| Papers [1-16] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "HENRY IV": |
|
|
"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$ 157.95
»
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."
| |
|
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$ 122.95
»
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."
| |
|
William Shakespeare's "King Henry the IV, Part I", 2008.
Looks at the treatment of women in William Shakespeare's "King Henry the IV, Part I".
920 words (approx. 3.7 pages), 1 source, MLA, AU$ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the apparent roles and functions of women in William Shakespeare's "King Henry the IV, Part I". Specifically, the paper looks at the impact of women upon other characters and whether or not their roles should have been different and, if so, how they should have been different. The paper contends that Shakespeare accurately captures the gender divisions of his age but fails to highlight the central contribution of Henry IV's first wife, Mary de Bohun, in the establishment of this man as a powerful king over a flourishing empire.
From the Paper
"One other thing that becomes evident is that much of the play is about men seeking power - about them accruing titles or lands, in short. As a result, by as early as Act 1, Scene 3, it is fairly clear, at least as we listen to Hotspur denounce the Prince of Wales and "Bolingbroke" (Henry IV), that power in fourteenth century England is a "man's thing" and that women are only referenced in these matters if they are bearing children who may become lineal descendants to a throne or baronetcy or if the behavior of one nobleman or another is so intemperate that he is described by his colleagues as a "woman" who cannot hold his tongue or think rationally."
| |
|
"Hamlet" and "Henry IV", 2002.
A look at father-son relationships in the Shakespearean plays, "Hamlet" and "Henry IV".
2,430 words (approx. 9.7 pages), 10 sources, MLA, AU$ 108.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This is a paper on father-son relationships in "Hamlet" and "Henry IV" part 1. The author analyzes this relationship in detail looking at the characters and how they impact the type of relationship that develops. The paper contends that while the relationship in "Hamlet" revolves around respect, in "Henry IV", the relationship is more about power.
From the Paper
?Hamlet, the young prince, so loved and venerated the memory of his dead father, almost amounting to idolatry, and had such a nice sense of honor and propriety, that he is taken aback when his mother, Gertrude, Queen of Denmark, marries his uncle, his father?s brother, within two month of the King?s death. All the more so because Claudius in no ways resembled the King in the qualities of either mind or appearance. He was as contemptible in outward appearance as he was base and unworthy in disposition.?
| |
|
"Henry IV", 2003.
An analysis of the father-son conflict in William Shakespeare's "Henry IV".
2,445 words (approx. 9.8 pages), 0 sources, MLA, AU$ 108.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how in "Henry IV", Shakespeare handles, among other human relationships, the disharmony that often arises between parent and child as the latter begins to grow up. It is a difficult time in any walk of life; but strained relationships between a reigning sovereign, of either sex and the heir to the throne seem almost Oedipal in nature. It examines how the attitude of Henry IV to his son is to some extent the result of the peculiar conditions of his own accession since he usurped the throne from Richard II, whom he subsequently murdered. It looks at how thus his reign and all his actions are overhung with the consciousness both of personal guilt and of insecurity of tenure and how he constantly misunderstands his son.
From the Paper
"The insurrection of the Percies causes the King to summon the Price of Wales, so that he can find out exactly where he stands and if he can be made use of in this crisis which threatens the newly established dynasty; and we are prepared by an interview, by Sir John Bracy?s summons, which interrupts the fun at the Boar?s head, and by Falstaff and Hal themselves, who rehearse the scene in comic anticipation. His Majesty begins with bitter chiding, as Falstaff prophesied he would. He hints at the affair with the Lord Chief Justice and speaks of the lost seat at the Council and the banishment from court. However, the King?s real complaint is that Hal has made himself look cheap in the eyes of men, which is the last thing the representative of a family with a doubtful title to the thrown should do."
| |
|
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$ 103.95
»
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."
| |
|
Shakespeare's "Henry IV", 2000.
A discussion of the concept of honor in Shakespeare's play, "Henry IV".
1,836 words (approx. 7.3 pages), 4 sources, AU$ 85.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
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.
| |
|
"Hamlet" and "Henry IV", 2004.
A comparison of the opening scenes of two Shakespearean plays,"Hamlet" and "Henry IV".
