Part I was written in 1597. This history play had begun to
appear on the London stage around a decade before. The play gained
such an enormous popularity, that Shakespeare produced a sequel to it
- Henry IV - Part II . These two plays were very much amusing to the
public, having many of the same characters, and are therefore usually
discussed together by the critics.
Shakespeare mainly tried basing most of his characters on real people,
and later adapting them to their role. This happened with Falstaff
himself, but it is said that Falstaff is "the child of Shakespeare's
creative imagination, and, like most children of most fathers, must
have given Shakespeare considerable trouble and great joy."(1)
Falstaff is a character based on a real person, who goes by the name
of Sir John Oldcastle, and this can also be concluded from scene ii of
Act I, when Henry, Prince of Wales, who is the King's son puns:
"As the honey of Hybla, my old lad of the castle;" (A.I.ii.41) (2)
Sir John Oldcastle's wife's descendant, William, Lord Cobham, who was
Lord Chamberlain of England, was putting pressure on Shakespeare,
telling him to change the name, as it was seemed to be offensive to
his family. One book states the following:
"In the epilogue to Part II of Henry IV, Shakespeare underlines the
alteration by denying any connection between Oldcastle and Falstaff -
For Oldcastle died a martyr, and this is not the man.
So Oldcastle became Falstaff, by what exact process we do not know."
(3)
The Queen herself was very fond of Falstaff, and requested from
Shakespeare that he writes another play set around this, and other
comic charatcters from Henry IV, and adjust them to a contemporary
late-Elizabethan setting. She wished him to show Falstaff in love, and
this resulted in The Merry Wives of Windsor.
Even though Henry, Prince of Wales, the King's son, who throughout the
play is referred to as Hal, is the hero of this history play, Sir John
shall firstly do a summery of the play and give a basic image of what
Passage Analysis - Act 5 Scene 1, lines 115-138. Shakespeare’s ‘King Henry IV Part I’ centres on a core theme: 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.
In the historical play Henry V by William Shakespeare, we are introduced to the story of a young and influential King Henry V of England, and his quest to conquer France under the ruler ship of Charles VI of France. This play details Henry’s life leading up to and following the Battle of Agincourt in the year 1415, which according to the “Hundred Years’ War”, was fought between England and France from 1337 to 1453. Now, in the source “William Shakespeare Biography”, it was found that Shakespeare lived from “c. 1564-1616” and is “widely considered the greatest dramatist of all time.” He too is of English descent, which suggests the bias that is present in this play, as according to “Henry V List of Characters”, Shakespeare’s primary purpose
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.
when King Henry V led a war against the French. The play is the fourth
...in themes similar to those found in the two Henry IV plays, such as usurpation, rebellion, and the issue of lineage of royal right. But Richard II and King Henry V are decidedly more serious in tone, and in comparing them to I Henry IV and II Henry IV, the argument can be made that it is these two latter plays which resound with greater realism with the broader spectrum of life which they present. Shakespeare carefully balances comedy and drama in I Henry IV and II Henry IV, and in doing so the bard gives us what are perhaps the most memorable characters in all of English literature.
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.
rebellion within the tavern setting as he becomes an adult with the political prowess to
even of it’ suggests that it is the truth that Henry is no more than a
Written during a time of peace immediately following the conclusion of the War of the Roses between the Yorks and the Lancasters, William Shakespeare’s play Richard III showcases a multi-faceted master of linguistic eloquence, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, a character who simultaneously manages to be droll, revolting, deadly, yet fascinating. Richard's villainy works in a keen, detestable manner, manifesting itself in his specific use or, rather, abuse of rhetoric. He spends a substantial amount of time directly interacting and therefore breaking the fourth wall and orating to the audience in order to forge a relationship with them, to make members not only his confidants of murderous intentions, but also his accomplices and powerless, unwilling cohorts to his wrongdoings. Through the reader’s exploration of stylistic and rhetorical stratagem in the opening and final soliloquies delivered by Richard, readers are able to identify numerous devices which provide for a dramatic effect that make evident the psychological deterioration and progression of Richard as a character and villain.
Identify and discuss the two issues with which you feel William Shakespeare is asking his audience to wrestle with most in Henry IV, Part I. As you develop this response, comment on Shakespeare’s refusal to match any of his questions with essay answers. Comment also on the immediate relevance of these issues to those of our own day.
Dutton, R., & Howard, J.E. (2003). A Companion to Shakespeare’s Works.(p. 9) Maiden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
Henry V has always been one of William Shakespeare’s more popular plays, in part because of the different ways that the main character can be presented. The play is essentially a treatise on what it means to be a great leader, yet the definition of just what that entails changes over time. The way the play is presented and how Henry is characterized and portrayed has also changed over time. Nowhere are these changes more visibly present than in the three best known adaptations of the play, Laurence Olivier’s 1944 film Henry V, Kenneth Branagh’s 1989 film Henry V, and the 2012 version of Henry V that was featured as the final part of the BBC miniseries known as The Hollow Crown, with the Henry V episode being directed by theatre director Thea Sharrock. While each version tells the same story and does not detract too much from the original text, there are nevertheless enough differences in the way the play is presented and how Henry is portrayed that it is easy enough to see that each adaptation is a product of its time.
To turn Henry V into a play glorifying war or a play condemning war would be to presume Shakespeare's intentions too much. He does both of these and more in his recount of the historical battle of Agincourt. Although Shakespeare devotes the play to the events leading to war, he simultaneously gives us insight into the political and private life of a king. It is this unity of two distinct areas that has turned the play into a critical no man's land, "acrimoniously contested and periodically disfigured by opposing barrages of intellectual artillery" (Taylor 1). One may believe that Henry is the epitome of kingly glory, a disgrace of royalty, or think that Shakespeare himself disliked Henry and attempted to express his moral distaste subtly to his audience. No matter in which camp one rests, Henry V holds relevance for the modern stage. Despite containing contradictions, Henry is also a symbol as he is one person. This unity of person brings about the victory in the battle of Agincourt.
Henry IV is a play that concerns itself with political power and kingship in English history. References to kingship are prevalent throughout the play, especially in the depiction of the characters. Although most of the characters in this play could teach us about kingship, I would like to focus my attention to Prince Henry. I think that this character helps us to best understand what kingship meant at this particular time in history.