Shakespeares Presentation Of Kingship Essay Example for Free

Shakespeares Presentation Of Kingship Essay In Henry The IV Part 1 The Transformation Of Prince Hal Is Central To Shakespeares Presentation Of Kingship. Looking At Two Different Scenes In The Play, Explore The Ways In Which Shakespeare Analyses Issues Related To Kingship And How Each Would Appear To Its Elizabethan Audience William Shakespeare was born in 1564 in the town of Stratford upon Avon. He died in 1616 but is still today one of the most renowned playwrights of all time. He has written 37 different plays in many different styles, for example comedy, history, tragedy, roman and others. Further more he is responsible for revolutionising English drama and hence culture through both his poetry and drama. He wrote plays that would have appealed to the Elizabethan people this is why his plays are written in the rich language that was used at the time. His main audience would have been common people who could not read or write so for entertainment they used imagery. Elizabethan people would have either gone to the theatre, gone bearbaiting or cockfighting; this was their idea of entertainment. Henry the IV Part 1 is based on a true story set in 1399 and is centred around the idea of kingship. This is due to the fact that the Elizabethan public of the time were very interested in the lives of the nobles and the idea of kingship. Even though it is set in the past the play is clearly designed for the Elizabethan public as it represents the end of the old politics and the start of the new capitalism over feudalism. The key characters in the play are: King Henry Bolingbroke (Henry the IV) Prince Hal Bolingbroke (Son of the king heir to the throne) Harry Hotspur (Son of the earl of Northumberland) Sir John Falstaff (Prince Hals companion) The play is set in two worlds. The so-called honourable life of the court, and the dark world of the tavern. Each with their prospective rulers for; the court the ruler is King Henry, and for the tavern the ruler is Sir John Falstaff. In between these realms sitting in the middle is the Prince, Hal caught up between the desire to please his father and his own whims. He cannot go too far down the easy road of dishonour nor can he be too much like his father for then he will be the right kind of king. There are two scenes, which I feel show the transformation that overcomes Hal and in which Shakespeare depicts to his audience the beginning of the end for Falstaffs realm. These are. Act II scene 4 and then Act III scene 2 The first scene that I believe is appropriate to analyse that shows the beginning of the transformation within Prince Hal is Act II Scene 4. This would have been one of the most humorous of all the scenes to the audience of the time as it holds many punch lines and represents a mockery of the crown. The scene starts with an example of Falstaffs deceptive nature, when he claims that he and his group of robbers were attacked by an ever-growing group of thieves who drove them off and won the stolen chest. What Falstaff doesnt realise is that the group of thieves that drove Falstaffs group away were none other then Prince Hal and his friend Poins. When they reveal this fact to Falstaff and tell him that they know he is lying and that he fled like a coward, Falstaff thinks fast and makes up another excuse claiming that he knew that it was Hal and he ran so he didnt need to hurt the Prince. This part of the scene is filled with banter and so would have been very appealing to the audience. The most influential part of this scene is were Prince Hal and Falstaff act out what they feel the king will say in his interview with Hal in the morning. Firstly Falstaff plays the king and Hal himself. Falstaff as king demands Hal to exile all of his friends who lead him astray except Falstaff who he claims is most noble of carriage. When Hal hears this he deposes Falstaff and makes himself the king. This is a highly ironic moment as the way in which King Henry Hals father came to power is by deposition. This time Hal acts more serious though it is clear banter is involved when he says there is a devil haunts thee in the likeness of an old fat man. This is the first time through out the play in which Hal reasons with himself and opens up and says it is Falstaffs fault that he is the way he is. Hal finishes his criticism of Falstaff with the naming of the man so far in the kings favour Falstaff that old white bearded Satan. Then Falstaff pleads on his account to Hal claiming that he is valiant and sweet. He then begs Hal not to banish