Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Morals in Henry V
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Passage Analysis - Act 5 Scene 1, lines 115-138. 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. Hal’s remark to his father indicates a now 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. Still maintained is the conflict between the very format of the text, with Hal and Henry’s conversation held in formal verse typical of the court world, in which Hal is now firmly embedded. Falstaff, however, sustains his equally typical prose speech, which indicates to the audience the enduring division between the court and tavern worlds. As soon as the king leaves, Falstaff immediately proclaims his unashamed cowardice, asking Hal to protect him in battle. The prince retorts with an insult to Falstaff’s enormous size, and abruptly bids him farewell. Gone are the jests that would accompany a conversation between these two at the beginning of the play, and Hal’s reactions to Falstaff now represent his moving away from the tavern world, and that he now belongs to the court world. Falstaff is extremely honest about his feelings towards the whole affair, bluntly stating that he wishes it all were over, exposing his strong reluctance to fight and interest in self-preservation. Again the prince offers only a rude retort before his ... ... middle of paper ... ...traight from the tavern world – survival is more important to him, unlike those of the court world who live by honour, and care not if it leads to their death, but only that they one day may come to be ‘honourable’, whether dead or alive. He closes with the comment that what he has told us is his ‘catechism’. This suggests an idea that his religion is to avoid honour, and ever to question its value. Falstaff’s blatantly honest soliloquy has provided the audience with a direct insight into his mind, and contrasts well with Hal and Hotspur’s speeches, in which their moral order and regard for honour is evident. Falstaff helps to show the change in Hal to the audience. Falstaff himself is no different to the Falstaff of Act 1, unlike Hal who has obviously undergone a great deal of change. Falstaff’s speech is highly typical of the tavern world’s way of thinking: straightforward, sometimes humorous, spoken in prose, and only the values of the tavern world taken into consideration, with no regard for such insubstantial, un-physical concepts as honour. In this way, and spoken directly to the audience, Falstaff effectively expresses his unashamed resolution not to submit to moral order.
In Act 1, Scene 2, Hal and Falstaff are dinking at the bar. We get the
Humans are addicted to judging others on their first impression. Humans will never read into the book, they just look at the cover. Many people, both fictional and nonfictional can not be judged until you study them. Someone who first appears to be only comic relief, could end up to be a very important character. Sir John Falstaff is but one of these people. Falstaff's righteousness hides under his vocalization. John Falstaff's character is hard to understand without analyzing his words. He loves to play games with his speech. Falstaff tricks his audience with complex words and phrases. Often John would win over his opponent by tricking them into saying things that they did not mean or getting them to think that he is not that bad. Falstaff said this in Part I act II scene IV. "... A question not to be asked. Shall the son of England prove a thief and take purses? A question to be asked. There is a thing, Harry, which thou hast often heard of, and it is known to many in our land by the name of pitch. This pitch, as ancient writers do report, doth defile; so doth the company thou keepest. For, Harry, now I do not speak to thee in drink, but in tears; not in pleasure, but in passion; not in words only, but in woes also; and yet there is a virtuous man whom I have often noted in thy company, but I know not his name." In this passage, the Prince and Fastaff trade places in speech and try to make the other look dumb. Fastaff later goes on to say that this wonderful person that the King is talking about. The way Falstaff does this proves him to be very keen. He proves that even though he may look dumb, he will still put up a good fight. Falstaff is very bold about his thoughts and opinions. He stands out because he is not afraid to think his own way. While most people agree, because of the other people around them, Falstaff chooses to make his own decisions and think for himself. This is proven when Falstaff and the prince switch places in a verbal fight. Every one else in the book thinks of the Prince as a perfect young man because he is the prince, however Falstaff is too smart for this, he points out that the prince is a thief.
Teddy Roosevelt was Vice President of the United States when President McKinley was assassinated in 1901, leaving Roosevelt as the youngest U.S. President ever. Politically it was a time of progressivism and change, but like all past affairs, things can get lost or interpreted differently by different people. It’s not just about Roosevelt, it 's about the people responsible for shaping America during the time of his presidency. This is evident in the two excerpts, “Prosperity” by Nell Irvin Painter in her political history Standing at Armageddon and Kolko’s “Roosevelt as Reformer”, from his political history Triumph of Conservatism. Although they are both political histories of the time during Roosevelt’s presidency, they have sharply contrasting components, such as a use of
Looking at an overview of Falstaff, he has traits that of a villain, yet in King Henry IV, he is arguably one of the most beloved character, responsible for comedic relief. However I believe this is Shakespeare making a statement, and masking it behind humour. You see, it can be said that Falstaff is a politically driven character, in which everything he does is with purpose, whether that be financial gain or obtaining power. His relationship with Hal was for him to gain favor, once Hal became king. He acts as a great contrast to Hal, as throughout the play, Hal grows and changes stepping up to expectation and embodying a just and righteous ‘man’, so to speak. Falstaff’s character, however remains stagnant, barely changing throughout the play. Even his final actions in the play claiming to have killed Hotspur was with the intent of gaining rewards and power. So why is Falstaff, a character with many negative traits, made to be so likeable?, and Hal a man who is supposedly our beloved hero seen as a rebellious child for half the play? It could be Shakespeare making a comment as to how in politics, you never truly understand a person and their true intentions. Take the quote from Act 4 Scene 2 Line 56 :
He is accepted for his faults and further appreciated for his humor. Once receptive to Falstaff’s follies, an underlying wisdom can be found. Shakespeare offers Falstaff as a guide to living beyond the confines of convention, out of all the order. Disguised in banter, Falstaff calls into question values of morality and nobility. His manner is harmless in both words and actions. Of all the loyalty and disloyalty that incites political turbulence in the play, Falstaff remains inert. He does not enact any cruel aggression in effort to achieve power. Nevertheless, Falstaff commits slight though significant transgressions against Prince Hal and aristocratic values. These transgressions begin in conversation and eventually result in Falstaff’s action on the
Falstaff who seems to be Hal’s role model while in the Tavern, is putting forth a great deal of effort to have Hal conform into the lowlife that he himself has made himself out to be. Falstaff teaches Hal how to lie, cheat, and steal, but Hal seems to have a mind of his own. He tells his father that at any given moment he can change his character and be what his father wants him to be. Henry declines to believe these statements.