1,325 words (approx. 5.3 pages), 2 sources, MLA, AU$ 65.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In considering Shakespeare?s plays, it can often be seen that they are written to specific formulas. This is most clearly seen in the tragic plays, where the action of the plays is based on the fatal flaw of a character, leading to the tragic ending. The paper discusses that, while these similarities are obvious ones, there are also less obvious similarities. One of these similarities occurs in the opening scenes of the plays, where Shakespeare often introduces the characters and the events in similar ways. These similarities are discussed by focusing on two plays, "Hamlet" and "Henry IV". For both plays, the two opening acts are described, followed by a discussion of the similarities and the differences.
From the Paper
"Act I, Scene I of Hamlet opens with the changing of the castle guards, where the guards see the ghost of the former king. An air of tension is created as Horatio states that the appearance of the ghost suggests ?some strange eruption to our state? (I,i 69). The discussion then also introduces the recent events for the state including the death of the previous king, and the appointment of the new king. With this information, the changing of the guard as the opening is given new relevance, since the change of kings also represents a changing of the guard. These elements combine to create a sense of unease. At this point, it is not known what the exact problem is with Denmark, but there is a sense that something is wrong."
| |
|
William Shakespeare?s "Henry IV", 2005.
This paper discusses the character of Falstaff in William Shakespeare's "Henry IV".
1,385 words (approx. 5.5 pages), 4 sources, MLA, AU$ 68.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the character of Falstaff, in William Shakespeare's "Henry IV" is a completely independent organism; he is both a child, who needs nursing, and a mother, who gives nursing, which renders him emotionally self-sufficient. The author points out that Falstaff has no sense of history; he is devoid of the peripheral vision of past or future that tends to de-emphasize the present; thus, Falstaff lives like nature because he is not fiscally bound to dependence, conscious of himself or a partaker in history. The paper relates that Falstaff never fully believes in honor, but he does see practical value in wearing its mask, having a title, to the point that he will lie about killing Hotspur to have it.
From the Paper
"Nature is self-sufficient; it is a perfect organism that harbors everything it needs to prevail within itself. By contrast, civilization is dependent on the dismembering and itemization of nature, the trade of which is its foundation; civilization persists on supply and necessitates demand -- "nature falls into revolt / when gold becomes her object" (2.IV.v.65-6). Nature, in its undivided essence, cannot be self-conscious; it is boundless, and as such, has no foreign counter-point with which to ascertain itself. Nature is not conscious of itself because conscious auto-determinacy necessitates spatiotemporal terminus. Civilization, on the other hand, sanctions self-consciousness by forcing a divide within its subjects; paying heed to their individual limits, what they lack, humans are able to procure demand and develop supply."
| |
|
"Henry IV", 2001.
The following paper examines Shakespeare?s "King Henry IV", focusing on Elizabethan stage scenery, Elizabethan period acting and the historical accuracy of the play.
1,940 words (approx. 7.8 pages), 8 sources, MLA, AU$ 89.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explores the history of the technical production of "Henry IV", Part I and examines some of the historical sources from which Shakespeare obtained his historical information.
From the Paper
"Most believe that the Elizabethan stage was rather bare by modern standards. It is a popular opinion that the actions and dialogue of the actors mainly dressed the stage. By modern technological standards this may be true. However records from the Revels Office indicate that scenery was quite elaborate at times and special attention was given to detail. We must draw our conclusions about staging and scenery in Elizabethan stage performances from descriptions written at the time. One of the earliest plays of which we have a description of the scenery is ?Edwardes tragedy.? It was produced in Whitehall in 1564."
| |
|
Shakespeare's "Titus Andronicus" and "Henry IV", 2006.
A look at how Shakespeare was influenced by medieval dramaturgy when he wrote "Titus Andronicus" and "Henry IV".
2,250 words (approx. 9.0 pages), 4 sources, AU$ 130.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines two plays by William Shakespeare, "Titus Andronicus" and "Henry IV", and details how each is indebted to medieval dramaturgy. To begin with the paper starts by reviewing the pyramidal construction of Shakespeare's "Titus Andronicus" and how this organization of the plot owes much to earlier medieval plays. Among other things the paper suggests that the play arrangement and sequence serves not only to heighten audience interest in the stage play but also serves to stoke the desire of theater goers to vicariously participate in the final denouement through a desire to see the wrong doers punished.
