This paper examines Shakespeare’s use of the word / concept “wholeness” in this play. (4 pages; 1 source; MLA citation style.
IIntroduction
Shakespeare wrote two plays that deal, in essence, with the maturation of a young man from a rogue into a king. The Prince Hal who “hangs out” with Sir John Falstaff, participates in street brawls and robberies, who drinks and gambles and womanizes, becomes in the end one of England’s greatest kings.
As we did in Part I, we’ll see if Shakespeare uses the word “wholeness” in this play, or if he uses other words, and if the latter, how he deals with the concept itself.
IIDiscussion
As in the first part, I’ve been unable to find the word “wholeness” used in Henry the Fourth, Part II. But the concept of wholeness, coming together, unity, or however we might think of it, is certainly one of the main themes of this play. The first part dealt with disintegration and duality, particularly in the character of Prince Hal, who is the heir to the throne and yet “hangs out” with Sir John Falstaff and other common rogues much to the despair of his father. In this part, we see the resolution of the Prince’s inner conflict, as well as his reconciliation with his father and his assumption of the heavy duties of kingship. It is this fusion that is really the greatest example of “wholeness” in the play.
Throughout Henry the Fourth, Part I and most of Part II, we have seen Prince Hal as a scoundrel; a young man who enjoys drinking and women, and delights in keeping company with Falstaff. We also see that his father, King Henry IV, thinks little of his son, and fears that he will be a very poor king indeed. (We also know something the king doesn’t—that Hal has no intention of continuing his questionable behavior when he becomes king.) But of course his father doesn’t know that, and in Act IV, King Henry IV advises one of his other sons, Thomas Duke of Clarence, to remain close to his brother, because Hal loves him: “How chance thou art not with the Prince thy brother? / He loves thee, and thou does neglect him, Thomas. / Thou hast a better place in his affection / Than all thy brothers. Cherish it, my boy;” (Act IV, Sc. iv, 19-22).
The Essay on Does King Lear Play The Tragic
Does King Lear Play the Tragic Hero, or the Autocrat? It is quite possible to make an argument in favour of either answer, an argument that would prove to be quite a debate, although one answer would weigh in favour of the other. To prove this, certain elements would have to be analysed thoroughly, all aspects taken into context and sufficient research done into the matter. This is the only method ...
The king continues through quite a long speech at this point, in which he advises Thomas not to do anything that would turn his brother against him, and finishes by saying that Thomas “shalt prove a shelter to thy friends, / A hoop of good to bind they brothers in…” (IV, iv, 41-43).
Here in very clear language is the idea of wholeness and unity, as the father advises his son to learn the ways in which he can retain his brother’s love. This certainly suggests the deep and abiding wholeness that is found among the members of a family.
Later in Act IV, King Henry IV, who has been ailing, lies dying; in fact, he has such a profound “fit” that he appears to be dead. Prince Hal, who is remaining at his side, believes his father truly is dead. At that, he picks up the crown and puts it on, then leaves the room. The king revives and calls for his servants; Hal returns as well, and Henry berates him for “stealing” the crown when it will be his in a few minutes anyway. That accusation, which is of course false, sets the scene for their reconciliation, in which Hal explains that he took the crown only because he believed his father had died. “Thy wish was father, Harry, to that thought” (IV, v, 92) replies the king, and then goes on to say that he knows what a terrible king Hal will be, being as wild as he is: “For the fift [fifth] Harry from curb’d license plucks / The muzzle of restraint…” (IV, v, 130-131).
But Hal, who is in tears, both because he is losing his father and because being king is a fearful thing, gives the crown back to Henry and says that he prays God will let Henry wear it for many years to come. Then he says that when he believed his father dead, he was shocked and unhappy, and swears that he is telling the truth: “If I do feign, / O, let me in my present wildness die, / And never life to show th’ incredulous world / The noble change that I have purposed!” (IV, v, 151-154).
The Essay on Hotspur And Harry Hal King Henry
... point of view the only real opponent is King Henry, and yet it is Hal, 'the madcap of Wales', who vanquishes him in ... his father all the ambition that he has for the future. Hal shows to his friends that he can be ruthless when Falstaff ... that may well help him to gain the Crown. After talking to the King, Hal apologizes for his conduct and promises to reform ...
That change is to turn his back on Falstaff and his former licentiousness, and become a true king. When Henry understands Hal’s purpose, and that he (Hal) does in fact know how difficult it is to rule, the two are reconciled—made “whole” as father and son.
The final step in Hal’s change is also one of the most difficult and unpleasant moments in the play, but it must be done if Hal is to rule as a just monarch: he turns his back on Falstaff and his former life. In the play’s final scene, Falstaff and the rest of Hal’s cronies are waiting to see their “buddy”, who is now Henry V, King of England. When the procession approaches after the coronation, Hal looks at Falstaff and says “I know thee not, old man, fall to thy prayers. / How ill white hair s becomes a fool and jester!” (V, v, 47-48).
Falstaff is unable to believe what’s happening, and reassures the others that Hal will send for him later, in secret, since it’s not appropriate from him to acknowledge him (Falstaff) in public. But of course Hal never sends for him.
Although this is a dreadful moment, it’s necessary if the new king is going to be able to rule the kingdom. He cannot carouse and carry on as he did before; he must make a clean break from his past. And in so doing, he makes the kingdom, which is torn by rebellion, into a whole. Although he will go on to fight again in Henry the Fifth, it is his repudiation of his past that brings a cohesion to the political landscape of the play.
IIIConclusion
Henry the Fourth, Part II doesn’t contain the word “wholeness”, but that is one of its main themes. Unlike Part I, which tore things apart, Part II is really a study in reconciliation, growth, the art of kingship, and the decisions, sometimes painful, that must be made in order for us to build lasting bonds.
IVReference
Shakespeare, William. Henry the Fourth, Part II. The Riverside Shakespeare. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1974: p. 886-929.
The Essay on Paper on Henry Ibsen’s Play, Ghosts
Ghosts by Henry Ibsen is a play that pokes fun of the society in Norway around the 1880's; how people are very closed minded and are not open to new ideas. The scene being looked at is about how society holds men up high in comparison to women. Pastor Manders is an example of narrow minded member of society, where as Mrs. Alving is starting to think for herself and not just falling society.In ...
