In King Henry IV Part 1, Shakespeare’s exploration of war, politics, and family strife portrays bloodthirstiness as a costly but necessary virtue. As a play birthed from and mired in conflict, Shakespeare’s characters present multiple arguments for, and critiques against, the utility of bloodthirstiness in war. Through Harry ‘Hotspur’ Percy, one sees the self-destructive and sabotaging behavior that such behavior can bring. Prince Hal comparatively rises to Hotspur’s level of lethality accompanied by wisdom and humility, enabling him to use Hotspur’s own violent and impulsive tendencies against him. Introspections by other characters, such as King Henry himself, provide the audience with more facets to Shakespeare’s opinion on violence. Over the course of Henry IV, Hotspur’s bloodthirsty tendencies ultimately lead to his downfall, while Hal’s …show more content…
Yet Hotspur’s repeated dismissal of others, from the King to his wife to his battlefield allies, demonstrates his priorities of ego over strategic thought. After being directly challenged by Prince Hal in single combat, he jumps at the thought without consideration, “O, would the quarrel lay upon our heads,/And that no man might draw short breath today/ But I and Harry Monmouth!” (V.ii.49-51) He also lacks the social and leadership qualities of Hal, even admitting after calling his forces to arms: “Better consider what you have to do/Than I that have not well the gift of tongue/Can lift your blood up with persuasion.”(V.ii.78) As his sleeptalking of war and bloodshed. While in the modern day such symptoms would be classified as PTSD, in Shakespeare’s time this can be attributed to Hotspur’s choleric attitude, his violent dreams highlighting the mental cost of his violent nature. By contrast, when Hal is first introduced, there is no context of fighting or
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.
...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.
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
Humans from all races, morals and cultures have common traits among them. . All people are self-interested; they will never cause themselves to do something except if it is beneficial for them. They can be trustworthy at times, but they will turn selfish, hypocritical and misleading in adverse times. According to Machiavelli, there are four ways to come in to power. This power can be achieved through abilities, wealth or network, crime and lastly by inheriting the position or through the nobles. In Shakespeare’s play, Henry IV part 1, portrays a similar concept. Hal and Hotspur are both ambitious and ravenous for honor. Hal is trying to regain his position in society by defeating Hotspur. Although Hotspur starts with a better reputation, Hal is more superior in communicating with people because he is sneaky, manipulative and conservative about his plans. On the other hand, Hotspur’s bold and impulsive language depicts a fierce impression which scares his family and friends away.
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 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 order for one to keep their political status and please their country, there are some qualities, traits and skills required. For some, political skills may be a natural or intuitive trait. For others, it feels uncomfortable and takes excessive effort. In either case, political skills must be practiced and honed in order to recap its benefits. For instance, one may naturally possess skills such as listening to others, communicating and commitment. On the other hand, one may not possess those skills and it may require excessive effort to possess those skills. Prince Hal realizes that he must learn to possess these characteristics if he wants to be a successful king. Henry IV, Part 1 by Shakespeare deals with the struggle of King Henry IV to maintain his control of the English throne which he usurped from Richard II. The play deals with the conflict between King Henry IV and his son, Prince Harry, and their tense relationship. King Henry is the ruling king of England. He is worn down by worries and guilty feelings about having won his throne through a civil war. Hal, the Prince of Wales who demonstrates his ability to manipulate others to complete his selfish goals. Hal is an effective leader because unlike his father, his mastery of language shows that he will be a virtuous ruler, able to understand lower and upper class and manipulate them to believe his words.
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.
Gifted with the darkest attributes intertwined in his imperfect characteristics, Shakespeare’s Richard III displays his anti-hero traits afflicted with thorns of villains: “Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous / By drunken prophecies, libels, and dreams” (I.i.32-33). Richard possesses the idealism and ambition of a heroic figure that is destined to great achievements and power; however, as one who believes that “the end justifies the means”, Richard rejects moral value and tradition as he is willing to do anything to accomplish his goal to the crown. The society, even his family and closest friends, repudiate him as a deformed outcast. Nevertheless, he cheers for himself as the champion and irredeemable villain by turning entirely to revenge of taking self-served power. By distinguishing virtue ethics to take revenge on the human society that alienates him and centering his life on self-advancement towards kingship, Richard is the literary archetype of an anti-hero.
Shakespeare’s Henry’s most remarkable and heroic quality is his resolve; once Henry has his mind set on accomplishing something he uses every tool at his disposal to see that it is achieved. ‘If we may pass, we will; if we be hinder’d we shall your tawny ground with your red blood discolour’ Henry meticulously presents himself as an unstoppable force to which his enemies must choose to react; although his methods are morally questionable they a...
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.
To the King's way of thinking, Hotspur is more fit to be a King than Prince Hal, a comparison the King makes several times. In Act I, scene i King Henry makes his first comparison of Hotspur to his son saying that Lord Northumberland's son, Hotspur, was "A son who is the theme of honour's tongue." while Prince Hal was stained by ".riot and dishonor.. " In fact the King goes so far as to wish that Hotspur was his son and not Prince Henry. Later in Act III, scene ii King Henry tells the Prince that Hal reminds him of the way King Richard acted before Henry took the throne and that Hotspur reminds the King of himself. This is the King's not so subtle way of telling Hal that the King doesn't think he is fit to succeed him to the throne.
Bibliography:.. Mercer, Peter 1987, Hamlet And The Acting of Revenge, University of Iowa Press, Iowa City. Knights, Lionel Charles 1970, Some Shakespearean Themes: An Approach to Hamlet, Penguin Books; Harmondsworth.
In the tragedy of Hamlet Shakespeare does not concern himself with the question whether blood-revenge is justified or not; it is raised only once and very late by the protagonist (v,ii,63-70) and never seriously considered. The dramatic and psychological situation rather than the moral issue is what seems to have attracted Shakespeare, and he chose to develop it, in spite of the hard-to-digest and at times a little obscure, elements it might involve [. . .] . (118-19)
Hamlet is one of Shakespeare’s most well-known tragedies. At first glance, it holds all of the common occurrences in a revenge tragedy which include plotting, ghosts, and madness, but its complexity as a story far transcends its functionality as a revenge tragedy. Revenge tragedies are often closely tied to the real or feigned madness in the play. Hamlet is such a complex revenge tragedy because there truly is a question about the sanity of the main character Prince Hamlet. Interestingly enough, this deepens the psychology of his character and affects the way that the revenge tragedy takes place. An evaluation of Hamlet’s actions and words over the course of the play can be determined to see that his ‘outsider’ outlook on society, coupled with his innate tendency to over-think his actions, leads to an unfocused mission of vengeance that brings about not only his own death, but also the unnecessary deaths of nearly all of the other main characters in the revenge tragedy.