Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Morals in Henry V
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Passage Analysis - Act 5 Scene 1, lines 115-138. 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. Hal’s remark to his father indicates a now strong, independent mind, predicting that Douglas and Hotspur will not accept Henry’s offer because of their love for fighting. Henry’s reply in turn indicates a change in attitude towards his son, a newfound respect. Acknowledging Hal’s prediction, the king orders preparations to begin, and we see he has his own set of solid moral values: knowing that their ‘cause is just’ helps him to reconcile with his highly honourable conscience that there is indeed cause for war. Still maintained is the conflict between the very format of the text, with Hal and Henry’s conversation held in formal verse typical of the court world, in which Hal is now firmly embedded. Falstaff, however, sustains his equally typical prose speech, which indicates to the audience the enduring division between the court and tavern worlds. As soon as the king leaves, Falstaff immediately proclaims his unashamed cowardice, asking Hal to protect him in battle. The prince retorts with an insult to Falstaff’s enormous size, and abruptly bids him farewell. Gone are the jests that would accompany a conversation between these two at the beginning of the play, and Hal’s reactions to Falstaff now represent his moving away from the tavern world, and that he now belongs to the court world. Falstaff is extremely honest about his feelings towards the whole affair, bluntly stating that he wishes it all were over, exposing his strong reluctance to fight and interest in self-preservation. Again the prince offers only a rude retort before his ... ... middle of paper ... ...traight from the tavern world – survival is more important to him, unlike those of the court world who live by honour, and care not if it leads to their death, but only that they one day may come to be ‘honourable’, whether dead or alive. He closes with the comment that what he has told us is his ‘catechism’. This suggests an idea that his religion is to avoid honour, and ever to question its value. Falstaff’s blatantly honest soliloquy has provided the audience with a direct insight into his mind, and contrasts well with Hal and Hotspur’s speeches, in which their moral order and regard for honour is evident. Falstaff helps to show the change in Hal to the audience. Falstaff himself is no different to the Falstaff of Act 1, unlike Hal who has obviously undergone a great deal of change. Falstaff’s speech is highly typical of the tavern world’s way of thinking: straightforward, sometimes humorous, spoken in prose, and only the values of the tavern world taken into consideration, with no regard for such insubstantial, un-physical concepts as honour. In this way, and spoken directly to the audience, Falstaff effectively expresses his unashamed resolution not to submit to moral order.
Prince Hal is initially portrayed as being incapable of princely responsibilities in light of his drinking, robbery and trickery. Yet, Shakespeare reveals that Hal is in fact only constructing this false impression for the purpose of deceit. Prince Hal’s manipulative nature is evident in his first soliloquy, when he professes his intention to “imitate the sun” and “break through the foul and ugly mists”. The ‘sun’ Prince Hal seeks to ‘imitate’ can in this case be understood as his true capacity, as opposed to the false impression of his incapacity, which is symbolised by the ‘foul and ugly mists’. The differentiation of Hal’s capacity into two categories of that which is false and that which is true reveals the duplicity of his character. Moreover, Hal is further shown to be manipulative in the same soliloquy by explaining his tactic of using the “foil” of a lowly reputation against his true capacity to “attract more eyes” and “show more goodly”. The diction of “eyes” symbolically represents public deception, concluding political actions are based on strategy. It is through representation and textual form that we obtain insight into this
Teddy Roosevelt was Vice President of the United States when President McKinley was assassinated in 1901, leaving Roosevelt as the youngest U.S. President ever. Politically it was a time of progressivism and change, but like all past affairs, things can get lost or interpreted differently by different people. It’s not just about Roosevelt, it 's about the people responsible for shaping America during the time of his presidency. This is evident in the two excerpts, “Prosperity” by Nell Irvin Painter in her political history Standing at Armageddon and Kolko’s “Roosevelt as Reformer”, from his political history Triumph of Conservatism. Although they are both political histories of the time during Roosevelt’s presidency, they have sharply contrasting components, such as a use of
Considering their fearsome adversary, in private Falstaff asks Prince Hal “art not thou horribly afraid” (II.4.337-338)? His question means to provoke an honest reflection on their dangerous undertaking. Falstaff does not mean to interrogate or belittle Prince Hal’s honor. Instead, Falstaff asks about his friend’s true emotional state and moves beyond the conventional appearance of knightly toughness. Prince Hal responds to the question feigning, “Not a whit, i’faith. I lack some of thy instinct” (II.4.339). The more regal Prince Hal becomes in his ambitions, the more he aligns himself with the values of the monarchy. Falstaff reveals how these values of stoicism and bravery can be delusional. If Prince Hal were honest, he would admit some degree of doubt about war. With his new regal stance; however, he distances himself from true sentiment. Falstaff is unabashed in asking matters of the heart. Although Falstaff does not get an honest reply, he exposes Price Hal’s pretension and with it the tradition of
The father and son relationship is one of the most important aspects through the youth of a young man. In Shakespeare’s play Henry IV, he portrays the concept of having "two fathers". King Henry is Hal’s natural father, and Falstaff is Hal’s moral father. Hal must weigh the pros and cons of each father to decide which model he will emulate. Falstaff, who is actually Hal’s close friend, attempts to pull Hal into the life of crime, but he refuses.
Falstaff is a central element in the two parts of Henry IV, he is supports the structure of the play. Yet he does seem to be a mainly fun maker, a character whom we laugh with and laugh at. The perfect example for this was the fat knight's account of the double robbery at Gadshill. The part of plump Jack is joyously expanded and diversified, for the delight of men and the glory of, Shakespeare. It is plain that the role of Sir John is not restricted to what is indispensable to Shakespeare's main purpose. Falstaff lies at the very foundation of these plays, that it is a structural necessity.
