William Shakespeare's Henry IV
In Shakespeare’s Henry IV Part 2, the brilliant playwright introduces us to several complex and intricate themes, clever language, and a fascinating cast of multifaceted characters, including the thief Jack Falstaff, who may be as wise as his belly is big, and the young Prince Hal, who conceals his shrewd mind and physical prowess beneath a soiled reputation for “unthrifty” behavior. Perhaps the most dynamic character of the play is Hotspur, or Henry Percy, the idealistic rebel warrior, and Hal’s rival for power, glory, and the throne. Although the public perceives him to be just an intense, hotheaded he-man, Hotspur actually has many different dimensions to his personality. Hotspur shows, particularly in his interactions with his wife, Lady Percy, that his attitude toward the roles of masculinity and femininity differ from the public’s expectations of him, and his expression of certain feminine characteristics proves that he is not solely the manly-man warrior he is thought to be.
The first impressions of Hotspur in the play support his macho reputation well. King Henry himself speaks favorably of Percy, calling him “the theme of honor’s tongue” (I.i.81) and in comparing Hotspur with the King’s own son Hal he expresses his wish that “some night-tripping fairy had exchang’d / In cradle-clothes our children where they lay / And call’d mine Percy, his Plantagenet!” (I.i.86). We learn that Hotspur is valiant, and skillful in war: he has recently captured several important hostages. He is also full of pride, and is not afraid to stand up to the King in requesting the freedom of his brother-in-law, Mortimer.
Conversely, we also see that Hotspur is apt to fall prey to his i...
... middle of paper ...
...nvied by many, and as Lady Percy says in this play’s sequel, Henry IV Part 2, after his death, “He was indeed the glass / Wherein the noble youth did dress themselves” (Part 2, I.iii.21-22). However, it is clear now that Hotspur is not exactly the ultimate 15th century manly-man: he is prone to “woman’s moods” such as irrational and hurried thoughts, he engages in hissy fits, and his relationship with his wife is one of balanced teasing and tenderness rather than superficiality and traditional male/female inequality. Albeit being a talented soldier and a challenging opponent, Hotspur is capable of exposing his feminine qualities in situations such as those with his wife. Hotspur is one of the most complex characters in this play, and the fact that he can balance his masculine image with typically feminine traits proves that he truly is the most dynamic character.
rebellion within the tavern setting as he becomes an adult with the political prowess to
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
shall firstly do a summery of the play and give a basic image of what
Neely, Carol Thomas. “Shakespeare’s Women: Historical Facts and Dramatic Representations.” Shakespeare’s Personality. Ed. Norman N. Holland, Sidney Homan, and Bernard J. Paris. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989. 116-134.
...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.
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
Shakespeare, William. Henry the Fourth, Part 1. Ed James L. Sanderson. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1969.
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.
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.
Henry’s personable nature is formed to enhance his ability to connect to his men. He uses this side of himself when he pretends to be a commoner before the battle of Agincourt. From his earlier vagabond years, Henry understands the psyche of the common man, and he uses this experience to make himself accessible as a person. Henry understands morale is low, and that his troops need to feel support so they do not give up. To do this, Henry disguises himself and speaks as a friend to his men to understand their opinions of the battle ahead. This persona differs so greatly from what most men see of Henry that his men can not even recognize their own king. Henry even drops the name “Harry le Roy,” with le roi being French for the king. The goal of this encounter is to retrieve unbiased intelligence about how his men feel without the intimidation that is associated with talking to the king. With this persona, Henry gets such candid results that he is insulted by a man named Williams. By disguising himself and changing his persona, Henry manipulates his own personality. He uses experiences from his previous lifestyle, builds on them, and then uses...
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:
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.
While neither Machiavelli’s The Prince nor Shakespeare’s Henry V focus explicitly on gender roles, they both make assumptions and implications sufficient to illustrate their opinions about the nature and place of women in relation to men. In Machiavelli’s The Prince, men and women are depicted in traditional gender roles with women as tricky and unreliable, but ultimately yielding to men who are portrayed as tough and immovable. Shakespeare’s Henry V acknowledges these ideas, but also portrays women as able to influence events within the small domain they are given.
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 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.
The relationship between a father and his son is an important theme in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part One, as it relates to the two main characters of the play, Prince Hal and Hotspur. These two characters, considered as youths and future rulers to the reader, are exposed to father-figures whose actions will influence their actions in later years. Both characters have two such father-figures; Henry IV and Falstaff for Prince Hal, and the Earl of Northumberland and the Earl of Worcester for Hotspur. Both father-figures for Hal and Hotspur have obvious good and bad connotations in their influence on the character. For example, Falstaff, in his drinking and reveling, is clearly a poor influence for a future ruler such as Prince Hal, and Worcester, who shares Hotspur's temper, encourages Hotspur to make rash decisions. The entire plot of the play is based on which father-figure these characters choose to follow: had they chosen the other, the outcome would have been wholly different.