Use Of Control In Henry Iv Part 1

855 Words2 Pages

Shakespeare chooses to display power and control in an abstract and twisted way in the character of Hal in Henry IV Part 1. Many of Shakespeare’s plays are about Kings and ruler ship, this was because he was fascinated by the ways people handled power, and the deceit, back-stabbing and planning it requires to get and to stay at the top. The way Hal gains control is twisted because he is doing wrong and causing trouble but gaining control over people at the same time, in the same way a rebel or criminal would, revealing a part of his character. The first opinion of Hal the audience are revealed too is the one of King Henry, whilst talking to Westmoreland, which is a very negative one at the time. Henry severely disapproves of Hal’s behaviour …show more content…

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 …show more content…

The soliloquy reveals to the audience that he is completely in control and aware of the situation he is in. For the duration of this Hal speaks in verse, in contrast to the informal prose he chats to his friends at the tavern in. This dramatic change creates separation between the person which he is pretending to be and his real thoughts and being, and puts emphasis on the extreme deceit he is performing. His soliloquy tells the audience that he has a plan in process to undergo his very public transformation. Shakespeare does this to illustrate the fact that Hal is intelligent enough and capable to handle the decision-making and planning that a King would have to

Show More
Related

  • Is The Juxtaposition In King Henry's Soliloquy

    534 Words  | 2 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Prince Hal

    1435 Words  | 3 Pages

    Hal is a cold, calculating Machiavellian ruler. According to Machiavelli’s popular theory, being a successful leader has nothing to do with being a nice person or doing the right thing. Instead, it’s about being inventive, manipulative, crafty, and willful. Hal is an intelligent character who put all those attributes to work when he articulated a grand plan to fool everyone around him in order to gain power. One critic claims that traditionally there are two common ways to interpret Prince Hal's development. The first is to see it as a celebration of a great king in training who grows in his responsibility and develops into a mature political leader. The second view sees Prince Hal as a cold Machiavel who uses his friends as means to a political end, without much regard for their feelings. (Johnston 1).

    Read More

  • King Henry Viii's Consolidation Of Power Essay

    915 Words  | 2 Pages

    The given documents are examples of the monarch’s ability to assert their authority through word. The different proclamations illustrate the problems of the time, and how the assumed power of the monarch addressed it. It is assumed that their power goes to include power over the church and all papal authority, ultimate power over Parliament, power over other lands, and it goes as far as suggesting that their power has been bestowed upon them by God. The assumed nature and extent of the Tudors’ power alters over time, each king reacting to a different situation. King Henry VII establishes a strong and clear claim to the crown for the Tudors when there were doubts about his claim. King Henry VIII extends the power of the monarch by annexing the

    Read More

  • Falstaff As An Acts Of Manipulation In King Henry IV By William Shakespeare

    1581 Words  | 4 Pages

    Looking at an overview of Falstaff, he has traits that of a villain, yet in King Henry IV, he is arguably one of the most beloved character, responsible for comedic relief. However I believe this is Shakespeare making a statement, and masking it behind humour. You see, it can be said that Falstaff is a politically driven character, in which everything he does is with purpose, whether that be financial gain or obtaining power. His relationship with Hal was for him to gain favor, once Hal became king. He acts as a great contrast to Hal, as throughout the play, Hal grows and changes stepping up to expectation and embodying a just and righteous ‘man’, so to speak. Falstaff’s character, however remains stagnant, barely changing throughout the play. Even his final actions in the play claiming to have killed Hotspur was with the intent of gaining rewards and power. So why is Falstaff, a character with many negative traits, made to be so likeable?, and Hal a man who is supposedly our beloved hero seen as a rebellious child for half the play? It could be Shakespeare making a comment as to how in politics, you never truly understand a person and their true intentions. Take the quote from Act 4 Scene 2 Line 56 :

    Read More

  • Character Analysis Of Falstaff

    1467 Words  | 3 Pages

    He is accepted for his faults and further appreciated for his humor. Once receptive to Falstaff’s follies, an underlying wisdom can be found. Shakespeare offers Falstaff as a guide to living beyond the confines of convention, out of all the order. Disguised in banter, Falstaff calls into question values of morality and nobility. His manner is harmless in both words and actions. Of all the loyalty and disloyalty that incites political turbulence in the play, Falstaff remains inert. He does not enact any cruel aggression in effort to achieve power. Nevertheless, Falstaff commits slight though significant transgressions against Prince Hal and aristocratic values. These transgressions begin in conversation and eventually result in Falstaff’s action on the

