Honor In Shakespeare's Henry 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

Hotspur and Hal both view honor as something to be strived for; however, Falstaff has completely lost sight of the meaning of the word. In his speech about honor fallstaff talks about how honor is just a word, just air coming out of someone's mouth. He believes that honor only comes in death and since the dead cannot see or hear it is useless. Because he has lost sight of the meaning of honor, he fails to act ethically and behaves in the manner of a criminal and a coward. We see Falstaff rob, not pay what he owes (specifically at the inn), and misuse his commission as an officer. Before

Falstaff and Hotspur differ significantly in their idea of honor. Hotspur believes honor is all about glory and being the center of attention. While Falstaff is only certain that the dead have honor but is unsure about what it is as described by this excerpt of his soliloquy, "No. What is honour?". Hotspur believes that honor is derived from epic or heroic deeds, these deeds tends to be very physical in nature such as the honor gained from battle. Bravery and the acts associated with it is an additional font from which honor can flow freely. This is described by the line, "O the blood more stirs To rouse a lion than to start a hare." It 's clearly much more

The historian Richard Kaeuper notes that prowess being crucial to honor may have contributed as much to the ‘problem of violence as it provided a solution’. Therefore, this appears to convey why the concept of chivalry began to be associated with violence and warfare as knights, in the pursuit of honor, became reliant on violence and battle to prove their aptitude. This idea is supported by a medieval knight Sir John Chandos, who stated that men brought up for martial calling ‘cannot live without war and do not know how to’. Maurice Keen argues that ‘chivalry was quintessentially bellicose’ as it presented those who fought has having a ‘pinnacle of honor’. As a result, the use of force by knights as a way of denoting their gallantry led to the belief that violence was intrinsic to the notion of chivalry.

Set in a 15th century England with rampant social and political significance, William Shakespeare’s play 1 Henry IV exhibits the existence of two juxtaposing worlds; the physical and the timeless. Qualities of the physical world are encompassed by the cunning Sir John Falstaff (Falstaff), whom upholds ideologies of humanism and Machiavellianism, demonstrating to the society that these intrapersonal concepts are useful in the preservation of one’s life. Falstaff also rejects the providential world of timeless honour and Kingship, believing that this perceptual world is not real, and instead, believes that that physical qualities of

Hal, assuming that it is about his interactions at the Tavern, because royalty usually does not “hang out” with common folk, is hesitant to go. Falstaff then sets a mock rehearsal to prepare Hal for his meet up. When the mock audition nears an end the immersion is broken as Falstaff question if he and Hal would still be friends and not banish him from his presence, Hal speaks “I do. I will.” the importance of this, is that when Hal is declared king, he will no longer be friends with Falstaff. He will terminate any friendship that does not seem fit with the courts. This scene is a key point which shows that Hal is not just Hal, but a Prince, who is conscious of his actions and mistakes; he knows fully well the responsibility and power which he has over the country. A boy who is changing to a man, a leader of men, and this will become more apparent as the play continues

Honor is one of those concepts that is seldom defined. One’s reputation is based on his or her honor, integrity, honesty, and purity. William Shakespeare’s Henry IV is a one of his many plays that deal with the varying ideas of honor, as well as issues of courage, loyalty, and ambition, interposing examples of dishonor, weakness, and the deceitful plots among both the drunkards and noblemen. Shakespeare utilizes suggestive metaphors to create illusions, imagery, and to reinforce the different views of the major issues people were faced with in his time and in ours. His plays often focus on the imagery, either on some obvious important symbol, or some image pattern that recurs throughout the work. Readers are

Falstaff begins by remarking to himself how absolutely unnecessary it would be to go to one’s death before their time. He uses the metaphor of owing money, making a comparison between paying bills and death. It is characteristic of a member of the materialistic tavern world to draw a metaphor with such a concrete, solid and no-nonsense thing as finance. He simply cannot understand why one would be willing to pay such a debt before it is owed – he himself is ‘loath to pay’ such a thing as his life in what he sees as a worthless and empty cause. He personifies death in his metaphors, saying he will not surrender to ‘him’ until he must, and will wait until

Shakespeare teaches us that we are able to create our own meaning of honour, through the development of Prince Hal. Hal's definition of an honourable man is one who is respected because

Between Henry IV, Hotspur, Hal, and Falstaff, each man expresses different attitudes towards cleverness and judgment, courtesy and class, mightiness and honor. While each character embodies these qualities in different magnitudes, these inclinations affect their decision-making, their leadership, and their relative success in achieving each of their respective goals. Out of the four characters, Falstaff is identified most strongly as a clever figure. Not only is he a master at banter and wordplay, he is also adept at navigating conflict and using his circumstances to his advantage.

Some would say that honor is a thing of the past; a thing long since extinct with the King Arthur and the knights of the round table. In fact, it is not, it is real and can still be seen all around through people all the time. In Charles Dicken’s novel, A Tale of Two Cities, honor and dishonor are main themes that are exemplified and enacted through many characters. To be honorable, or to act in honor, is to act in a way that is not necessarily socially acceptable, but is morally right, noble, and kind. To be dishonorable is to neglect the basic responsibility of treating every human being in the respectful manner they deserve, giving no variance to rank or status. Throughout the book different men show varying degrees of honor and dishonor.

For Hotspur, who glorifies the honor to be gained in battle against worthy foes, the more hazardous the enterprise, the greater the chance of gaining honor (Prior 14). This concept of honor contrasts greatly with that of Falstaff, a battered old soldier long turned against the nonsense of military glory, who wanders about the Shrewsbury battlefield with a bottle of sack, not a sword,

The relationship between Hal and Falstaff, however, is perplexing. Hal is either using Falstaff to serve his ends and when he does not need him anymore he totally discards him or he truly loves the man but lost all hope in reforming him. Prince Hal used to put up with Falstaff, covering him, paying his bills and tolerating his lies, but if this is the price that

Prince Hal’s destiny is shaped for him by many forces: his association with the ne'er-do-well Falstaff, the expectations of his father, King Henry IV, and the constant comparison between himself and Hotspur. All three of these forces create in Hal a sense of honor that is an integral part of his education as the ideal king, and throughout the action of Henry IV, Part I, Hal is gaining a knowledge of honor that will shape him into the King that he will become. However, it seems that Hal ultimately chooses one form on honor over the other, although he must compare the honor of Falstaff and the conceptual honor of a chivalric hero before he comes to a final conclusion.

Although King Henry and Falstaff are extremely different characters, both do act as father figures in Hal’s life with Falstaff as a surrogate father and King Henry as Hal’s birth father. With King Henry, this fatherly relationship emerges as one of blindly scolding and ordering around his son, an example being when the King criticizes Hal’s friends, “rude society” (3.2.14). The relationship with Hal and his surrogate father, Falstaff, though is much more relaxed with Falstaff teasing Hal, by touching on Hal’s slight insecurity of taking care of his princely duties, calling Hal “true prince” (2.4.106). Although both these relationships are very different in how relaxed they are, there is a similarity of King Henry and Falstaff acting as fatherly figures in Hal’s life.