| Papers [1-16] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "DANA RICHARD HENRY JR": |
|
|
Richard Henry Dana: "Two Years Before the Mast", 1996.
Critical review of true account of author's seafaring life in early 19th Cent.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 1 source, AU$ 61.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"This study will examine the account of the seafaring life of the early 19th century as described in all its tawdry and terrifying detail by Richard Henry Dana, Jr. in Two Years Before The Mast. The argument of the study will be that Dana in this book, for the discerning reader of his time as well as of ours, almost single-handedly destroyed the romantic notions of the sailor's life which had prevailed previously. One critic in the Introduction by Thomas Philbrick explains:
[R]eaders [must] surrender their 'false fancies' of maritime life and . . . realize 'what a dreadful doom is this of the common mariner, trained as he must be to habits which he can never hope to change, and reduced to a degradation which we must hope he has lost sense of. He is a slave of the worst kind, for his toil is a..."
| |
|
William Shakespeare's "Richard II" and "Henry IV", 2007.
This paper discuss the relationship between kingship and identity in William Shakespeare's plays "Richard II" and "Henry IV".
2,790 words (approx. 11.2 pages), 3 sources, APA, AU$ 108.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
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."
| |
|
"Richard III" and "Henry IV", 2007.
An analysis of the lying and cheating of the main characters in William Shakespeare's historical plays, "Richard III" and "Henry IV."
1,356 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 2 sources, MLA, AU$ 59.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses and analyzes William Shakespeare's historical plays, "Richard III" and "Henry IV." It discusses the characters of Richard III, formerly the Duke of Gloucester, and Falstaff, prince Hal's friend. The paper specifically focuses on their negative characteristics, such as lying and how they used lying to achieve their goals. The paper presents examples from both plays to illustrate the extent of each character's lying.
From the Paper
"During this conflict, Henry shows his bitterness at not having his eldest son, prince Hal to help him in the military matters. Hal is, at this time, with a group of rogues and villains who accompany him in his unlawful actions. Falstaff is the most famous of these, and seems to be Shakespeare's best known personification of falseness (a word from which his name is undoubtedly derived) lying and deceit. Falstaff uses dissembling as a means to achieve both fortune and fame, pretending even to have killed Hotspur in the battle. But even more so, he achieves through permanent lying to create almost a myth about himself, arguing through such skilled rhetoric that he even overtake Richard III, that honor and morality are of no use whatsoever and that they lose their value as soon as they are opposed to the only true thing there is: life."
| |
|
Richard Henry Tawney, 2002.
An overview of the life and work of of the British economic historian Richard Henry Tawney.
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 4 sources, AU$ 57.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This five-page undergraduate paper presents a biography of the British economic historian Richard Henry Tawney, focusing on his ideas and writings about socialism and capitalism and his influence on the British Labor Party. Tawney's two works "Equality" and "The British Labor Movement", and Ross Terrill's "R.H. Tawney and His Times" are cited.
| |
|
Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, 1994.
An examination of the nature of the relationship between the President and the Secretary of State, including personalities, major issues and resulting policies and the impact on U.S. foreign policy.
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 6 sources, AU$ 82.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"At least in modern times, no President and Secretary of State are more closely linked than Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. Technically, Kissinger was Secretary of State only during the latter part of Nixon's time in office, but William P. Rogers, who held the office in Nixon's earlier years, when Kissinger was National Security Advisor, made little impact at the time and is largely forgotten now.
Indeed, though it has been nearly two decades since Kissinger had any public position, he remains by far the bestknown of recent American secretaries of state. Likewise, Nixon stands out, after two decades, as for good or ill the most "important" of recent American presidents. He had a greater and more enduring impact on America and the world than any of his successors, or indeed, any of his predecessors since Harry..."
| |
|
Henry the Just or Henry the Strong, 2003.
A discussion of two film interpretations of Shakespeare's "King Henry the Fifth".
1,782 words (approx. 7.1 pages), 0 sources, AU$ 74.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Lawrence Olivier and Kenneth Branagh both produced film versions of Henry V, but they were both very different interpretations. This paper concentrates on Act I Scene I and discusses both directors' editing of the original play and how that affected the portrayal of "King Henry V".
