Despite its title, Henry IV, Part 1 is, without doubt, the story of a prince as he stands, however uncertainly , on the threshold of royalty. Yet Shakespeare's literary account of this historical figure is not simply the diary of a royal offspring engaged in the usual frivolous pastimes while waiting for the throne to become vacant. It’s much more than that; it’s an engaging, multi-layered story about the making of a king. The key word here is “do,” because Prince Hal is the son of a usurper who knows better than to sit idly by and wait for the kingship to be handed to him. Who better to know the uncertainty of inheritance and that blood does not guarantee obtaining the coveted crown? Prince Hal does well to heed his instincts to get training and "field experience" in order to invent himself as a king, and as this play shows, he wastes no time in beginning his studies . Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay. The kings in Shakespearean historical plays that preceded this one (i.e. Richard III, Richard II) have been shown to have had little or no preparation for their reign, as one was , like Prince Hal's father, a usurper himself, and the other, simply a king by the ancient way of birth. Both lived (and died) regretting their poor preparation and/or unwanted reign. Through this legacy, Hal was aware of what worked and what didn't, and incorporated it into his development as a future king. The men who preceded Prince Hal not only paved the way for his accession to the throne by altering the path of the crown line (i.e. his father, Henry IV), but according to the works of Shakespeare , Prince Hal could also have gleaned some very valuable knowledge. lessons from some other notable men in these plays and/or in his life about what not to do as a king (i.e. Richard II and his father, again) and what is idealistic and overwhelmed (i.e. honor and chivalry) from those closest to him. rival, Harry Hotspur. To begin with, there was Richard II, a complete antithesis to Machiavelli and a perfect illustration of the idea that the qualities that make a man morally admirable do not, by themselves, lend themselves to ability and effectiveness as a as a leader. . As a man, Richard was introspective, poetic, and perhaps even interesting and likeable, but he lacked pragmatism and, more fundamentally, the desire and drive to be a leader. Arguably, Shakespeare wanted his audience to sympathize with the usurpers (led by the future Henry IV) or at least understand the need to depose this monarch, who came to the throne through his blood alone. Indeed, this was a radical concept in light of the fact that previously these people believed that the king was anointed by God and, as such, could only be deposed by God; even going so far as to believe that he was God's representative on Earth. Then there's Prince Hal's father, the man after whom the play is titled. Unlike Richard II, the reigning king is purely Machiavellian. To summarize Niccolo Machiavelli's complex and revolutionary approach to government and politics: "The end justifies the means." This was implemented during Henry IV's accession to the throne and his subsequent defense of his crown against his detractors. However, the troubled king seems to have lost his touch and is slipping into a more human personality, less Machiavellian in that he is riddled with guilt.Conscience and guilt have no place in Machiavelli's world and, in the case of Henry IV, seem to serve only to weaken him and render him almost completely ineffective. His obsession with his famous crusade to Jerusalem to avenge the death of Christ is, although Machiavellian in theory in that he uses this devout piety as armor to protect himself from the people's reprisals, almost laughable, as it has no sense. Hal would be all too aware of his father's fading power as he mellowed, and he no doubt put this document away. While Richard II seemed more enamored of the regalia and glory of being king , and Richard III, a voracious outsider (for he was at his best when "stalking" the throne) although less capable as a ruler (staying at the top is harder for some than getting there), the Prince Hal, on the other hand, wants it vehemently and he uses everything and everyone to ensure not only his path to the throne, but also that he has the necessary tools. and, most significant for this thesis, the practical experience on which he will be able to draw to help him maintain his reign. Although Prince Hal's success is not fully realized in Shakespeare's tetralogies until after Henry V, at the end of Henry IV, Part 1, he emerges victorious in the battle fought against his father by Hotspur and the other rebels. This was a significant victory as the king's opponents were quite passionate in their rebellion, supposedly fueled by resentment and anger against the king for betraying them and failing to keep his promises. he had done to those who had helped him dethrone Richard II. Since these plays were written retrospectively, after Hal had already reigned, and successfully reigned as Henry V, it could be argued that Shakespeare's "Portrait of the Young Man King" is his own commentary on how and what makes a play effective, competent and ultimately successful ruler and statesman. It is conceivable that the Bard may well have asked his Elizabethan audience to rethink with him their ideas about kingship and to consider that perhaps the traits that make an effective ruler are not necessarily the most ethical or the most genius, nor the traits we can be assumed to have. by pure parentage. These questions would have been particularly poignant during this transitional period in English history and had become quite crucial and hotly debated by Shakespeare's time. On the one