Falstaff from the company of Hal. Falstaff (as Prince Hal). Falstaff banish not him form thy Harrys company. Banish plump jack, and banish the world Hal replies with the famous line. Prince Hal (as the king) I do, I will This concludes the play interview. The reason I feel that this shows the beginning of the transformation that turns Hal from the mad cap Prince into the heir to the throne is because I feel that at the point where he plays king he realises that eventually he will become king and that he will have the responsibility to banish people from his presence if they do not give him the correct direction. The insult of calling Falstaff the white bearded Satan indicates that he is the lord of the under world and the king of deception and lies. The most important line in this scene is (Hal) I do, I will as it shows the impending rejection of Falstaff, because for Hal to become king he must reject sin and corruption. These are the things, that Falstaff stands for. One way in which Shakespeare gets his message across to the audience is by using iambic pentameter. This is when he writes in lines of 10 syllables 5 are stressed and 5 are unstressed. Shakespeare uses the iambic pentameter to show when nobles are speaking. For a working class character then he uses ordinary prose. The way we notice this is that Hal is the only noble that doesnt speak in iambic pentameter this represents that Hal is not yet immerged in his proper role at the court , he is more in touch with the dishonest world of the tavern. The next scene that I feel is influential is Act II scene 4. This is the scene wherein the actual confrontation between the king and his rebellious son where they tell each other how they feel. The scene starts with the king ordering all lords to leave the room so that he and Prince Hal can talk in private. The king starts by demanding of God weather he is being punished for his taking of the crown and killing of the rightful king and if Hal is his punishment. Hal then says that most of the wrong things he has been accused of are just mutterings from newsmongers. King Henry rebukes this and demands Hal to be loyal to him , in addition he compares him to Richard II the skipping king who ambled up and down with shallow jesters . Hal says that he will be more like himself but Henry is still incensed and then says And even as I was then Percy is now. Now by my sceptre, and my soul to boot, he hath more worthy interest to the state than thou the shadow of succession. Hal tells his father that he will kill Hotspur and so take all of his glories. King Henry then gives Hal some money to raise an army and lead it. The main thing that is clear throughout this scene is the disappointment of King Henry and the fear that Hotspur will depose him. During the interview Hal starts to talk in iambic pentameter and this could show his initiation into the noble world leaving behind his old common world. Throughout the interview it is plain that King Henry sees himself in Hotspur and fears it because he believes if Hal were King then a rebellion would be appropriate. In addition he sees Hal as a Richard figure as he acts like a fool, by mingling his royalty with capering fools. More over he also sees Hals companion Falstaff as a threat not only because he is a bad role model but also when Hal becomes king he might give Falstaff some authority and he might abuse it or even worse might usurp Hal. This scene would have been very interesting to the Elizabethan audience, as they would not have seen a king in such a way in which they are not happy. It is unlikely that they would have realised that the monarch that they see is not the same behind the closed doors of a room, it would have intrigued them to see a family incident. In conclusion I feel that the scenes that I analysed were influential in the final result of Hal as he ended up King Henry V, who was one of the most renowned king of all time. This play shows the two worlds, which make a great king, I feel that if Hal had not experienced the world of the tavern then he would not have turned out as he did. For to be a great king Hal could not follow any of the role models presented to him. He couldnt follow down the path of Falstaff, as it was dishonest. He could not either follow his father the king as he both usurped and caused a rebellion. And he could not follow in the footsteps of Hotspur, as he was to blood thirsty and brash. So the mix between the world of the tavern and the court was just appropriate for the young Prince. And indeed he brought a balanced perspective to his role.

