| Papers [1-16] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "KING RICHARD II": |
|
|
The Tragedy of King Richard II, 2004.
A look at the reasons behind Williams Shakespeare's King Richard II's downfall and how he develops as a stage character.
978 words (approx. 3.9 pages), 4 sources, MLA, AU$ 52.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper questions the reasons for King Richard II's demise, whether he was to blame, whether he was irresponsible and whether it was a sin to kill him. It reflects upon these issues and also discusses if whether despite his downfall brought about by his own actions, Richard grows as a character in the end.
From the Paper
"King Richard is not a man of action and as the play advances and he gets into more and more trouble, his end approaches and he becomes most poetic of all. He shows himself to be a poet and a dreamer. At Flint castle he asks Aumerle ??.Shall we call back Northumberland, and send Defiance to the traitor, and so die?? And Aumerle replies? No, good my lord; let's fight with gentle words?? This is also an example of another cause of King Richard?s downfall. He surrounded himself with flatterers and poor advisors. Richard ignores the only sound advice he gets from Gaunt?s death bed and even wishes that the doctor would quicken his death so that he can seize Gaunt?s land."
| |
|
King Richard and Prospero, 2004.
An analysis of discourse between the characters, King Richard II and Prospero, in plays by William Shakespeare.
1,453 words (approx. 5.8 pages), 2 sources, MLA, AU$ 73.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
When considering matters of discourse in William Shakespeare?s plays, "The Tragedy of King Richard II" and "The Tempest", King Richard displays stronger leadership skills because he always speaks with eloquence. King Richard speaks with a grace and style that cannot be matched by Prospero. This paper examines how speech is an important part of how a leader is perceived through King Richard and Prospero.
From the Paper
"This soliloquy also illustrates how Richard has come to terms with the fact that he is not destined to be king, as he once believed. He has resigned himself to the fact of how he must live out the rest of his life. This soliloquy is beautiful and heart wrenching. It is through Richard?s speeches that Shakespeare is able to make Richard stand out. King Richard would be an ideal candidate for any political position in the world today. He was always able to deliver moving speeches and this is a valuable asset to any king. In fact, it is proof that a man?s words can carry him far even if they cannot save his life."
| |
|
"Richard II", 2002.
A review of William Shakespeare's "Richard II" as a tragedy of a king and of a society and its way of life.
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 1 source, AU$ 67.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains why "Richard II" is the tragedy of a king in which the personal element is completely insignificant. The action of this play has very little to do with human motives; instead, inexorable circumstances determine the outcomes.
| |
|
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$ 126.95
»
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."
| |
|
Thomas of Woodstock in "Richard II", 2005.
An examination of the importance of Thomas of Woodstock in Shakespeare's "Richard II".
675 words (approx. 2.7 pages), 1 source, AU$ 40.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper describes how Thomas of Woodstock (the Duke of Gloucester) has been assassinated, before William Shakespeare's "Richard II" even begins. The paper elaborates that, despite being relegated to a back-story character, Thomas of Woodstock is mentioned early and often, en route to becoming the key symbol foreshadowing the downfall of King Richard II himself. This brief essay discusses the importance of Thomas of Woodstock to the play and to the audience.
From the Paper
"Before William Shakespeare's Richard II begins, Thomas of Woodstock (the Duke of Gloucester) has been assassinated. However, despite being relegated to a back-story character, Thomas of Woodstock is mentioned early and often, en route to becoming the key symbol foreshadowing the downfall of King Richard II himself. Thomas of Woodstock (not to be confused with one his supposed killers, Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk) has died suspiciously long before the opening of Richard II."
| |
|
"Richard II", 2003.
An analysis of the Globe Theatre's production of William Shakespeare's "Richard II" looking at interpretations of the play and the politics it embodies.
1,491 words (approx. 6.0 pages), 4 sources, MLA, AU$ 75.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper provides a personal interpretation the all original all-male production of William Shakespeare's "Richard II" at the restored Globe Theatre in London. Through an examination of the text, references, humour and pathos in the interaction of the characters, it looks at the transformation of the weak, arrogant monarch into the pathos-filled figure of the defeated king that is the centre around which the story revolves.
From the Paper
"The historical walls around the play, the political background that serves to propel to plot forward is, in its way, nothing but that: mere background, a canvass onto which Richard?s tragedy is painted in rich hues. And yet, I must hasten to add that this interpretation is not absolute: rather, it is my perception of the way the Globe production interpreted Richard II, and therefore it is that interpretation that I would argue for in this paper. As Brooker notes, ?while any number of valid interpretations is possible ? and so the celebration of these multiple readings for their own sake is misguided ? these various, contradictory meanings need to be argued for and supported if they are to extend beyond the microsphere of the individual reading.?"
| |
|
King Richard I, 2004.