From the Paper
"A good king is a moral one who listens to his advisors, who fights only just wars and who has overcome youthful wildness to emerge as a man ?full of grace and fair regard? (1.1.22). Or, a good king is a strong one who makes his own decisions, who fights any wars that benefit his country, and who has never had any youthful wildness to overcome. Shakespeare leaves the interpretation of his king in King Henry the Fifth to the audience, and Henry?s character has subsequently been performed in multiple ways. Lawrence Olivier and Kenneth Branagh both portray Henry as a good king in their screen adaptations of the play, but Olivier tends towards the former version of Henry as the morally just king and Branagh is more inclined to the latter version of Henry as the strong but immoral king."
| |
|
Henry Adams's "The Education of Henry Adams".
This paper reviews Henry Adams's "The Education of Henry Adams; Henry Adams was the grandson of John Quincy Adams and the great-grandson of John Adams.
1,770 words (approx. 7.1 pages), 0 sources, AU$ 74.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that Henry Adams's "The Education of Henry Adams" is subtitled as a biography, but doesn't actually tell the story of Henry Adams life; instead, it looks at how he developed his mental ideas and opinions based on historical, political, and philosophical contemplation of the things that were going on during his time. The author points out that, in the "The Education of Henry Adams," Adams places a great deal of criticism on himself and the entire world, which can be very satiric and biting, but there is warmth and humor contained within the book. The paper relates that one small downside to the book is that Adams appears to generalize everything to the point that it often appears he is lumping too many individuals together and does not allow various individual opinions to actually come through.
From the Paper
"Much of what the book has to offer, however, deals with the power that was had at the time by Christianity and the church and how this power was changed and forced into submission by Darwin's theory of evolution, and much of the power that technology had over individuals during that time. To discuss technology, Adams mentions the Paris exposition that he attended in 1900 and the dynamos that were present there. After he saw this type of technology coming to the front the also realized that Darwinism was causing so much chaos in the world and he felt that there was so much power in technology that the church was not able to withstand the onslaught."
| |
|
"King Henry IV" and "King Henry V", 2002.
Examines fraud, theatricality and politics in Shakespeare's "King Henry IV" (parts one and two) and "King Henry V".
3,930 words (approx. 15.7 pages), 18 sources, MLA, AU$ 139.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The falsification of the audience?s expectations and Hal?s miraculous emergence as a great English king, alongside the Hal-Falstaff relationship out of which the future king?s identity is gradually constructed, are the main critical puzzles in most studies of the William Shakespeare's "King Henry" series. The paper examines concepts of fraud and politics in parts one and two of "King Henry IV" and in "King Henry V". It discusses notions by literary critics such as Stephen who claim that Hal is one of Shakespeare?s most Machiavellian characters. The paper argues that Machiavelli?s Prince is not sufficiently cruel or sophisticated to be ranked with Prince Hal, despite the fact that Falstaff?s cry for help, voiced in his paradoxical accusation that the Prince has corrupted him, seldom succeeds in inverting the audience?s impression that Falstaff is Hal?s misleader.
From the Paper
"The concept of necessity, as it arises from the morality-patterned Phychomachia, reinforces providentialist notions, an idea first advanced by Tillyard but in a rather different context. Religious providentialism fuses the personal and political domains and Hal?s borrowing from the theatrical and diachronic anthropological deposit causes the interweaving of theatrical illusion with politics, thus displaying their common structural patterns. The fusion of religion, politics and theatre culminates in Hal?s gradual conversion to virtue, which is at once a milestone in Hal?s allegedly privileged relationship with God, a major political event, and a stock trick of Elizabethan drama."
| |
|
Henry IV, Parts I and II and Henry V, 1994.
An exploration of the development of the king from a wastrel Machiavellian youth to a mature moral and political leader.
1,575 words (approx. 6.3 pages), 6 sources, AU$ 72.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The three history plays by Shakespeare known as the Henriad are comprised of Henry IV: Part I, Henry IV: Part II, and Henry V. Richard III is actually the beginning of the historical sequence, but the three plays of the Henriad are concerned specifically with the development and ascension of Henry V (formerly Prince Hal) to the throne of England. In the course of the three plays, Prince Hal changes from a rather wastrel youth to a mature king, and in his development Henry becomes what would be considered a Christian rathe than a Machiavellian prince, dedicated to cetain principles rather than to the principle that how a king rules is in itself always right.
