"Honor" In Henry IV, Part I Falstaff vs. Hotspur
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"Falstaffis first seen as an endearing, uproariously funny scoundrel and later reveals himself more of a lowlife with his view of honorhe seems
…show more content…
He says "I like not such grinning honor as Sir Walter hath: give me life, which if I can save, so; if not, honor comes unlocked for, and there's an end." (V, iii) Thus, honor is, as Falstaff says, nothing more than a word, for it expresses a concept, which can be conveniently twisted to support whatever side of any battle that one is on.
Hotspur, on the other hand, is always seen as "honorable" even though he has caused this whole war; there is no way, therefore, for anyone to correctly say what brings honor and what dishonors. The second time the word "honor" appears in the play, it is on the lips of Hotspur, who is damning the King and urging his father and Worcester to "redeem / [their] banish'd honors and [to] restore [them]selves..." (I, iii). The reader can easily see Shakespeare's notion that the concept of honor and its embodiment seldom come together in the reality of a single personcertainly the way that Hotspur wants his father and uncle to redeem themselves (by dethroning the king) is not very honorable, yet his honor is from battles won in the king's name. So despite his treasonous thoughts, his honor from battle remains with him for the rest of his life, as even the prince calls him "valiant." (V, i) Both Hotspur and the King believed in the undegenerate chivalric conception of honor, which was a lofty one. Under it, trial by battle, and war, became religious affairs. Hotspur also talks of "honor" as a symbol for a trophy of victory: he
Hotspur and Hal both view honor as something to be strived for; however, Falstaff has completely lost sight of the meaning of the word. In his speech about honor fallstaff talks about how honor is just a word, just air coming out of someone's mouth. He believes that honor only comes in death and since the dead cannot see or hear it is useless. Because he has lost sight of the meaning of honor, he fails to act ethically and behaves in the manner of a criminal and a coward. We see Falstaff rob, not pay what he owes (specifically at the inn), and misuse his commission as an officer. Before
"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.
Honor - we often hear this word thrown around in daily conversation. Whether talking about respected members of the community or characters in novels and films, the word honor is used repeatedly. What does honor really mean, though? The answer to that question is certainly not simple, as the definition of honor differs from person to person. This idea of the various types of honor can be shown through comparing the protagonist, John Proctor, in the play The Crucible by Arthur Miller, to Will Kane in the movie “High Noon”, directed by Frank Zinnemann. Proctor struggles with trying to find his definition of honor as it changes from being held accountable by society’s standards to his own private moral of truth.
Honor is one of those concepts that is seldom defined. One’s reputation is based on his or her honor, integrity, honesty, and purity. William Shakespeare’s Henry IV is a one of his many plays that deal with the varying ideas of honor, as well as issues of courage, loyalty, and ambition, interposing examples of dishonor, weakness, and the deceitful plots among both the drunkards and noblemen. Shakespeare utilizes suggestive metaphors to create illusions, imagery, and to reinforce the different views of the major issues people were faced with in his time and in ours. His plays often focus on the imagery, either on some obvious important symbol, or some image pattern that recurs throughout the work. Readers are
One example of honor is when Proctor confesses to lechery as an attempt to save his wife, Elizabeth, from the accusation and executed for practicing witchcraft. This occurs when he takes Mary Warren to the courthouse to tell Danforth, Parris, and Hathorne. John Proctor says, “I have known her [Abigail Williams], sir [Danforth]. I have known her” (III. 220). Proctor is admitting to having an affair with Abigail while she was working for him as a maid. Elizabeth is then brought into the courthouse to be interrogated to see if she knows anything about John Proctor's crime of lechery. When Danforth asks Elizabeth about Proctor and Abigail, she replies with, “...I were a long time sick after my last baby, and I thought I saw my husband somewhat turning away from me. Then I saw this girl [Abigail]- … I came to think he fancied her” (III. 223). Elizabeth is trying to say that she had suspicions of the affair, but wasn’t sure. She did this because she didn’t know if John told the court
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.
