| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE RICHARD II HENRY": |
|
|
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, $ 83.95
»
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."
| |
|
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, $ 34.95
»
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."
| |
|
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, $ 26.95
»
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."
| |
|
Henry IV, Parts I and II and Henry V, 1994.
An exploration of the development of the king from a wastrel Machiavellian youth to a mature moral and political leader.
1,575 words (approx. 6.3 pages), 6 sources, $ 55.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The three history plays by Shakespeare known as the Henriad are comprised of Henry IV: Part I, Henry IV: Part II, and Henry V. Richard III is actually the beginning of the historical sequence, but the three plays of the Henriad are concerned specifically with the development and ascension of Henry V (formerly Prince Hal) to the throne of England. In the course of the three plays, Prince Hal changes from a rather wastrel youth to a mature king, and in his development Henry becomes what would be considered a Christian rathe than a Machiavellian prince, dedicated to cetain principles rather than to the principle that how a king rules is in itself always right.
Throughout these plays, including Richard III, there is a search for national unity is found in Henry V:
The principal theme of Henry V, already approached in..."
| |
|
Shakespeare's "Richard III", 2004.
Analysis of Shakespeare's play, "Richard III", and how the main character is able to win over the hearts and minds of the audience in spite of his evil nature.
1,710 words (approx. 6.8 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 55.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper describes the four techniques used by Richard, in William Shakespeare's play, "Richard III", to win the love of the audience. Eliciting the audience's sympathy and then their collaboration, Richard's ability to charm and manipulate the audience depends are various elements; each is cited as a technique used by Richard to gain the audience's devotion.
From the Paper
"One of Shakespeare?s most memorable characters is a villain who will always be remembered for his outstanding intelligence, political intensity, and incredible language skill. Richard, Duke of Gloucester, a devilish man, who murders anyone who stands in his way, even innocent people. We ask ourselves how could anybody with a hypocritical, and deceiving nature win the hearts of the audience of so many generations: for at-least most part of the play. It is agreed then that normally one such a person would horrify and disgust one and all. However, Richard (I stress not King Richard) which will be clarified by the end of this essay; mesmerizes his audience with sly skill. He captures sympathy in his audience by convincing them that his physical deformities should excuse him of committing evil crimes. His alluring use of language is like a spell that is cast over the audience and sustained from the beginning of the play until Act IV. Richard is then able to charm his audience into a partnership of evil and corrupt manipulation. Moreover, Richard, distinguishable than any other villain, and deserves his title because of the four most vital techniques that he uses: through these techniques he is able to win the love of the audience. There are four specific techniques that are used by Richard, which will be explained in-order of importance throughout the essay. The key idea is that each technique adds to, enhances, and strengthens the effect of the situations and outcomes- to whoever is participating in the play (audience, characters etc.)."
| |
|
"Richard II" and "Macbeth", 2004.
A comparative analysis of Shakespeare's "Richard II" and "Macbeth".
2,119 words (approx. 8.5 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 66.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper presents a comparison of William Shakespeare's "Richard II" and "Macbeth". The paper assesses to what extent these two plays endorse notions of divine right and royal absolutism. These terms are defined in order to facilitate an understanding of the thesis. The different motifs of the plays are examined in the paper.
From the Paper
"Richard's eloquence and lack of propensity to enter into battle forms a strong contrast to Bolingbroke who is portrayed as a man of action. Shakespeare perhaps though viewed the latter as a bully as he wrestles the crown from an eloquently verbose Richard, 'With mine own hands I give away my crown, With mine own tongue deny my sacred state,'(4.1.199-200,Norton). Richard's words here abrogating his kingly, God-given status, but his actions on stage perhaps contradicting them. The semiotics of the crown are pivotal, the crown itself the symbol of a king. The crown though is a hollow void, and the mere possession of it does not confer the rightful status of a king. Bolingbroke himself is never completely at ease in his usurpation, as he acknowledges at the play's end, 'I'll make a voyage to the holy land, To wash this blood off from my guilty hand.'(5.6.47-48,IBID) The repeated Christ-like motif reiterates the injustice of Richard's fate."
| |
|
"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, $ 49.95
»
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.?"
| |
|
"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, $ 81.95
»
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."
| |
|
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, $ 60.95
»
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."
| |
|
Evil in the Plays of William Shakespeare, 2005.
An analysis of the function and usage of evil in the plays of William Shakespeare.
