More handpicked essays just for you.
The influence of Shakespeare in English language summary
The influence of Shakespeare on english language
Shakespeare's use of english language
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Act I, scene i; lines 24-66 Canterbury/ Ely: “The courses of his youth...” Are these two gentlemen seriously examining the King’s issues with France, or are they looking rather intently at their own interests? What are they really saying about the questionable behaviour of the King during his days as a Prince? What do they really mean by the image: “strawberry ... underneath the nettle”? In this scene, we have Canterbury and Ely discussing the fate of England and France under the rule of King Henry, and wondering at the change that came over Henry upon the advent of his father’s death. Using plenty of imagery, along with the metonymy and synecdoche that is so common throughout Henry V, they talk about his sudden bloom into kingship, how no one might have guessed he was half as knowledgeable as he acted in Henry IV Part I. In the dialogue before these particular lines, they talked about a bill that would severely limit the church’s reach and wealth. They are quite unhappy with the situation, since it will not be beneficial to them—in other words, they are acting as one might expect men in power to act. Canterbury proposes a plan to push Henry into voting against it by offering to help fund the military, essentially distracting Henry with the French, and this leads to a discussion of Henry’s seemingly newfound wisdom. As a prince, Henry was widely known to be a rapscallion and a scoundrel of all sorts, and to spend time with the same company. When Canterbury comments on the “strawberry… underneath the nettle” (I.i.65), he’s talking about how the unsavory company Henry kept seems to have brightened him all the more, as though having the examples opened Henry’s eyes to his behavior (and it does seem that Falstaff and Bardolf had a... ... middle of paper ... ...is was not enough for Harry: He had to have all of France. This idea is repeated in Harry’s response to Katharine: “…you should love the friend of France, for I love France so well that I will not part with a village of it. I will have it all mine. And, Kate, when France is mine and I am yours, then yours is France and you are mine” (V.ii.165-169). Katharine is smart enough to be suspicious of Harry’s motives, and there are many mentions of falseness throughout their dialogue, but Harry is adamant that he is sincere, if perhaps a bit mocking. It seems highly unlikely that they would love each other at this point, having had no prior contact and no opportunity to build a relationship, so it is also unlikely that Henry is being honest. However, whatever his methods and intent, the situation is convenient and seems acceptable for the both of them, and they are married.
Shakespeare’s ‘King Henry IV Part I’ centres on a core theme of the conflict between order and disorder. Such conflict is brought to light by the use of many vehicles, including Hal’s inner conflict, the country’s political and social conflict, the conflict between the court world and the tavern world, and the conflicting moral values of characters from each of these worlds. This juxtaposition of certain values exists on many levels, and so is both a strikingly present and an underlying theme throughout the play. Through characterization Shakespeare explores moral conflict, and passage three is a prime example of Falstaff’s enduring moral disorder. By this stage in the play Hal has ‘reformed’, moved away from his former mentor Falstaff and become a good and honourable prince.
After many failed attempts to obtain a divorce from his first wife Catherine of Aragon, King Henry VIII took momentous steps that led to "The Reformation," a significant occurrence in the history of religion. Prior to the reformation, all of England's inhabitants including King Henry VIII prescribed to Catholicism. In fact, King Henry VIII was such a strong supporter that he was given the title "Defender of the Faith" by the pope for his efforts in protecting Catholicism against the Protestants. However, all these changed upon the pope's denial of Henry's request for a divorce.
For hundreds of years, those who have read Henry V, or have seen the play performed, have admired Henry V's skills and decisions as a leader. Some assert that Henry V should be glorified and seen as an "ideal Christian king". Rejecting that idea completely, I would like to argue that Henry V should not be seen as the "ideal Christian king", but rather as a classic example of a Machiavellian ruler. If looking at the play superficially, Henry V may seem to be a religious, moral, and merciful ruler; however it was Niccolo Machiavelli himself that stated in his book, The Prince, that a ruler must "appear all mercy, all faith, all honesty, all humanity, [and] all religion" in order to keep control over his subjects (70). In the second act of the play, Henry V very convincingly acts as if he has no clue as to what the conspirators are planning behind his back, only to seconds later reveal he knew about their treacherous plans all along. If he can act as though he knows nothing of the conspirators' plans, what is to say that he acting elsewhere in the play, and only appearing to be a certain way? By delving deeper into the characteristics and behaviors of Henry V, I hope to reveal him to be a true Machiavellian ruler, rather than an "ideal king".
In Shakespeare’s “The Life of King Henry V,” set in England in the early fifteenth century, with the famous and heroic English King, Henry V, claiming his “rights” to the French throne. This claim caused complications and the declaration of war on both English and French soil. This political war, then turn into a route of complicated negotiations, after King Henry’s terrifying forces had successfully defeated French forces. As the result of the war, a peace treaty was made, and part of that agreement was the marriage between King Henry V and the daughter of the King of France, Katherine of Valois. An analysis of the both King Henry’s and Katherine’s relationship reveals that both had conflicting perspectives of one another, which resulted as a marriage in political unions of two powerful nations rather than a union of two lovers.
Henry's past is described by Ely and Canterbury, the two bishops. Canterbury quotes, "Since his addiction was to cause vain, His companies unletter'd, rude, and shallow, His hours filled with riots, banquets, sports; And never noted in him any study, And retirement any sequestration, From open haunts and popularity. " Ely says, "The strawberry grows underneath the nettle. " And wholesome berries thrive and ripen best.
