Throughout Henry IV Part I Hal is balancing on a teeter totter between a civilized life of honor and nobility that may be considered the "good" life especially supported by the King, Hotspur and many of the noble characters determined to live a life of honor and the life of laziness and robbery. The pub crawlers (Falstaff) take on a perspective of drunkenness and gluttony but justify it with reasons of human nature and "common sense". Falstaff's point near the end of Act V Scene ii, when he states, "Honor prick's me on. Yea, but how if honor prick me off when I come on? Can honor set to a leg? No. Or an arm? No. Or take away the grief of a wound? No.... What is honor? A word. What is in that word, "honor”? What is that "honor". Air." presents a very interesting and arguable point. Falstaff clearly does not agree with the ideology of honor and valor, instead, he believes in common sense and the sustainability of life and pleasures. I could see Falstaff saying something like Live Hard, not Die Hard.
Is Falstaff and the pub crawlers' idea about life the "good" one or is it the King and the nobility's idea that is the "good" one? I found it interesting that Hal ended up choosing the life of nobility and honor in spite of Falstaff's negative influence of trying to convince him to become a thief, justifying robbery. Hal makes a profound and bold statement when he says to Falstaff after Falstaff has pleaded to Hal to not banish him when he becomes king, Hal says, " I do, I will". This remark signifies the turning point in the play where Hal gravitates to the ideology of honor. Is honor still considered to be a "good" attribute to show today? Has the magnitude of how "good" it is changed since the days of Shakespeare?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment