The Concept of Honor in Henry IV, Part One Essay

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.

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,

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

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

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

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.

As defined by the dictionary, honor is a high respect that is earned through deeds and reputation. But, what is honor, and how does one receive it? Honor is like many things that are hard to put into words. Along with that, honor can be totally different, depending on your perspective. In the play, A Few Good Men, there is a central theme based around honor, who is doing right and who is doing wrong.

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.

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.

In Henry IV, Part One Shakespeare revels in the opportunity to suggest the idiosyncracy of character through his command of a wide range of both verse and prose. As a result the play is full of rich and different character parts (Wells 141). Two in particular, Falstaff and Hotspur, hold diverse beliefs concerning the main theme of the drama, honor. In Shakespeare’s time, honor was defined as the special virtues which distinguish those of the nobility in the exercise of their vocation–gallantry in combat with a worthy foe, adherence to the accepted code of arms, and individual loyalty to friends, family, and comrades in arms (Prior 14). Throughout the play, honor plays an important role in

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.

"What is honor?" That question is one of the central themes from Shakespeare 's Henry IV. Throughout the play Shakespeare provides many different views of honor, but never directly states what honor is. Which makes sense because honor is a rather abstract concept that seems to vary depending on who states their opinion. There are some universal ideas of honorable deeds but the word itself is rarely defined by individuals. Two of the characters within the play have very different ideas of honor and vary greatly in their desire for it. They are Hotspur and Falstaff, Hotspur appears to have a very clear idea of what honor is and he pursues honor with great fervor. However, Falstaff questions the very existence of honor and has little to no desire for it. The ideas of Falstaff and Hotspur about honor are vastly different.

Henry V is a wise and loyal king, changing from a wild youth to a mature king. He is described to be an intelligent, thoughtful and an efficient statesman. He thinks carefully whether to invade France or not which represents his responsible character. King Henry gives a very strong speech which gave courage and confidence to his army that they could win the battle. This character describes him to be a king of great ability to fight and having good administrative skills. Throughout the play Henry’s nature is religious, merciful and compassionate.

  In Shakespeare's Henry IV Part One, the characters' many different conceptions of honor govern how they respond to situations.  Each character's conception of honor has a great impact on the character's standing after the play.  For instance, Falstaff survived because he dishonorably faked his own death, and his untrue claim that he was the one who killed Hotspur may get him a title and land.  On the other hand, Hotspur lies dead after losing a duel for honor.  Hotspur, who is in many ways the ideal man by the standards of his time, is killed by his lust for honor.  In creating Hotspur, Shakespeare has created a variation on the tragic hero of other works: the stubborn tragic hero, who, dying

is no honor which the King would be likely to deny you?" (page 66). More