The film uses various techniques to present a particular view of the war against France. What is that interpretation and how does the film convey it?Although the Branagh version of Shakespeare's Henry V remains very close to the text, with only a few lines left out of the film, the movie portrays a very clear and distinct message about war and Branagh's opinion on the matter. Henry V is fundamentally a play about war, and it would have been very easy for Branagh to make his version of the play into a film that glorified war. Instead, Branagh took the opportunity to make a statement about what he felt was the true essence of wars - both medieval and modern.It is clear through Henry V that Branagh thinks that wars are a waste of precious human life, and in the end are fruitless, causing more loss than gain.
“I couldn’t forgive him or like him, but I saw that what he had done was, to him, entirely justified. It was all very careless and confused. They were careless people, Tom and Daisy — they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made… I shook hands with him; it seemed silly not to, for I felt suddenly as though I were talking to a child” (187-188).
The Canterbury Tales can be understood as a Chaucerian satire according many readers. Chaucer sets out to deliberately upset the social order present at that time and to mock the faults present in the characters. Although he baffles about the complexity of the characters, Chaucer also praises and condemns characters for their unique qualities. Chaucer further gives us feedback of what actions the characters are taking in their lives. Many of the pilgrims are headed off to Canterbury, to worship the relics of Saint Thomas Becket. Thomas Becket was murdered by his friend King Henry and soon Canterbury became a pilgrimage site for people to pray for their healings. As for Chaucer, he observed both high and lower social class to get a better perception of how social class made a difference in the character’s lives. Chaucer always believed that true gentility showed what class you fell into instead of judging it on social rank and wealth. To show that true gentility gives a character true rank in society, Chaucer in the “Prologue” of The Canterbury Tales illustrates the variance of life in the eyes of the honest and truthful Knight, the shrewd Merchant, and the good-hearted Plowman.
After the French Revolution of 1789, the British followed events in France very closely. British museums have an extensive collection of French artifacts, especially literature by Alexander Dumas and Emile Zola. The French novel was under much scrutiny, due to the French novelists love of realistically portraying dramatic, grotesque events in an erotic fashion. The novels portrayal of their heroines was shunned as well. “Their contents included tales of adultery, bigamy, passion, crime and general unladylike behavior and were especially disliked for the overt presentation of sexuality in their leading female characters” (“ Women’s Reading Materials”) The French novel was easily identified by a distinct yellow cover, beautifully illustrated by Vincent Van Gogh in his painting “Parisian Novel (yellow books).” Unfortunately, the British Medical Journal “ The Lancet” thought otherwise. French novels were deemed responsible for social “ diseases” ...
In conclusion, the various forms the words clene, clense, and clennesse can take, and the various meanings Chaucer uses for them in The Canterbury Tales, General Prologue serve to contrast the Parson against the gluttony of the nun, the sin of the Somonour, and the avarice of the guildsmen. The various meanings of clene: free from sin, fastidious, and well-made are applied to each character who embodies one of these meanings. Chaucer’s use of the same word to describe many characters, draws each character into contrast and illustrates their
In “The General Prologue”, Chaucer's portrait of the pilgrim Friar satirizes the estates through his seduction of women, his misuse of begging, and his disassociation with the class he should be living among. The ironic descriptions and estates satire of the Friar portray how corrupt the Catholic Church was at this time. The pilgrim Friar is in the class of the clergy, but acts as if he is of a higher class. He does not act as how a Friar should be; he is not who he should be. Any other friar is a man of God, they represent God and God's actions. The Friar is the complete opposite of this, so arise the irony. The Friar is more interested in woman than helping the poor. He uses his ability of begging and doing confessions to fund his needs and desires; money that should be going towards helping the poor. The Friar simply does not want to be who he should be, so explaining his disassociation from the class he should be a part of, the class he should be helping.
Member of third estate: It will not be one person who rules, but the people of France, who will select the men they will be represented by-
During the introduction scene of Henry V, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Ely along with the nobles are all sitting together in a large, poorly lit room expressing concern about a new bill that has been brought up for the consideration of King Henry. Canterbury and Ely don’t want the king to pass this bill into law because it would authorize the government to take away a great deal of the church’s land and money. The money would be used to maintain the army, support the poor, and supplement the king’s treasury.
He asserts that France will be his in the same manner that she will now be his as well, a material possession that he refuses to part with, and she should love him due to the fact that what she loves and wants, France, is now all his territory. Another example of this form of submission from the Princess occurs as she attempts and struggles to learn English from King Henry in this scene, according to the article ‘Fause Frenche Enough’: Kate’s French in Shakespeare’s Henry V by Anny Crunelle-Vanrigh. According to this critic, this scene demonstrates Princess Katherine’ sexual and political submission, and her lesson is described as “a historical and political statement…” in which the battle of the languages “features the last stand of a defeated Princess” (Crunelle-Vanrigh 63). Overall, King Henry’s wooing consists of demands, manipulation, and the defeat of Princess Katherine, similar to what has just occurred to her home, rather than an attempt at gaining her love or
“The oath...marks the beginning of the French Revolution,” helps us understand that the only way the Revolution could begin and prosper was if the ideal of equality was addressed; which can be seen in this sketch. Finally, the usage of “a unity manifesting itself as quantity,” shows that the fight for equality for each estate had sprung from only the representatives fighting, to the entire 95% bourgeoisie population fighting for equal treatment. Therefore, it is abundantly clear through the preceding interpretations, that the ideal of equality, which was prominent throughout the French Revolution, is reflected through David’s Tennis Court Oath, which emphasizes the equal treatment of each estate.