Legalizing Marijuana :: Marijuana Illegal Drugs Weed Essays, hemp

Abraham Lincoln once stated that, â€Å"Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes†¦ A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded.† In today’s society, this statement still applies in reference to the illegal use of marijuana. Marijuana prohibition causes far more harm than marijuana itself. Keeping marijuana illegal is expensive and causes crime. Out of four possible connections between drugs and crime, at least three would not exist if drug prohibition laws were repealed. First, crimes which occur billions of times a year are producing, selling, buying, and consuming strictly controlled and banned substances. If drug prohibition laws were repealed, these activities would obviously cease to be crimes. Next, many users commit crimes, such as robbery, dealing, prostitution, and running numbers to earn money to support their habits. If marijuana was less expensive and easier to obtain, which would be the case if it were legalized, the crimes committed under these circumstances would dramatically decline. The third drug-crime link I drug trafficking. Without prohibition laws, those people trying to make a living by selling and distribution would not be thrown in jail. Support for legalizing marijuana is at its highest level in 30 years, according to the USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll. Since 1996, voters in eight states have passed initiatives supporting marijuana for medical purposes at least. Polls show more than 70% of voters support medical marijuana. Polls in Canada and England show half the population now supports legalization. The USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll found support for legalization â€Å"highest among 18 to 49 year olds, people in the West, and independent voters. Opposition was greatest among the elderly, those who attend church weekly, and Republicans.† Those people generally do not accept change or want anything to be different. Marijuana should be legalized, if not completely then at least for medicinal purposes. Many argue that legalizing marijuana allows anyone to grow, smoke, and use the herb. The Lakeland Pol ice Department calls marijuana â€Å"a psychoactive drug which increases anxiety, depression, paranoia, delusion, lack of motivation, aggression, risky behavior, and depersonalization† (Marijuana Legalization Issues 1). Opposers of legalization say that marijuana can cause physical harm if ingested in great amounts for a long enough time. They argue that passing an amendment to legalize marijuana under the pretense of medicinal purposes gives all people, including children, felons, and prison inmates, a constitutional right to grow and smoke it for a headache, cold, or any other common ailment.

Sociology and People

Hannah Wisnewski Period 4 Sociology Mr. Taylor Essays for Test 1. Clarify how folkways, mores, and laws vary in importance within American society. Give examples of each. Their importance of folkways, mores and laws within American society is that, in combination, they help maintain a civil society. Folkways are rules or standards that cover ways of thinking, feeling, and behavior but lack moral overtones. Folkways are socially accepted however not morally significant. They are norms for everyday behavior that people follow for the sake of tradition.But if the folkway is broken there is no moral or legal consequence. Folkways in the United States consist of supporting school activities, speaking to other students in the hall, and if male, removing hats in church. In society today we find people who always wear shorts with a suit or who talk loudly odd but society doesn’t consider them immoral. However if someone has obnoxious behavior at a party after excessive drinking can br ing in strong negative reactions from others. Mores are strict norms that control moral and ethical behavior. Mores deal with morality which is the right and wrong.Mores are norms of great moral significance. Conformity to mores conveys strong social approval whereas violation conveys strong disapproval. Following folkways is generally a matter of personal choice; though conformity to mores is a social requirement. An example of a more would be if someone attends church in the nude, s/he would offend most people of that culture and be morally shunned. Laws are norms that are formally defined and enforced by officials. Folkways and mores emerge together slowly and unconsciously created whereas laws were created and enforced.Mores are an important source for laws, for instant at one point the norm against murder hadn’t been written down. Then society advanced and the norm against murder became formally defined and enforced. Folkways can lead into and become mores or laws. An ex ample of a law is smoking. Up until the 1970’s smoking when mounting health convinced many people that smoking should be limited or banned in public places. As society developed, many states picked up the law against smoking in airports, government buildings, restaurants, and other open general public places. . Which theory of deviance best explains why people do deviant acts? Why? Which theory does not explain why people do deviant acts? Why? I think the control theory best explains why people do deviant acts because they conform to social norms depends on the presence of strong bonds between individuals and society. Social bonds control the behavior of people and thus preventing deviant acts. Most people do not conform since they do not want to â€Å"lose face† with family, friends, or classmates. Control theory is broken into 4 parts first and foremost attachment.This is when an individual has strong attachment to groups or other individuals. Next is commitment whic h is great commitment to goal the more likely a person would be to conform. The commitment is greater than the commitment of people who do not believe they can compete within the system. Next in the four is involvement which is participation in approved social activities increases the probability of conformity. Besides positively focusing an individual’s time and energy and the participation p connects contact with valuable opinions.Last is belief in norms and values of society promotes conformity. This belief appropriateness for the rules of social life strengthens peoples resolve no to deviate from those norms. I think the strain theory does not explain why people do deviant acts because it is merely a hypothesis of Durkheim’s concept of anomie, whereas control is the social bonds controlling the behavior of people. There are four parts to the strain theory, first is innovation which an individual accepts the goal of success but uses illegal means to achieve it this is the most obvious type of deviant response.An example of innovation is robbery, drug dealing and other criminal acts. Next is ritualism where the individual rejects the goal but continues to use the legitimate means. This is where people go through the motions without really believing the process. This could be a teacher going through daily lessons however not caring about the way the students turn out. Retreatism is a deviant response in which both the legitimate means and the approved goals are rejected.Alcoholics and drug addicts are retreatists, thus meaning they are not successful nor seek to be successful. Rebellion is people who both reject success and the approved means for achieving it. However at the same time they additionally add a new set of goals and means. Some of the militia group members demonstrate this response. However they live alone to pursue the goal of changing society by doing deviant things, such as creating their own currency, deliberately violating gun laws, and threatening violent behavior against law enforcement. . America’s prisons are at a crisis. Explain how bad the prison problem has become. What are some alternatives to prison? How would you solve the prison crisis? The problem with the prisons is that they have become increasingly over populated. Some alternatives to prison are a combination of prison and probation which a mixed or split sentence known as shock probation which is designed to shock offenders into recognizing the realities of prison life. Prisoner’s serve part of their sentence in an institution and rest on probation.Another alternative is a community-based program. These programs are designed to reintroduce criminals into society. At this time the prisoners will have the opportunity to become part of society however under professional guidance and supervision. The next alternative is diversion strategy which is aimed at preventing, or greatly reducing the offender’s involvement in the c riminal justice system. This alternative involves a referral to a community-based treatment program rather than a prison or a probationary program.If I could solve the prison crisis personally I would just build more prisons out in the middle of nowhere so I can keep everyone safe and protected. I feel like if an individual is in prison for something they have done then they deserve to be there away from society. Personally I don’t feel like going from prison to prohibition really does much because who’s to say they will not commit crime again? Maybe this time even worse than the last because the individual (criminal) could want revenge.

