Hal World Of Learning

This speech occurs towards the end of the play and does not make a positive impression on the newly-virtuous Hal, but in previous moments the Prince seems at least to play along with Falstaff's definition of honor being, in essence, an empty value belonging only to the dead. Falstaff's concept of honor shapes Hal's personality early in the play when he has not yet acquiesced to his royal role as heir apparent, but the question that is raised in the early, rakehell descriptions of Hal is the possibility that he is merely playing a role and ingratiating himself superficially with Falstaff. This seems likely, increasingly so as the play goes on, as Hal tells his father that he will “hereafter, my thrice-gracious lord,/ Be more myself,” indicating that there is perhaps more to Hal’s sense of honor and duty than appearance belies (3.2.92-93). However, whether Hal is playacting or being true to himself in his early interactions with Falstaff, there is no doubt that the general populace and the King in particular believe that Hal has no honor to speak of, and is in effect living Falstaff's notion of the “true” nature of honor.

William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, is a timeless play which continues to remain relevant across all generations due to its presentation of ideas that are fundamental to humanity. The play highlights aspects that relate to the society of not only Elizabethan England but also that of our modern society. Hamlet, as a character, considers ideas from outside his time and is somewhat relatable to modern day man. By drawing from ideas of archetypes and the human psyche, it reveals that Hamlet relates deeply to the elements of humanity.

After reading Machiavelli’s The Prince and watching Shakespeare’s Henry V in class, one begins to notice similarities between the authors’ idea of what a “perfect king” should be. The patterns between the ideal ruler of Shakespeare and the ideal ruler of Machiavelli can be seen in numerous instances throughout this story. For the duration of this essay, I will compare the similarities in both pieces to give the reader a better understanding of how Shakespeare devised his view of what a “perfect king” should be.

Raising a child is always a challenging and time-consuming task, and raising a prince is even more difficult. Henry puts his leadership aside to focus his efforts upon preventing Prince Hal from absolute corruption or even betrayal. Hal enjoys the company of an unruly thief, the drunkard John Falstaff, as well as several other less respectable persons. Henry is more realistic and rational than Richard, and he is able to see that his position is not a good one. He may fear that he is a bad example for his son, for he too was a robber when he stole the throne. He fears that his son will ruin his image as king or even assist in overthrowing him;

According to F. Scott Fitzgerald, "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." Indeed, very few people have this quality, the playwright William Shakespeare being one of them. In many of his plays, "Henry IV, Part One" among them, Shakespeare juxtaposes different worldviews, ideologies, and even environments. His characters usually provide a clear example of a split among them in one of many perspectives. One of his characters in "Henry IV"—Falstaff—is first seen as an endearing, uproariously funny scoundrel and later reveals himself more of a lowlife with his view of honor—he seems

n Shakespeare's King Henry V, King Henry prepares his troops for battle with a passionate speech about fighting, honor, and kinship. Henry uses strong ethos and pathos to persuade his men to fight the French, though they are outnumbered in the battle. Henry notes that his troops feel unprepared and overwhelmed for battle. This speech marks the moment where the boy Hal transforms into King Henry. For the first time, Henry takes on the role of a valiant king and takes control of the situation. He seizes the moment to prepare them and inspire them. Henry hopes by making an effective speech his men will understand why they need to fight.

Although King Henry and Falstaff are extremely different characters, both do act as father figures in Hal’s life with Falstaff as a surrogate father and King Henry as Hal’s birth father. With King Henry, this fatherly relationship emerges as one of blindly scolding and ordering around his son, an example being when the King criticizes Hal’s friends, “rude society” (3.2.14). The relationship with Hal and his surrogate father, Falstaff, though is much more relaxed with Falstaff teasing Hal, by touching on Hal’s slight insecurity of taking care of his princely duties, calling Hal “true prince” (2.4.106). Although both these relationships are very different in how relaxed they are, there is a similarity of King Henry and Falstaff acting as fatherly figures in Hal’s life.

From the beginning of his life as a warrior to the end as a king, he gains and develops glory, responsibility and courage, all vital to his reign as a successful king.

