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 "KingHenry" series. The paper examines concepts of fraud and politics in parts one and two of "KingHenry IV" and in "KingHenry 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."
Abstract This paper examines two of Shakespeare's historical kings: Richard II and KingHenry 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 KingHenry 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."
Abstract This paper explains that, by naming his Chancellor and friend, Thomas Becket, to be Archbishop of Canterbury, KingHenry II created the devastating conflict between these men, which affected not only the English monarchy, but also the country of England itself. The author points out that KingHenry II's reign can be broken down into three specific events: (1) his endeavors to reconstruct the England of his grandfather, which started his quarrel with Becket; (2) his efforts to develop the legal machinery of his grandfather and create a new foundation for English government, which was soon thwarted by Becket; and (3) his vain attempts to resolve the problems of governing a difficult empire and controlling an unruly family by placing his sons in a position as sub-rulers in the empire.
From the Paper "King Henry II (1154-1189) was obviously one of the most remarkable and tragic figures in English history. A great amount of information is known about him, for he lived and reigned during an age when it was common to observe about the monarchy through oral and written records, especially when a king such as Henry II was popular with contemporary society. However, a good deal of his subjects hated him and his numerous enemies found him too intelligent and overwhelming; those that were close to him, such as Thomas Becket, feared his occasional outbursts of great anger and were often exasperated by his unpredictable reactions to certain situations within his realm and his family."
Abstract This paper examines the use of legitimacy as a theme in the play, "KingHenry IV," by William Shakespeare. The paper includes a discussion of the legitimacy of the king and his rule, as a well as a close look at Prince Hal. The paper contends that Henry's legitimacy becomes the center of all of the major crises in the play and, thus, is a major and binding theme.
From the Paper "From the moment Shakespeare's play 1 King Henry IV opens, the legitimacy of King Henry's crown is a major theme throughout the play. Not only does it become the justification of the Percys and others violent revolts against Henry, but it can also be used to explain the disobedient acts carried out by Hal, King Henry's son and heir to the throne. King Henry's usurpation of the throne and act of regicide lead to consequences that will spoil his reign illegitimate."
Abstract This paper examines the apparent roles and functions of women in William Shakespeare's "KingHenry 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."
Tags: power children, first wife, rogues marginalized
Abstract This paper examines KingHenry 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."
Abstract This paper presents a character analysis of Henry and Hal, two of the main characters in Shakespeare's play, "KingHenry IV", and shows how Shakespeare, by comparing and contrasting these two characters, was able to display the attitudes of both the nobility and the commoners and foreshadow Hal's ability to become a stable, successful ruler.
From the Paper "Hal's feelings towards his father reflect the feelings of the commoners towards the king. Hal's soliloquy, ?I know you all...? (I, ii 183-205) reveals Hal's moral awareness and scorn towards the character he has used to disguise his true frustration with the standards that the king has disgraced. A noble and virtuous young man deliberately masquerading as a dissolute prodigal, Hal is not likely to overlook the deep moral blemishes in his father nor the hypocrisy of Henry IV's assumption of rightful kingship. However, as the King's subject and heir, Hal is denied all means of expressing his contempt for the dishonorable means by which Henry IV has maintained and stolen power. By showing contempt for the king, Hal would be following the example of Henry IV's disloyal behavior towards Richard II, and siding with the rebels who now challenge Henry IV's fitness to rule."
Tags: overthrew, richard, ii, stability, nation, scorn, prodigal, son, dishonorable, stolen, maintained, power
Abstract This paper will discuss the elements of historical perception that are revealed in KingHenry the VIII by William Shakespeare. By examining historical text, which Shakespeare used to bring history to life, we can see the unreliability of literary and historical textual proofs for history within this play.
Abstract This paper discusses how Shakespeare focuses on the fact that honor can means different things to different people, and it can also be regarded as less than virtuous in some minds. It shows how Shakespeare clarifies the definition of honor in "KingHenry", but he leaves the issue muddy in "Measure for Measure". He leaves us with personalities that may not seem be honorable ultimately being the most honorable of all. It is such characters that have made Shakespeare unmatched in his skill.
