempts to determine how far the character of King Henry in Shakespeare's play, "Henry V", uses rhetoric to communicate what is true, or whether in fact he uses language to simply flatter his listeners with what they want to hear. The paper further attempts to show how far King Henry uses rhetoric as a method of manipulation in order to achieve his goals.

From the Paper
"Henry, like his father (and very unlike Richard II) is aware that the power of language can be used as a valuable political device. He uses his skill as a rhetorician to achieve success as a leader. He has the capability to change his emotions according to the situation, therefore adapting to the audience he wants to persuade. Similarly Othello's Iago uses rhetoric as a powerful tool of persuasion. Through words he is able to convince Othello of his wife's unfaithfulness, thus playing a major part in her murder. With Iago's extreme dishonest use of rhetoric, the question remains; how honest is King Henry V?"

Tags:rhetorical, ability, inspire, awaken, followers, intimidate, enemies, governor, harfleur

Abstract
This paper explains that, in "Richard II" and "Henry IV", William Shakespeare explores the issue of kingship by depicting Richard II and Henry IV as polar opposites. The author points out that Richard II, whose claim to the throne is considered legitimate but whose ability to lead is poor, is regarded as the complacent and lyrical king; whereas, Henry IV, whose claim to the throne in terms of the laws of succession is unstable, has won the support of the people based on his merit. The paper stresses that the perspective of Hal benefits from the experience of both his predecessors in that he is the legal successor to his father. The paper includes several quotations.

From the Paper
"Shakespeare has an ambivalent attitude towards kingship. He does provide an argument in favor of rightful succession to Richard's throne and the maintenance of traditional values embodied in the crown and the state under its rule, in the voice of Carlisle, for example. Yet at the same time, he clearly illustrates the destructive nature of kingship on the individual behind the crown. There are moral questions raised which are never answered which in itself casts doubt on the values inherent in kingship. For example, we are never provided with a suitable moral explanation for, and are never really comfortable with, Hal's renouncement of Falstaff."

Tags:ambivalent, succession, destructive, obligation, egotism

From the Paper
" William Shakespeare's Henry V and Kenneth Branagh's movie version from 1989 are certainly similar works, because they derive from the same text, yet by looking at the basic play and the movie's mise en scene it is possible to see that Branagh has used the Bard's words to serve his own images in bringing out a contemporary message.

Branagh's film version is not the celebratory work that Laurence Olivier's 1944 British motion picture was: Olivier directed and starred in this movie as the English and the Allies were close to victory against the Germans. Branagh is true to his generation and their anti-war sentiments that were created during the Vietnam War of the 1960s. Therefore, the recent movie version shows the real price of war--the violence and bloodshed.

Abstract
The paper presents a discussion of the male characters in both plays and then constructs a comparison between the two plays in terms of the father/son relationships therein.

From the Paper
"Polonius and Laertes, on the other hand, are portrayed as opposites in character. Although the play sees more of their relationship in the play, the viewers/readers cannot conclude that a happy relationship exists between the two of them. Laertes is a good and trusting son, who obeys his father unconditionally. Polonius, meanwhile, is a suspicious character that perceives his son as an alcoholic and womanizer. Polonius' distrust in his son was seen at Act Two, Scene One, when he ordered his servant Reynaldo to spy on his son Laertes at France. He even went to the extent of making Reynaldo tell a lie by telling the Danes (Denmark people) that Laertes has full of vices to affirm if Polonius' suspicion is true. Laertes, a man who left in good faith that his father bids him well, is unknowingly "stabbed at his back" by his own father because of Polonius' suspicious nature. Although Polonius' has not been a good example for his children, Laertes showed unconditional love for his father when he returned to Denmark to avenge his father's death wherein Hamlet was the murderer. In the end, both Hamlet and Laertes died, two men who sacrificed their lives to give justice to the death of their fathers."

