Abstract 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 "KingHenry" series. The paper examines concepts of fraud and politics in parts one and two of "KingHenryIV" and in "KingHenry 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 theatre 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."
Abstract This paper examines the use of legitimacy as a theme in the play, "KingHenryIV," by William Shakespeare. The paper includes a discussion of the legitimacy of the king and his rule, as a well as a close look at Prince Hal. The paper contends that Henry's legitimacy becomes the center of all of the major crises in the play and, thus, is a major and binding theme.
From the Paper "From the moment Shakespeare's play 1 King Henry IV opens, the legitimacy of King Henry's crown is a major theme throughout the play. Not only does it become the justification of the Percys and others violent revolts against Henry, but it can also be used to explain the disobedient acts carried out by Hal, King Henry's son and heir to the throne. King Henry's usurpation of the throne and act of regicide lead to consequences that will spoil his reign illegitimate."
Abstract This paper presents a character analysis of Henry and Hal, two of the main characters in Shakespeare's play, "KingHenryIV", and shows how Shakespeare, by comparing and contrasting these two characters, was able to display the attitudes of both the nobility and the commoners and foreshadow Hal's ability to become a stable, successful ruler.
From the Paper "Hal's feelings towards his father reflect the feelings of the commoners towards the king. Hal's soliloquy, ?I know you all...? (I, ii 183-205) reveals Hal's moral awareness and scorn towards the character he has used to disguise his true frustration with the standards that the king has disgraced. A noble and virtuous young man deliberately masquerading as a dissolute prodigal, Hal is not likely to overlook the deep moral blemishes in his father nor the hypocrisy of Henry IV's assumption of rightful kingship. However, as the King's subject and heir, Hal is denied all means of expressing his contempt for the dishonorable means by which Henry IV has maintained and stolen power. By showing contempt for the king, Hal would be following the example of Henry IV's disloyal behavior towards Richard II, and siding with the rebels who now challenge Henry IV's fitness to rule."
Tags: overthrew, richard, ii, stability, nation, scorn, prodigal, son, dishonorable, stolen, maintained, power
Abstract This paper examines two of Shakespeare's historical kings: Richard II and KingHenryIV. The paper argues that Richard II was a king by divine right, whereas HenryIV was a Machiavellian king. The paper first assesses Richard's rule: he was not loved by his people or by those who served him; he did not earn his kingship, did not respect it and did not do anything in order to keep it. The paper contrasts this to KingHenryIV, who was completely aware of his kingship and what he had to do to keep it; he acted aggressive, decisive and proactive. The paper then demonstrates how the characterization of these two kings demonstrates Shakespeare's unique ability to capture the diversity of humanity and create believable characters. The paper concludes that Shakespeare proves that kings are just like the rest of us--some of them capable and some of them negligent beyond belief. The paper quotes from both plays in order to supports its theses.
From the Paper "Richard II was a king by the divine right of kings and we only need to look at his actions to determine this fact. He would have never earned his kingship had it not been something that was given to him by right of his birth. In short, Richard is a bad king with no real vision. He never takes time to learn what it means to be king and, as a result, does not care about the responsibilities that come along with the title of being king. To make matters worse, he breaks laws and traditions that are essential to his own kingship and his bad behavior forces those under him to feel helpless, hopeless, and without direction. He does not care for the people and while he may have been an intelligent man, he was not strong in the way that a king needs to be strong. Undoubtedly, King Richard's strongest and best characteristic was his eloquence."
Abstract This paper explores the role and character of Falstaff in Shakespeare's play "HenryIV". The paper acknowledges Falstaff's role as comic relief and his part in Prince Harry's life. This friendship is considered in the paper as well. Several opinions of Falstaff from noted Shakespeare experts are presented along with the writer's view of this character. The paper concludes by stating Falstaff was a necessary figure in the play because he was the only character with whom Prince Harry spoke candidly and often truthfully.