From the Paper
"The following paper examines two plays by William Shakespeare - Titus Andronicus and Henry IV - and details how each is indebted to medieval dramaturgy. To begin with, the paper starts by reviewing the "pyramidal construction" of Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus and how this organization of the plot owes much to earlier medieval plays. Among other things, the paper will suggest that the play's arrangement and sequence serves not only to heighten audience interest in the stage play but also serves to stoke the desire of theater-goers to vicariously participate in the final denouement (through a desire to see the wrong-doers punished). Beyond that, the play's pyramidal organization allows Shakespeare to also express in more subtle fashion his own classical sensibilities. Proceeding onward, the second part of the paper will be devoted to exploring Henry IV and how the "stock..."
| |
|
"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$ 66.95
»
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."
| |
|
"Henry IV, Part One", 2002.
This paper analyzes a critical passage in Shakespeare's "Henry IV, Part One".
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 1 source, AU$ 64.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the passage in Shakespeare's "Henry IV, Part One" in which Falstaff jokingly assumes the throne in a repartee with Prince Hal. The author points out how this scene is crucial in the development of the play. The author believes that it marks the point when Hal decides he must abandon the company of men like Falstaff and develop his own set of ideals.
| |
|
"Measure for Measure" & "Henry IV Part I", 2006.
A comparison of two of Shakespeare's plays, "Measure for Measure" and "Henry IV Part I".
1,300 words (approx. 5.2 pages), 0 sources, AU$ 63.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper analyzes, compares and contrasts the plots and protagonists of two of Shakespeare's plays, "Measure for Measure" and "Henry IV Part I". The author asserts that in these two plays, strong character is defined not by who is more right, but rather by the ability to become more than the sum of one's faults. The author concentrates his analysis on secondary characters, who, despite being fault-ridden, are endearing to the audience for their humor and steadfastness. The paper concludes that Shakespeare's ultimate point is that while all people are flawed, the test of their character is whether they are molded by these flaws -- or overcome them.
From the Paper
"In both of these plays, these people may be questionable or shady characters that often are crude or have abominable habits, they may be people of power and prominence, or they may be just average, everyday citizens. Simply put, they all have faults of their own. Yet, the audience can't help but find them endearing, and the protagonists find that their ability to overcome their faults has a lot to do with the help they receive from these characters. Furthermore, the inability of the antagonists to overcome their vulnerabilities also has something to do with these characters."
| |
|
Falstaff in "Henry IV", 2007.
A discussion of the figure Falstaff in Shakespeare's "Henry IV".
1,297 words (approx. 5.2 pages), 4 sources, MLA, AU$ 63.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explores the role and character of Falstaff in Shakespeare's play "Henry IV". The paper acknowledges Falstaff's role as comic relief and his part in Prince Harry's life. This friendship is considered in the paper as well. Several opinions of Falstaff from noted Shakespeare experts are presented along with the writer's view of this character. The paper concludes by stating Falstaff was a necessary figure in the play because he was the only character with whom Prince Harry spoke candidly and often truthfully.
From the Paper
"Falstaff made life exciting for Prince Harry, and he was fun to be around. His character is in sharp contrast with the nobility which will be Harry's companions at court when he becomes King, and seems to be quite dishonest by comparison. However, in some ways, he is truer than any of the noblemen, because he is quite candid concerning his own self interest. It is not that he does not lie. He does, in the last scene of Act II, when he tells about how he and his companions were robbed by other highwaymen after capturing their prize, "All! I know not what you call all; but if I fought not with fifty of them, I am a bunch of radish: if there were not two or three and fifty upon poor old Jack, then am I no two-legged creature." Harry and Poins were, of course, the robbers who fell on them as a practical joke, and they all fled immediately. As Falstaff tells the tale and answers questions the lies become more and more exaggerated."
| |
|
"Henry IV", 2002.
The following paper examines Shakespeare?s ?King Henry IV?, focusing on Elizabethan stage scenery, Elizabethan period acting and the historical accuracy of the play.
1,940 words (approx. 7.8 pages), 8 sources, MLA, AU$ 89.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explores the history of the technical production of "Henry IV", Part I as well as exploring some of the historical sources from which Shakespeare obtained his historical information.
From the Paper
?Most believe that the Elizabethan stage was rather bare by modern standards. It is a popular opinion that the actions and dialogue of the actors mainly dressed the stage. By modern technological standards this may be true. However records from the Revels Office indicate that scenery was quite elaborate at times and special attention was given to detail. We must draw our conclusions about staging and scenery in Elizabethan stage performances from descriptions written at the time. One of the earliest plays of which we have a description of the scenery is ?Edwardes tragedy.?
|
|
|
