William Shakespeare 's Henry The Iv

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 person—certainly 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

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

Texts are shaped by their compositional context and thus offer new insights about the composer’s era. However, as there are ongoing concerns of humanity, key ideologies resonate over time and are affirmed between texts as shown in William Shakespeare’s play ‘King Richard III’ (1591) and Al Pacino’s docudrama ‘Looking For Richard’ (1996). King Richard III examines the irrational behaviours and moral ramifications of a power lust Richard to explore ideas of the relentless pursuit of power, betrayal and deceit, reflective of the theocentric context of the Elizabethan society. Centuries later, Looking For Richard explores Pacino’s journey to reshape a Shakespearean text that is representative of the changing contextual norms and values of a contemporary American audience who are confused and sceptical about the relevance of Shakespeare’s plays. Both texts provide an image of Richard’s deceit reflective of their distinctive contexts. However, despite the disparity of time, both texts display how key ideas such as deceit, endure and resonate over time.

The first impressions of Hotspur is portrayed when he is recognized by Henry IV as a model son that he envies. When Hotspur’s outstanding courage is combined with the numerous wars he has won, he becomes the princely figure that Henry IV hopes his son, Hal, will aspire to be. Later it is noted that with all this praise as a bold, courageous warrior who laughs at the face of danger, comes a quick tempered man who can get unnecessarily angry at the frivolous things in life. While respiting after a battle, Hotspur gets word from a inappropriately extravagant messenger that the king demands he hand over the prisoners he had captured. Hotspur refuses the messenger and pathetically defends himself by saying “He should or he should not; for he made me mad /

The King complains that ‘riot and dishonor’ stain the brow of his son whereas Hotspur is the theme of honor’s tongue (Wells 141). Henry uses the successes in war of Hotspur, "Mars in swaddling clothes," as a rod for Prince Hal’s back (Wells 143), accusing his son of being unfit to inherit the crown. To many critics, Hotspur is immensely attractive and rather comical in his impulsive impetuosity–"he that kills some six or seven dozen Scots for breakfast, washes his hands, and says to his wife, ‘Fie upon this quiet life, I want work’" (2.5.102-6). Yet, this commitment to bright honor is a dangerous obsession preoccupying Hotspur so much that he is blind to all else. To Hotspur the more dangerous and perilous a situation, the more desire he has to throw himself helplessly into it. To him there are no consequences; he sees no danger. All Hotspur can see is the possibility of achieving great honors– "Doomsday is near, die all, die merrily" (4.1.134). Hotspur’s life is no more than a military commitment; he desires only to gain future glory, whether he wins or loses, lives or dies.

Hotspur's is decidedly not political or diplomatic in his orientation. Quite to the contrary, he is a figure unafraid to express anger, resentment and hostility toward the King. As he does so, he speaks with the tongue of a warrior, impassioned by his sense of honor and resistant to any calming reason. He speaks sarcastically and derisively with his own father for being reluctant to turn his back on Henry IV. Particularly because the Duke of Northumberland and his son had been so critical to helping Henry

However, throughout the play there is never really a consistent definition, as the multiple main characters share different perceptions of what honour is about. These varying perceptions of honour can be seen through Shakespeare’s chosen way of representing the characters, where some characters represent his opinion of honour whilst others may reveal the more common perception of honour during his time. Shakespeare used these characters to sort of hide different thoughts and to expose the common perception to not always lead to success. For example, Hotspur feels that honour is gained through glory in battle either by overthrowing royalty or defending one’s reputation from others. Hotspur is rather confident in his position as prince when he says in Act 1, “A son who is the theme of honour’s tongue, Amongst a grove the very straightest plant”.

"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.

Violent change that is political in nature also arises through the character of Hotspur in the play, King Henry IV, Part One. Like Evie and V’s revolt, Hotspur, through the rebel camp, similarly enacts a revolt against the established governmental power by specifically, trying to kill King Henry IV. As with the other examples, Hotspur does this for personal reasons related to past events. For instance, Hotspur believes that King Henry IV—by not providing ransom for his brother-in-law, Mortimer—is consequently, not properly repaying his family for their previous assistance to King Henry IV’s ascension to the throne. Thus, just as in the Word for World is Forest, the conflict that Hotspur creates in turn, causes counter violence. Notably, it

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.

God. As for to be expressed in the play, King Henry V is the nearest

  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

The Renaissance was a time in which mankind was rediscovering itself. For ages, men were simply trying to exist, survive more than anything else. The Renaissance was a period in which men no longer had to just get by everyday, but could begin exploring morality. No other Renaissance author characterizes this more than William Shakespeare in the early 1600s. His plays highlight the internal moral struggle that every man goes through, the concept of what is right and what is wrong in a world that is full of gray areas. More specifically he deals with the concept of honor and morality in several of his plays. Julius Caesar, Hamlet, and Henry V, to a lesser extent, deal with how men handle these and can reconcile otherwise heinous acts. Now, being well aware that Shakespeare does not account for all the Renaissance writers, however his are the most prevalent still today and it can be argued that Shakespeare did not work alone. For the sake of organization, it is far easier to tackle these literary works in chronological order and analyze the individual pieces first and then view them all as one whole.

figure to the common man but because of the way he lived previously he will also

A person of honor has dignity, high public esteem, and honesty. It is no surprise that Shakespeare doesn’t make the concept of honor simple, specifically in his play King Henry IV: Part One, the word becomes ambiguous. The value and interpretation of the theme changes with each character; some consider the framework as praiseworthy while others argue it is completely insignificant. The characters Hotspur, Falstaff, King Henry IV, and Prince Hal present their own understandings of honor which mirror their personalities and consciousness. In comparing and contrasting each of their translations, the character’s true being is better understood.