Oedipus Complex, Penis Envy, And The Tragedy Of Hamlet

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

Falstaff is a tavern haunter, who partakes in the ìdrinking of old sackî (I.ii.4), lying, stealing, and thinks of honor as merely ìa wordî (V.ii.74). Although Hal enjoys the company of Falstaff, it is clear by his soliloquy in Act I, scene ii, that he intends to reform himself and act as a true prince: ìreformation, glittering o'er my fault, Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes, Than that which hath no foil to set it off, I'll so offend to make offence a skill, redeeming time when men least think I will (I.ii.9).î This shift in character is exemplified in the final battle, where Hal makes the chivalrous gesture of offering to ìTry fortune with [Hotspur] in a single fight (V.i.74).î

According to F. Scott Fitzgerald, "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." Indeed, very few people have this quality, the playwright William Shakespeare being one of them. In many of his plays, "Henry IV, Part One" among them, Shakespeare juxtaposes different worldviews, ideologies, and even environments. His characters usually provide a clear example of a split among them in one of many perspectives. One of his characters in "Henry IV"—Falstaff—is first seen as an endearing, uproariously funny scoundrel and later reveals himself more of a lowlife with his view of honor—he seems

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,

Shakespeare’s Prince Hal is a consummate code-switcher. In his speech in Act 3 of Henry IV part 1, Hal immediately imitates the grand and deliberate speech of the courtiers, despite having been in the Boar’s Head with Falstaff not long before. He speaks in carefully metered and calculated verse. The content of his speech is crafted from attentive listening as well; just as his father had praised the young Henry Percy, Hotspur, to Hal’s own face, Hal acknowledges this rivalry, but swears he will show himself to be the better man. Hal is speaking, first and foremost, to his king, not to his father. In this speech, he never refers to Henry IV as anything other than “your majesty” or “my lord.” Though Hal references

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.

Prince Hal shows a great deal of insight in this revelation; his words show that he realizes he has a twofold boundary to overcome: first, he is seen as overly juvenile and flighty by most of his father’s men; second, and more importantly, Hal knows that he has no claim to the divine right to rule, as he is not of Richard II’s bloodline. It seems, then, that Hal knows full well “the way that men respond to the image of royalty, and [is] no less instinctive a politician than his father,” and is in fact “the creator as well as the creature of political mythology, the author as well as the hero of his legend” (Ornstein, 137). By rising phoenix-like out of the ashes, Hal knows that he will make a more compelling impression on England than if he had been conventionally “princely” all his life, and plays this dramatic advantage to

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.

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.

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.

Lastly, the tense relationship between Hal and his father, King Henry IV is also a Shakespearean example of intergenerational conflict. Hal’s upbringing shows similarities with the tale of the prodigal son, which was popular in the medieval time period. Hal is a disappointment to his father, which we learn when King Henry tells Westmorland that he envies the Percy family for having such a noble and honorable son:

In comparison to the body natural, the body politic is characterized as the “divinely sanctioned ruler” (Hattaway 8). It is what “legitimates his rule and ensures his succession” as king (8). Hal acquires this part of the ‘body’ by what is appropriate to execute as the King of England. He demonstrates his body politic through his preparation for king and what he needs to do in order to retain the position of a successful ruler. Hal’s preparation in becoming the king includes crucial processes such as gaining trust and role playing. Along with the body natural, Hal’s body politic obtains the trust of the commoners in preparation for king. In comparison to the body natural, the body politic is characterized as the “divinely sanctioned ruler”

In “The First Part of King Henry the Forth” Prince Hal, the son of the king allows himself to be immersed in the company of Drunkards and thieves. One of them goes by the name Falstaff and another by Poins. Prince Hal justifies his association with these types of people by the fact that he is gaining their trust. In act 1 scene 2 we see Prince Hal and Falstaff in a conversation where Falstaff is questioning what Hal will do to a thief when he is king by asking the questions, “shall there be gallows standing in England/ when thou art king? And resolution thus fubbed as it/ is with the rusty curb of old father Antic the law?

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