From the Paper "Falstaff made life exciting for Prince Harry, and he was fun to be around. His character is in sharp contrast with the nobility which will be Harry's companions at court when he becomes King, and seems to be quite dishonest by comparison. However, in some ways, he is truer than any of the noblemen, because he is quite candid concerning his own self interest. It is not that he does not lie. He does, in the last scene of Act II, when he tells about how he and his companions were robbed by other highwaymen after capturing their prize, "All! I know not what you call all; but if I fought not with fifty of them, I am a bunch of radish: if there were not two or three and fifty upon poor old Jack, then am I no two-legged creature." Harry and Poins were, of course, the robbers who fell on them as a practical joke, and they all fled immediately. As Falstaff tells the tale and answers questions the lies become more and more exaggerated."
Tags: Falstaff, Henry, IV, comic, relief, William, Shakespeare
Abstract This paper examines KingHenry and Prince Harry's discourse in Shakespeare's "HenryIV" Act III, Scene ii in order to determine what both men considered to be desirable soldierly and leadership values. The paper highlights these values to be modesty, in the sense of exercising restraint in taking advantage of one's popularity and showing humility in the face of the enemy, as well as glory through courageous deeds on the battlefield and in war as a whole.
From the Paper "The discussion between King Henry IV and his son Prince Harry of Wales in Act III Scene II of Shakespeare's Henry IV Part I reveals much about the central theme of the play: leadership and soldierly values. The scene depicts King Henry reprimanding Harry on what he considers to be behavior not befitting a future King and hence also drawing into question his suitability as a sovereign. During the ensuing discourse, Henry contrasts Harry's manner with how he thinks a young prince should act. In a reply which pleases the King, Harry pledges he will change his ways and prove himself worthy of his royal position. From a modern perspective, this scene provides an excellent base for the reader to form opinions on the leadership and martial values conveyed by both Harry and Henry IV."
A discussion of how various characters such as Hotspur, Prince Hal and Falstaff represent different manifestations of the concept of honor in Shakespeare's 'Henry VI'.
Abstract Honor, the central theme in Shakespeare's HenryIV, Part 1, is embodied primarily in the two main characters. This essay compares and contrasts the concept of honor as lived by Hotspur and Prince Hall, making frequent use of quotes to substantiate claims. Other characters, KingHenry and Falstaff, who Shakespeare finds useful in this major treatment of honor, are also discussed.
From the Paper "One of the main themes around which Shakespeare dramatizes the history of his country in The First Part of King Henry IV is honor. To the Elizabethans honor was a major topic of debate as it had been to Englishmen of all ages. Honor is a complex subject, highly personal to some, highly public to others. Honor can be something for which one quietly stands, or about which one shouts in flowery language. The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast some of the various forms taken by honor as represented in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part I."
Tags: falstaff, hal, hotspur, prince, Shakespeare, Henry, IV, honor, Elizanethans
The following paper examines Shakespeare's "KingHenryIV", focusing on Elizabethan stage scenery, Elizabethan period acting and the historical accuracy of the play.
Abstract This paper explores the history of the technical production of "HenryIV", Part I and examines some of the historical sources from which Shakespeare obtained his historical information.
From the Paper "Most believe that the Elizabethan stage was rather bare by modern standards. It is a popular opinion that the actions and dialogue of the actors mainly dressed the stage. By modern technological standards this may be true. However records from the Revels Office indicate that scenery was quite elaborate at times and special attention was given to detail. We must draw our conclusions about staging and scenery in Elizabethan stage performances from descriptions written at the time. One of the earliest plays of which we have a description of the scenery is ?Edwardes tragedy.? It was produced in Whitehall in 1564."
Tags: War, Roses, feud, Houses, Lancaster, York, palace, apartment, Prince, inn, yard, Rochester
The following paper examines Shakespeare's ?KingHenryIV?, focusing on Elizabethan stage scenery, Elizabethan period acting and the historical accuracy of the play.
Abstract This paper explores the history of the technical production of "HenryIV", Part I as well as exploring some of the historical sources from which Shakespeare obtained his historical information.
