| Papers [1-14] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 8] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 —> | Search results on "LEADERSHIP IDEALS HENRY V PRINCE": |
|
|
Leadership Ideals in "Henry V" and "The Prince", 2001.
A comparison of leadership ideals in Shakespeare's "Henry V" and Machiavelli's "The Prince".
4,210 words (approx. 16.8 pages), 14 sources, £ 77.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at the similarities between Shakespeare?s "Henry V" and Machiavelli?s "The Prince", and the concept of the perfect king. The two plays are discussed, and the concept that either Shakespeare is drawing his inspiration for his dramatization from Machiavelli or that both Machiavelli and Shakespeare have similar ideas of what the ideal ruler would be.
From the Paper
"In Henry V, Shakespeare presents Henry as the ultimate ideal of kingship. The only question is where does this idea of a perfect king come from, and after reading Machiavelli's Prince and Henry V one begins to note similarities. Not the least of which is the passage quoted above, a true Machiavellian manoeuvre. In this passage, the governor of Harfleur, the French city under siege by Henry's troops, has refused entrance to the army of Henry. As Machiavelli says, "it is wiser to have a reputation for meanness which brings reproach without hatred, than to be compelled through seeking a reputation for liberality". Therefore, Henry, following this advice of Machiavelli, does exactly that, and frightens the innocent people of Harfleur into opening their city gates through the sheer grotesqueness of his command. We frequently see these similarities between the actions of Henry, at least through Shakespeare's portrayal, and the recommended actions of a good prince, as documented in Machiavelli's The Prince. Therefore, one might draw the conclusion that either Shakespeare is drawing his inspiration for his dramatisation from Machiavelli or that both Machiavelli and Shakespeare have similar ideas of what the ideal ruler would be."
| |
|
"King Henry IV" and "King Henry V", 2002.
Examines fraud, theatricality and politics in Shakespeare's "King Henry IV" (parts one and two) and "King Henry V".
3,930 words (approx. 15.7 pages), 18 sources, MLA, £ 74.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
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 "King Henry" series. The paper examines concepts of fraud and politics in parts one and two of "King Henry IV" and in "King Henry 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."
| |
|
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, £ 26.95
»
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."
| |
|
Henry V, 2002.
This paper compares the real Henry V with Shakespeare's idolized version of Henry V, the hero king.
855 words (approx. 3.4 pages), 3 sources, £ 20.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the great liberties that Shakespeare took in presenting his hero character. The paper states that the real Henry was neither handsome nor heroic. The paper compares Shakespeare's words about the love of his Henry and Katherine with the real king's marriage to Catherine, which was not one of romance but of convenience.
From the Paper
"The quarrels that Henry had with his father were not about his youthful zeal, but his excessive desire for power and funding for his misadventures. That he disliked his father for good reason probably cannot be denied as just as surely as the fruit speaks of the tree from which it came, so too does the health of the fruit indicate something of the tree."
| |
|
?Henry V?, 2002.
A discussion of how William Shakespeare portrays his character of Henry V as the ideal king.
7,039 words (approx. 28.2 pages), 0 sources, £ 109.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
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 ? Prince Hal to King Henry
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."
| |
|
The Common Man's Perspective in Shakespeare's "Henry V", 2006.
An analysis of the character of Pistol in William Shakespeare's play, "Henry V".
1,390 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 0 sources, MLA, £ 32.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
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 King Henry 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."
| |
|
The Film: "Henry V", 2007.
This paper discusses Kenneth Branagh's 1989 film interpretation of Shakespeare's "Henry V".
1,900 words (approx. 7.6 pages), 3 sources, MLA, £ 41.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the modern, cinematic environment created by director Kenneth Branagh in his film "Henry V", juxtaposes the poetic language of Elizabethan theater with the visual language of film. The author points out that Branagh's plea for cinematic tolerance is especially apt because "Henry V" is a rather obscure film for an American or even European audience, less likely to be informed and interested in why England fought with France over a little patch of land, long ago. The paper describes the valid historicity of the film, the colors used, the techniques of warfare deployed, its Elizabethan language and modern cinematic techniques and looks at how they are all used used effectively to make this film a successful interpretation of Shakespeare's play.
From the Paper
"The camera work in the princess scene is especially quick and fleeting, as it follows the princess throughout the castle. Although the camera occasionally becomes anchored to Henry's face during a soliloquy, overall, the camera is a kind of peripatetic actor throughout most of "Henry V". The camera follows the horses as they gallop over the field of battle, wildly. The common soldiers on the ground, as when they are storming the castle walls of the city are shown from the ground up. The camera whizzes by the viewer's eye as it pans through time and from France to England and back again..."
| |
|
"Henry V", 2006.
An examination of the use of the word 'wild' in William Shakespeare's "Henry V".
1,673 words (approx. 6.7 pages), 1 source, MLA, £ 37.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how, in Shakespeare's "Henry V", the word wild or wildness is used throughout the play to describe the character of King Henry V, the characters of men in general and the circumstances in England and France. It provides a definition of the notion of 'wild' and then provides examples of the use of this theme of "wild" from the play.
From the Paper
"In this statement, King Henry refers not to his own wilder days, but to the wilder days of England. The last sentence where he refers to having never valued the seat of England shows that his complaint is against how England has been managed under his father's rule. He considers that France thinks it is better than England and sees his father as not being a strong enough leader to drive England to victory over France. In this context, the wilder days of England is a negative description of the way England was. He is describing England as being poorly managed and overgrown, as if his father was not able to unite England into one. This establishes that Henry also sees wildness as something negative. Clearly, Henry is not a character where he believes that a wild character will help him lead his country."
| |
|
"Henry V" and Commonors, 2005.
