Despite its title, Henry IV, Part 1 is, without a doubt, the story of a prince as he finds himself, however uncertainly, on the threshold of kingship. 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 biding their time until the throne is vacant. It's much more than that; is a compelling, multi-layered story about the making of a king. The key word here is create, as Prince Hal is the son of a usurper who knows better than to sit back and wait to be handed the kingdom. Who knows better than us the uncertainty of inheritance and that blood does not guarantee attainment of the coveted crown? Prince Hal does well to listen to his instincts to secure training and "field experience" to invent himself as king, and as illustrated in this play, he wastes no time in beginning his education. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay It has been shown that the kings of the Shakespearean historical plays that preceded this one (e.g. Richard III, Richard II) had little or no preparation for their reign, as one was, like Prince Hal's father, himself one usurper, and the other, merely an old-fashioned king by birth. Both lived (and died) regretting their unpreparedness and/or their unwanted reign. With this legacy, Hal knew what worked and what didn't work, and he incorporated it into his edification as a would-be king. The men who came before Prince Hal not only paved the way for him to become king by altering the path of the crown's lineage (i.e. his father, Henry IV), but according to Shakespeare's works, Prince Hal could very well have gleaned some valuable information . lessons from some other important men in these plays and/or in his life regarding what not to do as king (e.g. Richard II and his father, again) and what is idealistic and obsolete (e.g. honor and chivalry) from his closest rival, Harry Hotspur. For starters, there was Richard II, a total antithesis of Machiavelli and a perfect example of the idea that the qualities that make a man morally admirable do not, by themselves, lend themselves to ability and effectiveness as a ruler. As a man, Richard was introspective, poetic, and perhaps even interesting and likeable, but he lacked pragmatism and, above all, the desire and drive to become a ruler. Probably, Shakespeare wanted his audience to sympathize with the usurpers (led by the future Henry IV) or at least see the need to remove that monarch, who ascended the throne only by virtue of his blood. Indeed, this was a radical concept in light of the fact that until then these people believed that the king was anointed by God and, by virtue of this, could only be removed by God; even going so far as to believe that he was God's representative on Earth. Then there is Prince Hal's father, the man after whom the work is named. In stark contrast to Richard II, the reigning king is purely Machiavellian. To summarize Niccolò Machiavelli's complex and revolutionary approach to government and politics: "The ends justify the means." This was put into action in Henry IV's accession to the throne and his subsequent defense of his crown from his detractors. However, the troubled king seems to have lost his touch as he slips into a more human, less Machiavellian personality as 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 make him almost totally ineffective. His obsession with the much talked about crusade to Jerusalem to avenge theChrist's death is, although Machiavellian in theory in that he uses this devout piety as armor to protect himself from punishment from the people, almost ridiculous, since it has no meaning. Hal would have been all too aware that his father's power was waning as he mellowed, and would no doubt file away all this information, adding to his edification. While Richard II seemed more enamored of the regalia and glory of being a king, and Richard III, a voracious loser (given that he was at his best while "hunting" the throne) though less capable as a ruler (remaining at the top for some is harder than getting there), Prince Hal, on the other hand, wants it vehemently and uses everything and everyone to ensure not only his way to the throne, but also that he has the tools to and, most significantly for this thesis, the practical experience that he can draw on to help him maintain his kingdom. Although Prince Hal's success is not fully realized in Shakespeare's tetralogies until Henry V, at the end of Henry IV, Part 1, he emerges victorious from the battle waged against his father by Hotspur and the other rebels. It is a significant victory as the king's antagonists were quite passionate in their rebellion, presumably fueled by resentment and anger towards the king for betraying them and for failing to keep promises made to those who had aided him in the dethronement of Richard II . Since these plays were written in retrospect, after Hal had already reigned, and reigned successfully as Henry V, it could be argued that Shakespeare's "portrait of the king as a young man" is his commentary on how and what makes a work effective , competent and ultimately successful ruler and statesman. It is possible that the Bard asked his Elizabethan audience to rethink their ideas of kingship with him, and to consider that perhaps the traits that make an effective ruler are not necessarily the most ethical or ingenious ones, nor the traits that might be assumed to own. by pure kinship. These questions would have been particularly poignant during this transitional period in England's history and