The Great Gatsby By F. Scott Fitzgerald - 1011 Words

You Can’t Buy Love or Can You? â€Å"Money can’t buy happiness† has been a common saying in today’s society but that doesn’t mean that people haven’t once tried it or thought about it. The Great Gatsby, is a prime example of how money can change people. James Gatz, also known as Jay Gatsby came from a poor family who lived in North Dakota. He ran away from his family in search to find some money. He decided to change his name to identify himself as someone new and wealthy. People may leave to search for money and for love but is it possible to buy love? Kanye West sang it best, Now I ain t sayin she a gold digger, But she ain t messin with no broke ---. Daisy, a high class woman is married to Tom. At one point in time she loved Gatsby†¦show more content†¦The amount of make up still doesn t hide that fact that you are not whole, you should be able to look in a broken mirror and still see yourself whole. This statement means that no matter what is placed before you or what is thrown at you, you still know who you are as a person. Don’t get caught up with lies that you can’t answer the question â€Å"Who are you?,† because lying to yourself will only make you forget your own truth. You can only be beautiful if you choose not to be ugly. Society is so money hungry that it is built on materialistic things. There isn’t enough things in the world to buy you happiness and that was some of the characters in The Great Gatsby struggled to understand. Myrtle Wilson, another materialistic woman, was not satisfied with the pay that her husband, George, was making. Since Myrtle wasn’t satisfied she starting having an affair with Tom, Daisy’s husband. Tom bought her a dog, jewelry and perfume which made Myrtle fall in love with him. Never fall in love with the wrong people or things because it results in heart break. An example of heartbreak would be saying you love someone but not actually meaning it. Love is a word that is being thrown around like it has no meaning. We have children at the age of eight in relationships telling each other that they love them not realizing what they have just said. High schoolers want serious relationships but can t even be faithful. As for Daisy, she claimed she didn t love Tom when