An overview of the life and reign of King Richard I of England.
2,813 words (approx. 11.3 pages), 6 sources, MLA, AU$ 126.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how King Richard I made significant progress during his reign in England and how, while he was king, he succeeded in gaining land for the Christians. It shows how he led the Third Crusade with great compassion and wisdom and how he was able to think in different ways in regards to strategy, which allowed him to conquer land and earn the respect of many. It also shows how his efforts allowed the Christians a safe pilgrimage to Jerusalem and how the land he conquered gave England strategic territory.
From the Paper
"The Third Crusade is known as King Richard?s ?great chivalrous episode.? 11 as well as the most ?bloody and brutal? 12 of the eight crusades. Philip Augustus also took part in this Crusade. The two behaved like friends in public but were actually rivals. Despite the fact that Richard's expedition did not free the Holy Sepulcher, it did allow him the opportunity to demonstrate his courage. 13 This situation forced Richard and Saladin to come together and agree to put an end to the fighting. While they were negotiating, Saladin began to respect Richard. He even said that Richard was a ?man of honour and very brave . . . he plunges into the midst of danger and in his reckless indifference to his own safety.? 14 Indeed, Richard always displayed courage in the face of fear."
| |
|
"Richard II", 2003.
An examination of the themes of maternity, power, and history in William Shakespeare's "Richard II".
2,734 words (approx. 10.9 pages), 2 sources, MLA, AU$ 123.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper argues that, although few female characters appear in Shakespeare's "Richard II", and though the world of the play appears extremely masculine, the idea of motherhood, in fact, exerts considerable power throughout the play. It analyzes how the feminine experience of motherhood and maternity informs the rhetoric of patriotism and power in the play, thereby structuring the way that history is created and represented within it.
From the Paper
"Queen Isabella is certainly the most tragic female character in Richard II; for most of the play (most saliently in scene 2.1) she is, as Holderness notes, ?a virtually silent, self-effacing character, who is also ignored by everyone else in the room, virtually as an absence, a non-existence? (170). When she speaks, her words often seem as vague and unfocused as the sense of sorrow that haunts her; entering the garden with her attendants and asking ?What sport shall we devise here in this garden/To drive away the heavy tough of care? (3.4.1-2), then stubbornly refusing every ?sport,? the Queen seems silly and childlike if not altogether mad, a pathetic Ophelia-like creature addled by grief. The Queen?s speech in 2.2, though, is both eloquent and thematically significant, and its engagement with the issue of maternity is fascinating."
| |
|
William Shakespeare?s ?Othello? and ?King Richard III?, 2003.
This paper compares William Shakespeare?s villains, Iago from ?Othello? and Richard III from ?King Richard III?.
1,490 words (approx. 6.0 pages), 6 sources, APA, AU$ 75.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper relates that Shakespeare?s primary intent in ?Othello? was to develop the villainous character of Iago, whose motives are represented as being highly complex and ambiguous, but villainous in the extreme. The author points out that Richard is shown to be a villain of the highest caliber, whose power-mad lust for the crown compels him to confirm his claim that, ?I am determined to prove a villain?. The paper concludes that Shakespeare portrays Iago and Richard in much the same light, as sociopaths who view others as merely objects representing obstacles in their path to fame and glory, which makes them villains by any definition.
From the Paper
"However, much like Richard, Iago?s ambition is the source of his villainy rather than his resentment at being overlooked for promotion, sexual jealousy or the racial prejudice he had consistently faced; rather: ?A man motivated by simple jealously and hatred would have no such need. He is not inspired by pure evil and desire to torment Othello either. In reality, Iago?s main motivation, born out of an inferiority complex, is a desire to heighten his sense of superiority and power.? According to Agrawal, Samuel Coleridge?s phrase, ?. . . motive hunting of motiveless malignity,? may best describe Iago?s strange actions and behavior. ?Motive hunting? exactly describes Iago?s soliloquies. He continuously ponders over and tries to understand his emotions. It is clear that he wants to torment and destroy Othello. However, he is not sure of the motivations underlying that desire.? "
| |
|
Richard II: A King?s Demise, 2002.
A review of the demise of the king in William Shakespeare's "Richard II".