From the Paper ?Most believe that the Elizabethan stage was rather bare by modern standards. It is a popular opinion that the actions and dialogue of the actors mainly dressed the stage. By modern technological standards this may be true. However records from the Revels Office indicate that scenery was quite elaborate at times and special attention was given to detail. We must draw our conclusions about staging and scenery in Elizabethan stage performances from descriptions written at the time. One of the earliest plays of which we have a description of the scenery is ?Edwardes tragedy.?
Tags: War, Roses, feud, Houses, Lancaster, York, palace, apartment, Prince, inn, yard, Rochester
Abstract In considering Shakespeare's plays, it can often be seen that they are written to specific formulas. This is most clearly seen in the tragic plays, where the action of the plays is based on the fatal flaw of a character, leading to the tragic ending. The paper discusses that, while these similarities are obvious ones, there are also less obvious similarities. One of these similarities occurs in the opening scenes of the plays, where Shakespeare often introduces the characters and the events in similar ways. These similarities are discussed by focusing on two plays, "Hamlet" and "HenryIV". For both plays, the two opening acts are described, followed by a discussion of the similarities and the differences.
From the Paper "Act I, Scene I of Hamlet opens with the changing of the castle guards, where the guards see the ghost of the former king. An air of tension is created as Horatio states that the appearance of the ghost suggests "some strange eruption to our state" (I,i 69). The discussion then also introduces the recent events for the state including the death of the previous king, and the appointment of the new king. With this information, the changing of the guard as the opening is given new relevance, since the change of kings also represents a changing of the guard. These elements combine to create a sense of unease. At this point, it is not known what the exact problem is with Denmark, but there is a sense that something is wrong."
Abstract This paper compares the characters of Prince Hal and Hamlet in William Shakespeare's plays "HenryIV" and "Hamlet, Prince of Denmark". The paper analyzes the dramatic aspects of each character. The paper illustrates the personas that each character creates for himself, in addition to their personality as defined by the author. The paper highlights the constant contrasts between Prince Hal and Hamlet.
From the Paper "Shakespeare is of course a dramatist, that is, he was an author of plays with fictional characters in them, portrayed by real people known as actors. Yet quite often Shakespeare's fictional characters are themselves 'actors' in their own life stories, creating personas that they play in addition to acting out their true, 'real life' struggles of the plot as defined by the author. For instance, Prince Hal, of Henry IV, Part I and Hamlet are two such individuals-the first pretends to be a rouge, even though he is really a skillful prince and politician destined to be a king, the second is an avenging son who assumes madness as a truth-telling device, and also as protection for his eccentric actions and behavior in a fraught Danish court. "
Abstract This paper examines the apparent roles and functions of women in William Shakespeare's "KingHenry the IV, Part I". Specifically, the paper looks at the impact of women upon other characters and whether or not their roles should have been different and, if so, how they should have been different. The paper contends that Shakespeare accurately captures the gender divisions of his age but fails to highlight the central contribution of HenryIV's first wife, Mary de Bohun, in the establishment of this man as a powerful king over a flourishing empire.
From the Paper "One other thing that becomes evident is that much of the play is about men seeking power - about them accruing titles or lands, in short. As a result, by as early as Act 1, Scene 3, it is fairly clear, at least as we listen to Hotspur denounce the Prince of Wales and "Bolingbroke" (Henry IV), that power in fourteenth century England is a "man's thing" and that women are only referenced in these matters if they are bearing children who may become lineal descendants to a throne or baronetcy or if the behavior of one nobleman or another is so intemperate that he is described by his colleagues as a "woman" who cannot hold his tongue or think rationally."