3,050 words (approx. 12.2 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 89.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper studies Shakespeare's usage of evil in his plays. The essay attempts to reveal the function of this device by analyzing its usage in seven Shakespeare plays: "Macbeth", "Henry VI", "Hamlet", "Julius Caesar", "Richard III", "King Lear" and "Othello". The author includes complete character and plot summaries, and supports his theses with quotes from the texts.
From the Paper
"'Fair is Foul and Foul is Fair'. Unfortunately for Steve Bartman and the 2003 Chicago Cubs, this famous phrase does not apply to baseball playoffs. William Shakespeare wrote this line to describe the relationship between good and evil in his play Macbeth. By casual definitions, good is right and evil is wrong. However, Shakespeare operated with larger concepts that go beyond passive terminology. In his works, balance, harmony, justice and righteousness represent good. Evil is represented by disorder, temptation, corruption and immorality. There is inherent tension created when these principles collide."
| |
|
"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, $ 44.95
»
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.
| |
|
Machiavellian Philosophy in Shakespeare's 'Richard III', 1997.
A look at the character of Richard III, as well as the era of Shakespeare and the man himself.
4,245 words (approx. 17.0 pages), 6 sources, $ 112.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at at Shakespeare's "Richard III", but also discusses the theatre and the times in which Shakespeare lived. It starts with an overview of Elizabethan theatre and society, then moves specifically to theatres in London and the provinces. William Shakespeare, the man, his life and career in the theatre are discussed. "Richard III" is looked at in terms of historical facts, and then the character of Richard is examined.
From the Paper
"A history partly based on The Union of the Two Noble and Illustrious Families of Lancaster and York by the English historian Edward Hall and on the Chronicles by the English historian Raphael Holin?shed. Probably first performed in 1593. First published in 1597. In this play, the first history to have a self-contained narrative unity, Shakespeare accentuated the moment of death as a crisis of conscience in which man judges himself and is capable of true prophecy. He centred the drama on a single figure who commits himself to murder, treason, and dissimulation with an inventive imagination that an audience can relish even as it must condemn it; and in defeat Richard discovers a valiant fury that carries him beyond nightmare fear and guilt to unrepentant, crazed defiance."
| |
|
Shakespeare's "Richard III", 2002.
A critical review of the play in connection with the role of women.
2,100 words (approx. 8.4 pages), 13 sources, MLA, $ 65.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper presents a detailed discussion on the role of women in Richard III. The writer examines the female characters, their station in society, their role as survivors and the impact they have on the other characters in the play.
From the Paper
"Throughout time women have held various roles in the large scheme of life. Different points in history have provided the women with different expectations and societal viewpoints change within those eras. In recent decades the role of a woman has changed dramatically as the women?s movement came to pass and the world learned to accept their equality. It was not always the way it is today however women have held a role of importance since the beginning of time. The era of Richard III was one in which men were the kings of their castles in a literal sense as well as a figurative sense. It was a time of great acts of chivalry as well as a time in which females did not often have jobs or careers."
| |
|
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, $ 58.95
»
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.
| |
|
William Shakespeare's "Henry V", 2006.
A look at how the attributes of Henry V are brought out in various parts of Shakespeare's play "Henry V".
1,090 words (approx. 4.4 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 38.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper analyzes how King Henry V, the central protagonist in William Shakespeare's play of the same name, evolves as a king over the course of the play, both in his own estimation as well as in the estimation of the other characters on stage.
From the Paper
"Henry solidifies his regality and kinship with war: "Now all the youth of England are on fire, /And silken dalliance in the wardrobe lies:/Now thrive the armourers, and honour's thought/Reigns solely in the breast of every man," says the Chorus, when Henry takes England to war against France for the disputed territories Henry believes are his country's by right, custom, and law. Henry takes the slight upon his persona in the 'gift' of the tennis balls along with his land's claim upon France as a justification to seek glory through armament for all the people of England. Henry's actions indicate that he is not pacific or idle in temperament, but still possesses some of his old, immature and adolescent character--not in his love of games, but in his view of war as a diplomatic game and a scene for proving his reputation to be won or lost, much as at a game of tennis. (II. Prologue. http://www-tech.mit.edu/Shakespeare/henryv/henryv.2.0.html) But when at war, this changes within and without of Henry's character, showing that he always has a capacity to adapt and evolve as a leader."
|
|
|