had become quite crucial and hotly debated in Shakespeare's time. For one thing, the usurpation and dethronement that occurred in England's not-so-distant past caused many to begin questioning issues of kingship: rights, duties, responsibilities, etc. Added to this are the advances in the sciences and philosophical thought that were introduced in the Renaissance (the most creative and intellectually fertile period in Europe), as well as the growing power of the Catholic Church and the resulting resentment towards it, and what it turned out it was an eye toward reform. Another factor is that English merchants were gaining economic power and perhaps trying to make political strides as well. England's class structure was in transition; the Renaissance saw the flourishing 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. This is the only one of his stories where we see and hear about ordinary people, who also interact with royalty. The show is full of incidents from daily life and the vernacular of the "people". (Of particular note is the interaction of royalty with common people. At the time it was literally taboo to depict this type of interaction within 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 such asHolland (and the influence that a city like Venice was having on all of Europe, as it was the most progressive city during the Renaissance) brought diversity in customs, fashion, language, professions, etc. (A good example 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, is the fact that England had expanded its kingdom through battle, and now included Wales, Scotland, Ireland, etc. Even without immigration, the king of England's kingdom had become diverse and, as highlighted in this play, there was a clash between these cultures and their peoples. All this, without a doubt, had some influence on all the artists and thinkers of the time, including Shakespeare. Nowhere is this more evident than in this, the most popular of his historical works. A notable byproduct of the Renaissance was Niccolò Machiavelli's controversial treatise The Prince. In it, he outlines a new political ideology, which in short, holds that political stability is fundamental, and a sovereign, to guarantee it, must be capable of whatever cunning is necessary. Shakespeare's Prince Hal embodies this ideology not only later in his reign as Henry V, but also in the cunning and calculating manner in which he formed himself before actually acquiring the crown. Prince Hal took snippets from different role models, people he met along the way, and life experiences he had and incorporated them, molding himself into the ruler he would become. In an almost vampiric fashion, Prince Hal uses and then discards the people he frolicked with during his youthful escapades in Eastcheap. Although Hal's father and much of England viewed the prince's brazen "slumping" with suspicion, ironically, he learned some profoundly useful life lessons and adopted and honed invaluable skills in the fields of interpersonal relationships, the art of oration , cross-gender and cross-social class dynamics and, last but not least, survival skills on the battlefield and in competition in general. It could be argued that, in choosing to spend his youth as he did, Prince Hal was guided by his instincts, wisely in this case, to go where he would learn most. He proved adept at recognizing the value of the knowledge of the people on whom he would ultimately rely to support him during his reign. In this sense, the edification and "apprenticeship" of the prince was received in places frequented by common people (i.e. taverns, villages, markets, etc.), especially by 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 back up his proclamations, and he is shown to use and misinterpret biblical quotations to justify his amorality) but, more importantly, because he is a surrogate father to Hal and an almost involuntary mentor to him. As previously stated, Falstaff was a religious hypocrite, who used a pious air to disguise his questionable actions. In this sense, he can be seen as Machiavellian since that school of thought suggests that religion is a tool to be used as a custom in presenting oneself to one's constituents. Therefore, Hal learns even more Machiavellian ways through his father's proxy. 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 tobe pragmatic. And through great verbal confrontation, Hal learns the art of quibbling from Falstaff, the original "spin doctor." Act 2.2 Falstaff: "What a plague it means for you to catch me like this" Prince Hal: "You lie; you are not cultured, you are uncultured." (Prince Hal catches Falstaff distorting the truth, as usual.) However, Shakespeare gives us episodes in which Hal surpasses even the excessive Falstaff. For example, when Hal discovers that Falstaff was taking credit for killing Hotspur, he tells Falstaff, "For my part, if a lie can do you grace, I will sugarcoat it in the happiest terms I have." This was simply a ruse and not true loyalty to a friend, as we see in Henry V that Hal sacrifices himself for Falstaff when he survived his use. A crucial scene in the play takes place in Act 2 when the prince and Falstaff play a role. playing. Falstaff asks Hal to prove what he will tell his father about the incident with the robbers when he ran away out of cowardice. Hal uses this as practice for when he has to appear before his father to account for his "misspent" time. He practices showing reverence towards his