Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Analysis of King Henry 4 part 2
Machiavelli thoughts on leadership
Influences of family on individuals
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Analysis of King Henry 4 part 2
The Webster Dictionary defines leadership as “the power or ability to lead other people” (Webster). According to West Point graduate and former Allied Commander, Dwight D. Eisenhower, leadership is a power or ability, it includes the qualities of “vision, integrity, courage, understanding, the power of articulation, and profundity of character” that make a great leader. In Shakespeare’s Henry V, the protagonist King Henry, obtained greatness from such qualities which inspired his men to follow him without hesitation, even when faced with deplorable odds. King Henry’s strong sense of duty, commitment to his men and desire to win, enabled his victory over the French. Such desire and will to win would have not been possible for King Henry if it was not for his purpose, role and individuality. King Henry was once young and seemingly uninterested in his role as a future King of England. Many of Henry’s legendary and heroic traits did not originate in Henry V; instead, they appeared in previous Shakespearean plays including Henry IV. As the British heir apparent, young Henry was known as “Prince Hal, Henry, Harry, Prince Harry, Harry Monmouth, and the Prince of Wales” (Britannica). In Henry V, King Henry is this play’s main protagonist. Shakespeare’s audience briefly witnesses the gradual transformation of Henry from a youthful hell-raiser and playboy to a dignified King. Henry’s immature reputation is described by the Bishop of Canterbury when he says that “a heady currance scour[s] his faults” (I.i.36). In Henry IV, the audience is first introduced to Prince Hal, at his apartment in London and a cheap tavern called the Boar’s Head in Eastcheap, where the future King mingled and formed networks with drinking buddies. There he pla... ... middle of paper ... ...parkNotes. SparkNotes, n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2014. Juarez, Aimee C. “Humanizing Machiavelli and His Concept of a Good Leader.” www.saybrook.edu. N.p., 29 June 2012. Web. 20 Mar. 2014. “Leadership.” Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2014. Pilkington, Andrew CDT I4 CO 16’ Assistance was given to me in fixing my grammatical errors. CDT Pilkington looked over my paper, fixing grammatical mistakes. When he was done, we discussed what was not clear and I fixed those errors within my paper. West Point, NY. 23 March. 2014. Shakespeare, William, Stephen Greenblatt, Walter Cohen, Jean E. Howard, Katharine Eisaman Maus, and Andrew Gurr. The Norton Shakespeare. Second ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 1997. Print. The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. “Prince Hal (fictional Character).” Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2014.
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
Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince from The Portable Machiavelli. Ed. & Trans. Peter Bondanella & Mark Musa. New York: Penguin, 1979.
The most prominent feature of Prince Harry in the two Henry1V plays is his absolute isolation. When we first see Harry, he is a pariah and outlaw among his own people, the nobility, and a source of fear and misery for his family. He has no friends in any real sense, just pawns; unlike Hotspur, Mortimer, and even Falstaff, he has no lovers and shows no interest in sexual love. He stands alone in the world, and he stands against all the world. He is motivated only by suspicion, cruelty, pride, and greed for power. People are real to Harry only in so far as he can use them; and, ultimately, the future King can use people only when they are destroyed. His every step is toward death and destruction: the two plays begin with Harry's plot against his tavern friends, which culminates in the sacrificial expulsion of Falstaff, and end with rumours of war, the campaign against France, carried out for reasons of internal political advantage. Harry is what today is commonly described as a psychopath, and the plays demonstrate how such a man can become a successful king and defeat the world, a perfect blend of Machiavel (the immoral villain) and Machiavellian (the amoral strategist).
In his histories from Richard II through Henry V to Richard III, Shakespeare depicts the English monarchy as a game between family and friends of vying for a gold ring -- the crown. Shakespeare gives his reader a central metaphor through which to see this equation in King Henry IV part one. The prank Prince Hal, later King Henry V, and his friend, Poins, play on their friends, particularly Falstaff, parallels the plot's focal passing of the crown.
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 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.
Falstaff is often left out of the conversation or treated as an object when people discuss Shakespeare’s “Henriad.” The conversation has grown to include Falstaffian supporters and those who continue to objectify him. On the one hand, critics like Harry Berger, author of “The Prince’s Dog: Falstaff and the Perils of Speech-Prefixity,” argues that Falstaff’s concealed motives are only brought to light through the characters speech. On the other hand, critics like Robert Bell, author of “The Anatomy of Folly in Shakespeare’s “Henriad,” believes Falstaff to be a fool, but he believes him to be one of Shakespeare’s “Greatest Fools.” I find these critics to be in direct conversation with one another. They both attempt to consider Falstaff in the forefront of the text, along with Prince Harry; more specifically, how one interacts with the other through folly and speech. While I agree with some critics notions that Falstaff has flaws, I would argue that he is more than an object; he is pertinent to the success of the prince, and he must be considered as the subject; Falstaff is the catalyst through whom Prince Harry enjoys his indiscretions, sins, and follies without reprimand or any acceptance of responsibility. Falstaff and Prince Harry share the same mind, but this is only apparent through the folly and parody of Falstaff. Prince Harry is completely oblivious to the fact that he and Falstaff rest on either side of a double-headed coin allowing them to share a psychic link. I will show that Falstaff has knowledge of all of Prince Harry’s actions as well as his own downfall before it occurs through a close analysis of 1 Henry IV, act 1, scene 2.
Dutton, R., & Howard, J.E. (2003). A Companion to Shakespeare’s Works.(p. 9) Maiden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
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.
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
Shakespeare, William. The Norton Shakespeare. Edited Stephen Greenblatt et al. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1997.
Cohen, Walter, J.E. Howard, K. Eisaman Maus. The Norton Shakespeare. Vol. 2 Stephen Greenblatt, General Editor. New York, London. 2008. ISBN 978-0-393-92991-1
Foremost among the characters William Shakespeare develops in his series of historical plays is, undoubtedly, the character of Henry V. Henry, also at times referred to as Harry or Hal, develops through the course of four plays: Richard II, I Henry IV, II Henry IV, and Henry V. From the brief mention of Henry in Richard II to the full focus upon him in Henry V, a dramatic change clearly takes place: the playful carousing youth portrayed in the first play develops into a King and conqueror by the conclusion of the final play. In order to truly examine his development however, one must examine the growth and eventual fusion of two undeniable separate characters: the prince Henry, and the youth Hal. Only through a careful examination of these distinctly unique characters can one hope to truly understand the Henry we witness at the conclusion of Shakespeare's Henry V.
The play then shifts its focus to the younger Henry, nicknamed Hal. Shakespeare portrays the ...
Levin, Harry. General Introduction. The Riverside Shakespeare. Ed. G. Blakemore Evans. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1974.