Tags:Polonius, Laertes, Reynadlo, denmark

Abstract
This paper looks at the similarities between Shakespeare's "Henry V" and Machiavelli's "The Prince", and the concept of the perfect king. The two plays are discussed, and the concept that either Shakespeare is drawing his inspiration for his dramatization from Machiavelli or that both Machiavelli and Shakespeare have similar ideas of what the ideal ruler would be.

From the Paper
"In Henry V, Shakespeare presents Henry as the ultimate ideal of kingship. The only question is where does this idea of a perfect king come from, and after reading Machiavelli's Prince and Henry V one begins to note similarities. Not the least of which is the passage quoted above, a true Machiavellian manoeuvre. In this passage, the governor of Harfleur, the French city under siege by Henry's troops, has refused entrance to the army of Henry. As Machiavelli says, "it is wiser to have a reputation for meanness which brings reproach without hatred, than to be compelled through seeking a reputation for liberality". Therefore, Henry, following this advice of Machiavelli, does exactly that, and frightens the innocent people of Harfleur into opening their city gates through the sheer grotesqueness of his command. We frequently see these similarities between the actions of Henry, at least through Shakespeare's portrayal, and the recommended actions of a good prince, as documented in Machiavelli's The Prince. Therefore, one might draw the conclusion that either Shakespeare is drawing his inspiration for his dramatization from Machiavelli or that both Machiavelli and Shakespeare have similar ideas of what the ideal ruler would be."

Tags:england, european, italy, kingship, leadership, machiavelli, relations, renaissance, rulers, shakespeare

Abstract
This paper takes a look at how Shakespeare shows his audience the noble and ignoble nature of honor and chivalry in the behavior of the play's main characters Henry Percy, Henry Prince of Wales, Sir John Falstaff, and King Henry the Fourth. An examination of "Henry IV" shows how Shakespeare demonstrates these 16th century values of honor and justice to his audience.

Tags:honor, elizabeth, I, england, virtue, valor, glory

Abstract
This paper compares the use of rhetoric in two of William Shakespeare's most famous soliloquies: The "To be or not to be..." speech in "Hamlet" and the "St. Crispins" speech in "Henry V". The goal of the paper is to compare the sincerity in each given the character speaking and the context in which the soliloquy is delivered. Hamlet is contemplating suicide. King Henry is trying to motivate his outnumbered army.

From the Paper
"Although a read of Shakespeare's "To be..." speech from Hamlet and a read of his "St. Crispins" speech from Henry V show similarities in the use of rhetoric, an examination of the context of each speech hints at more sincerity in the former than in the latter. This is not to say that young Hamlet doesn't show his own share of deception throughout the play; however, in this particular speech, he is wrestling with all that he has had to endure with the death of his father and the implication of his uncle and mother in the crime. Often referred to as the most famous speech in English literature, Hamlet's "To Be..." speech is an internal exploration of the dilemma he finds himself in the midst of the mystery of his father's death."

Tags:compare, rhetorical, speeches

Abstract
This paper examines King Henry and Prince Harry's discourse in Shakespeare's "Henry IV" Act III, Scene ii in order to determine what both men considered to be desirable soldierly and leadership values. The paper highlights these values to be modesty, in the sense of exercising restraint in taking advantage of one's popularity and showing humility in the face of the enemy, as well as glory through courageous deeds on the battlefield and in war as a whole.

From the Paper
"The discussion between King Henry IV and his son Prince Harry of Wales in Act III Scene II of Shakespeare's Henry IV Part I reveals much about the central theme of the play: leadership and soldierly values. The scene depicts King Henry reprimanding Harry on what he considers to be behavior not befitting a future King and hence also drawing into question his suitability as a sovereign. During the ensuing discourse, Henry contrasts Harry's manner with how he thinks a young prince should act. In a reply which pleases the King, Harry pledges he will change his ways and prove himself worthy of his royal position. From a modern perspective, this scene provides an excellent base for the reader to form opinions on the leadership and martial values conveyed by both Harry and Henry IV."

Tags:leadership, values, humility, glory, courage