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 PrinceHal. 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 presents a character analysis of PrinceHal from Shakespeare's play "Henry IV", explaining that Shakespeare introduces PrinceHal as an individual that is mischievous and irresponsible, carousing with others at the Boar's Head Tavern that in modern society would be considered the wrong crowd. These individuals include Poins, Falstaff, Bardolph and Francis the Page. The paper further explains that the escapades of Hal and his comrades include the staging of a play at the tavern that is intended to degrade the English court, and the theft of a knight's ring. The acts of Hal during this period of the play further include schemes intended to embarrass his friends, who are continuously manipulated into aiding Hal's efforts. The paper also notes that the presentation of the character in this manner leads to an initial impression that Hal holds no true concern for others, and that the crown will never be an issue of priority within his life.
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 PrinceHal, 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 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 ? PrinceHal to KingHenry 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."
Abstract This paper discusses how, in these two Shakespeare plays, the transformations of characters are a big part of the plots. The paper first looks at how the character of PrinceHal begins "KingHenry, Part I" pretending to be a foolish ruffian only to shock the country by accepting the King's challenge of becoming a noble leader. This sincere change is plotted out by Hal the whole time, therefore making him either excessively brilliant or more of a scoundrel. The paper then examines how, in contrast, the transformation of Jessica, in "The Merchant of Venice" is more of a surprise. At the start of "The Merchant of Venice," she is trapped in a home she hates, unable to pursue her artsy ambitions. She then finds her love and becomes a free woman. The paper maintains that Shakespeare used these genuine character revisions to show how relevant personal growth is in our own world, the real stage.
From the Paper "As a very complex character, the real nature of Hal is very difficult to pin down. As the play begins, he is cunningly displayed as a thief mapping out the next robbery with his fat friend, Falstaff. However, despite the disgraceful plans he is drawing out, the sharp wit of Hal can be easily detected. In an entertaining fashion, he and Falstaff exchange witty puns and familiar banter. This is the first clue that Hal is more than meets the eye. Shakespeare blatantly accented Hal's dishonorable actions with an intelligent and crafty personality. Although Hal hangs out with lower characters that provoke him into doing vile deeds, Hal seems to be genuinely above his actions and his friends who all play a role into his bigger and more valuable plan."
A discussion of how various characters such as Hotspur, PrinceHal 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
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 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 discusses how the relationship between Falstaff and PrinceHal is among the most interesting, most talked about, and most analyzed story lines in all of William Shakespeare's plays, and for good literary reason. It looks at how even a cursory description of the dramatic emotional, intellectual, socioeconomic, psychological, and physical differences between the characters, and between their manners and styles, sets up a myriad of potential juxtapositions from which to attack existing analyses or forge fresh ones.
From the Paper "First, prior to examining what Falstaff wants from Prince Hal, a look at what there is about Falstaff which attracts Hal. A careful reading of Acts 1 through 3 clearly reveals that Hal does not hang out in the tavern because of any character flaw on his own part, or obsession with alcohol to the point of needing to be drunk; or from any corrupt desire to pursue low-level ambitions of the flesh. To the contrary, Hal is drawn to the Eastcheap tavern environment because he is fond of Falstaff. Hal is greatly impressed by Falstaff's irrepressible humor and superior wit, and Hal obviously is both amused and delighted when Falstaff recovers from embarrassing circumstances by pure brainpower and charm."
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 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 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 compares the characters of PrinceHal and Hamlet in William Shakespeare's plays "Henry IV" and "Hamlet, Prince of Denmark". The paper analyzes the dramatic aspects of each character. The paper illustrates the personas that each character creates for himself, in addition to their personality as defined by the author. The paper highlights the constant contrasts between PrinceHal and Hamlet.
From the Paper "Shakespeare is of course a dramatist, that is, he was an author of plays with fictional characters in them, portrayed by real people known as actors. Yet quite often Shakespeare's fictional characters are themselves 'actors' in their own life stories, creating personas that they play in addition to acting out their true, 'real life' struggles of the plot as defined by the author. For instance, Prince Hal, of Henry IV, Part I and Hamlet are two such individuals-the first pretends to be a rouge, even though he is really a skillful prince and politician destined to be a king, the second is an avenging son who assumes madness as a truth-telling device, and also as protection for his eccentric actions and behavior in a fraught Danish court. "
