| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "SHAKESPEARE KINGS": |
|
|
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, $ 52.95
»
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."
| |
|
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, $ 32.95
»
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."
| |
|
Shakespeare's "King Lear", 2006.
A look at the theme in William Shakespeare's play, "King Lear" about the lessons learned from death and aging.
1,586 words (approx. 6.3 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 51.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper analyzes the theme of death and old age in William Shakespeare's play "King Lear", explaining that it is an important theme because it educates us about life and serves as a catalyst for King Lear's transformation. The paper further explains that King Lear would not have become the man he was at his death had he not experienced the turmoil, pain and suffering that old age and death had introduced into his life.
From the Paper
"This passage reveals something significant in King Lear's character--a complete turnaround. What he once thought was important, including the trappings of royalty, is not. What we see in this scene is a man resigned to happily spend the rest of his days in prison as long as he has the love of his daughter. Their reconciliation proves that peace can be discovered in the worst of circumstances. Because of their experiences, King Lear and Cordelia are changed throughout the course of the play. Of course, this is more prevalent with King Lear, who seems to find utter contentment in catastrophe."
| |
|
Kent in Shakespeare?s ?King Lear?, 2002.
This paper explores the role of Kent in Shakespeare?s ?King Lear? as a foreshadow of Lear?s growth from an unfeeling man, to a man who places love above all else.
780 words (approx. 3.1 pages), 1 source, $ 27.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This author believes that Kent is perhaps one of the most loyal subjects ever written by Shakespeare. He states that Kent is a complex person, who is loyal to his king, even when he must disagree with him. By doing this, the paper says that Kent causes the reader to look for signs of redemption in King Lear.
From the Paper
"Kent is blunt and does not know how to soften his words. This gets him into trouble, but Kent?s way of communicating also stands in contrast to those around the King who merely say what he wants to hear. Kent?s outspoken nature serves to emphasize the cause of King Lear?s difficulties: he has lost track of who to believe."
| |
|
Violations of Nature in Shakespeare's "King Lear", 2004.
An exposition of Shakespeare's characters in his "King Lear."
904 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper provides an exposition of the symbolic use of unnatural actions and motivations of Shakespeare's characters in his tragedy "King Lear." The paper examines the Elizabethan view of determinism, including filial relationships in the play and the Elizabethan ideal.
From the Paper
"Shakespeare presents numerous violations against nature in the tragedy "King Lear." Throughout the play he exploits the Elizabethan views of determinism in nature and physical order within the universe. Shakespeare explores the effects of committing violations against established natural laws through his characters' inappropriate dealings within their relationships against the natural order and against their own bodies and minds. His portrayal of unnatural relationships carried a profound significance for Elizabethan audiences."
| |
|
Betrayal in Shakespeare?s "King Lear", 2002.
This paper looks at two characters from William Shakespeare's "King Lear" who, according to the writer, react very differently when betrayed by those closest to them.
960 words (approx. 3.8 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 34.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The writer discusses the characters of Lear and Gloucester. These two characters are faced with the same basic problem: their close acquaintances are betraying them. According to the writer, Lear reacts by exiling or cutting off anyone that he suspects of betrayal, while Gloucester gives his trust to those he thinks remain loyal.
From the Paper
"He begins by exiling Kent, a member of his counsel. Next he cuts off Cordelia, his youngest daughter, for going against his wishes. Finally, he offends the King of France. This not only sets him up for disaster later, but also provokes serious responses from the aggrieved parties. Lear has responded quickly and decisively to betrayal, but he has not necessarily helped himself with his actions."
| |
|
Shakespeare: Hamlet & King Lear, 1988.
Working from Aristotle's definition of the tragic hero, this figure is explored in Shakespeare's HAMLET, & KING LEAR.
2,025 words (approx. 8.1 pages), 8 sources, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The tragic hero derives from the Greek drama, as elucidated by the criticism of Aristotle in particular, criticism that was revived in the Renaissance period and that came to be used as a prescription for drama rather than a description of it as Aristotle intended. The hero often knows his fate but still does not see it coming, as it were. F.L. Lucas writes about the characters of tragedy as Aristotle has delineated them and notes that they must be "good" but not perfect, appropriate or true to type, and consistent or true to themselves. Lucas says that "good" in the context in which Aristotle uses it means noble or fine, and thus the characters appropriate to tragedy are elevated characters, because "tragedy in Aristotle's theory represented men as finer than they are" (Lucas 125). Lucas notes that (...)"
| |
|
Shakespeare's "King Lear", 2005.