hand, the usurpation and dethronement that occurred in England's not-so-distant past caused many people to question questions of kingship: rights, duties, responsibility, etc. Add to this the advances in science and philosophical thought which were marked by the Renaissance (the most creative and intellectually fertile period in Europe), as well as by the growing power of the Catholic Church and the resentment which resulted in his regard, what resulted was a look towards reform. Another factor is that English traders were gaining economic power and perhaps seeking to make political progress as well. England's class structure was in transition; the Renaissance saw the emergence of the bourgeois class. Nowhere is it more evident than in this play that Shakespeare was aware of this change and was visionary enough to see it as a harbinger of what was to come in England. It is the only one of his Stories in which ordinary people are seen and heard, and even interact with royalty. The play is filled with the events of daily life and the vernacular of “the people.” (It is appropriate tonote in particular the interaction of royalty with commoners. It was literally taboo at the time to depict this type of interaction in works of art, as well as in patronage of the arts.) Shakespeare recognized that England and life in England was changing. The influx of immigrants from other European countries like Holland (and the influence that a city like Venice had on all of Europe, as it was the most progressive city of the Renaissance) brought diversity customs, fashion, language, professions, etc. (A good illustration of this is the play The Shoemaker's Holiday, by one of Shakespeare's contemporaries, Thomas Dekker). However, Shakespeare took the exploration of this phenomenon to a new extreme in his play by having royalty and commoners interact. And last, but certainly not least, the fact that England had expanded its kingdom through battle and now included Wales, Scotland, Ireland, etc. Even without immigration, the English king's realm had become diverse and, as this play shows, there was a clash between these cultures and their peoples. All of this undoubtedly had some influence on all artists and thinkers of the time, including Shakespeare. Nowhere is this more evident than in this play, the most popular of his historical plays. A notable byproduct of the Renaissance was Niccolo Machiavelli's controversial treatise, The Prince. In it, he sets out a new political ideology which, in short, asserts that political stability is paramount and that a leader, to achieve this, must be capable of all necessary cunning. Shakespeare's Prince Hal embodies this ideology not only later in his reign as Henry V, but also in his cunning and calculating manner in which he trained himself before acquiring the crown. Prince Hal took pieces from different role models, people he met along the way, and life experiences he had and incorporated them, thereby molding himself into the ruler he would become. Like a vampire, Prince Hal uses and then gets rid of the people he had fun with during his youthful escapades in Eastcheap. Although Hal's father and most of England looked askance at the prince's shameless "slumming", ironically, he learned profoundly useful life lessons and adopted and honed invaluable skills in matters of interpersonal relations, public speaking, gender and cross-class dynamics, and not least, survival skills on the battlefield and competition in general. It could be argued that in choosing to spend his youth as he did, Prince Hal was led by his instinct, wisely in this case, to go where he would learn the most. He demonstrated common sense in recognizing the value of learning about the people he would eventually rely on to support him in his rule. In this sense, the prince's edification and "learning" was received in the stomping grounds (i.e. taverns, villages, markets, etc.) of the common people, notably Falstaff. Falstaff is a key character in this play, not only because he illustrates the playwright's feelings that the Puritans were hypocrites (he claims to be a Puritan, but his actions rarely support his proclamations, and he has been shown to use and misinterprets quotes from the Bible to justify his amorality) but more importantly, because he is a surrogate father to Hal and almost inadvertent mentor to him. As previously stated, Falstaff was a religious hypocrite, using an air of piety to mask his questionable actions. In this sense, it canbe considered Machiavellian since this school of thought suggests that religion is a tool to be used as a costume to present oneself to one's constituents. Consequently, Hal learns even more Machiavellian methods through a proxy for his father. Young Hal also learns from Falstaff that the concept of honor is just that, a concept, and that it is not a skill that can keep a man alive ("Honor has no skill in surgery.. ." Act 5.1) His lesson here is to be pragmatic. And thanks to great verbal jousting, Hal learns the art of quibbles from Falstaff, the first “spin doctor”. Act 2.2 Falstaff: “What plague do you want to give me like this” Prince Hal: “You lie; you are not colt, you are not collared. (Prince Hal catches Falstaff stretching the truth, as usual). However, Shakespeare gives us incidents where Hal surpasses even Falstaff's excess. For example, when Hal discovers that Falstaff was taking credit for Hotspur's murder, he tells Falstaff, "For my part, if a lie can do you any favors, I will gild it with the happiest conditions I have." » This was only a ruse and not true loyalty to a friend, as we see in Henry V that Hal spends Falstaff when he survived his use. A pivotal scene in the play occurs in Act 2 when the Prince and Falstaff play