Tags: power children, first wife, rogues marginalized
Abstract By analyzing "KingHenryIV", "The Tragedy of King Richard III" and "The Tragedy of King Richard II", the paper shows that the underlying message in Shakespeare's history plays seems to be that kings who are extreme in their execution of power provide a representation of a weak and vulnerable monarchy, whereas kings who apply a modicum of moderation to their exercise of power provide a representation of a strong and indestructible monarchy. The paper shows that KingHenryIV is the epitome of a successful ruler, in the simple fact that he manages to remain alive at the end of the play and do what is best for the country and its people by continuing to fight the rebel armies until they have lost the ongoing battle with the monarch. This in and of itself suggests that he is able to find a delicate balance between being overly powerful and yielding to others under pressure. The paper shows, on the other hand, that King Richard II is unable to exert any power whatsoever, partly due to his fear of confrontation and partly due to his overwhelmingly pathological view of himself as being a Christ figure. It shows that Richard III is, as well, equally unsuccessful as a ruler because he exerts too much power as a result of a delusional likeness with Richard II's antithesis, Satan.
From the Paper "Likewise, Richard III also holds himself in very delusional esteem, though it is expressed in a different manner than with Richard II. Like Richard II, Richard III believes he is worthy of the throne despite being, by definition, an illegitimate ruler. However, this misleading conviction triggers murderous ?[p]lots [he has] laid? (I.i.32), including the murder of his brother Clarence, the murder of King Edward's sons (including the heir to the throne, the Prince of Wales), and an incestuous scheme to marry the late King's daughter, Elizabeth, in order to seem more fitting to be king. Undoubtedly, he believes wholeheartedly that he has been rejected and/or cheated by God, and that he is deserving of the kingship. His belief system allows his mental health to shatter in such a manner that leads way to an excessive use of force and power in order to obtain the things he so desires. His own delusional belief system leads the reader to deem it likely that Richard III is as much a Satan figure as Richard II is a Christ figure. The extreme self-views held by each of these kings guide them to act in highly radical manners that are not at all conducive to governing a successful monarchy."
A look at how William Shakespeare, in his "HenryIV, Parts I and II", emphasizes the ideas of struggle and progress through his characterizations of Henry and Hal.
Abstract This paper examines William Shakespeare's plays, "HenryIV, Parts I and II", and, in particular, looks at how Henry misjudges his son and cannot see that Hal, who is not guilty of usurpation and regicide, will be able to unite the now divided kingdom. It shows how Henry's faults and strengths cause him to symbolically reflect the struggle for progress, represented by the bridge between the corruption of England during Richard II's reign and the unity of Henry V's kingdom. It also explores how, after the "struggle" ceases and HenryIV dies, Prince Hal becomes KingHenry V ,and the previously divided nation progresses by integration.
From the Paper "Hal's adoption of the commoners is best described by the Duke of Warwick when he says: "The Prince but studies his companions, / Like a strange tongue" to gain the language?? (Pt. II, IV, iv, 76-78.) Hal is like a growing tree basking in the sun, Henry IV is the gardener who planted Hal's seed, and the commoners form one of Hal's developing branches. By growing into a man ?of all humors,? (Pt. I, II, iv, 89) Hal is becoming his entire nation in an individual form, which is symbolically what a king is. Hal has studied the commoners well and is able to both talk and think like them, as portrayed in Hal's witty exchanges with Falstaff. Hal's desire to adapt to the needs of the various peoples of his country foreshadows the harmony that will dominate England when he is king."
Abstract This paper examines courage and justice as seen in Shakespeare's play "HenryIV" Part I. An analysis of the story reveals Shakespeare's views of the virtues of kings through his comparison of the characters of KingHenryIV and his son Prince Hal. Examples from the text are provided to compare and contrast these character traits in the two characters.
From the Paper "Henry IV Part 1 is one of the greatest history plays by Shakespeare because it doesn?t focus on the intricacies of politics but tries to highlight the essential virtues of a king in the making. It is important to study this play as a prelude to its subsequent parts because here we encounter all the important characters and playwright offers us a rare insight into the characters of both the King Henry IV and his son.
While it is easy to read the play like any other history plays with battles and political treachery dominating the entire plot, but I personally believe that this play was written to comment on what should be the essential traits present in the future king of England. Shakespeare also invites his readers to compare the character of son with that of his father's who was known as a usurper because he snatched power from Richard II."