Throughout these plays, including Richard III, there is a search for national unity is found in Henry V:
The principal theme of Henry V, already approached in..."
| |
|
Henry the VIII, 2002.
A look at two historical perspectives of Henry the VIII in " Henry VIII: The King and His Court" by Alison Weir and "Henry VIII: The Mask of Royalty" by Lacey Smith.
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 2 sources, AU$ 57.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper will discuss the book "Henry VIII: The King and His Court" by Alison Weir, and the book "Henry VIII: The Mask of Royalty" by Lacey Smith, and seek to show how the first book gives us a clear look at the true Henry the VIII in action. By revealing the more Catholic and harsh view of Henry the VIII in Lacey's book, we find the Protestant reformer that is part of Weir's study to show his defiance to the Church of Rome. By pointing out both of the theories on the great King, we can see how Weir's book tells a more accurate story for Henry's rebellion against the Catholic Church.
| |
|
?In Richard's Time?, 2006.
A comparison of Shakespeare's "Richard II" and "Henry IV".
2,350 words (approx. 9.4 pages), 2 sources, MLA, AU$ 94.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares Shakespeare's uses time in his plays "Richard II" and "Henry IV". The paper shows that Richard's inability to use time to his advantage while he reigned led Bolingbroke to feel justified in deposing him. On the other hand, the paper demonstrates how Hal was extremely good at using his time -- in secret, to hone his battlefield skills -- and because of this, he is able to defeat Hotspur. Ultimately, the paper concludes that while Richard was a procrastinator and philosophizer and Hotspur was rash and impatient, they both come to the same end-that is, subsumed by time and death.
From the Paper
"Richard's reign is plagued with the consequences of his inaction, and although he attempts to dress his authority with powerful language, his lack of success at seeming to act makes him appear impotent, and therefore ripe for deposition. In the very first act of Richard II, we see Richard in the process of "staging" his power at court in a feeble attempt to resolve a dispute between Mowbray and Bolingbroke in which he, himself, is tacitly implicated. Richard certainly makes a show of being in control of the situation, but when the rhetoric between the two complainants becomes too hot, threatening to expose Richard's part in Glocester's death, Richard seems to be content to talk the two gentlemen down from their rage. It is a dangerous position to take, and it is not the first time that Richard has avoided this confrontation because we learn "[his] leisure would not let [him] hear" the dispute in the past. (Richard I.I)"
| |
|
The Struggle towards Unity in ?Henry IV?, 2004.
A look at how William Shakespeare, in his "Henry IV, Parts I and II", emphasizes the ideas of struggle and progress through his characterizations of Henry and Hal.
2,262 words (approx. 9.0 pages), 0 sources, MLA, AU$ 91.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines William Shakespeare's plays, "Henry IV, Parts I and II", and, in particular, looks at how Henry misjudges his son and cannot see that Hal, who is not guilty of usurpation and regicide, will be able to unite the now divided kingdom. It shows how Henry?s faults and strengths cause him to symbolically reflect the struggle for progress, represented by the bridge between the corruption of England during Richard II?s reign and the unity of Henry V?s kingdom. It also explores how, after the ?struggle? ceases and Henry IV dies, Prince Hal becomes King Henry V ,and the previously divided nation progresses by integration.
From the Paper
"Hal?s adoption of the commoners is best described by the Duke of Warwick when he says: ?The Prince but studies his companions, / Like a strange tongue? to gain the language?? (Pt. II, IV, iv, 76-78.) Hal is like a growing tree basking in the sun, Henry IV is the gardener who planted Hal?s seed, and the commoners form one of Hal?s developing branches. By growing into a man ?of all humors,? (Pt. I, II, iv, 89) Hal is becoming his entire nation in an individual form, which is symbolically what a king is. Hal has studied the commoners well and is able to both talk and think like them, as portrayed in Hal?s witty exchanges with Falstaff. Hal?s desire to adapt to the needs of the various peoples of his country foreshadows the harmony that will dominate England when he is king."
| |
|
?Henry V?, 2002.
A discussion of how William Shakespeare portrays his character of Henry V as the ideal king.