a role. playing. Falstaff asks Hal to repeat what he will say to his father about the incident with the thieves when he ran away out of cowardice. Hal uses this as practice when he stands before his father to account for his "misspent" time. He practices respect towards his father. Then the two roles switch and Hal gets a chance to "play" the role of a king. While Falstaff's speech is full of biblical allusions, Hal impersonates his father using a classic mode of speech (referring to Falstaff as "this vice of iniquity, this vanity for years"), then launches into a rhetorical speech: "Where cunning, but in wickedness". and adds some common language to take action (i.e. "There is a devil haunting you in the form of an old fat man"). Not only is the prince counterfeiting loyalty here, but he also feigns modesty by allowing his friend to take the glory for something he actually accomplished. This incident in particular displays Hal's faculty for cunning subterfuge and shows that he has more than a little Falstaff. and of his father in him, only Hal proves that he is the master and destined for greater heights. This exchange between the prince and Falstaff can be seen as the culmination of Hal's education, his final exam before receiving his diploma. Hal has studied hard and applies what he has learned over the years. He integrated everything he learned, all these tools of communication, expression and persuasion. Here he succeeds with flying colors, as we see his success in his relationship with his father, his success in war, and later, his success in kingship. Another character Hal meets during his escapades with Falstaff is Francis, a true apprentice. The character of Francis illuminates the idea that Prince Hal is serving his own apprenticeship in that Francis is more or less the same age as Hal and is doing what Hal would do if he had not been born a noble . In act 2.5, Hal and Poins play a sort of "monkey in the middle" game with Francis which, on one level, seems to mirror Hal's own dilemma of being in a tug-of-war between his father and Falstaff; torn between the expectations of him as a prince and the lure of the "sporting life". More importantly, as Hal hypnotizesFrancis with his verbal gymnastics exercise, he displays his hypnotic charm, while foreshadowing his plan to abruptly end his own apprenticeship (by inciting Francis to flee his, by suggesting that he continue to study). more important things), and his possible surpassing his elders and superiors. Interestingly, Hal's relatives and subjects are not the only people Hal learns from. In many ways, Hal is studying under Hotspur, his closest rival and the other Harry in the picture. Suffice it to say that Hal's father was impressed with Hotspur and he made no secret that up until now he wished Hotspur was his son instead of Harry. This only seemed to fuel Harry with another goal: to regain his father's love and approval. It is perhaps for this reason (and of course because he knew it would fall to him) that Prince Hal not only kills Hotspur, but he imitates him and co-opts, at least superficially, the most pronounced characteristic of Hotspur: his chivalry. with something very valuable coming from Hotspur's knowledge, as revealed in Act 5.1 when he challenges Hotspur to a one-on-one battle. Prince Hal intelligently and masterfully embodies Hotspur's bravery and eloquence. The speech he gives is so graceful and distinguished that it impresses Vernon, a member of Hotspur's camp. Hal said of Hotspur: "I do not think that a braver, more active, more valiant, more stout-young, more daring or bolder gentleman is now alive." Proof of Hal's charisma and powers of persuasion, Vernon is bought and sold, after witnessing this display of humility, and reports to Hotspur: "If he survived the envy of this day, England never owed so sweet a hope, so badly interpreted in his indulgence “According to the newly converted Vernon, England was wrong about the prince's indulgent life; he is a good prince and noble. Prince Hal's education has paid off, as it serves as positive proof of Prince Hal's ability to influence and seduce. Hal has set his plan in motion: all roads lead to the throne. Shakespeare masterfully creates in Hotspur a character who is not entirely ineffective, for it would not be a leap of faith to think that Hotspur would have prevailed in the past and had he not clashed with the well-educated and well-rounded Prince Hal. In fact, Hotspur is admirable in his quest to resurrect honor. However, this seems to be only for intrinsic value, honor for honor's sake, which turns out to be empty and useless. At the same time, Hotspur is lacking in other areas that Hal has the market cornered on. To begin with, as aptly named, Hotspur is brash; it’s certainly not a quality one would want their leaders to possess. He is not a good listener (he ignores Blunt's advice), while Hal is shown to be a keen listener and observer. Second, due to his prejudicial attitudes (he is intolerant and annoyed by his Welsh ally Glyndwr), he makes a blatant speech. and a costly mistake. Instead of fully utilizing his resources (these culturally different but united allies), he separates himself from them and despises the ways of Glyndwr. Not only does he despise these foreigners and their customs (unlike Prince Hal, who finds immigrants useful, as well as commoners who, for him, might as well have come from another country), but he is appalled by their passion . manners and the expression of their emotions, especially with their wives. This is evident in the scene in which Hotspur witnesses the love shared by Mortimer and Glyndwr's daughter. He considers it stupid and distracting for a man and a soldier to waste his thoughts on such things..