1,906 words (approx. 7.6 pages), 1 source, MLA, AU$ 91.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper argues that the demise of William Shakespeare's "Richard II" was not due to Bolingbroke's invasion of England but due to Richard's own failings to act as an appropriate king. It develops the idea that Richard's character failures, his passivity and inability to act decisively, result in his loss of kingship. It examines how his numerous failures as king, such as his disconnection from his people and land, contribute to his removal form the throne. It shows that despite Bolingbroke's presence in the play, Richard's downfall is ultimately his own doing.
From the Paper
"William Shakespeare?s Richard II, is the dramatic portrayal of a king?s downfall. The action of the play surrounds the deposition of an anointed but unworthy king, Richard II. Although he is stately and poetic, he fails miserably in his public role as a king because he is disconnected from his land and its people. Consequently, he is overthrown by his cousin Bolingbroke and eventually assassinated. However, despite Bolingbroke?s connection to Richard?s removal from the throne, Richard?s fall ultimately is a result of his own inability to perform the duties of kingship. His continuous passivity and readiness to succumb to despair prove to be his definitive weaknesses and result in his final defeat. Richard is not fit to be king."
| |
|
The Ideal King, 2002.
An examination of the concept of a good king as portrayed in William Shakespeare's plays "Richard II", "Richard II"I and "Henry V".
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 3 sources, AU$ 67.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper analyzes the ideal of a good king as presented by Shakespeare in "Richard II", "Richard II"I and "Henry V" and discusses to what extent these kings fulfilled the ideal. The reasons for the discrepancy between the ideal and the real are examined as well, as is the question of whether morality has any place in the game of power politics.
| |
|
King Saul and King David, 2006.
An analysis of the leadership of the first and second kings of the kingdom of Israel, King Saul and King David.
2,776 words (approx. 11.1 pages), 9 sources, MLA, AU$ 125.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares the leadership styles and abilities of King Saul and King David and explains how they were different as well as why it is King David's reign that is considered the golden era of the Kingdom of Israel.
From the Paper
"It is almost as if, and maybe there is some reality in it, that Saul had a dual personality. One which could love God with all his heart, but then another that was fanatical enough to kill others for no real reason, or disobey God so radically. One moment he could be proud of David, the next he would be jealous enough to kill him. Today he would be called pathological since he was abnormally defensive and over-reactive. He had the potential to be a great leader one that Israel and Heaven could be perpetually proud but instead he became a terrible figure who died a rejected man at his own hand, a victim of his own self-will."
| |
|
?Oedipus the King? and ?Death and the King?s Horseman?, 2002.
An analysis of two literary works, comparing the nature of parenthood as portrayed through the characters of the plays.
1,480 words (approx. 5.9 pages), 2 sources, MLA, AU$ 73.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the relationship of parents and children in Sophocles "Oedipus the King" and Wole Soyinka?s "Death and the King?s Horseman". The writer describes how Sophocles allows Oedipus? theme of parentage full stage in the play, while in Soyinka?s work, Elesin?s son, Olunde, contributes to the plot throughout the play.
From the Paper
"Although written some two thousand years apart, both ?Oedipus the King? and ?Death and the King?s Horseman? deal with a father?s shame and ultimate fate as a social outcast. One is a king, the other a king?s horseman, yet both are equally men of honor and social standing, bound by customs, cultures, and spiritual beliefs in the afterlife. There are no true villains in either play. The characters are simply human, with human frailties and vanities, but appear good at heart with good intentions. The nature of parenthood is important in each author?s theme. Sophocles?s Oedipus and Wole Soyinka?s Elesin are both fathers who inadvertently cast shame not only unto themselves, but to their children as well. Moreover, both fathers are concerned with the fates and their own personal role in fulfilling their place in this life and the life beyond death. Sophocles?s play centers on Oedipus? parentage, discovering in the end that he has unwittingly killed his own father and committed incest with his mother."
| |
|
Shakespeare's Kings, 2006.
A comparison between William Shakespeare's characters of Richard II and King Henry IV.
1,600 words (approx. 6.4 pages), 2 sources, MLA, AU$ 79.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines two of Shakespeare's historical kings: Richard II and King Henry IV. The paper argues that Richard II was a king by divine right, whereas Henry IV was a Machiavellian king. The paper first assesses Richard's rule: he was not loved by his people or by those who served him; he did not earn his kingship, did not respect it and did not do anything in order to keep it. The paper contrasts this to King Henry IV, who was completely aware of his kingship and what he had to do to keep it; he acted aggressive, decisive and proactive. The paper then demonstrates how the characterization of these two kings demonstrates Shakespeare's unique ability to capture the diversity of humanity and create believable characters. The paper concludes that Shakespeare proves that kings are just like the rest of us--some of them capable and some of them negligent beyond belief. The paper quotes from both plays in order to supports its theses.
