King Henry and Hal seem to have a great deal in common, especially with regard to how they acquire and maintain power. The main action of Richard II, which immediately preceded this play chronologically, was the current King Henry (then called Bolingbroke) battling against the then-King Richard for control of the English throne. This was quite shocking to the people of the time, as the monarch rules by divine right, basically meaning that he is God's general on Earth. For Bolingbroke to rise so far above himself as to battle against that king is not just treason, it is heresy. However, in spite of everything, he proves victorious and takes the crown from Richard's own hand. This undoubtedly caused a great deal of upset among the English, and so Henry IV was forced into a war to defend the country he seized by force. He makes great efforts to seem like a proper king, perhaps hoping that his previous status as exile and traitor will make his current status seem even greater by comparison.
Hal also leaves his "proper" social sphere as his father did, but he goes in the other direction. Rather than rising above himself and engaging a divine monarch in battle, he instead descends to the lowest taverns and brothels to associate with drunks and bawds. His logic is, similar to my above hypothesis, that when his time to rule arrives he will make such a startling transformation in behavior that he will seem to shine the brighter for having once been so sunk in gloom and scum. Moreover, just as we learned near the end of Richard II that Henry IV is a very charismatic man, who won the throne because he already had much of England behind him, we learn that even the despicable things Hal does (robbing a merchant train, for instance) are all part of one plan or another to win over the populace and secure his rule when his own time comes. By daring to leave their "proper" positions, and by garnering the support of those below them, both father and son lay the groundwork for what will (they hope) be a long and successful rule.
6 comments:
I like this compariosn a lot. It seems to coincide with the theory about Henry IV's Machiavellian rise to power. Basically, Hal is just following suit: Win the support of the people, take the throne, redeem yourself and show people you are virtuous. Like I said in class, I think the Henrys rely on the people being really stupid. Of course, anyone who dares lift a voice or finger in opposition is hanged for treason. It was certainly a hard life being a subject.
I think this post brings up a lot of good points. After reading it, I thought of the difference between choosing good and bad. Hal could have chosen good, and stayed in his proper social sphere. Yet he chooses bad or the lower choice of going to the taverns and brothels. Of course, there is no way that he is doing this without thinking about the future.
After reading Acts V and IV, to me it seems as though Hal has redeemed himself as he promised to his father. He takes part in the battle and shows that he is a worthy heir. But what I find odd is that, yes, Hal is promised the heir, but like before, who’s to say this heir is guaranteed when people are trying to overthrow the king left and right. Maybe Hal really just wants to prove himself to his father?
I really liked you comparison of father and son. I think it especially revelant and important to the play. The rules and regualtions of promogeniture are issues that are extremely influential during Shakespeare's time, and we need to think about this when reading his plays.
I really liked the comparison that you made between Henry leaving his social sphere and moving "up" in society while, Hal leaves his social sphere but only to move "down", but they both do this in order to have a successful and long rule. It is an interesting way to think about these two characters and it is something that I never considered when initially reading the play.
I like this comparison, as I also noticed that both of them seem to think that by radically changing their status or situation will be what gets not only them noticed by others, but their great acts as well.
I also thought it was interesting because while they both do similar things, they are moving in different directions on the social ladder of the time.
Post a Comment