From the Paper "Isabella becomes the focus of honor and "doing the right thing" in Shakespeare's ?Measure for Measure.? During the course of the play, she is propositioned by three different men to break her vows and go against her conscious. Her honor is important to her, and she does not accept Angelo's proposal. In fact, she is forthright in her initial reaction to Angelo's request. In other words, she knows what he is all about. Even as Angelo begs Isabella to "Believe me, on mine honor,/My words express my purpose" (II.iv.46-7). She responds, ?Ha! Little honor to be much believed,/And most pernicious purpose! Seeming, seeming!? (II.iv.49-50). This scene helps us appreciate Isabella because she knows the right thing to do, despite what it means for her brother. She declares she will, "live chaste, and, brother, die:/More than our brother is our chastity" (II.iv.185-6). She is disgusted by the attitudes that surround her and to remove herself from it, she decides to enter a convent."
Abstract This paper examines the perspective of the common man in William Shakespeare's "Henry V" through the character of Pistol. The paper compares the character of Henry - a shining example of the courageous, just, wise, Christian king - with Pistol, a common soldier. The paper maintains the King's virtues are highlighted when set beside the lowly attributes of Pistol. Also highlighted, however, is the separate war experienced by the King versus the common soldier. The paper asserts that Pistol also serves to undermine the ideal of war as KingHenry presents it. The paper concludes that Pistol's function is to portray the common man's perspective and plight in the war, in contrast with the aloof and noble perspective of Henry V.
From the Paper "Henry's cloaked journey through his ranks seems to be an act of inspiration and leadership. He attempts to comfort men and to get to know them as 'just another soldier' on the eve of battle. The result, however, is quite different. His encounter with Pistol is humorous, but again forces the viewer to appreciate the gap between nobility and Pistol's class. Henry styles himself as "Harry le roi" (4.1.ll.50) knowing that Pistol would be unable to translate the latter two thirds. He is having fun at Pistol's expense; it is terribly unlikely anyone beneath nobility in England would have learned French. Henry's following argument with Williams is lame as well, for he refuses responsibility a king has for the men he commits to battle."
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 "KingHenry 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."
Tags: branagh, fustice, kenneth, lawrence, olivier, opening, scene
Abstract This study examines the nature of civil disobedience within the religious anti-racism platform of Civil Rights activist Martin Luther King Jr. This paper compares the work of Martin Luther King to the secular doctrines of civil disobedience in the writings of Henry David Thoreau, a secular society application of non-violence that need not be separated from religion. King was a highly religious man, and he used religion to inspire strength in his community by adhering to Biblical principles.
Abstract The paper shows how KingHenry VIII created the modern conceptual model for English governance. The paper details the events of Henry's reign including his divorce of Catherine of Aragon and his marriage and eventual beheading of Ann Boleyn, and highlights his changing relationship with both Parliament and the Pope. The paper also discusses Henry's institutional foundation of secularism and his support of high culture in the court.
From the Paper "King Henry VIII was one of the most formative influences upon England during the early Renaissance. He created the modern conceptual model for English governance, an England that depended upon human, monarchal authority, rather than Church influence. The relationship between Parliament and King developed under Henry was unique for its day, and later enabled England to engage in electoral reforms, rather than undergo violent rebellions to enfranchise the populace like the European Continent in the 19th century."
Abstract This paper discusses how the "great quarrel" between KingHenry II of England and Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, represents the most famous and well-documented church-state dispute in medieval England and how reasons for such eminence lie in its bloody and tragic end rather than in the quarrel itself. It contextualises the relationship between the medieval church and state by examining the nature of monarchial power and the religious dynamic of 12th century England. It examines the reasons for the dispute, the contemporary reaction to it and the repercussions.
From the Paper "Before Beckets accession to Archbishop he enjoyed a great friendship with Henry. Becket's appointment thus came as a result of this acquaintance, rather than his ecclesiastical background. Indeed Beckets only clerical position ? the Archdeaconry of Canterbury was of secular rather than ecclesiastical character. Furthermore, the reputation of Archdeacon's in the twelfth century was far from sound ? ?"they were given to extortion and injustice"? and Becket was reprimanded on more than one occasion . Conscious of the kings favouritism, combined with the thoroughness he attached to his jobs, it is possible that Becket set out to prove his ecclesiastical worth, having already proven his secular pedigree."
A discussion of how various characters such as Hotspur, Prince Hal and Falstaff represent different manifestations of the concept of honor in Shakespeare's 'Henry VI'.
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, KingHenry 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