    Read More

  • King Henry IV

    594 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Expectations of Kingship in Henry IV by William Shakespeare

    847 Words  | 2 Pages

    We see Prince Henry being compared to Hotspur many times in this play. I think that it is trying to show how Hotspur is the true example of royalty, not Hal. When King Henry talks to his son in Act 3, Scene 2, he lets him know how he feels that Hotspur is more worthy of the throne then he is.

    Read More

  • Prince Henry Rite Of Passage

    1151 Words  | 3 Pages

    Throughout the play, Prince Henry develops from a rascal to a responsible adult and by doing so, earns the respect and acceptance from his father King Henry IV. In act one, Shakespeare introduces the idea that Prince Henry is an inadequate heir to the throne. The play

    Read More

  • Henry IV, Part 1, by Shakespeare

    1108 Words  | 3 Pages

    Hal is the Prince of Wales and heir to the British throne was able to manipulate both the nobles and the court in order to satisfy his needs. Firstly, his ability to speak confidently between the lower class and upper class allowed him to gain authority of many things. In the beginning of the play, Poins tells Hal and Falstaff there is a robbery planned for...

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Prince Hal And Falstaff's Henry IV: Part II

    1338 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Shakespeare on Machiavelli: The Prince in Richard III

    1505 Words  | 4 Pages

    According to many, Shakespeare intentionally portrays Richard III in ways that would have the world hail him as the ultimate Machiavel.  This build up only serves to further the dramatic irony when Richard falls from his throne.  The nature of Richard's character is key to discovering the commentary Shakespeare is delivering on the nature of tyrants.  By setting up Richard to be seen as the ultimate Machiavel, only to have him utterly destroyed, Shakespeare makes a dramatic commentary on the frailty of tyranny and such men as would aspire to tyrannical rule.

    Read More

  • King Henry Iv Part 1

    1098 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Henry Iv Part 1 Character Analysis

    502 Words  | 2 Pages

    Throughout the play of Henry IV: Part 1, King Henry of London has begun preparing the kingdom for his son, Prince Hal, who will soon inherit the throne. Unfortunately, King Henry is apprehensive of his wild child, frightened that he won’t be able to transition from rowdy boy to respectable king. In this passage, Prince Hal is dramatically explaining his scheme, professing that he is capable of successfully inheriting the throne. Through this explanation, it is clear that he has avoided much of his inescapable responsibilities throughout his childhood. By looking at Shakespeare's use of contrasting point of views, we can see that Prince Hal wanted to deliberately victimize and justify his current facade, as well as create the image of the person

    Read More

  • The Theme of Actors and Acting in Hamlet

    1907 Words  | 4 Pages

    Many would perceive madness and corruption to play the most influential role in Hamlet. However, it could be argued that the central theme in the tragedy is Shakespeare's presentation of actors and acting and the way it acts as a framework on which madness and corruption are built. Shakespeare manifests the theme of actors and acting in the disassembly of his characters, the façades that the individuals assume and the presentation of the `play within a play'. This intertwined pretence allows certain characters to manipulate the actions and thoughts of others. For this reason, it could be perceived that Shakespeare views the `Elsinorean' tragedy as one great puppet show, "I could see the puppets dallying".

    Read More

  • Father/Son Relationships in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part One

    804 Words  | 2 Pages

    The consequences of the Hal and Hotspur's choice in father-figures are indeed what leads the play to its final outcome. Hal, who sides with his father and not Falstaff, becomes a noble prince and redeems himself in the eyes of his father. Hotspur, on the other hand, sides with Worcester, and their collective tempers lead them to make the rash decision to revolt. Their tempers are also responsible for other poor decisions that evade the chance of truce, resulting in the inevitable failure of the rebellion. Indeed, all could have been prevented if Hotspur sided with his father, rather than his uncle, and Hal would have become a desolate criminal had he followed Falstaff.

    Read More

More about Use Of Control In Henry Iv Part 1

Open Document