Oedipus Complex, Penis Envy, And The Tragedy Of Hamlet

In Henry IV Part I, Shakespeare presents a collection of traditional heroes. Hotspur’s laudable valor, King Henry’s militaristic reign, and Hal’s princely transformation echo the socially extolled values of the Elizabethean male. Molding themselves after societal standards, these flat characters contrast Sir John Falstaff’s round, spirited personality. Through Falstaff’s unorthodox behavior and flagrant disregard for cultural traditions, Shakespeare advocates one’s personal values above society’s.

Falstaff’s soliloquy questioning the value of honour is an ironic contrast with how Hotspur and Hal regard honour. By now the contrast between their highly ordered morality and Falstaff’s own moral disorder is obvious. Falstaff’s inclusion at this point, when Hal has left his side and moved on, is necessary to point out the differing morality between the two, which was once so similar. Falstaff is of paramount importance to the sub-plot dealing with Hal’s decision between continuing his carefree lifestyle or maturing into the role he is destined to play as a respected prince and later king. This soliloquy continues the theme of another of Falstaff’s in Act 4 Scene 2, in which he is equally undisturbed by his amorality, and shows that his highest concern is for his own well being.

William Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 1, composed during the last years of the 16th century, is as much as character study as it is a retelling of a moment in history. Though the play is titled for one king, it truly seems to revolve around the actions of the titular character's successor. Indeed, Henry IV is a story of the coming-of-age of Prince Hal and of the opposition that he must face in this evolution. This process gives narrative velocity to what is essentially a conflagration between two personality types. In Prince Hal, the audience is given a flawed but thoughtful individual. Equally flawed but more given over to action than thought is his former ally and now-nemesis, Hotspur. In the latter, Shakespeare offers a warrior and a man of action and in the former, the playwright shows a politician in his nascent stages of development. The contrast between them will drive the play's action.

This paper is the rough draft version. There are grammatical errors and other such errors in it.

King Henry V is one of the greatest kings that ever ruled England and was a favorite among his people. One of the reasons behind this is the presence of two men in his life; his father, King Henry IV, and Sir John Falstaff, his lowlife friend and bar companion. Both men represent two opposite father - figures to the young prince. It is the Prince’s ability to take and acquire the best traits in each that makes him surpass both of them and become great. Prince Hal’s relationship with both men is one of conflict. On one hand, his relationship with his father is tumultuous, while on the other his relationship with Falstaff is confusing.

The Greek drama “Oedipus The King” evidently leads to the unveiling of a tragedy. Oedipus, the protagonist of the play uncovers his tragic birth story and the curse he had been baring his whole life. Oedipus is notorious for his personal insight that helped him defeat Sphinx, which lead him to becoming the king of Thebes. He is admired by the people of Thebes and is considered to be a mature, inelegant and a rational leader. From his birth, his story began with a prophecy that Oedipus would grow up to kill his father and marry his mother. Through out the play numerous people, who tell him of his unknown past, visit Oedipus. Blind to the truth he casts them away until a blind man named Therisis gives a sight of truth to Oedipus. As Oedipus learns the truth he realizes the great evil his life carries. After finding his wife and also mother hung in her bedroom, Oedipus blinds himself with the gold pins that held Jocasta’s robe. Oedipus blind to the truth is finally able to see when the old blind man visits him and tells him the truth about his life. Both metaphorically and physically sight plays a significant role in understanding the irony of a blind man seeing the truth while Oedipus who isn’t blind doesn’t seem to the truth that’s right in front of him.

Texts are shaped by their compositional context and thus offer new insights about the composer’s era. However, as there are ongoing concerns of humanity, key ideologies resonate over time and are affirmed between texts as shown in William Shakespeare’s play ‘King Richard III’ (1591) and Al Pacino’s docudrama ‘Looking For Richard’ (1996). King Richard III examines the irrational behaviours and moral ramifications of a power lust Richard to explore ideas of the relentless pursuit of power, betrayal and deceit, reflective of the theocentric context of the Elizabethan society. Centuries later, Looking For Richard explores Pacino’s journey to reshape a Shakespearean text that is representative of the changing contextual norms and values of a contemporary American audience who are confused and sceptical about the relevance of Shakespeare’s plays. Both texts provide an image of Richard’s deceit reflective of their distinctive contexts. However, despite the disparity of time, both texts display how key ideas such as deceit, endure and resonate over time.