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.
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.
...ternal conflict as soon as the play began. Though he only expresses his true emotions to himself, the audience benefits from his profound soliloquies and can understand his decisions and behaviours more easily despite the complex plot. In addition to recognizing the reasons behind his actions, his soliloquies also provide an opportunity for the audience to connect to his elusive nature and temperament. Since speech is a supporting foundation for conveying thoughts and opinions, the speeches that are performed regarding his depression, cowardly character, and decision whether or not to live and fulfill his father’s wish, are the keys to grasping the true story line that Shakespeare intended to create. Not only do Hamlet’s brilliant soliloquies bring the story of Hamlet to life, but it has also helped to make it one of the most famous pieces of literature of all time.
The banter, “Thou art so fat-witted with drinking of old sack, and unbuttoning thee after supper, and sleeping upon benches after noon,” between the two hooligans shows subtle endearment, unlike the audiences view on the relationship between Hal and his real father so far. Hals clearly unsuitable friendship with Falstaff and the “rogues” may first be seen as an act of defiance against being heir to the thrown; as he never chose to become noble and therefore has no control over his future. This may be where his want for control sprouts from, his father took away his control by setting his future for him so Hal will gain control by being the irresponsible Prince who needs to change, because nobody can make him change therefore he’s in control. Hal is the character in the play who serves as a bridge between the two plotlines, which also places him in a powerful position because he can essentially speak the language of the nobles but also the commoners. And when he is king this will make him a more successful
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
Neo-realism and Liberalism both provide adequate theories in explaining the causes of war, yet Neo-realist ideals on the structural level and states being unitary actors in order to build security, conclude that Neo-realist states act on behalf of their own self interest. The lack of collaboration with other states and balance of power among them presents a reasonable explanation on the causes of war.
At first, Hal plays himself and Falstaff plays Henry. In this interpretation of the conversation, Falstaff is making jokes as well as complimenting himself, as he believes the King should. However, when the roles are reversed and Hal is playing the King and Falstaff is playing Hal, the interaction between the two becomes much more hostile. Hal, in quick succession, insults Falstaff without break. He refers to him as an old fat man, who resembles a devil. Hal relates him to animals, a sack of diseases, a drunk, and a bag full of guts. Hal claims that Falstaff is a man who is villainous and is worthy of nothing (2.4.397-409). After all of these insults, Falstaff, who is, arguably, still acting as Hal, defends himself. He claims that while it is true, he is in fact old, that is no reason for him to be seen as lesser. He says that if “sack and sugar be a fault, God help the wicked” and claims that being old and merry is to be hated, which Falstaff believes is wrong (2.4.416-428). He defends himself from the other insults that Hal has put on him. This interaction between the two further illustrates the hostile relationship between Hal and Falstaff. Falstaff’s attempt to dispel the criticisms that Hal has of Falstaff illustrates for readers that there is more to Falstaff than a comedic aspect. Falstaff is aware how people perceive him as he brings up his age in many of his conversations and makes jokes about himself drinking sac constantly. This scene in particular is open to multiple interpretations and many suggest that this interaction is a friendly one and the criticisms are all in good fun but the power dynamic between the two makes it impossible for them be on truly equal grounds. This power dynamic is taken further when Hal takes on the role of the king. By taking on the role of the king and insulting Falstaff, there is an even
This questioning of what is actually important, physical needs or conceptual ideals, was relevant in Shakespeare’s time, and still is today. Living under Elizabeth I, the product of major religious upheaval, Shakespeare may have been disillusioned with the worlds of kings and queens of which he wrote. The belief in the importance of honor and reputation was still very popular during this time period, and in a play in which the entire plot revolved around these ideals Falstaff’s speech sticks out. This may have been a subtle critique of these values held so dearly by Shakespeare’s
In Henry IV parts I and II we see Falstaff as the romantic character that is stated in the definition above, defying everything that the Classical character, Prince Hal, stands for and believes.. He refuses to take life seriously. He believes that "War is as much of a joke to him as a drinking bout at the Boar's Head." He uses people solely for his own purposes, either for money or for food and drink. He is rude and crude to all those around him and is one of the best liars who continually gets caught in his lies but makes new ones to cover for the old failed ones. Yet Baker states that, "His presence of mind and quickness of retort are always superb; his impudence is almost sublime. Yet the man thus corrupt, thus despicable, makes himself necessary to the prince that despises him, by the most pleasing of all qualities, perpetual gaiety. Falstaff creates around his capacious bulk a sort of Utopia which frees us temporarily from the worries and troubles of the actual world. What does it matter that Falstaff ridicules chivalry, honor, truth-telling, and bravery in battle? He is not to be taken seriously...he is a wholly comic character."