Abstract The paper explains several examples of the history behind RichardIII, about whom William Shakespeare wrote his famous, if historically inaccurate, play. The paper deals with the issue of political maneuvering and examines the villainy of RichardIII and his rise to power.
From the Paper "Richard III. Fact vs Fiction. The scandalous portrayal of Richard III was the result of political maneuvering by Henry IV and his Tudor successors who came to the throne by force. This was deemed necessary by the Tudors to make the people believe they had rescued the country from the York Dynasty."
Tags: william, shakespeare, historical, accurate, accuracy, history, Richard, III
Abstract This paper provides both sides to the debate about whether or not RichardIII killed his nephews. The paper determines that he did not and contends that the accusation was a propagandized lie.
From the Paper "Today Richard III has become almost more of an idea rather than an actual historical figure. To this end it is often hard to separate fact from fiction when dealing with the plethora of information and different faces of the king. Literary a ..."
Abstract This paper explores the role and character of Falstaff in Shakespeare's play "HenryIV". The paper acknowledges Falstaff's role as comic relief and his part in Prince Harry's life. This friendship is considered in the paper as well. Several opinions of Falstaff from noted Shakespeare experts are presented along with the writer's view of this character. The paper concludes by stating Falstaff was a necessary figure in the play because he was the only character with whom Prince Harry spoke candidly and often truthfully.
From the Paper "Falstaff made life exciting for Prince Harry, and he was fun to be around. His character is in sharp contrast with the nobility which will be Harry's companions at court when he becomes King, and seems to be quite dishonest by comparison. However, in some ways, he is truer than any of the noblemen, because he is quite candid concerning his own self interest. It is not that he does not lie. He does, in the last scene of Act II, when he tells about how he and his companions were robbed by other highwaymen after capturing their prize, "All! I know not what you call all; but if I fought not with fifty of them, I am a bunch of radish: if there were not two or three and fifty upon poor old Jack, then am I no two-legged creature." Harry and Poins were, of course, the robbers who fell on them as a practical joke, and they all fled immediately. As Falstaff tells the tale and answers questions the lies become more and more exaggerated."
Tags: Falstaff, Henry, IV, comic, relief, William, Shakespeare
A look at how William Shakespeare, in his "HenryIV, Parts I and II", emphasizes the ideas of struggle and progress through his characterizations of Henry and Hal.
Abstract This paper examines William Shakespeare's plays, "HenryIV, Parts I and II", and, in particular, looks at how Henry misjudges his son and cannot see that Hal, who is not guilty of usurpation and regicide, will be able to unite the now divided kingdom. It shows how Henry's faults and strengths cause him to symbolically reflect the struggle for progress, represented by the bridge between the corruption of England during Richard II's reign and the unity of Henry V's kingdom. It also explores how, after the "struggle" ceases and HenryIV dies, Prince Hal becomes King Henry V ,and the previously divided nation progresses by integration.
From the Paper "Hal's adoption of the commoners is best described by the Duke of Warwick when he says: "The Prince but studies his companions, / Like a strange tongue" to gain the language?? (Pt. II, IV, iv, 76-78.) Hal is like a growing tree basking in the sun, Henry IV is the gardener who planted Hal's seed, and the commoners form one of Hal's developing branches. By growing into a man ?of all humors,? (Pt. I, II, iv, 89) Hal is becoming his entire nation in an individual form, which is symbolically what a king is. Hal has studied the commoners well and is able to both talk and think like them, as portrayed in Hal's witty exchanges with Falstaff. Hal's desire to adapt to the needs of the various peoples of his country foreshadows the harmony that will dominate England when he is king."
Abstract This paper presents a character analysis of Henry and Hal, two of the main characters in Shakespeare's play, "King HenryIV", 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
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 HenryIV, 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, King Henry 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 discusses and analyzes William Shakespeare's historical plays, "RichardIII" and "HenryIV." It discusses the characters of RichardIII, formerly the Duke of Gloucester, and Falstaff, prince Hal's friend. The paper specifically focuses on their negative characteristics, such as lying and how they used lying to achieve their goals. The paper presents examples from both plays to illustrate the extent of each character's lying.
