Oedipus Complex, Penis Envy, And The Tragedy Of Hamlet

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,

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.

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?

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.

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:

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

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

is a trait viewed as being favorable to a character at first, but it leads to their later downfall. It was often used in ancient Greek tragedies to show that mankind was susceptible to flaw. This was present in Sophocles 's tragedy, Oedipus the King. The protagonist of the tragedy,Oedipus, was not exempt from his own flaws. Oedipus’s traits of excessive pride and desire for knowing the truth were advantageous to him in the beginning, yet were the very things that contributed to his tragic downfall.

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,

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

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 Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Hamlet’s personality can be explained by the Oedipus Complex. Throughout the play there are many times where he proves that he has Oedipus Complex. Oedipus Complex was not around at the time that that Hamlet was written. It just shows that Shakespeare saw the same personality complex’ as Freud. Freud first named the Oedipus Complex Theory in his book , An Interpretation of Dreams, in 1899. Freud states "The child takes both of its parents, and more particularly one of them, as the object of its erotic wishes." Freud explains that it is normal to have sexual desires for the parent of the opposite sex. These are normal in children and usually dissipate after the age of five. When