The popular view of Hal as a dishonorable scoundrel is what brings King Henry IV, his father, to compare him to the high-strung and vibrant young rebel, Hotspur. King Henry's constant tirades stating that he wished Hotspur was his son

The relationship between a father and his son is an important theme in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part One, as it relates to the two main characters of the play, Prince Hal and Hotspur. These two characters, considered as youths and future rulers to the reader, are exposed to father-figures whose actions will influence their actions in later years. Both characters have two such father-figures; Henry IV and Falstaff for Prince Hal, and the Earl of Northumberland and the Earl of Worcester for Hotspur. Both father-figures for Hal and Hotspur have obvious good and bad connotations in their influence on the character. For example, Falstaff, in his drinking and reveling,

Act one, scene one, stresses the motif of honor in war, in characters, and, most importantly, in offspring. However, while Henry sees “riot and dishonor” in his son, Hal sees a father who has stolen his title by disgracing a king (1.1.84). Shakespeare wouldn’t dream of imposing his personal beliefs of who is honorable or who is dishonorable for the simple fact that it is obvious honor is perceived differently by each individual, as in each character’s perception and the imagery that surrounds that character. As Hal tries to discover the true meaning of honor, readers take the journey along with him. Hal realizes that honor is ambiguous when utilized to plead for emotional retort, yet leaves no margin for error when used as personal description,

Intergenerational conflict has been an ongoing issue in literature, and real life. We see intergenerational conflict in Emily Bronte’s “Wuthering Heights”, William Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”, and even in modern literature like Annemarie MacDonald’s “Fall on Your Knees”. More specifically, in Shakespeare’s plays we are introduced to many different forms of conflict. One of the most prominent is intergenerational conflict, especially in “Romeo & Juliet”, “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”, and “I Henry IV”. Examples of intergenerational conflict in these plays include Romeo’s defiance of his parents, Juliet’s conflict with her father, Hermia’s paternal conflicts, and King Henry’s disappointment with his son, Hal.

The tragic flaw of a human being is usually checked with the method he or she reacts with to the circumstances that life throws upon him or her. Contemporary society appears to be fixated on giving gatherings of people cases of such individuals who, in spite of the affliction of their lives, that still transcend. In fact, maybe nobody is more fit for indicating triumph over struggles than Sophocles and William Shakespeare. In both Oedipus and Hamlet, for example, the primary characters struggle with many obstacles and consequences and find themselves with unimaginable problems furthermore and are compelling to choose what the correct decision will be. This develops to Oedipus and Hamlet becoming motivated, courageous people and also becoming dishonest to themselves throughout the two books. Shakespeare and Sophocles’ plays show that sometimes when dealing with consequences and the obstacles there are different ways to react instead of leading to a tragedy. Oedipus and Hamlet’s motivation in dealing with problems is evident when the two primary characters want to find out the murderers of their father’s. Their courageous actions develop them towards having one goal, which was to kill the former King, and show courageous traits towards other people. They become dishonest to their themselves and is showed throughout the two books, which then causes misfortune for both of them in the end. Despite the resemblances of the two, Hamlet is in control of his activities, and he very

Oedipus Rex, an ancient Greek tragedy authored by the playwright Sophocles, includes many types of psychological phenomena. Most prominently, the myth is the source of the well-known term Oedipal complex, coined by psychologist Sigmund Freud in the late 1800s. In psychology, “complex” refers to a developmental stage. In this case the stage involves the desire of males, usually ages three to five, to sexually or romantically posses their mother, and the consequential resentment of their fathers. In the play, a prince named Oedipus tries to escape a prophecy that says he will kill his father and marry his mother, and coincidentally saves the Thebes from a monster known as the Sphinx. Having unknowingly killed his true father Laius during his

Hamlet is the typical kind of son almost every father and mother would want: intelligent, loving, caring, strong and loyal. Yet, some scholars believe that he is just another emotional character, defying our eyes to think that his acts are innocent, when his real purpose is to take his mother for himself. This gives scholars, like Ernest Jones, the impression that Hamlet’s actions were encouraged by an Oedipus complex, characterized by feelings of intense rivalry with a father figure in regards to a mother’s spousal affection. Even though there are lines that can be interpreted to show that Hamlet may have had such a desire for his mother, when these lines are examined in the full context of the

Shakespeare deals with a parent-child relationship in the historical plays of Henry IV Parts One and Two in the characters of Henry Bullingsworth (Henry IV) and his son Hal (Prince of Wales, later Henry V). The fact stands clear in the development of the son, Hal: the son's success in life is not dependent on his relationship to his father politically, but success is demonstrated when there is a realization of both parties on the level of parental love. Hal is not living up to his name, but also to blame in his father's failure to love. Our discussion is based solely on the text itself, based primarily on three main dialogues between Hal and his father.