Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Composed in the early 15th century, William Shakespeares Henry IV Part 1 exhibits the power struggles that occur due to the socio-political upheaval that perpetuates his Elizabethan context. Through the rhetorical revision of history, the play explores the complexities and uncertainties of humanity, questioning the volatility of humans through pride and honour and its focal impact on kingship, the binaries it produces in human emotions and the valorous or shameful feelings it instils, elevating human complexities. Substantiating these ideologies is Shakespeares reconstruction of history, the metatheatricality of the play in turn questioning societal commentary and the role and nature of art and history in defining honour, as his characters grapple with their personal interpretations of honour.
Operating with the War of the Roses as a lens into history, Shakespeare explores the societal commentary of kingship through the conflicting complexity of the civil unrest. As Henrys usurpation affirms the providential and theocentric values of societal order, it highlights the politico-contextual stances on legitimacy of honour as the audience witness his immoral usurpation and his recompensed guilt. Diverging from the civil butchery of Richard II, Shakespeares employment of a circular structure of the monomyth (Campbell) compels the audience to question Henrys intention of peace, reinforced in the metaphor equating the edge of war as one that shall no more cut his master. Henrys usurpation of Richards lovely rose reign into Kingship introduces the violation towards the Divine Right of Kings, paralleling with the plays chaotic atmosphere. The spectre of illegitimacy of Henrys Kingship correlates with the machinations of the court, expressing the self-serving relationships of convenience. Henrys immoral acts challenge the audience to judge his honourable intentions of thoroughly blindsiding the established Order of Being , demonstrating Shakespeares integrity in unfolding the complexity of human motives. Furthermore, King Henry’s desire to seek atonement by leading a crusade to chase the pagans in the holy fields exposes the guilt accompanied by his accession to the throne. The Kings campaign for redemption as the illegitimate monarch to March all one way and be no more opposed accentuates the complexities of the human psyche; Henrys yearning for repentance is ironically expressed through his hostility within the empire and its brewing rebellion. Despite Henrys dishonourable regicide, his noble ideology for peace which is the source of his pride and honour is the driving force behind his Kingship. Thus, Shakespeares purpose in exploring his uncertainties of his societys theocentric values is made evident, challenging the feudal order in a vision of kingship as imitation. Shakespeare’s employment of dramatic form through Henry’s conflicted characterisation and construction of the immoral acts of usurpation highlight the completeness of Shakespeare’s message of the complexity of human nature due to the ideology of honour. Despite Henrys preordained misfortune for disrupting the Divine Right of Kings, his pride and honour overwrites his fear of punishment from God, displaying the role of societal commentary of kingship in King Henry IV.
Shakespeares characterisation of an ensemble cast removes binaries to display full spectrum of human emotion, leading us to a stronger understanding of human nature. The dynamic complexity of conflicting viewpoints is used, with honor as a lens to explore this notion. Shakespeares character foiling between Hal and Hotspur is made evident through Henrys confrontation towards his unruly son. As King Henry laments the royal legacy that Prince Hal seems so apt to taint through Hal’s dishonour staining the brow , Shakespeare juxtaposes this to Hotspur’s theme of honours tongue a contrary idea on kingly honour. Shakespeares characterisation of an honourable Hotspur isnt in his battlefield experience, but chiefly in his fighting against the Kings riot and dishonour. Hotspurs code of merit may seem chivalrous, however, as portrayed by his shortcomings in his skirmish against Prince Harry, is also of another time and is relegated to the history books (Johnstone). Likewise, Falstaffs undermining of the abstract nature of honour, in the radical stage innovation from a tense setting to his comical interjection, pitting honour against the metaphorical scutcheon , makes evident his rejection of the abstract notion of nobility in favour of a parodic one. Falstaff is the antithesis of the eras principles and from a contextual standpoint allows Shakespeares audiences to associate Falstaff as a self-regarding individual. Prince Hals extrinsic façade, of a frontage of a foolish immature son, is dramatically reformed into a mature prince. Shakespeares utilization of inversion, with Prince Harrys soliloquy reveals his intentions of imitating the sun. Hence, his inclusive and compassionate leadership style boasting emotional intelligence and an everyman quality distinctly lacking in his father. Thus Shakespeare outlines Harrys attempts to achieve a form of nobility with a leadership capable of understanding commoners. Furthermore, balancing the extremities between Hotspurs crazed bravery blinding him to providential doom with Falstaffs proverbial chicken that sinks to playing possum (Suzanne Andre) Hal finds an effectual definition of honour, enabling his transformation into a valiant man. Hence, Shakespeares removal of binaries, combined with the ensemble cast allows him to display the full spectrum of human emotion thats transcendent beyond the confines of historical events, leading us to a stronger understanding of human nature, as explored in the complexity of differing perspectives of honour in King Henry.
Hence, Shakespeares conversion of the complexities of history, ideology and human nature in King Henry converts the play from a historical play to a work of art, exploring the valorous and shameful nature of men. Diverging from a mere contextual representation of the Lancastrian Period, Shakespeares dramatization of his revised history brings to light the vindication of a theocentric hegemonic society. Thus, deviating from the form of a literary foreground and historical background, Shakespeare envisages a mode of study in which literary and non-literary texts constantly interrogate each other, exhibited through the fictionalisation of Falstaffs perception of honour as glory juxtaposed to King Henrys outlook as bringing peace. The twofold compositional structure between the seriousness and comical machinations of the play are held in dialectical tensions to embody the multifaceted Shakespearean society, as Shakespeare refuses to underpin the dominant ideology of the Chain of Being. Consequently, the art in his subjective historiography explores the nuances between the nature of the innate subjectivity in his characterisation between the valorous Harry and shameful Falstaff correlating to their differing ideological stances on honour. Despite being aware of the inordinate image which he projects, Harry ironically clings to the company he possesses, emblemising the complexity of human nature through his honourable intent of keeping the friendships founded on the grounds of genuine familiarity, despite the shame in his staining the purity of the noble blood with his vulgar company . Hence, Shakespeares complexity of art creates historical significance in the anecdotal occurrences that betray reason, exploring humanitys unreasoned yet unwavering desires. As such, Shakespeares connection between life and art is reconstituted through his artistic means, reflecting the remarkable potential for history play as a separate form (Dorious). Thus, the play is in complex imitation to explore ideology and human nature, exploring the valorous and shameful nature of men.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.