Honor in Prince Hal
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.
The first influence that Shakespeare illustrates over Prince Hal is that of Falstaff, a fat old man who seems to spend his life in seedy taverns accruing massive amounts of debt. From his devious scheme to rob unknowing travelers at the beginning of the story to his diatribe on what honor is not, it is clear that Falstaff has a very distinct notion of his own personal honor, and he seems to be trying to project that same notion onto Hal; however, as Hal becomes closer to his father, Falstaff's honor becomes less appealing. Falstaff treats Hal and King Henry IV to his own personal code of honor-or lack thereof:
"Well, 'tis no matter; honour pricks me on. Yea, but how if honour prick me off when I come on? How then? Can honour set to a leg? No. Or an arm? No. Or take away the grief of a wound? No. Honour hath no skill in surgery, then? No. What is honour? A word. What is in that word 'honour'? What is that 'honour'? Air. A trim reckoning. Who hath it? He that died o'Wednesday. Doth he feel it? No. Doth he hear it? No. 'Tis ins...
... middle of paper ...
...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.
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
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.
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 :
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
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.
In Shakespeare's work Richard II , He talks about how honor is one of his highest priorities. “Mine honor is my life, both grow in one; Take honor from me, and my life is done; Then, dear liege, mine honor let me try; In that I live, and for that I will die” (Parrott, 1953, p. 308) This piece shows the intensity of one's need for honor. The act of insulting someone was a serious matter. By...
In 1 Henry IV, Prince Henry’s gradual development was evident throughout the play. A comparison of Harry’s character during the first act against Harry in the fifth act almost seems like two different people. Prince Henry has carried out his plan to prove to people that he will be a worthy King by following his father into battle and killing the leader of the rebel army. Prince Henry’s act of bravery marks the transition between the young Henry and the mature Henry but more importantly, has earned Henry the respect and acceptance from his father.
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
For me, one of the ultimate acts of heroism in Shakespeare’s Henry IV occurs in Act V, Scene IV of the play when Prince Hal rushes onto the battlefield to save his father, King Henry, from being killed by rebels. The rebellious Douglas is standing over Henry and is about to kill the king just as Hal bursts onto the scene and challenges Douglas: “Hold up thy head, vile Scot, or thou art like / Never to hold it up again!” (41-42). In risking his life for his father, Hal reveals his true courage and nobility in this moment, as previously the prince had been intentionally hiding his noble qualities during the beginning of the play to further his strategies. Hotspur’s arc, on the other hand, is the
In Shakespeare's Henry IV Part One, the characters' many different conceptions of honor govern how they respond to situations. Each character's conception of honor has a great impact on the character's standing after the play. For instance, Falstaff survived because he dishonorably faked his own death, and his untrue claim that he was the one who killed Hotspur may get him a title and land. On the other hand, Hotspur lies dead after losing a duel for honor. Hotspur, who is in many ways the ideal man by the standards of his time, is killed by his lust for honor. In creating Hotspur, Shakespeare has created a variation on the tragic hero of other works: the stubborn tragic hero, who, dying for his fault of honor, does not at last understand his weakness.
In the epics of both Homer and Virgil, the meaning and politics of honour play a significant role in the decisions and actions of the characters. Honour involves arbitrary set of rules, so just what is is and why did people need to maintain these rules at all? In these poems, honour is linked to a hero’s possessions, identity, and deed. All three are important, but one’s deeds seem to matter the most and without performing great deeds, honour cannot be had the other two ways.
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.
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
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.