Shakespeare And Kingship Essay -- William Shakespeare Kings Essays

Shakespeare And queen regnantship In musical composition his history plays, Shakespeare was actually commenting on what he nonion about(predicate) the notion of kingship. Through his plays, he questions the divine right of kings, which the kings and the aristocracy used heavily in their favour to win the peoples love. In Macbeth, King Richard II and King Henry IV part 1, Shakespeare shows us his opinion of kingship in general.Although the plays are written about individual kings, I think that Shakespeare used the plays as an opportunity to voice his opinion on kings and kingship in general. This was assisted by the fact that he was not prohibited by the true events, because it is well cognise that all of Shakespeares plays were written purely for entertainment value, not as a historical record of what occurred.The primary(prenominal) notion of kingship that Shakespeare attacks in Macbeth, King Richard II and King Henry IV, is the divine right of kings, where the kings claimed that they were Gods counterpart on Earth, and a step up in divinity from the other aristocrats and the super acid people. In his plays, Shakespeare depicts the kings, and Hal, in King Henry IV, as people who were not, or at least did not act like the direct descendants of God. In Macbeth, he commits treason and murder, the two worst crimes of the day, and incomplete Duncan nor Macbeth were saved by God, who, according to the theory of the divine right of kings, should have saved Duncan and then Macbeth. When they were killed, they were two king, and therefore the right-hand man of God, the creator, who controls the entire humans and who could have stopped them from being killed.In Richard II, Richard bankrupts the country with his blatant mismanagement and his excessive spending on his favourites, who are already rich aristocrats, while ignoring the vernacular people who are lifetime in poverty. Richards behaviour leads to both the aristocracy and the common people disliking him. The aristocrats disliked him because he was bankrupting the country, which they did not like because they were proud to be English and wanted their country to dominate for many more years. The common people disliked Richard because they were living in poverty while Richard was spending great amounts of money on people who were already wealthy. What Richard did is not the sort of behaviour that is expected from Gods representative on Earth, and S... ...he other extreme of kingship - while Macbeth and Richard cut the common people, Hal was one of the common people. King Henry fits right into the middle and I think would, by Shakespeares standards be a perfect king, if only his claim to the gutter could not be questioned, particularly the murder of Richard and the voyage to the Holy Land to wash this blood from my delinquent hand , which he still hadnt done in the opening scenes of King Henry IV, about a year later.Much of the things that the kings in the plays do may not be an altogether true example of what they, or even the kings of Shakespeares day were like. Most of what Shakespeare comments on is his personal opinion - it is he that thinks the kings mistreated and disregarded the common people and he that did not recollect in the divine right of kings. It is also important to remember that all of Shakespeares plays, even the historical ones were to a higher place all, written to be entertaining and to impress the Elizabethan audience that they were aimed for. Shakespeare did not write the plays as historical references, but instead as interesting and enkindle plays that would make for good, entertaining theatre. Shakespeare And Kingship Essay -- William Shakespeare Kings EssaysShakespeare And Kingship In writing his history plays, Shakespeare was actually commenting on what he thought about the notion of kingship. Through his plays, he questions the divine right of kings, which the kings and the aristocracy used heavily in their favour to win the peoples love. In Macbeth, King Richard II and King Henry IV part 1, Shakespeare shows us his opinion of kingship in general.Although the plays are written about individual kings, I think that Shakespeare used the plays as an opportunity to voice his opinion on kings and kingship in general. This was assisted by the fact that he was not prohibited by the true events, because it is well known that all of Shakespeares plays were written purely for entertainment value, not as a historical record of what occurred.The main notion of kingship that Shakespeare attacks in Macbeth, King Richard II and King Henry IV, is the divine right of kings, where the kings claimed that they were Gods counterpart on Earth, and a step up in divinity from the other aristocrats and the common people. In his plays, Shakespeare depicts the kings, and Hal, in King Henry IV, as people who were not, or at least did not act like the direct descendants of God. In Macbeth, he commits treason and murder, the two worst crimes of the day, and neither Duncan nor Macbeth were saved by God, who, according to the theory of the divine right of kings, should have saved Duncan and then Macbeth. When they were killed, they were both king, and therefore the right-hand man of God, the creator, who controls the entire world and who could have stopped them from being killed.In Richard II, Richard bankrupts the country with his blatant mismanagement and his excessive spending on his favourites, who are already rich aristocrats, while ignoring the common people who are living in poverty. Richards behaviour leads to both the aristocracy and the common people disliking him. The aristocrats disliked him because he was bankrupting the country, which they did not like because they were proud to be English and wanted their country to dominate for many more years. The common people disliked Richard because they were living in poverty while Richard was spending huge amounts of money on people w ho were already wealthy. What Richard did is not the sort of behaviour that is expected from Gods representative on Earth, and S... ...he other extreme of kingship - while Macbeth and Richard disregarded the common people, Hal was one of the common people. King Henry fits right into the middle and I think would, by Shakespeares standards be a perfect king, if only his claim to the throne could not be questioned, particularly the murder of Richard and the voyage to the Holy Land to wash this blood from my guilty hand , which he still hadnt done in the opening scenes of King Henry IV, about a year later.Much of the things that the kings in the plays do may not be an altogether true representation of what they, or even the kings of Shakespeares day were like. Most of what Shakespeare comments on is his personal opinion - it is he that thinks the kings mistreated and disregarded the common people and he that did not believe in the divine right of kings. It is also important to remembe r that all of Shakespeares plays, even the historical ones were above all, written to be entertaining and to impress the Elizabethan audience that they were aimed for. Shakespeare did not write the plays as historical references, but instead as interesting and exciting plays that would make for good, entertaining theatre.

