The Development of Chiasmus' Potential in I Henry IV by William Shakespeare In Shakespeare’s historic play King Henry the Fourth, Part One, the ingenious playwright uses an interesting and powerful method of presenting the honorable by introducing that character at the rock bottom of his potential and, as Hal puts it, "breaking through the foul and ugly mists/ Of vapors that did seem to strangle him" (I.ii, 155-6). Chiasmus, in Shakespeare’s plays, is the inversion of two characters’ reputation and personality traits. In I Henry IV this technique can be seen in the shifting of the reader’s perception of Harry Percy, more vividly known as Hotspur, and Hal, the Prince of Wales. Hotspur and Hal start out on two utterly opposite ends of the spectrum of honor and nobility. As the play progresses, we can witness Hal’s transcendence, turning point, and rise to the peak of his potential. We also are shown Hotspur’s gradual dive to shame (and ultimately death) as he loses his temperance and patience, and is consumed by confidence and greed. The literary effect of chiasmus terminates with, once again, the characters on opposite ends of the spectrum, but somewhere along the shift, they cross paths and the original hierarchy is inverted. At the beginning of the play, Prince Hal starts out on the lower half of the hierarchy. He spends the majority of his time in the tavern, drinking away the money that he "earns" by robbing travelers during the night. He is introduced to the readers as immature, irresponsible, and ignorant to his destiny and potential. But Shakespeare doesn’t let his readers see Hal this way for long: in I.ii, Hal’s intention of transcendence to princedom is evident in his revealing soliloquy: "Yet herein will I... ... middle of paper ... .... In response and gratitude to Hal’s materialized promise, King Henry refers to his power as "our power" (V.v, 34). And where is the courtier of the "Golden Mean"? Dead. And it certainly was not a noble death. There’s no better way to shame a person than to totally uproot their confidence. By the end of the play, Hotspur is not honorable, even in his own terms. Shakespeare’s use of chiasmus in I Henry IV lends a very interesting twist to the plot. And what’s even more compelling is that within the play itself, Hal is using chiasmus as well when he intends to rise from his drunken, thieving status to the justified Prince of Wales. Shakespeare’s use of chiasmus works marvelously in persuading the reader to view Hal as honorable in the end. This should remind us all that we can always move up from where we currently are, and become all the more virtuous by doing so.
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.
The first influence that Shakespeare illustrates over Prince Hal is that of Falstaff, a fat old man who seems to spend his life in seedy taverns accruing massive amounts of debt. From his devious scheme to rob unknowing travelers at the beginning of the story to his diatribe on what honor is not, it is clear that Falstaff has a very distinct notion of his own personal honor, and he seems to be trying to project that same notion onto Hal; however, as Hal becomes closer to his father, Falstaff's honor becomes less appealing. Falstaff treats Hal and King Henry IV to his own personal code of honor-or lack thereof:
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
But in Henry’s own mind he describes himself as “the mirror of all Christian kings” and also a “true lover of the holly church. In the beginning of the play Henry is set up to be the ideal of a Christian King. Interestingly, Shakespeare highlights this as an important characteristic as this occurs earlier in the play. Therefore readers are tricked to respect and agree with Henry’s decisions later on in the play.
transformation of Prince Hal from a tavern crony into the next King of England. This is a
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
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.
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.
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
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.
Through high moral character Henry established credibility with the audience through creating a setting that aroused feelings in the people at the convention in order to convince them they had to fight for more than just peace. The goal Henry had when he spoke about war was to be honest with the crowd and point out that they needed to do something now or they would loose not just what he loved, but what they also loved. Henry said “If we wish to be free, if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending...and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight!”. In this quote the tactic of ethics is apparent in that Henry wanted to achieve a personal level of connection with the audience and establish his credibility. By relating losing the war it also meant the lose of their feelings of comfort and contentm...
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).
The task which Shakespeare undertook was to mold the hateful constitution of Richard's Moral; character. Richard had to contend with the prejudices arising from his bodily deformity which was considered an indication of the depravity and wickedness of his nature. Richard's ambitious nature, his elastic intellect, and his want of faith in goodness conspire to produce his tendency to despise and degrade every surrounding being and object, even as his own person. He is never sincere except when he is about to commit a murder.
In his speech at the end of 1.2, Hal says that he is only spending time in the taverns and with misfits so that when he achieves glory, it will look even greater than it is. However, one might argue that really Hal is scared to take on the responsibility of being a prince and is using the time that he
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."