Power in Henry IV Part One by William Skakespeare

872 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Machiavelli's political ideas

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. Hotspur and Hal are greedy and determined to reach the throne, but whereas Hotspur makes his boldness and bitterness open to everyone, Hal attempts to appear his appearance as foolish and immature until he gets the chance to be the king. Furthermore, Hotspur is indiscreet about the rebellious act, which causes the king to know about the rebellion. First, Hotspur is a hot-tempered man; who cannot control his anger or words, this leads to many people leaving his side not because they are afraid of the king but because of his bad attitude towards them. When Glendower meets Hotspur for the first time, he explains to him how he can demand evil spirits, Hotspur immediately questions his powers and asks him to “tell the truth” and by telling the truth he would... ... middle of paper ... ...the battle, and that he can defeat them. The audience then starts to understand the personality of Hotspur and how much his ego and honor matter for him. Contrary, Hal is smart and avoids hasty decisions; he just surprises everyone by acting tremendously noble, which takes away the spotlight from Hotspur. First, Hal was recognized as a shameful person of his family and country, but he was able to change this idea completely at the end when he defeated brave Hotspur “ O Harry, thou hast robbed me of my youth”(5.4.76) , by doing so Hal proved himself and redeemed his honor in front of everyone. Hal was obsessed of defeating Hal just to prove to himself that he is not a complete failure. Hal is well aware of how much honor and good reputation he has gained just from defeating Hotspur. This will draw the court attention to him; therefore, approving of him as a prince.

Show More
Related

  • King Henry Iv Part 1

    1098 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Honor in Prince Hal

    999 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...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.

    Read More

  • Is The Juxtaposition In King Henry's Soliloquy

    534 Words  | 2 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • King Henry Viii's Consolidation Of Power Essay

    915 Words  | 2 Pages

    The given documents are examples of the monarch’s ability to assert their authority through word. The different proclamations illustrate the problems of the time, and how the assumed power of the monarch addressed it. It is assumed that their power goes to include power over the church and all papal authority, ultimate power over Parliament, power over other lands, and it goes as far as suggesting that their power has been bestowed upon them by God. The assumed nature and extent of the Tudors’ power alters over time, each king reacting to a different situation. King Henry VII establishes a strong and clear claim to the crown for the Tudors when there were doubts about his claim. King Henry VIII extends the power of the monarch by annexing the

    Read More

  • Henry V, An Ideal Machiavellian Ruler

    1041 Words  | 3 Pages

    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".

    Read More

  • Character Analysis Of Falstaff

    1467 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • King Henry IV

    594 Words  | 2 Pages

    Hal isn’t as interested in gaining honor for its own sake as he is in forcing Hotspur to render up all of his. This scene displays how Hal is honorable for himself and for himself only.

    Read More

  • The Morals of The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli

    435 Words  | 1 Pages

    Although Machiavelli gives numerous points on what it takes to excel as a prince, he also shows some raw examples of how he feels a prince should act in order to achieve maximum supremacy. First, when he says, "ought to hold of little account a reputation for being mean, for it is one of those vices which will enable him to govern" proves Machiavelli feels mighty adamant about his view that being mean will help a prince achieve success (332). It is absurd to imagine the meanest prince as the most successful. Also, when Machiavelli states, "our experience has been that those princes who have done great things have held good faith of little account, and have known how to circumvent the intellect of men by craft" revealing his attitude to manipulate people into fearing and respecting the prince (335). Also, Machiavelli shows that for a prince to be successful, he must not think about good faith.

    Read More

  • Father/Son Relationships in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part One

    804 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Prince Henry Rite Of Passage

    1151 Words  | 3 Pages

    Harry’s development is concluded during his fight with Hotspur when Harry defeats him. Harry’s triumph over Hotspur completes his plan found in his soliloquy by proving that he is an admirable leader, and fulfils his solemn oath to kill Hotspur which makes his word honorable. Prince Henry completes his rite of passage after his defeat of Hotspur. Henry entered the battle field as a boy and has formed into a responsible adult and an adequate heir to

    Read More

  • Henry IV, Part 1, by Shakespeare

    1108 Words  | 3 Pages

    Hal is the Prince of Wales and heir to the British throne was able to manipulate both the nobles and the court in order to satisfy his needs. Firstly, his ability to speak confidently between the lower class and upper class allowed him to gain authority of many things. In the beginning of the play, Poins tells Hal and Falstaff there is a robbery planned for...

    Read More

  • Essay on Hotspur as Tragic Hero of Henry IV

    1312 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Prince Hal

    1435 Words  | 3 Pages

    Hal understands that those of high birth have a greater responsibility to be honorable. The jealousy that comes with the persistent protection of one’s honor is a characteristic seen in almost every noble figure, but Hal’s attitude toward honor is different than those around him- especially Hotspur. Unlike Hotspur, who serves the code of honor, Hal intends to abuse it by postponing his acquisition of honor so that when he eventually attains it his reputation will seem greater than it would’ve originally.

    Read More

  • Similarities Between King Henry And Prince Hal

    581 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Prince Hal And Falstaff's Henry IV: Part II

    1338 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

More about Power in Henry IV Part One by William Skakespeare

Open Document