7,039 words (approx. 28.2 pages), 0 sources, AU$ 205.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at how in the play "Henry V", Shakespeare presents a portrayal of an ideal king and discusses the qualities that he possesses. It examines how Shakespeare uses the story as a tool to depict the qualities that an ideal king would possess and how he does this by showing Henry different situations to see Henry reacts to them. It also analyzes how Shakespeare also contrasts the difference between a good king and a good man since at time Henry is forced to do things for the good of the country that would in normal situations be considered wrong, unjust and immoral.
Outline
Introduction
Transition ? Prince Hal to King Henry
Learned
Just
Merciful
Charismatic and Inspiring
Focused and Dedicated
Heroic and Brave
Problems
The Man Behind the Crown
Conclusion
?Henry V? is not the only Shakespeare play that focuses on Kings and their qualities. Shakespeare, in his historical plays, has examined many different types of leaders, from Richard II, whom he shows to be a weak, indecisive king, struggling to keep control, to Richard III, portrayed as a homicidal tyrant who never let anything or anyone get in his way.
From the Paper
"In ?Henry IV part II? we see the prince Hal as unruly, wild, out of control, and with friends that would certainly not be considered good enough for a future king. However, at the beginning of Henry V King Henry is respectable, learned and completely different to his former self, they could almost be considered two different people entirely. The transition between these two different personalities is never fully explained, but it seems that the catalyst was his father death, and thus his inheritance of the throne and the responsibility of being King. Henry is forced to become a good king because the country needs a good king, and Henry is loyal to his country."
| |
|
Henry V, 2002.
This paper compares the real Henry V with Shakespeare's idolized version of Henry V, the hero king.
855 words (approx. 3.4 pages), 3 sources, AU$ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the great liberties that Shakespeare took in presenting his hero character. The paper states that the real Henry was neither handsome nor heroic. The paper compares Shakespeare's words about the love of his Henry and Katherine with the real king's marriage to Catherine, which was not one of romance but of convenience.
From the Paper
"The quarrels that Henry had with his father were not about his youthful zeal, but his excessive desire for power and funding for his misadventures. That he disliked his father for good reason probably cannot be denied as just as surely as the fruit speaks of the tree from which it came, so too does the health of the fruit indicate something of the tree."
| |
|
Prince Henry, 2005.
Examines the character development of Prince Henry in William Shakespeare's "Henry IV".
1,050 words (approx. 4.2 pages), 1 source, MLA, AU$ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Prince Henry is an excellent character study when it comes to lessons of maturity. This paper shows how Shakespeare paints the portrait of a character that grows from childhood pranks to admirable maturity in his play, "Henry IV". This paper examines this growth through quotes by the character and his interaction with other characters in the text.
From the Paper
"While Prince Henry may appear to be lackadaisical, it seems as though he is fully aware that his carefree days are numbered. In addition, he is setting himself up for a glorious transformation when he finally discovers his true and noble self later in the play. However, it is important to note that while Prince Henry says these things and is apparently aware of them he must still live up to this reputation--something he is not quite ready to do at this point. This passage also provides insight into the overall world of the play in that Prince Henry, as well as everyone else, is aware that he will be king someday."
| |
|
Ministers of Henry VIII, 2002.
A discussion on how well Henry VIII was served by his ministers, focusing on the roles of Wolsey and Cromwell, with a brief look at the lesser lights of Henry's reign, More, Fox, Warham and Gardiner.
2,540 words (approx. 10.2 pages), 4 sources, MLA, AU$ 99.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The following paper examines how well Wolsey and Cromwell supported Henry's ambitions to be a great and grand king. The writer argues that Wolsey's role was to administer, whereas Cromwell reformed and created, and it was mainly due to his efforts that the reign of Henry VIII is seen as a critical point in the transition from medieval to modern government.
From the Paper
"A succession of ministers served Henry VIII during his reign, although today only two, possibly three, names come to mind. Cardinal Wolsey and Thomas Cromwell were the two pre-eminent servants of Henry's reign with others such as Fox, Warham and Gardiner taking a lesser role. Sir Thomas More is possibly better known today for a modern play about him than for what he achieved in three years as Lord Chancellor after Wolsey's fall."
|
|
|
