The idea of honor being the focal point for I Henry IV and Henry V is consistent throughout the plays. Though this idea is demonstrated throughout the plays it is the responsibility that comes along with it that the characters struggle with. To start, 1 Henry IV gives the impression that honor is a reflection of the individual that has the honor. In Henry V honor is seen as a prize. The more honor you have the better you will be. In this comparative essay, the examination of the ways in which honor is portrayed and the responsibility in order to gain and keep that honor will be looked at. In I Henry IV, the characters have different ideas to what honor actually is. For Hotspur, who is very hot headed and quick to act out, Honor comes with being in battle and winning. For hotspur, honor can only be won and that’s exactly what he chooses to do. King Henry IV idea of power consists of him being the ruler and the trust he has gained from the nation he has ruled over for so many years. Hal also has his own idea of power which consists of the ability for honor to be transferred from one person to another after death. “He acknowledges that Hotspur has achieved honor in battle, honor that his father respects. He claims that "for every honour sitting on his head would they were multitudes" while all he himself has accumulated was shame (3.2.144-143). He cultivates plans of taking from Hotspur the honor he has achieved in order to regain his good name.”(McNamara) But in this play these characters have done some shady acts in order to obtain the honor they have now. One could see it as the dishonorable acts that have been done in order to achieve power such as King Henry IV taking the crown away from Richard II in the first place. The ... ... middle of paper ... ...parallel to Hotspur who went out with honor and glory, and now has seemed to attach itself to Henry V. To put it best “Shakespeare does not show disdain for Henry V’s refusal to hold himself accountable for his decision to invade France, nor does he prompt us to. Indeed, instead of disdain, Henry V’s manipulations sallow him to win everything: the French princess and the love of his country. When he similarly transfers responsibility for the unpleasantness of his actions on the Governor of Harfleur, whose town is one of the first he attacks, he gains victory over the town, which prefigures his greater victory over France at Agincourt.” (Pestritto). King Henry V has a different way in obtaining the honor, as compared to King Henry IV. King Henry V is willing to whatever it takes to obtain glory and honor through battle and the responsibility it take to achieve it.
William Shakespeare's play, Julius Caesar, has a heavy focus on honor. The characters in the play have a tendency to refer back to honor and the honor of Rome, but are they really as honorable as they say? Honor is a very abstract concept that is widely applicable in many situations, but what is it? To honor someone is to show them respect, and to be honorable is to act in a way that deserves respect and admiration. The characters of Julius Caesar, for the most part, are all seeking some form of honor, but do they achieve it? Three of the best examples of honor in Julius Caesar are Brutus, Cassius, and Portia. With varying levels of honor, these characters display the spectrum well.
Hal understands that those of high birth have a greater responsibility to be honorable. The jealousy that comes with the persistent protection of one’s honor is a characteristic seen in almost every noble figure, but Hal’s attitude toward honor is different than those around him- especially Hotspur. Unlike Hotspur, who serves the code of honor, Hal intends to abuse it by postponing his acquisition of honor so that when he eventually attains it his reputation will seem greater than it would’ve originally.
Prince Hal’s destiny is shaped for him by many forces: his association with the ne'er-do-well Falstaff, the expectations of his father, King Henry IV, and the constant comparison between himself and Hotspur. All three of these forces create in Hal a sense of honor that is an integral part of his education as the ideal king, and throughout the action of Henry IV, Part I, Hal is gaining a knowledge of honor that will shape him into the King that he will become. However, it seems that Hal ultimately chooses one form on honor over the other, although he must compare the honor of Falstaff and the conceptual honor of a chivalric hero before he comes to a final conclusion.
honorble ruler. Henry IV was king of France between 1589 and 1610. He was supported
Hal seems to lack honor at the commencement of the play, but near the end we see him display a different kind true honor which will be explained more in depth. Hal also shows his honor when he rejects the requests put forth by his good friend Falstaff and sides with his natural father to fight loyally. Even though Henry views Hal as an unworthy candidate for the thrown, Hal proves him wrong by displaying attributes that are very honorable. In King Henry’s point of view, Hal doesn’t seem much like an heir to his thorwn. Instead of living at the court to aid his father govern England, he frolics in the Taverns of Eastcheap with a group of petty thieves.
One of the key words in his dialogue is 'honour' because in Elizabethan times honour was bound up with ideas of nobility and manliness. Henry has constant reference to the divine, to get permission for his actions, 'God's will.' Additionally there is various uses of semantic fields, associated with religion, God, covet, honour and sin; all taken from the bible. Henry applies a very close relationship term, 'cuz.'
Henry in Henry V The bishops refer to Henry in the first scene as "a sudden scholar" who can "reason in divinity. " Canterbury says, "The king is full of grace, and fair regard. Ely quotes "and a true lover of the holy church. The two bishops, pretty much have the same view on Henry, they think highly of him.