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.
He is happy being a drunkard and someone who indulges what he wants. But he also realizes that it is not the type of life that a prince, or a king, should associate himself with, which leads him to his pleading—another reason the scene is prophetic. He pleads with Henry about his morality, much like he will do later in the play and in Henry IV: Part II. Though the play extempore is supposed to prepare Henry for his encounter with his father. Falstaff realizes it may be a good time to practice the inevitable encounter that he will have with Hal once he becomes king. This argument can be further developed when one realizes that it was Falstaff that called for the play extempore, not Hal. Falstaff knew he wanted a trial run before Hal’s kingship, so he gave himself one. However, Hal’s only reaction to Falstaff’s final speech is his line, “I do, I will” (2.4. 465). Some may take this as his answer to Falstaff that he will pardon him, and continue to be his friend. But the argument could be made that Hal is saying that line more to himself than to Falstaff. He is saying that he will do what’s necessary to be a good king. That he does have what it takes to leave a life he enjoys for a life of
In Act 1, Scene 2, Hal and Falstaff are dinking at the bar. We get the
The banter, “Thou art so fat-witted with drinking of old sack, and unbuttoning thee after supper, and sleeping upon benches after noon,” between the two hooligans shows subtle endearment, unlike the audiences view on the relationship between Hal and his real father so far. Hals clearly unsuitable friendship with Falstaff and the “rogues” may first be seen as an act of defiance against being heir to the thrown; as he never chose to become noble and therefore has no control over his future. This may be where his want for control sprouts from, his father took away his control by setting his future for him so Hal will gain control by being the irresponsible Prince who needs to change, because nobody can make him change therefore he’s in control. Hal is the character in the play who serves as a bridge between the two plotlines, which also places him in a powerful position because he can essentially speak the language of the nobles but also the commoners. And when he is king this will make him a more successful
Neo-realism and Liberalism both provide adequate theories in explaining the causes of war, yet Neo-realist ideals on the structural level and states being unitary actors in order to build security, conclude that Neo-realist states act on behalf of their own self interest. The lack of collaboration with other states and balance of power among them presents a reasonable explanation on the causes of war.
...ternal conflict as soon as the play began. Though he only expresses his true emotions to himself, the audience benefits from his profound soliloquies and can understand his decisions and behaviours more easily despite the complex plot. In addition to recognizing the reasons behind his actions, his soliloquies also provide an opportunity for the audience to connect to his elusive nature and temperament. Since speech is a supporting foundation for conveying thoughts and opinions, the speeches that are performed regarding his depression, cowardly character, and decision whether or not to live and fulfill his father’s wish, are the keys to grasping the true story line that Shakespeare intended to create. Not only do Hamlet’s brilliant soliloquies bring the story of Hamlet to life, but it has also helped to make it one of the most famous pieces of literature of all time.
This questioning of what is actually important, physical needs or conceptual ideals, was relevant in Shakespeare’s time, and still is today. Living under Elizabeth I, the product of major religious upheaval, Shakespeare may have been disillusioned with the worlds of kings and queens of which he wrote. The belief in the importance of honor and reputation was still very popular during this time period, and in a play in which the entire plot revolved around these ideals Falstaff’s speech sticks out. This may have been a subtle critique of these values held so dearly by Shakespeare’s
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.
In Henry IV parts I and II we see Falstaff as the romantic character that is stated in the definition above, defying everything that the Classical character, Prince Hal, stands for and believes.. He refuses to take life seriously. He believes that "War is as much of a joke to him as a drinking bout at the Boar's Head." He uses people solely for his own purposes, either for money or for food and drink. He is rude and crude to all those around him and is one of the best liars who continually gets caught in his lies but makes new ones to cover for the old failed ones. Yet Baker states that, "His presence of mind and quickness of retort are always superb; his impudence is almost sublime. Yet the man thus corrupt, thus despicable, makes himself necessary to the prince that despises him, by the most pleasing of all qualities, perpetual gaiety. Falstaff creates around his capacious bulk a sort of Utopia which frees us temporarily from the worries and troubles of the actual world. What does it matter that Falstaff ridicules chivalry, honor, truth-telling, and bravery in battle? He is not to be taken seriously...he is a wholly comic character."
At first, Hal plays himself and Falstaff plays Henry. In this interpretation of the conversation, Falstaff is making jokes as well as complimenting himself, as he believes the King should. However, when the roles are reversed and Hal is playing the King and Falstaff is playing Hal, the interaction between the two becomes much more hostile. Hal, in quick succession, insults Falstaff without break. He refers to him as an old fat man, who resembles a devil. Hal relates him to animals, a sack of diseases, a drunk, and a bag full of guts. Hal claims that Falstaff is a man who is villainous and is worthy of nothing (2.4.397-409). After all of these insults, Falstaff, who is, arguably, still acting as Hal, defends himself. He claims that while it is true, he is in fact old, that is no reason for him to be seen as lesser. He says that if “sack and sugar be a fault, God help the wicked” and claims that being old and merry is to be hated, which Falstaff believes is wrong (2.4.416-428). He defends himself from the other insults that Hal has put on him. This interaction between the two further illustrates the hostile relationship between Hal and Falstaff. Falstaff’s attempt to dispel the criticisms that Hal has of Falstaff illustrates for readers that there is more to Falstaff than a comedic aspect. Falstaff is aware how people perceive him as he brings up his age in many of his conversations and makes jokes about himself drinking sac constantly. This scene in particular is open to multiple interpretations and many suggest that this interaction is a friendly one and the criticisms are all in good fun but the power dynamic between the two makes it impossible for them be on truly equal grounds. This power dynamic is taken further when Hal takes on the role of the king. By taking on the role of the king and insulting Falstaff, there is an even