Some would say that honor is a thing of the past; a thing long since extinct with the King Arthur and the knights of the round table. In fact, it is not, it is real and can still be seen all around through people all the time. In Charles Dicken’s novel, A Tale of Two Cities, honor and dishonor are main themes that are exemplified and enacted through many characters. To be honorable, or to act in honor, is to act in a way that is not necessarily socially acceptable, but is morally right, noble, and kind. To be dishonorable is to neglect the basic responsibility of treating every human being in the respectful manner they deserve, giving no variance to rank or status. Throughout the book different men show varying degrees of honor and dishonor.
Within the first act we immediately get to know Hotspur as Honorable and courageous, he is recognized as Henrys alternative son, this directly juxtaposes Henrys son Hal who lacks responsibility and willfully disregards his father. Hal has split loyalty between his father and his fake father figure Falstaff who is a fat jolly man. In Hals soliloquy he tells the readers that he will change his ignoble ways to be more like a true Prince. Hal becomes a symbol of modern commonwealth. “I will redeem all this on Percy’s head ….. When I will wear a garment all of blood, and stain my favors in a bloody mask”. This metaphor tells us honor is won with blood, this statement by the prince is ironic that you win honor with the blood of others. Hotspur deliberately attacks assuming to gain political leadership by killing the prince. “More active-valiant or more valiant-young, more daring or more bold, is now alive”, the repetition of More emphasizes how Hal believes Hotspur to be the soldier he is not by saying this Hal is showing traces of his father’s political acuity. “To save the blood on either side, try fortune with him in a single fight”. Hal volunteers to meet Hotspur in single hand to hand combat thus concluding the play with Hals succession in killing Hotspur and maintaining his political position. Yet powerful rebel forces still remain in
In Henry IV, Part One Shakespeare revels in the opportunity to suggest the idiosyncracy of character through his command of a wide range of both verse and prose. As a result the play is full of rich and different character parts (Wells 141). Two in particular, Falstaff and Hotspur, hold diverse beliefs concerning the main theme of the drama, honor. In Shakespeare’s time, honor was defined as the special virtues which distinguish those of the nobility in the exercise of their vocation–gallantry in combat with a worthy foe, adherence to the accepted code of arms, and individual loyalty to friends, family, and comrades in arms (Prior 14). Throughout the play, honor plays an important role in
This exhibits how Don John is a villain, by dishonoring Hero. Honor was very important in Shakespearean times. If someone was dishonored then their reputation was ruined. Honor has the power further develop a character, for better or for
Men and women’s honour play a very important role in William Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing and in the times of the Elizabethan era. Throughout the play characters are faced with situations destroying their honour and they will go through many obstacles to restore their honour. Some of the characters are not controversial men and woman and do not always live up to certain ideals that define an honourable man and woman. In the opening scene, Shakespeare introduces the concept honour when Leonato, governor of Messina, asks the messenger whether people have died in the recent battle. The messenger replies, But few of any sort, and none of name. (1.1.7). This is an indication that honour is of high importance to the people in Much Ado About Nothing. Shakespeare shows the honourable woman through the character Hero.
Prince Hal’s destiny is shaped for him by many forces: his association with the ne'er-do-well Falstaff, the expectations of his father, King Henry IV, and the constant comparison between himself and Hotspur. All three of these forces create in Hal a sense of honor that is an integral part of his education as the ideal king, and throughout the action of Henry IV, Part I, Hal is gaining a knowledge of honor that will shape him into the King that he will become. However, it seems that Hal ultimately chooses one form on honor over the other, although he must compare the honor of Falstaff and the conceptual honor of a chivalric hero before he comes to a final conclusion.
In Henry IV Part 1, although Falstaff and King Henry act as father figures in Hal’s life and are both intelligent in their own right, the differences in their tone and diction showcase the major differences in their personalities and relationship with pride.
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
William Shakespeares Hamlet, is set in a world much like an unweeded garden. It is a world full of treacheryand deceit, so much so that one may smile, and smile and still be a villain. However, amidst all this corruption, several characters of integrity, such as Hamlet, and his loyal comrade, Horatio, are still able to rise above the other characters in nature, and be true to their own selves. Thus, Shakespeare assigns them with honourable ends, unlike the other members of the court, who are condemned with shameful deaths. Yet is integrity the most