For example, at the beginning of the play, King Henry seems to hold Hotspur as the ideal of princely honor, in contrast to his son Hal. He regrets that Hotspur, ‘the theme of honor’s tongue’.
- Throughout the play we witness Hotspur's fall from grace and how it coincides with Hal's gradual ascendancy. Hotspur's rise and fall is largely linked to the turnout of important events in the play. Hotspur showed personal qualities that were rare in a person. He was generous, energetic and honourable.
- Hotspur is rather out of the times, rash, quick to judge, and narrow minded. Hal, on the other hand, is well-rounded, well-traveled, and thoughtful. He has the ear of the common man and considers the common man friend rather than subject.
_-_1937.1171_-_Yale_University_Art_Gallery.jpg/220px-thumbnail.jpg "Compare and contrast prince hal and hotspur")
Compare And Contrast Hal And Hotspur
Compare And Contrast Hal And Hotspur Vs
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.
First, honor in the eyes of the infamous Hotspur. The quick-tempered and impatient military man…show more content…
What gave Hotspur his dignity in the first place is the same thing that took it away.
Contrary to Hotspur, Sir John Falstaff’s perspective holds little value to the concept of honor. He insists it is simply just another word and the characters who desire it are fools. On the surface, Falstaff maintains this view throughout the play and in his final soliloquy he directly mocks everything possibly heroic, saying “What is honor? A word. What is in that word / “honor”? What is that “honor”? Air” (5.1.135) and “Honor is a mere scutcheon. And / so ends my catechism” (5.1.141-142). He thinks the word serves no purpose. To him honor means nothing, it cannot physically fix anything, and has no benefit to people after life. However, some of Falstaff’s actions speak louder than his words. His words might illustrate negativity to the concept but perhaps his public claim is double-edged. It is possible Falstaff is putting on a front because he knows a man like him will never actually obtain greatness. He is a lion who knows his rank. He understands he will never be idolized so to save him from the embarrassment he pretends like he doesn’t crave the applause. If Falstaff were to worship the idea, he would fail but by lessening its worth makes it much more praiseworthy when he actually does something honorable. Maybe this final soliloquy about honor is not really excusing its value but trying to convince himself that he doesn’t
First, honor in the eyes of the infamous Hotspur. The quick-tempered and impatient military man…show more content…
What gave Hotspur his dignity in the first place is the same thing that took it away.
Contrary to Hotspur, Sir John Falstaff’s perspective holds little value to the concept of honor. He insists it is simply just another word and the characters who desire it are fools. On the surface, Falstaff maintains this view throughout the play and in his final soliloquy he directly mocks everything possibly heroic, saying “What is honor? A word. What is in that word / “honor”? What is that “honor”? Air” (5.1.135) and “Honor is a mere scutcheon. And / so ends my catechism” (5.1.141-142). He thinks the word serves no purpose. To him honor means nothing, it cannot physically fix anything, and has no benefit to people after life. However, some of Falstaff’s actions speak louder than his words. His words might illustrate negativity to the concept but perhaps his public claim is double-edged. It is possible Falstaff is putting on a front because he knows a man like him will never actually obtain greatness. He is a lion who knows his rank. He understands he will never be idolized so to save him from the embarrassment he pretends like he doesn’t crave the applause. If Falstaff were to worship the idea, he would fail but by lessening its worth makes it much more praiseworthy when he actually does something honorable. Maybe this final soliloquy about honor is not really excusing its value but trying to convince himself that he doesn’t