This is a queer prospect indeed, as it suggests that a soldier’s identity is contingent not upon acts of homoerotic violence, as various scholars have suggested, but upon competing narratives-or, in Hotspur’s case, themes- signifying those acts 4. What is particularly striking about this lament is Henry’s proclamation that Hotspur is a “theme” articulated by “honor’s tongue.” In these terms, Hotspur’s identity as a valiant soldier exists only as it is reported by others, presumably nobles and other soldiers who can attest to his triumphs in battle. 4 According to Bruce Smith, “Masculine identity is something that men give each other, they do (.)ĢUnaware that his son is merely playing the role of the prodigal, Henry expresses his desire to trade one Harry for another 3.3 On Hal’s proficiency as an actor, see David Boyd’s, “The Player Prince: Hal in Henry IV, Part 1”, (.).To have Hal fighting with him instead of in opposition to him only strengthens Henry’s position regarding his previously uncertain title to the throne. Hotspur is impulsive, albeit brave, undiplomatic and tactless. He possesses all the necessary qualities, diplomacy, courage and honour to name but a few. At the end of the play, after Hal’s triumphant reformation, I would argue that he is by far a more appropriate leader. However, during the course of the play, Shakespeare constructs a complex character development for both Hal and Hotspur. To conclude, at the start of the play, I would have deemed Hal to be a most unsuitable King, and Hotspur as one to whom the title would be most suited. The audience see Hal here as a skilled politician, like his father, offering a sensible solution to the grave problem of civil war that plagued the country. In contrast to Hal’s character at the start of the play, he is very much more sensible. This brave and valiant statement was not said in earnest for a fight, but a noble gesture rather than risking the lives of thousands of men. In contrast, in Act five scene one, Hal offers to fight Hotspur in single combat. For instance, the first line in Act four scene three is by Hotspur that “We’ll fight him (Hal) tonight”. Further on in the play, we learn that Hotspur is very keen to fight. In contrast to the fact that Hotspur’s temper would deem him an unsuitable ruler, Hal possesses admirable diplomacy.įor instance, in this Act he performed a diplomatic concealment of his true intentions regarding the Gad’s Hill incident, and an awareness of the public ‘effect’ he has to achieve as a responsible Prince of Wales following the interview with his father. In the sense that both Hal and Hotspur will strive to pursue their goals.
93), indicating his previous persona was a false fai? ade masking the true Hal. Hal promises to reform and to “be more myself” (3. This would have motivated Hal to reform since he would not take kindly to this insult. The King compares Hal with Hotspur, whom he claims has more right to rule the country than Hal because of his many ‘high deeds’ (3. During this difficult interview with his father, he shows himself to be contrite in admitting his faults. Hal undergoes a dramatic change in Act three scene two.
He recognises this when he proclaims that ‘I have sounded the very base-string of humility” (2. It does, however, show his reckless and genuinely base behaviour. This incident fails to blemish Hal’s character. Falstaff orchestrates and carries out a robbery at Gad’s Hill, and then Hal proceeds to rob Falstaff following this. Prince Hal And Falstaff Relationshipįurther on in the play, Prince Hal partakes in a highway robbery. However, Hotspur does seem to be a preferable leader to Hal.
0 kommentar(er)