In order for one to keep their political status and please their country, there are some qualities, traits and skills required. For some, political skills may be a natural or intuitive trait. For others, it feels uncomfortable and takes excessive effort. In either case, political skills must be practiced and honed in order to recap its benefits. For instance, one may naturally possess skills such as listening to others, communicating and commitment. On the other hand, one may not possess those skills and it may require excessive effort to possess those skills. Prince Hal realizes that he must learn to possess these characteristics if he wants to be a successful king. Henry IV, Part 1 by Shakespeare deals with the struggle of King Henry IV to maintain his control of the English throne which he usurped from Richard II. The play deals with the conflict between King Henry IV and his son, Prince Harry, and their tense relationship. King Henry is the ruling king of England. He is worn down by worries and guilty feelings about having won his throne through a civil war. Hal, the Prince of Wales who demonstrates his ability to manipulate others to complete his selfish goals. Hal is an effective leader because unlike his father, his mastery of language shows that he will be a virtuous ruler, able to understand lower and upper class and manipulate them to believe his words.
In the play Henry V written by Shakespeare. Henry was presented as the ideal Christian king. His mercy, wisdom, and other characteristics demonstrated the behavior of a Christian king. Yet at the same time he is shown to be man like any other. The way he behaves in his past is just like an ordinary man. But in Henry’s own mind he describes himself as “the mirror of all Christian kings” and also a “true lover of the holly church.
Honor is a trait few possess in the modern world. Cyrano de Bergerac, a play by Edmond Rostand set in France during the sixteen hundreds, discusses honor in it’s truest form. But honor is not simply a code or a way to describe a man, there are characteristics that make a honorable individual. The main character, Cyrano, lives what many in his city would call an honorable life. Rostand uses this character to explore what characteristics make a man of honor. Some of the prominent traits the author presents as honorable are possessing controlled wit, bravery on and off the battlefield, and the ability to love unceasingly.
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.
In order to understand how the word honor impacts Titus Andronicus, it is important to first understand what the word means. Honor is defined differently during William Shakespeare’s lifetime, in the play Titus Andronicus, and in present day. In Shakespeare’s time, honor was very important because status and reputation were very important. The higher one’s status or the better one’s reputation reflected how honorable the person was considered to be. In Titus Andronicus, the definition of honor seems to change from character to character; however, William Shakespeare portrays the importance of honor in the Roman Empire. Honor meant everything to the warriors, rulers, and people of the Roman Empire. In the present day, honor is not as important as it was in the past. The sad truth is that today reputation or status is not based upon one’s honor; it is based mainly off of how much money the person makes or how well they can lip-sync at their sold out concerts. Merriam-Webster defines honor as “high moral standards of beh...
In Henry V, the actions of King Henry portray him as an appalling leader. Among Henry's many negative traits, he allows himself to be influenced by people who have anterior motives. This is problematic because the decisions might not be the best decisions for the country, or neighboring countries. The bishops convinced Henry to take over France because they would be able to save land for the Church. Henry doesn't have the ability to accept responsibility for his actions, placing the blame on others. Before Henry begins to take over a French village, he tells the governor to surrender or risk having English troops terrorize civilians. This way, if the governor declines, it would be the governor's fault for the atrocities that would occur. Henry has gotten his troops to go along with the take over by manipulating them. He tells the soldiers that what they're doing is noble, and that they should be proud. In fact, they're attacking another country in order to conquer it. Henry's character comes off as coldhearted and careless. Henry shows ruthlessness towards civilians, threatening them with atrocities. He's careless with his soldiers, thoughtlessly allowing their executions, or playing hurtful games with them.
Could you imagine yourself becoming the leader of a country at merely the age of nine months old? King Henry VI of England did it. Henry was the only son of King Henry V and Catherine of Valois (Wikipedia). By the time Henry V died, he had not only consolidated power as the King of England, but had also effectively accomplished what generations of his ancestors had failed to achieve through decades of war: unification of the crowns of England and France (Wikipedia). For that one single victory by Henry V, he became very popular for that effort. By the sounds of it, Henry was an outseanding King and loved by the people. His son, Henry VI, seemingly had to follow in his fathers footsteps and perhaps do something even greater than his now deceased father. There was only one problem: How can you run a country when you are only a child? England was okay after the death of Henry V because Henry VI had regents that ran the country for him. Under normal circumstances of this magnitude, the wife of a deceased King ran the country, but the English did not want Catherine of Valois to run the country for the simple fact that she was French; so therefore they gave the power to this infant in hopes of greatness. Because young Henry was too young to run the country and had regents to run the country for him until he became of age, Catherine made sure that her son was well-educated. While politics and foreign policies were being negotiated by Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, Bishop Henry Beaufort, and John, Duke of Bedford, young Henry VI was either learning or being told to go play (Crow). Henry was finally officially crowned King of England at Westminister Abbey on November 6, 1429 at the age of eight and King of France at Notre Dame in Paris on December 16, 1431. Henry did not assume the reins of government until he was declared of age in 1437 (Wikipedia).
At the start of the play, the reader sees that Prince Hal has been acting in a manner which has disappointed his father. The King compares Hotspur to Hal, saying that Hotspur is ìA son who is the theme of honour's tongue,î and that ìriot and dishonour stain the brow of [Hal] (I.i.3).î He even wishes that the two were switched: ìThen would I have his Harry, and he mine (I.i.3).î The King obviously does not approve of Hal's actions, and believes that, if Hal does not change his ways, he will be a poor successor to the throne.