King Henry IV And The Rsc's Play

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.

         Henry V, written by William Shakespeare, is by far one of his more historically accurate plays. This play is the life of young King Henry V, who ascended to the throne after his father, Henry IV's death. These times were much different for England, as Henry V was a noble lord whom everyone loved, whereas angry factions haunted his father's reign. Shakespeare portrays a fairly accurate account of the historical Henry V, but certain parts are either inflated"deflated, or conflated to dramatize Henry V as a character suitable for a Renaissance audience.

Not only does he construct his speech like a courtier, but he also appeals to the great conflict of the moment – namely, Hotspur’s rebellion. His speech is full of the imagery of war; specifically, of the aftermath of war, after he has won his battle with Hotspur and reclaimed his own honor and dignity. (“When I will wear a garment all of blood/And stain my favours in a bloody mask/Which, wash’d away, shall scour my own shame with it.” 3.2.135.37) Though this description and his delight in it is emotional, the speech is equally grounded in logic, calculation, and deliberation. It is notable that Hal has planned out exactly what he intends to do, and how he will go about it. He argues for himself like a particularly invested lawyer, with his neatly constructed statements catered to the perspective of his audience, the king. “Percy is but my factor (3.2.147),” he claims, cleverly placing himself and Hotspur on the same playing field, despite his own lack of achievement. Hal’s construction of his speech is remarkably calculated; his delivery and execution, remarkably

In Shakespeare’s play Henry IV Part 1 Prince Hal’s world influences him to transform into a strong leader that will influence . With all the detail of politics and the diverse of social status of the Tavern, the King, and the Rebels; each sector of this story has compiled together to create Hal from a rebellious boy into a persona with ideals and experience.

In Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Hotspur, the most talented young warrior in England, leads a rebellion against King Henry IV while, Hal, the king’s seemingly lazy, indifferent son and heir to the throne, fights against Hotspur for the throne. Hal and Hotspur have a similar ideology as seen in their common metaphors; however, Hal speaks with various extended metaphors, biblical allusions, and strategically places his use of verse and prose while Hotspur speaks with simpler metaphors, war imagery, and mainly speaks in verse. Shakespeare emphasizes these speech patterns to demonstrate Hal’s ability to manipulate the world to his benefit and Hotspur’s extremely volatile sensibility, and thus, proves Hal to be more qualified to rule than Hotspur.

Meanwhile, Hal does not allow his father’s negative perspective towards his conduct to alter his behavior. Scolded by his father at the palace for failing to adopt the same populist brand that led him to the throne, Hal commits not to change his deportment, but instead to remain positively bound to his long-term agenda: “I shall hereafter, my thrice gracious lord, / Be more myself.” (3.2.1915-1916). As seen in Hal’s “I know you all” soliloquy at the end of Act I, Scene 2, the Prince maintains a great sense of self-awareness, an acuity that allows him calculate long-term political objectives. Hal’s tavern-based life may carry the semblance of revelry when, in actuality, his lifestyle is merely a component of a greater stratagem in the game of monarchial power. Although Hal’s words may appear indignant to his father, as if he were declaring that he would continue behaving the way against which the King had just

Furthermore, Shakespeare gives the audience the reason that Hal acts this way: after Hal is left alone, he speaks his true mind, explaining that

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

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.

"What is honor?" That question is one of the central themes from Shakespeare 's Henry IV. Throughout the play Shakespeare provides many different views of honor, but never directly states what honor is. Which makes sense because honor is a rather abstract concept that seems to vary depending on who states their opinion. There are some universal ideas of honorable deeds but the word itself is rarely defined by individuals. Two of the characters within the play have very different ideas of honor and vary greatly in their desire for it. They are Hotspur and Falstaff, Hotspur appears to have a very clear idea of what honor is and he pursues honor with great fervor. However, Falstaff questions the very existence of honor and has little to no desire for it. The ideas of Falstaff and Hotspur about honor are vastly different.

heir to the throne.  The King realizes that to keep order, a ruler and his heir

Henry V is a wise and loyal king, changing from a wild youth to a mature king. He is described to be an intelligent, thoughtful and an efficient statesman. He thinks carefully whether to invade France or not which represents his responsible character. King Henry gives a very strong speech which gave courage and confidence to his army that they could win the battle. This character describes him to be a king of great ability to fight and having good administrative skills. Throughout the play Henry’s nature is religious, merciful and compassionate.

Shakespeare adapts these tenants to construct a power thirsty character. Consequently, while the London elite was introduced to these ideals, Shakespeare shaped the overall plot of the play to exemplify the discussed the power quest introduced by Machiavelli. This results in Richard’s actions that lead him to kill his brother and manipulate his family into getting the throne.

Henry the Fifth has been noted as England’s best King throughout history. He was loved among the common people and nobles alike for his fairness, his effectiveness on the throne, his justness, and his ability to relate to people of all classes. The kings that reigned before him, especially his father King Henry IV and King John, provide a striking contrast to Hal’s attitude on the throne. Kings of the past had not experienced the life of the common people, and chose to lead their lives in the realm of the castle. As we witnessed in I Henry IV, Hal’s father even went as far to discuss this approach to ruling at length with Hal. Henry IV believed that a king was best admired and supplicated if he was kept

went far enough. Because Hal played the errant prince he posed no threat to the