From the Paper "During this conflict, Henry shows his bitterness at not having his eldest son, prince Hal to help him in the military matters. Hal is, at this time, with a group of rogues and villains who accompany him in his unlawful actions. Falstaff is the most famous of these, and seems to be Shakespeare's best known personification of falseness (a word from which his name is undoubtedly derived) lying and deceit. Falstaff uses dissembling as a means to achieve both fortune and fame, pretending even to have killed Hotspur in the battle. But even more so, he achieves through permanent lying to create almost a myth about himself, arguing through such skilled rhetoric that he even overtake Richard III, that honor and morality are of no use whatsoever and that they lose their value as soon as they are opposed to the only true thing there is: life."
Abstract This paper explains that, in "Richard II" and "HenryIV", William Shakespeare explores the issue of kingship by depicting Richard II and HenryIV 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, HenryIV, 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."
Abstract This paper examines King Henry and Prince Harry's discourse in Shakespeare's "HenryIV" 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 compares Shakespeare's uses time in his plays "Richard II" and "HenryIV". The paper shows that Richard's inability to use time to his advantage while he reigned led Bolingbroke to feel justified in deposing him. On the other hand, the paper demonstrates how Hal was extremely good at using his time -- in secret, to hone his battlefield skills -- and because of this, he is able to defeat Hotspur. Ultimately, the paper concludes that while Richard was a procrastinator and philosophizer and Hotspur was rash and impatient, they both come to the same end-that is, subsumed by time and death.
From the Paper "Richard's reign is plagued with the consequences of his inaction, and although he attempts to dress his authority with powerful language, his lack of success at seeming to act makes him appear impotent, and therefore ripe for deposition. In the very first act of Richard II, we see Richard in the process of "staging" his power at court in a feeble attempt to resolve a dispute between Mowbray and Bolingbroke in which he, himself, is tacitly implicated. Richard certainly makes a show of being in control of the situation, but when the rhetoric between the two complainants becomes too hot, threatening to expose Richard's part in Glocester's death, Richard seems to be content to talk the two gentlemen down from their rage. It is a dangerous position to take, and it is not the first time that Richard has avoided this confrontation because we learn "[his] leisure would not let [him] hear" the dispute in the past. (Richard I.I)"
Tags: hal, hotspur, richard, bolingbroke, time, history, battle
Abstract This paper examines the play, "RichardIII", focusing on the main character, King RichardIII of England. It discusses whether he should be considered a villain and asks, "Did he repent in time?" It explains that, in the play, Edward IV is on the throne, but his brother Richard plans to usurp Edward and be crowned king. To accomplish this goal, he must manipulate and murder, but in the midst of all the chaos he creates, there are glimmers of a better man.
From the Paper "He has decided that since he is no good at being happy, he will become an outstanding villain. He will soon show just how power-hungry he is. His reasons for acting as he does seem thin, and at this point it is hard to imagine how any good traits could be spotted in such a man. Richard is intelligent and manipulative, and has the ability to lie through his teeth and bee believed. He convinces a just-widowed noble woman, Lady Anne, that she should marry him, even though she knows he murdered her husband. He has his trusting and na ve older brother executed. King Edward is already in poor health, and Richard uses Clarence s death to hasten Edward s death."
Abstract This paper traces the ascension in the level of diction and general use of language by Richard II, HenryIV and Henry V as they become kings. It considers the differences between the language of royalty and that of the common man as illustrated by William Shakespeare in his plays about these kings.
From the Paper "For a king to command the respect of his subjects he must comport himself in a manner above that of the ordinary man. One of the ways in which royalty does this is by conforming to a distinct set of social graces, foremost among which is a superior level of language. The language of the monarch is more polished and poetic, with higher diction and a better command of both syntax and figurative language, than that of common people."