Shakespeare’s Hamlet is a work of immense depth in character development, most notably the personal, moral and psychological battles

To examine Shakespeare’s exploration of identity as a means of control, it is important to understand what all constitutes each character’s identity. In the case of Henry, for one, it is apparent that the actions of his past alter his perceived identity throughout the play. Before Henry speaks his first lines in the play, the Bishop of Ely calls Henry a “true lover of the holy Church,” to which the Archbishop of Canterbury replies, “The courses of [Henry’s] youth promised it not” (1.1.23-24). This reckless reputation follows Henry further into the play when an ambassador from France delivers a message to Henry from the Dauphin: “…the prince our master says that you savor too much of your youth and bids you to be advised there’s naught in France that can be with a nimble galliard won: you cannot revel into dukedoms there” (1.2.250-254). Along with this message, the Dauphin included a gift of tennis balls meant to further insult Henry. Even later in the play, after the English won the battle at Harfleur, the noble Frenchmen continue to underestimate Henry’s ability as a leader: “What a wretched and peevish fellow is this King of England, to mope with his fat-brained followers so far out of his knowledge” (3.8.120-122).

Prince Hal shows a great deal of insight in this revelation; his words show that he realizes he has a twofold boundary to overcome: first, he is seen as overly juvenile and flighty by most of his father’s men; second, and more importantly, Hal knows that he has no claim to the divine right to rule, as he is not of Richard II’s bloodline. It seems, then, that Hal knows full well “the way that men respond to the image of royalty, and [is] no less instinctive a politician than his father,” and is in fact “the creator as well as the creature of political mythology, the author as well as the hero of his legend” (Ornstein, 137). By rising phoenix-like out of the ashes, Hal knows that he will make a more compelling impression on England than if he had been conventionally “princely” all his life, and plays this dramatic advantage to

Falstaff’s soliloquy questioning the value of honour is an ironic contrast with how Hotspur and Hal regard honour. By now the contrast between their highly ordered morality and Falstaff’s own moral disorder is obvious. Falstaff’s inclusion at this point, when Hal has left his side and moved on, is necessary to point out the differing morality between the two, which was once so similar. Falstaff is of paramount importance to the sub-plot dealing with Hal’s decision between continuing his carefree lifestyle or maturing into the role he is destined to play as a respected prince and later king. This soliloquy continues the theme of another of Falstaff’s in Act 4 Scene 2, in which he is equally undisturbed by his amorality, and shows that his highest concern is for his own well being.

This gives Hal a constant sense of inaptness. Knowing that his father thinks low of him drives him more towards Falstaff who praises him at all times, giving him the support he needs at such age. Hal’s disobedience is partly a stubborn reaction to his father’s criticism and partly a rebellion that is natural in his age. On the other hand, King Henry IV is haunted by a sense of guilt that is translated to a feeling of suspicion towards his own son. The source of this guilt is his usurping of the throne and, in a way or another, being a participant in the killing of Richard II, if not by giving the orders at least by turning a blind eye to it. King Henry IV unconsciously harbors a belief that God will punish him for doing this through his son. He expects that it will either be the fall of Hal when he succeeds him or Hal overthrowing him and taking over the throne. However, both options lead the king to treat his son with caution. An example of this is his fury when he wakes up to find that his crown is missing and thinking that his son wishes his death to become the king.

William Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 1, composed during the last years of the 16th century, is as much as character study as it is a retelling of a moment in history. Though the play is titled for one king, it truly seems to revolve around the actions of the titular character's successor. Indeed, Henry IV is a story of the coming-of-age of Prince Hal and of the opposition that he must face in this evolution. This process gives narrative velocity to what is essentially a conflagration between two personality types. In Prince Hal, the audience is given a flawed but thoughtful individual. Equally flawed but more given over to action than thought is his former ally and now-nemesis, Hotspur. In the latter, Shakespeare offers a warrior and a man of action and in the former, the playwright shows a politician in his nascent stages of development. The contrast between them will drive the play's action.

Here Falstaff seems to be the jolly old character that appearances present him to be. There is laughter from both him and Doll as he speaks; however, you can tell that his words carry an undertone of truth. Subsequently, this interaction shows us how this production portrays him as a conniving figure that covers up his actions with humor, just as he is arguably presented in the play. Falstaff’s character comes into effect as Hal and Poins accost him about his words. Quale does a magnificent job at quickly getting flustered; because, it wasn’t in Falstaff’s plans for Hal and Poins to see the part of himself that he has hidden with this carefully cultivated drunkard figure. Similarly, this scene also exposes a hidden layer of Hals character, as this is the last time that we see him partaking in his old mischievous way. In fact, as soon as he gets news of his father’s condition he removes his costume and hurriedly exits the bar. This visual of Hal removing his costume and leaving henceforth to his father’s bedside provides a stunning transition into the later parts of the