Compare And Contrast Hal And Hotspur

Compare And Contrast Hal And Hotspur Rating: 3,6/5 9714 reviews

Compare and contrast the characters Hal and Hotspur in Henry IV, Part 1. Choose one key similarity and one key difference in these two characters, and use this textual evidence to support a thesis, or lesson, conveyed through this play. In what ways is the character Hotspur in Henry IV, Part 1, both honorable and dishonorable? Reading Questions for Henry IV, Part 1. How would you compare Hotspur and Kate to Mortimer and his wife? Is Kate's behavior here what you would expect based on her previous appearance (in 2.4)? Here is the meeting between Hal and his father that was anticipated in 2.5. And so the Hotspur-Hal contest has been resolved.

Henry IV Part 1

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, is clearly a poor influence for a future ruler such as Prince Hal, and Worcester, who shares Hotspur's temper, encourages Hotspur to make rash decisions. The entire plot of the play is based on which father-figure these characters choose to follow: had they chosen the other, the outcome would have been wholly different.

At the start of the play, the reader sees that Prince Hal has been acting in a manner which has disappointed his father. The King compares Hotspur to Hal, saying that Hotspur is ìA son who is the theme of honour's tongue,î and that ìriot and..

Join Now to View Premium Content

GradeSaver provides access to 1386 studyguide PDFs and quizzes, 10215 literature essays,2595 sample college application essays,497 lesson plans, and ad-free surfing inthis premium content, “Members Only” section of the site!Membership includes a 10% discount on all editing orders.

Download sasha fundacion nyc rapidshare. Already a member?Log in

A person of honor has dignity, high public esteem, and honesty. It is no surprise that Shakespeare doesn’t make the concept of honor simple, specifically in his play King Henry IV: Part One, the word becomes ambiguous. The value and interpretation of the theme changes with each character; some consider the framework as praiseworthy while others argue it is completely insignificant. The characters Hotspur, Falstaff, King Henry IV, and Prince Hal present their own understandings of honor which mirror their personalities and consciousness. In comparing and contrasting each of their translations, the character’s true being is better understood.First, honor in the eyes of the infamous Hotspur. The quick-tempered and impatient military man…show more content…
What gave Hotspur his dignity in the first place is the same thing that took it away.Contrary to Hotspur, Sir John Falstaff’s perspective holds little value to the concept of honor. He insists it is simply just another word and the characters who desire it are fools. On the surface, Falstaff maintains this view throughout the play and in his final soliloquy he directly mocks everything possibly heroic, saying “What is honor? A word. What is in that word / “honor”? What is that “honor”? Air” (5.1.135) and “Honor is a mere scutcheon. And / so ends my catechism” (5.1.141-142). He thinks the word serves no purpose. To him honor means nothing, it cannot physically fix anything, and has no benefit to people after life. However, some of Falstaff’s actions speak louder than his words. His words might illustrate negativity to the concept but perhaps his public claim is double-edged. It is possible Falstaff is putting on a front because he knows a man like him will never actually obtain greatness. He is a lion who knows his rank. He understands he will never be idolized so to save him from the embarrassment he pretends like he doesn’t crave the applause. If Falstaff were to worship the idea, he would fail but by lessening its worth makes it much more praiseworthy when he actually does something honorable. Maybe this final soliloquy about honor is not really excusing its value but trying to convince himself that he doesn’t