From the Paper
"Richard II was a king by the divine right of kings and we only need to look at his actions to determine this fact. He would have never earned his kingship had it not been something that was given to him by right of his birth. In short, Richard is a bad king with no real vision. He never takes time to learn what it means to be king and, as a result, does not care about the responsibilities that come along with the title of being king. To make matters worse, he breaks laws and traditions that are essential to his own kingship and his bad behavior forces those under him to feel helpless, hopeless, and without direction. He does not care for the people and while he may have been an intelligent man, he was not strong in the way that a king needs to be strong. Undoubtedly, King Richard's strongest and best characteristic was his eloquence."
| |
|
Shakespeare's History Plays, 2002.
Looks at the similarities and differences in three of William Shakespeare's plays - "King Henry IV", "Richard II" and "Richard III".
1,876 words (approx. 7.5 pages), 3 sources, AU$ 91.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
By analyzing "King Henry IV", "The Tragedy of King Richard III" and "The Tragedy of King Richard II", the paper shows that the underlying message in Shakespeare's history plays seems to be that kings who are extreme in their execution of power provide a representation of a weak and vulnerable monarchy, whereas kings who apply a modicum of moderation to their exercise of power provide a representation of a strong and indestructible monarchy. The paper shows that King Henry IV is the epitome of a successful ruler, in the simple fact that he manages to remain alive at the end of the play and do what is best for the country and its people by continuing to fight the rebel armies until they have lost the ongoing battle with the monarch. This in and of itself suggests that he is able to find a delicate balance between being overly powerful and yielding to others under pressure. The paper shows, on the other hand, that King Richard II is unable to exert any power whatsoever, partly due to his fear of confrontation and partly due to his overwhelmingly pathological view of himself as being a Christ figure. It shows that Richard III is, as well, equally unsuccessful as a ruler because he exerts too much power as a result of a delusional likeness with Richard II?s antithesis, Satan.
From the Paper
"Likewise, Richard III also holds himself in very delusional esteem, though it is expressed in a different manner than with Richard II. Like Richard II, Richard III believes he is worthy of the throne despite being, by definition, an illegitimate ruler. However, this misleading conviction triggers murderous ?[p]lots [he has] laid? (I.i.32), including the murder of his brother Clarence, the murder of King Edward?s sons (including the heir to the throne, the Prince of Wales), and an incestuous scheme to marry the late King?s daughter, Elizabeth, in order to seem more fitting to be king. Undoubtedly, he believes wholeheartedly that he has been rejected and/or cheated by God, and that he is deserving of the kingship. His belief system allows his mental health to shatter in such a manner that leads way to an excessive use of force and power in order to obtain the things he so desires. His own delusional belief system leads the reader to deem it likely that Richard III is as much a Satan figure as Richard II is a Christ figure. The extreme self-views held by each of these kings guide them to act in highly radical manners that are not at all conducive to governing a successful monarchy."
| |
|
"Richard III", "Coriolanus" and "King John", 1999.
Examines portrayals of children in Shakespeare's plays and their role in the development of ideas, action and characters.
3,150 words (approx. 12.6 pages), 7 sources, AU$ 169.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
"The purpose of this research is to examine the portrayals of children in Shakespeare's Richard III, Coriolanus, and King John. The plan of the research will be to set forth the pattern of ideas in each of the plays as they relate to role of children in the action and then to discuss internal evidence of the plays that suggests how Shakespeare feels about children and the narrative and thematic uses to which he puts them in order to make clear the motivations and behavior of the various adult characters.
From the Paper
"The purpose of this research is to examine the portrayals of children in Shakespeare's Richard III, Coriolanus, and King John. The plan of the research will be to set forth the pattern of ideas in each of the plays as they relate to role of children in the action and then to discuss internal evidence of the plays that suggests how Shakespeare feels about children and the narrative and thematic uses to which he puts them in order to make clear the motivations and behavior of the various adult characters.
It is not difficult to identify Shakespeare's portrayals of children as symbols of innocence and trust, as well as of truths that either cannot be or deliberately are not articulated by the adults who surround them. This does not necessarily mean that they are wiser than adults or even aware that they are agents of ..."
|
|
|
