Paper Summary:

The falsification of the audience's expectations and Hal's miraculous emergence as a great English king, alongside the Hal-Falstaff relationship out of which the future king's identity is gradually constructed, are the main critical puzzles in most studies of the William Shakespeare's "King Henry" series. The paper examines concepts of fraud and politics in parts one and two of "King Henry IV" and in "King Henry V". It discusses notions by literary critics such as Stephen who claim that Hal is one of Shakespeare's most Machiavellian characters. The paper argues that Machiavelli's Prince is not sufficiently cruel or sophisticated to be ranked with Prince Hal, despite the fact that Falstaff's cry for help, voiced in his paradoxical accusation that the Prince has corrupted him, seldom succeeds in inverting the audience's impression that Falstaff is Hal's misleader.

From the Paper:

"The concept of necessity, as it arises from the morality-patterned Phychomachia, reinforces providentialist notions, an idea first advanced by Tillyard but in a rather different context. Religious providentialism fuses the personal and political domains and Hal's borrowing from the theatrical and diachronic anthropological deposit causes the interweaving of theatrical illusion with politics, thus displaying their common structural patterns. The fusion of religion, politics and theater culminates in Hal's gradual conversion to virtue, which is at once a milestone in Hal's allegedly privileged relationship with God, a major political event, and a stock trick of Elizabethan drama."

Visitors who viewed this Analytical Essay also liked these:

• Analytical Essay # 49245 : "The Struggle towards Unity in "Henry IV"
• Analytical Essay # 21252 : "Henry IV, Parts I and II and Henry V"
• Comparison Essay # 16634 : "The King's English"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: