In William Shakespeare’s play Henry IV, Part 1 Prince Hal is a young man who is trying to find his way while dealing with the pressures of the crown. Like many teenagers Hal has reached his rebellious stage, and spends his time with a group of rogues. Hal experiments living life as a commoner, drinking his days away, playing jokes on his companions, and committing crimes. The weight of his responsibility ways heavily on him, and his father, King Henry, is disappointed with the way he spends his time. So Hal feels he must make excuses for his behaviour; however, everything he does helps to shape him into a man who puts the good of the kingdom ahead of himself. Prince Hal is a young man who is trying to find his way, and must put his childish …show more content…
Falstaff allows Hal to escape from his responsibilities, and just be a normal person. They joke with each other to take the weight off the pressures of daily life, and supply each other with ample entertainment. Falstaff understands who Hal is and how that affects their friendship, but he never lets it ruin what they have. Falstaff lets Hal continue on with jokes and fun because he wants Hal to see that there is enjoyment in things other than princely duty. Falstaff becomes more of a father figure to Hal then the King because Falstaff allows Hal to grow in his own way. Falstaff doesn’t show disappointment in Hal, and never scolds him for his behaviour. In return for all Falstaff does for him Hal saves his friend, and makes right the crime of stealing the money. However, this is when Hal begins to accept what is required of him as a prince. Thomas Rand notes that Hal “moves easily and with pleasure in Falstaff’s world, Prince Hal knows that his place in it must be temporary” (20). Hal realizes he can no longer associate with the thieves because they threaten his rule. When him and Falstaff take part in the impromptu production of a conversation between Hal and his father Hal understands what will be necessary - “banish plump Jack, and banish all the world” (2. 4. 464) - when he one day becomes king, but he feels badly about it. Falstaff has become a true companion to him, “Hal really seems to …show more content…
So he does all he can to prove to his father that he is ready to take part in the upcoming battle. He wants to prove that he is a good prince worthy of his fathers appreciation, so when he says, “I shall hereafter, my thrice-gracious lord, / Be more myself” (3. 2. 92-93) he means he will be the son his father wants. So he will be the self he talks about in his soliloquy, the one who is behaved, moral, righteous, and courageous. When he says he will be more himself, he means he will be the person everyone wants and expects him to be. He is willing to put his own needs aside for the better of the people. His father needs him to be the man who will stand against the rebels, so he will fight. Thomas Rand says that Hal’s “bold actions will permanently sever him from his former life and draw all wondering eyes to him” (20). So Hal “will redeem all this on Percy’s head” (3. 2. 132), or die trying. Then one day Hal will become King because “Hal constructed a pattern in which, […], he will return and overcome the opposing forces and rise as England’s glorious new hope, […] he is ready to rise again to the new life of a courtly prince and heir apparent” (Groves 248). From this point on he will no longer waste time finding his way at the bottom of a glass, or in a robbery, instead he will find his way in the eyes of the people as he becomes the king
From different contextual standpoints, both William Shakespeare’s King henry IV part 1(1597) and Barry Levinson Man of the year (2006) both represent a unique similarity in discussing power rather than truth. Shakespeare invokes an appreciation of strategic manipulation for both King Henry IV and prince Hal. King Henry struggles of breaking divine lineage whilst Prince Hal appearance vs reality allows Shakespeare to explore the political strategies upheld by politicians within the Elizabethan era. Similarly, in Man of the year, Tom Dobbs use of short and verbose colloquial language exhibit his demagoguery approach to candidacy epitomizing political succession within the 21st century.
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
Hal is a cold, calculating Machiavellian ruler. According to Machiavelli’s popular theory, being a successful leader has nothing to do with being a nice person or doing the right thing. Instead, it’s about being inventive, manipulative, crafty, and willful. Hal is an intelligent character who put all those attributes to work when he articulated a grand plan to fool everyone around him in order to gain power. One critic claims that traditionally there are two common ways to interpret Prince Hal's development. The first is to see it as a celebration of a great king in training who grows in his responsibility and develops into a mature political leader. The second view sees Prince Hal as a cold Machiavel who uses his friends as means to a political end, without much regard for their feelings. (Johnston 1).
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.
Considering their fearsome adversary, in private Falstaff asks Prince Hal “art not thou horribly afraid” (II.4.337-338)? His question means to provoke an honest reflection on their dangerous undertaking. Falstaff does not mean to interrogate or belittle Prince Hal’s honor. Instead, Falstaff asks about his friend’s true emotional state and moves beyond the conventional appearance of knightly toughness. Prince Hal responds to the question feigning, “Not a whit, i’faith. I lack some of thy instinct” (II.4.339). The more regal Prince Hal becomes in his ambitions, the more he aligns himself with the values of the monarchy. Falstaff reveals how these values of stoicism and bravery can be delusional. If Prince Hal were honest, he would admit some degree of doubt about war. With his new regal stance; however, he distances himself from true sentiment. Falstaff is unabashed in asking matters of the heart. Although Falstaff does not get an honest reply, he exposes Price Hal’s pretension and with it the tradition of
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.
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.
Throughout the play, Prince Henry develops from a rascal to a responsible adult and by doing so, earns the respect and acceptance from his father King Henry IV. In act one, Shakespeare introduces the idea that Prince Henry is an inadequate heir to the throne. The play
Falstaff is a central element in the two parts of Henry IV, he is supports the structure of the play. Yet he does seem to be a mainly fun maker, a character whom we laugh with and laugh at. The perfect example for this was the fat knight's account of the double robbery at Gadshill. The part of plump Jack is joyously expanded and diversified, for the delight of men and the glory of, Shakespeare. It is plain that the role of Sir John is not restricted to what is indispensable to Shakespeare's main purpose. Falstaff lies at the very foundation of these plays, that it is a structural necessity.
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
In Act 1, Scene 2, Hal and Falstaff are dinking at the bar. We get the
Shakespeare’s ‘King Henry IV Part I’ centres on a core theme of 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. 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.
one's eyes as time passes, but because it reigns the ebb and flow of the tides.
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.