Shakespeare explores the relationship between the theme of honour and conflict in his play Henry IV, Part 1. In the Elizabethan era, honour meant defending one's reputation against insult. This ‘masculine’ code of principles made honour highly valued by the male characters in the play. In the passage from Act V, scenes I, lines 60–101, Shakespeare uses the characters Worcester, King Henry, and Prince Hal to represent the ideas of honour and conflict. Worcester, one of the rebels, demands respect and honour from the king for the services he has done for him in the past. However, King Henry, by not acknowledging Worcester's feelings, actually intensified the conflict between their armies. Prince Hal, previously known for his reckless behaviour …show more content…
The Rebellion started because Worcester felt the King wasn’t giving him the respect he deserved. Worcester is in a state of conflict and is emotionally driven during his argument, which impacts his way of speaking and the language he uses towards the king. Worcester feels it's important to defend his honour, believing that King Henry is the one creating this conflict. He starts by expressing his feelings about being used by the king, emphasising this with the simile, “As that ungentle gull, the cuckoo’s bird, Unseth the sparrow—did oppress our nest.” In this statement, Worcester is comparing the king to a cuckoo, a bird known for laying its eggs in the nests of other birds, making them raise their young. This expresses Worcester's resentment towards the king, as he believes the king relies on others to do his labour for him, treating them harshly and denying them the same opportunities and advantages. Worcester goes on to say, "Here, we stand opposed by such means/as you have forged against yourself." According to Worcester, the king brought the conflict upon himself because he didn't receive the king's rightful respect, and because of this, the only way to earn honor and respect is through war. Worcester verbally criticises the king's leadership, implying he is not a good ruler. Worcester not only expresses his grievances to the king through his emotionally charged speech, but he also influences Prince Hal, as we see later in the passage, which further emphasises the theme of honour and
Passage Analysis - Act 5 Scene 1, lines 115-138. Shakespeare’s ‘King Henry IV Part I’ centres on a core theme: 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.
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.
Shakespeare shows King Henry to be a politician who practices deceit by juxtaposing his expressed intentions with his ulterior motives in the plays opening monologue. The expressed intention is one that preaches unity, as is conveyed when King Henry IV denounces war as “civil butchery”, which is a clear indication of an anti-war sentiment, highlighted through the use of ‘butchery’ and its negative connotations of brutality. Moreover, when King Henry IV declares “those opposed eyes” are “all of one nature”, the synecdoche represents the idea that he is against war, which is reinforced by the ironic juxtaposition of ‘opposed’ and ‘one’, which alludes to his view on the absurdity of the conflict. The ulterior motive of King Henry IV is soon after
In Henry V, Shakespeare uses the English Hierarchy to shine light on the juxtaposition between the upper and lower classes through the use of the Chain of Being, the stereotypical relationships between yeoman and nobles and
The character of Falstaff, in Shakespeare’s play Henry IV Part One, serves as an emblem of frivolity and carelessness within a world filled with social and political significance. Falstaff scorns the world of politics and moral decisions in favor of existing from moment to moment. Though he dislikes this "other world", Falstaff realizes he must sometimes come in contact with it. Falstaff’s famous speech in lines 127-139 of Act V shows us how he regards the Prince’s world of honor and duty. Through this speech, Falstaff places himself firmly out of any moral world concerned with justice or honor, instead living for no other reason than life itself.
For hundreds of years, those who have read Henry V, or have seen the play performed, have admired Henry V's skills and decisions as a leader. Some assert that Henry V should be glorified and seen as an "ideal Christian king". Rejecting that idea completely, I would like to argue that Henry V should not be seen as the "ideal Christian king", but rather as a classic example of a Machiavellian ruler. If looking at the play superficially, Henry V may seem to be a religious, moral, and merciful ruler; however it was Niccolo Machiavelli himself that stated in his book, The Prince, that a ruler must "appear all mercy, all faith, all honesty, all humanity, [and] all religion" in order to keep control over his subjects (70). In the second act of the play, Henry V very convincingly acts as if he has no clue as to what the conspirators are planning behind his back, only to seconds later reveal he knew about their treacherous plans all along. If he can act as though he knows nothing of the conspirators' plans, what is to say that he acting elsewhere in the play, and only appearing to be a certain way? By delving deeper into the characteristics and behaviors of Henry V, I hope to reveal him to be a true Machiavellian ruler, rather than an "ideal king".
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.
Henry in Henry V The bishops refer to Henry in the first scene as "a sudden scholar" who can "reason in divinity. " Canterbury says, "The king is full of grace, and fair regard. Ely quotes "and a true lover of the holy church. The two bishops, pretty much have the same view on Henry, they think highly of him.
Within Henry V’s St. Crispin's day speech, Henry V displays common ground within all soldiers so they feel valued. He covers three varying points in the speech, each geared toward various types of people. He starts out technical, though he briefly covers this, he states that their presence alone is a positive outlook on their country. As he moves through his speech he speaks mainly of honor and pride, which reaches across the majority of men. Henry V then ends on comparing the soldiers to a family.
Honour within the Elizabethan era primarily stood for the reputation of a person, and it offered respect and admiration. Shakespeare undoubtedly chose to position the responder to depict his own perception on honour due to the prevalence of it throughout his political landscape and its impacts on everyday life. The notion of honour, is first established within the guilt-ridden King Henry IV, who wears a figurative bloody crown as a result of his deposition of his cousin, Richard II. King Henry IV kicks off the play with an attempt to clear his conscience while maintaining the illusion of a clear one to his subordinates. He says to the Lord of Lancaster and the Earl of Westmoreland: “To chase these pagans in those holy fields / over whose acres walked those blessed feet / which fourteen hundred years ago were nailed / for our advantage on the bitter cross.” in Act 1, Scene 1. There are two red herrings Shakespeare throws out to produce the illusion of a stable conscience and an honourable heart to his subjects and these are the use of blank verse to signify nobility and thus power, and the use of the pluralistic language found within ‘our advantage’. The King shies away from the singular ‘I’ so as not to draw attention to the plague ravaging his conscience, and Shakespeare through this shines light on the gratuity of an act such as a Holy
The character of King Henry begins his speech by sharing his own point of view on the oncoming battle. The king says, “…I am not covetous for gold, Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost”. He goes on to demonstrate parallel structure by repeating the previous sentence structure. King Henry says, “It yearns me not if men my garments wear; such outward things dwell not in my desires. But if it be a sin to covet honour, I am the most offending soul alive”. He uses this parallel structure to share that he values honor and that this is why he is fighting. In fighting alongside him, King Henry’s troops would share this great honor.
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.
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.
Henry IV is a play that concerns itself with political power and kingship in English history. References to kingship are prevalent throughout the play, especially in the depiction of the characters. Although most of the characters in this play could teach us about kingship, I would like to focus my attention to Prince Henry. I think that this character helps us to best understand what kingship meant at this particular time in history.
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