LAB REPORT :: essays research papers

Maury Matos1/14/02AIM Find out the mode of inheritance from crossing brownness enceinte eyed male and forgetful eyed female, and to find out the fenotype and genotype of offspring. I took the F1 data and crossed it with another group to find the F2 data. conjecture I think that the red eye have dominant traits over brown eyes, and big eyes have dominant traits over little eyes. I got to this hypothesis because the F1 data proves that red big eyes are dominant because the offspring have big red eyes then the traits of red eyes and big eyes had to be homozygous dominant.Materials1. Flies2. Vials3. Fly food4. Ether5. Q-tip6. MicroscopeProcedure1. Gather Materials.2. Take empty vial and place only the flies in empty vial.3. Put ether in vial to put them to sleep.4. When they are asleep put them under a microscope to observe them.selective information young-begetting(prenominal)Female brownish big eyes - 0Brown big eyes - 0Brown little eyes - 0Brown little eyes - 0Red big eyes - 134R ed big eyes - 122Red little eyes - 0Red little eyes - 0ABAbaBababaAbBaAbbaabBaabb(prediction)MaleFemaleBrown eyeless 12.5%Brown eyeless 12.5%Brown big eyes 12.5%Brown big eyes 12.5%Red big eyes 12.5%Red big eyes 12.5%Red eyeless 12.5 %Red eyeless 12.5%(outcome)MaleFemaleBrown eyeless - 35Brown big eyes - 33Brown big eyes - 29Brown eyeless - 25Red big eyes - 32Red big eyes - 26Red eyeless - 32Red eyeless - 28 culmination My hypothesis was correct, because I crossed the F1 data and came with the outcome. I guessed that red eyes and big eyes had dominant traits. When flies are crossed they gotta have their parents genes and in this case the parents genes.

Repetition, Diction, and Simile in Cormac McCarthy’s The Crossing Essay

Repetition, Diction, and Simile in Cormac McCarthys The Crossing In Cormac McCarthys novel The Crossing, there is a prominent sequence described by the narrator. The author uses many different techniques to convey the impact of the experience on the narrator. Some of these such techniques are repetition, diction, and simile. Of the aforementioned techniques, the near obvious is repetition. The author uses the word and a total of thirty-three times. However, the simple usage of the word is non what is to be noticed. It is the placement of the word that is interesting. In sentences in which there is mention of the wolf, the word and is used twenty times. This amount is 150% higher than the amount of times the author chose to include the word and in sentences which did not mention the wolf. There are times in which it would be just as easy, if not easier, for the author to leave out the word and. For example, McCormac could have utter he touched the cold, perfect teeth. How ever, and was again squeezed in for the purpose...