father. Then, the two switch roles and Hal gets the chance to "play" the part of a king. While Falstaff's speech is full of biblical allusions, Hal impersonates his father using a classical manner of oration (referring to Falstaff as "that vice of iniquity, that vanity in years", and then goes into a rhetorical speech: "Where cunning , but in wickedness ? In what sense wicked, but in all things?), imbued with some Renaissance thinking (referring to Falstaff as "that chest of humours") and adds a bit of common parlance for measure (i.e. " There is a devil haunting you in the guise of a fat old man"). Not only is the prince feigning loyalty here, but he is also feigning modesty by allowing his friend to take the glory for something he actually accomplished. This particular incident shows Hal's faculty for cunning subterfuge and proves that he has more than a little of Falstaff and his father in him, only Hal proves to be the master and destined for greater heights can be seen as the culmination of Hal's education, his final exam before earning his diploma. Hal has studied hard and applies what he has learned over the years. He incorporated everything he learned, all these tools of communication, expression and persuasion. Here he passes with flying colors, as we see his success in dealing 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 real apprentice. The character of Francis illuminates the idea that Prince Hal is in his apprenticeship as Francis is about the same age as Hal and does what Hal would do if he were not 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 dilemma of finding himself in a tug of war between his father and Falstaff; torn between the expectations of him as a prince and the allure of the "sporting life". Even more significantly, as Hal hypnotizes Francis with his verbal calisthenics, he displays his hypnotic charm, even foreshadowing his plan to abruptly end his apprenticeship (provoking Francis to run away from his, suggesting that he should get on with his apprenticeship). greater things) and his eventual surpassing of his elders and superiors. Interestingly, Hal's relatives and his subjects are not the only people Hal learns from. In many ways, Hal studies with Hotspur, his closest rival and the other Harry in the picture. Suffice it to say, Hal's father was impressed by Hotspur and hasn'thidden that up until that moment he had wished Hotspur was his son instead of Harry. This only seemed to fuel Harry with another purpose: to regain his father's love and approval. Perhaps it is for this reason (and obviously because he knew it would suit him) that Prince Hal not only kills Hotspur, but imitates him and co-opts, at least superficially, Hotspur's most pronounced characteristic: 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 skillfully and masterfully personifies Hotspur's gallantry and eloquence. The speech he gives is so gentle and so gentlemanly in tone that it impresses Vernon, a member of the Hotspur camp. Hal says of Hotspur: "I don't think a braver, more active, braver, braver-younger, bolder, or bolder gentleman is now alive." As 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 it survives the envy of this day, England never had a hope so sweet, so much." misunderstood in its wildness. "According to the newly converted Vernon, England was wrong about the prince's indulgent life; he is a good prince and a nobleman. Prince Hal's education has paid off, for this is proof positive of Prince Hal's ability to influence and deceive. 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 an era. precedent and would have not clashed with the well-educated and well-rounded Prince Hal Indeed, Hotspur is admirable in his attempt to resurrect honor However, it seems that it is only for intrinsic value, honor for love of honor, which turns out to be empty and useless. At the same time, Hotspur is lacking in other areas where Hal has the market cornered. To begin with, as he is aptly called, Hotspur is impetuous certainly not a quality that they would like 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, because of his prejudicial attitudes (he is intolerant and annoyed by his Welsh ally Glyndwr) he makes an egregious and costly mistake. Instead of making full use of his resources (these culturally diverse, but united allies), he separates himself from them and despises Glyndwr's ways. Not only does he despise these foreigners and their customs (unlike Prince Hal, who finds use in immigrants, as well as commoners, who to him might as well come from another country), but he is shocked by their passionate ways and their expression of emotions, especially with their women. This is evident in the scene where Hotspur witnesses the love shared between Mortimer and Glyndwr's daughter. He considers it madness and a distraction for a man and a soldier to waste his thoughts on things like love. He tells his wife: "[...] This is no world to play maumets and tilt with lips. We must have bloody noses and cracked crowns, and we must also pass them the current [...]" Hotspur is almost comical in the passion he shows for his horse, preferring it to his wife. This is a real criticism of knighthood and chivalry and perhaps Shakespeare's way of calling for a new definition of manhood in general. As we will see in Henry V, Prince Hal becomes a man who, for whatever reason, knows the value of a woman and of being well married, and at the very least, this whole Welsh women interlude shows these.