Henry IV Part 1 – The significance of Hal
The significance of Hal is interesting because Hal’s attitude at the opening of the play is of a young idle man. His father, Henry, wants him to be his true successor to the throne so it worrying that he behaves otherwise. Throughout the play Hal’s development is significant to me as he begins to mature into a young prince.
Overall I think there are three characters that influence Hal, in both positive and negative factors. The three characters are his father – King Henry, his companion - Sir John Falstaff and his rival – Hotspur.
The first time we hear Henry speak of his son Hal is the moment after Westmoreland tells Henry about the rebellion, led by Glendower. Hotspur has led to yet another victory by defeating the Scottish. We as the audience become more conscious of the tense political situation.
Henry IV wistfully wishes he could switch his son Hal with Hotspur because he sees Hotspur as a valiant solider. “That some night tripping fairy has exchanged in cradles clothes our children where they lay, and called mine Percy, his Plantagenet”. The word “exchanged” reminds Henry and the audience of how much Henry didn’t want Hal to be his son. He wants Hal to be like a true heir but at the moment its Hotspur as Hal is still very much a young idle man, especially when Westmoreland agrees that Hotspur has had a noble conquest.
The word “prince” reminds Henry of his son Hal and the great disappointment he is. This is the first comparison between Hal and Hotspur. Shakespeare is able to examine and understand both personalities but especially Hal’s. We as the audience can make a judgement also, but also helps the audience understand the story more. In those days when a prince was to ...
... middle of paper ...
...a young matured prince. Unlike Hotspur, at the start was a valiant solider but then developed bad habits e.g. being selfish to others and developing an immature attitude. We as the audience can now see the true image of Prince Hal, the worthy successor to King Henry IV.
Overall, I would say Hal is significance in a number of ways one of which is the True Prince emerges from the moral squalor in spite of its attractions including Falstaff as Lord of Misrule. The difference between Hal and Henry’s Leadership skills as Henry is autocratic, aloof, dictatorial whereas Hal skills are doubtable, anxious to know and understand his people and approachable. The “chiasmus” between Hal and Hotspur parallels as Hal turns bad to good and Hotspur turns good to bad. Portraying Hal as the underdog, making good “riot and dishonour” becoming “feathe
Works Cited
Book Henry IV Part 1
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).
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.
...cing his role as the Prince and defeating Hotspur when no one in the kingdom believed he had the gumption or the courage to do so. Hal's plea to the King to "salve the long-grown wounds of my intemperance" and subsequent promise to "die a hundred thousand deaths ere break the smallest parcel of this vow" are the final turning points in the story that lead to Prince Hal being educated as to what it means to be an ideal and true King (3.2.155-159). However, there is still time for Hal's perspectives and values to be shaped and re-shaped by his father, the ghost of Hotspur, and the excesses of Falstaff, as well as by characters who have not yet been introduced, and in order to fully understand the transformation of Prince Hal, the reader must continue to King Henry IV, Part II and King Henry V to learn if Hal truly becomes an effective and charismatic ruler of England.
When it is his turn to play the part of his father he takes the opportunity to verbally lambaste Falstaff. His rouse allows him to the first time speak his mind without fear of losing face in front of the common folk. His roleplaying allows him to indicate an underlying animosity that comes to a head in a later history play. Hal is strategic if nothing else, as if he has written the timeline of his life and is just reading from a script. Hal is written his own history well in advance and is merely going through the motions, he rarely if ever seems to go ‘off script’. Strategy and calculation are invaluable tools to a great politician, provided they can hide these qualities long enough to gain the approval of the public. Through expert use of language Hal is able to transverse between high and low language, a skill that most other nobles cannot master. Hal is both a strategic mastermind, a writer of his own history and a great actor. All of these skills have the potential to make him a great ruler or politician. If Hal had lived in a democratic society rather than a monarchy I have no doubt that he would have been elected president. Essentially the television show would be a mix of House of Cards and Henry IV part one, a devious adaptation centered on a cunning and captivating protagonist. Politicians are constantly using language to ‘write
From the information delivered by Shakespeare on King Henry, it symbolizes the significance of Henry’s multifaceted personality in becoming a successful ruler, and the fact that relationships will be torn apart, in order to achieve success on the battlefield.
Remember that comment I made earlier about first impressions? If you were to enter and view this play without any prior knowledge, would you question it’s historical accuracy? Would you question the existence of characters such as Falstaff? For many of us simple answer is no. That’s because Shakespeare is in a way, rewriting history. He is taking facts, and turning them into fiction. Therefore this whole play, ever since the beginning can be said as a representation of the people and politics during Shakespeare’s time, manipulating audiences to look at history through a different lens. For example, Shakespeare chose to make Hotspur and Hal of similar age, whereas Harry Percy of Shakespeare’s time was probably closer to Henry’s age. Now this is to either create a rival for the character Hal, or it is making a political statement regarding the two figures who are of different nature clashing until only one remains. Similar to the idea how there can only be one ruler, this political rivalry had to end with only one as victor. Remembering scenes such as Act 4 Scene 4, a small yet powerful act. The audiences gets a small yet insightful scene where the religious figures are conversing and taking sides for the upcoming battle. This again is Shakespeare referring to the religious
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
transformation of Prince Hal from a tavern crony into the next King of England. This is a
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
One of the most famous scenes in Henry IV: Part I is the scene in which Prince Hal and Falstaff put on a play extempore. This is often cited as the most famous scene because it is Hal’s turning point in the play. However, the scene is much more than that. The play extempore is a moment of prophecy, not epiphany because is cues the reader in to the play’s major themes, and allows readers to explore the possibilities of the play’s continuance.
Prince that Hal reminds him of the way King Richard acted before Henry took the
In act one, Shakespeare introduces the idea that Prince Henry is an inadequate heir to the throne. The play opens with King Henry IV, Prince Henry’s father, speaking to his council of a war with Scotland. Quickly the subject of the discussion turns to Prince Henry, or Harry’s, indifference to the affairs of war. The King then compares Harry to Hotspur, son of the Duke of Northumberland in his dialogue:
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.
This character is essential to this story because he is the protagonist. Without Hamlet there is no story.
The perfection of Hamlet’s character has been called in question - perhaps by those who do not understand it. The character of Hamlet stands by itself. It is not a character marked by strength of will or even of passion, but by refinement of thought and sentiment. Hamlet is as little of the hero as a man can be. He is a young and princely novice, full of high enthusiasm and quick sensibility - the sport of circumstances, questioning with fortune and refining on his own feelings, and forced from his natural disposition by the strangeness of his situation.