This paper analyzes extensively the character of King Lear in Shakespeare's tragedy, "King Lear".
4,240 words (approx. 17.0 pages), 5 sources, $ 112.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper argues that King Lear is driven by a desire to validate himself independently from his noble status and that his natural combativeness brings about his own downfall. The author asks why, in the first place, does King Lear give up the throne and answers that he is beginning to realize his office is a separate entity from himself and that he is having a sort of belated mid-life crisis. The paper relates that Lear changes because, throughout the play, he finds the validation for which he has been searching and can now accept the love that Cordelia offers freely, the same love that he attempts to extort from her at the beginning of the play.
From the Paper
"As early as the first scene, Lear can be seen struggling with his roles as king and father, and how his failings as one overlap with the other. As the play opens, Lear is secure, if not necessarily successful, in his position as king, but he has decided to abdicate the throne to his daughters and their husbands. He does so by staging a ?love test?, wherein he asks his daughters which one of them loves him most and awards them a portion of the kingdom in relation to their answers. Cordelia?s refusal to flatter him causes him to explode, banishing her and his trusted advisor Kent, and setting the play in motion. This scene introduces many important ideas that will recur throughout the play, and is the most important for understanding Lear?s character."
| |
|
Shakespeare's "King Lear" in Film, 1995.
This paper examines two film versions of Shakespeare's "King Lear", the 1987 version directed by Jean-Luc Godard and the 1984 television version starring Laurence Olivier: Style, critical reception, characters, narrative and adherence to Shakespeare.
2,475 words (approx. 9.9 pages), 12 sources, $ 87.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The purpose of this research is to examine two film versions of Shakespeare's King Lear. The plan of the research will be to set forth the context for and fundamental premises of the two works, and then to discuss the style, tone, language, and treatment of the protagonist in each.
The television production of King Lear adapted by and starring Laurence Olivier is accurately described as straightforward in its style of treatment of the text. The production as a whole is set in pre-Christian Britain, which is consistent with the fact that, according to Rowse, the Lear story was familiar to Elizabethans from Holinshed's account of ancient British history and legend. The use of Stonehengelike pillars and rustic wood as structural elements, together with wilderness exterior settings, is consistent not only with ... "
| |
|
Shakespeare's "King Lear", 2000.
An examination of the themes of parental love and filial obligations in "King Lear".
2,482 words (approx. 9.9 pages), 1 source, $ 75.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the unrealistic expectation of parents re: filial duty, love, obligation of parents and children to each other in Shakespeare's play, "King Lear".
From the Paper
"It can be argued that the parents King Lear and the Earl of Gloucester damage their children?s lives because of their unrealistic and confused expectations about filial love, duty, and the obligations of parents and children to each other. An examination of the characters in "The Tragedy of King Lear" supports this thesis. "
| |
|
Nobility and Commoners in Shakespeare's "King Henry IV", 2004.
Character analysis of the main characters in "King Henry IV".
2,171 words (approx. 8.7 pages), 0 sources, MLA, $ 67.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper presents a character analysis of Henry and Hal, two of the main characters in Shakespeare's play, "King Henry 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."
| |
|
"Hippolytus" ( Euripides ), "King Lear" ( Shakespeare ) and " 'tis Pity She's A Whore" ( John Ford ), 1999.
Compares the treatment of the themes of illegitimacy and incest in three plays, focusing on "Hippolytus".
2,925 words (approx. 11.7 pages), 3 sources, $ 103.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This study will explore the themes ofillegitimacy/legitimacy and incest in three plays, Euripides's Hippolytus, Shakespeare's King Lear, and John Ford's 'Tis Pity She's a Whore.
From the Paper
"This study will explore the themes ofillegitimacy/legitimacy and incest in three plays, Euripides's Hippolytus, Shakespeare's King Lear, and John Ford's 'Tis Pity She's a Whore. The study will focus on Hippolytus and the several illegitimate children in that play, followed by comparisons of that play with the latter two. The argument of the study will be that the issues of illegitimacy and incest have more to do with love rather than sex, or even with morality, and, therefore, investigation of those issues will focus on the roles which illegitimacy and incest play in the expression of love and in the obstacles to love.
Hippolytus is the illegitimate son of Theseus, but an obsessively virtuous man who incurs the wrath of Aphrodite because of his rejection of her and his alliance with Artemis, a ..."
| |
|
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, $ 49.95
»
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.? "
| |
|
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, $ 82.95
»
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, $ 48.95
»
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."
|
|
|