Abstract This paper discusses how William Shakespeare includes many different views of history throughout his history plays, especially in the Henriad tetralogy. It looks at how in "Richard II", "HenryIV" and "Henry V", Shakespeare focuses on the political aspect of history and how, although he focuses on the political situations of history, he does not always include historical information, thus creating a distorted view of the history of these stories.
From the Paper "In 1397, the struggles between King Richard's friends and his nobles erupted again, leading to the opening of Richard II. While the exact cause of the crisis is still unknown and unclear, it is believed that some may have offended King Richard. He arrested Gloucester, Arundel and Warwick, and all three men were convicted; Bolingbroke's position is vague, and probably did not have much to do with this at the time. In January of 1398, Bolingbroke charged Norfolk with treason; the second meeting of the committee in April is the opening scene of Richard II. Perhaps if the readers had known about these historical events prior to reading this play, they might have a different opinion of some of the characters and situations that occur throughout it. "
Abstract This paper discusses how in "HenryIV", Shakespeare handles, among other human relationships, the disharmony that often arises between parent and child as the latter begins to grow up. It is a difficult time in any walk of life; but strained relationships between a reigning sovereign, of either sex and the heir to the throne seem almost Oedipal in nature. It examines how the attitude of HenryIV to his son is to some extent the result of the peculiar conditions of his own accession since he usurped the throne from Richard II, whom he subsequently murdered. It looks at how thus his reign and all his actions are overhung with the consciousness both of personal guilt and of insecurity of tenure and how he constantly misunderstands his son.
From the Paper "The insurrection of the Percies causes the King to summon the Price of Wales, so that he can find out exactly where he stands and if he can be made use of in this crisis which threatens the newly established dynasty; and we are prepared by an interview, by Sir John Bracy's summons, which interrupts the fun at the Boar's head, and by Falstaff and Hal themselves, who rehearse the scene in comic anticipation. His Majesty begins with bitter chiding, as Falstaff prophesied he would. He hints at the affair with the Lord Chief Justice and speaks of the lost seat at the Council and the banishment from court. However, the King's real complaint is that Hal has made himself look cheap in the eyes of men, which is the last thing the representative of a family with a doubtful title to the thrown should do."
Abstract This paper takes a look at William Shakespeare's play 'RichardIII' and two movie versions based on this play. According to the paper, 'RichardIII' is both a tragedy and a historical account of the short career of the last medieval English king. The paper discusses how Shakespeare's 'RichardIII' depicts Richard and his "reign of terror" both unflatteringly and beyond historical accuracy.
From the Paper " In the movie version, "Looking for Richard," Al Pacino creates, directs and stars as Richard III's obsession for power, lust and betrayal through the streets of New York to the birthplace of Shakespeare to an emotionally charged production of Richard III (Richard III Society 1996) It is a presentation of Shakespeare with an untraditional format more accessible to the modern audience and with which this modern audience can relate better. The cast includes Estelle Parsons as Queen Margaret, Alec Baldwin as Clarence, Kevin Spacey as Buckingham, Winona Ryder as Lady Anne and Aidan Quinn as Richmond. Al Pacino also puts in the enthusiasm and help of Sir John Gielgud, Sir Derek Jacobi, Kenneth Branagh, Vanessa Redgrave, James Earl Jones and Kevin Kline in an attempt at making everyone enjoy Shakespeare and his tales truly timeless in exploring human nature. This version is different from the first two interpretations in that Al Pacino and his actors needed to break down the barriers, which render Shakespeare's history complicated and intimidating. Al Pacino allows his viewer to go behind the scenes and witness the actual process of acting. The heavier aspects of the play are made mild by informal shots of actors dealing with their roles in either a comic or heated forum. Al Pacino's methods of analysis are insightful, amusing and engrossing. He transcends the barrier between actors and their audience as he stands in London's legendary Globe Theater and the halls of New York City's Cloisters Museum (Richard III Society)."