An examination of commoners in William Shakespeare's "Henry V".
675 words (approx. 2.7 pages), 4 sources, £ 18.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how commoners play a significant role in Shakespeare's "Henry V ". The commoner signifies a humanity absent from its rulers. This paper examines this idea as it appears in Shakespeare's text and in the 1989 film "Henry V".
From the Paper
"Commoners play a significant role in Shakespeare's Henry V. In his series leading up to and including King Henry's life, common people appear most in Henry V (Symons). Shakespeare scholars give two reasons for their increased appearance. Firstly, Shakespeare wanted to present a "people's history" of the English invasion of France (Symons). Secondly, he tried to present this history by mirroring the lives of commoners and nobility ("Themes, Motifs & Symbols"). However, there is a third representation to examine. The commoner signifies a humanity absent from its rulers. This paper will examine this idea as it appears in Shakespeare's text and in the 1989 film Henry V. The opening lines of Henry V already give an indication as to the role of commoners in the conflict to come. "
| |
|
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, £ 38.95
»
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..."
| |
|
The Soliloquy of Shakespeare's "Henry V", 2001.
An analytic approach to defining the soliloquy of William Shakespeare's "Henry V".
929 words (approx. 3.7 pages), 3 sources, MLA, £ 23.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The soliloquy of William Shakespeare's "Henry V," gives an insight into the thoughts of King Henry after he has overheard his troops the night before the epic battle. This paper breaks down his speech and examines how it represents Henry not only as a great leader but also as a human being.
From the Paper
"The importance of the soliloquy is that it is a form of dialogue in which a character delivers a brief speech to the audience ? or into ?space? as a mode of reflective discourse (Martin and Jacobus 229-230). Though many do not immediately think of Henry V as being a production with a soliloquy, as they would Hamlet and other productions, the soliloquy given by King Henry is very moving and expresses his feelings the night before the final battle."
| |
|
Rhetoric in "Henry V", 2006.
Explores the use of rhetoric as a powerful tool of persuasion in William Shakespeare's play "Henry V".
790 words (approx. 3.2 pages), 0 sources, MLA, £ 19.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The essay attempts to determine how far the character of King Henry in Shakespeare's play, "Henry V", uses rhetoric to communicate what is true, or whether in fact he uses language to simply flatter his listeners with what they want to hear. The paper further attempts to show how far King Henry uses rhetoric as a method of manipulation in order to achieve his goals.
From the Paper
"Henry, like his father (and very unlike Richard II) is aware that the power of language can be used as a valuable political device. He uses his skill as a rhetorician to achieve success as a leader. He has the capability to change his emotions according to the situation, therefore adapting to the audience he wants to persuade. Similarly Othello's Iago uses rhetoric as a powerful tool of persuasion. Through words he is able to convince Othello of his wife's unfaithfulness, thus playing a major part in her murder. With Iago's extreme dishonest use of rhetoric, the question remains; how honest is King Henry V?"
| |
|
Rhetoric in "Hamlet" and "Henry V", 2005.
A comparison of the use of rhetoric in William Shakespeare's "Hamlet" and "Henry V".
675 words (approx. 2.7 pages), 2 sources, £ 18.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares the use of rhetoric in two of William Shakespeare's most famous soliloquies: The "To be or not to be..." speech in "Hamlet" and the "St. Crispins" speech in "Henry V". The goal of the paper is to compare the sincerity in each given the character speaking and the context in which the soliloquy is delivered. Hamlet is contemplating suicide. King Henry is trying to motivate his outnumbered army.
From the Paper
"Although a read of Shakespeare's "To be..." speech from Hamlet and a read of his "St. Crispins" speech from Henry V show similarities in the use of rhetoric, an examination of the context of each speech hints at more sincerity in the former than in the latter. This is not to say that young Hamlet doesn't show his own share of deception throughout the play; however, in this particular speech, he is wrestling with all that he has had to endure with the death of his father and the implication of his uncle and mother in the crime. Often referred to as the most famous speech in English literature, Hamlet's "To Be..." speech is an internal exploration of the dilemma he finds himself in the midst of the mystery of his father's death."
| |
|
Henry V and Agamemnon, 2003.
An examination of good and poor leadership as exposed by Shakespeare's "Henry V" and Agamemnon from Homer's "The Iliad".
1,635 words (approx. 6.5 pages), 2 sources, MLA, £ 36.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper shows the differing leadership skills of Agamemnon and Henry V, and ultimately arrives at the conclusion that the latter is a better leader.
From the Paper
"Commitment, honor, bravery, and a high moral code are all important qualities in determining a good leader. A leader is one who leads by example and upholds the principles that have been established by the law. A strong leader is able to take the advice of others while adhering to their own personal beliefs. Upon close examination of Henry V and Agamemnon, it is clearly seen that Henry possesses the stronger leadership characteristics of the two. Both men are descendents of war-like cultures where the strongest performers on the battlefield are the most revered; however, there is a clear distinction between good and poor leadership. Although both experience great success in warfare, it is the compassion and political savvy of Henry which distinguishes him as a good leader, and the vain and egotistical tendencies of Agamemnon which make him a poor leader."
|
|
|
