Shakespeare's genius in character and plot development is exemplified in two of his most complex historical plays, Richard II and Henry IV, Part I. With these sequential plays, Shakespeare vividly develops the characters. and sets up complicated plots by juxtaposing people with others. Specifically, he first creates a binary opposition between Richard and Bolingbrook in Richard II, then recalls the plot and achieves an almost mirror-image character contrast with Hal and Hotspur in Henry IV, Part One. However, in typical Shakespearean fashion, the seemingly mirrored binaries of Richard/Bolingbrook and Hal/Hotspur collapse with the complexity of Shakespeare's character. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay One of the main reasons these character parallels don't hold up perfectly is Falstaff's wonderful character. Absent from Richard II, Falstaff is introduced in Henry IV to create complexity and ambiguity regarding the similarities between these characters. Falstaff greatly complicates the Hotspur-is-to-Bolingbrook-as-Hal-is-to-Richard II hypothesis because Falstaff has so much in common with the king. Therefore, unlike Hotspur becoming the Bolingbrook character, it is the drunken and disorderly Falstaff who becomes the character most parallel to the king. However, the king joins forces with Hotspur who, as his name suggests, is a fierce warrior. The king gives the impression that Hotspur will act as Bolingbrook did in Richard II, by challenging the prince's right to the throne; he believes that Bolingbrook's rivalry with Richard is reflected in Hotspur's position as Hal's challenger. In the first scene of Henry IV, Part One, King Henry immediately establishes a binary opposition between the prince and Hotspur. The king aligns himself with Hotspur, whom he would prefer to have as a son instead of Prince Henry. Hearing of Hotspur's successes in battle, Henry IV compared Hotspur to his son. He states: “While I, looking upon the praises of [Hotspur], /[see] riot and dishonor stain the brow / [o]f my young Harry” (Ii84-86). This opposition between Hal and Hotspur is underlined in the following scene, where we find Prince Hal at the tavern with Falstaff drunk, while his rival, Hotspur prepares for a rebellion. These first two scenes set up a contrast between Hal and Hotspur that seems to recreate the Richard/Bolingbrook binary. Hotspur seems to be like Bolingbrook, in the sense that he will fight for what he feels is his due, and Hal acts like Richard, in his carousing with vile tavern cronies. Before the battle, the king continues to perceive a similarity between himself, as Richard's challenger, and Hotspur, as Prince Henry's challenger. He explains to Prince Henry that the battle against Hotspur is a reflection of his rivalry with Richard: “As you are at this hour, Richard then was / When I came from France, I set foot at Ravenspurgh; And as I was then, Percy is now” (III.II.94-96). Even though the king is threatened by Hotspur's progress, he admires his courage and imagines a strong resemblance between the valiant young Hotspur and himself. But if King Henry is looking for the person most like him, he should go to the taverns and ask for Sir Jack Falstaff. Sharing many character traits, Falstaff and the king make an interesting parallel; the similarities between Falstaff, the "King of Misrule", and Henry VI, King of England, are shown in many ways throughout theplay, denying the king's vision of himself in the character of Hotspur. The play oscillates between the serious and disturbing world of the king and the hectic and comic world of Falstaff. The king directs the serious aspects of the play, while Falstaff directs the comedy. Falstaff's comic scenes offer a flip side to King Henry's world, revealing similarities between the two. Falstaff and the king live, to a large extent, by the quickness of their minds: Falstaff as a criminal and the king as a politician. What separates them is their outward appearance and their self-image. While Falstaff seems to be able to accept himself as he is, the king seems tied to his image as a great ruler and will therefore never admit to being anything else. As a result, King Henry sees himself in the brave and honor-seeking Hotspur and, of course, would never align himself with the likes of Falstaff. However, as the play progresses, the many connections between King Henry and Falstaff become clear. The first and most obvious similarity between the King and Jack Falstaff is the fact that they are both guilty of theft. Falstaff admits to being a purse thief; the king is also a thief, but instead of stealing travelers' purses, he stole Richard's crown. In this way, Falstaff's line of business represents a mirror image of Henry IV's theft of the crown. In fact, Falstaff seems to compare himself, as a thief, to King Henry. Falstaff tries to convince Hal to join him on a robbery, and Hal claims, "Who, am I stealing?" Am I a thief? Not me, by my faith. » (I.ii.129). To this, Falstaff intelligently responds: "There is neither honest manhood nor good fellowship in you, nor are you of royal blood if you dare not bear ten shillings" (I.ii.130 -132). Here, Falstaff implies that since the king stole an entire empire from Richard II, his own offspring can certainly engage in petty highway robbery. The king, probably unconsciously, echoes Falstaff's reference to the theft of Richard's kingdom, when he tells the prince of his triumph: "I have stolen all the courtesy of heaven, and dressed myself with such humility that I have torn allegiance from the hearts of men” (III.ii). .50-52). Stealing “the courtesy of heaven” obviously alludes to Henry’s theft of a divine monarch’s throne. The language of theft in the king's remarks reminds us of Falstaff's thief, who appears in the next scene to again create a similarity between Henry IV and Falstaff. After discovering that the king is preparing for battle, hoping to kill the king. Percy rebels over not having to repay his debts to them for helping him seize the throne from Richard II, we return to the tavern for some comedy. There we find Falstaff engaged in a similar contest - he fights with the tavern hostess, Mistress Quickly, in order to escape her demands to pay his bill. The hostess herself challenges Falstaff about this game when she says: "You owe me money, Sir John, and now you are looking for a quarrel to cheat me out of it" (III.iii.63.63). There is a strong parallel between the king's way of avoiding his debt to the Percys (i.e. by engaging in war against them) and Falstaff's comic method of squirming over his large debt bills. tavern. Interestingly, just as the prince will ultimately save his father's life on the battlefield of the king's fight, Hal saves Falstaff from his fight with the hostess by paying his bills in his place. He also refunds the money from their highway robbery, which irritates Falstaff, who says, "Oh, I don't like that refund!" “It is a double work” (III.iii.171-172). Falstaff's comments reinforce the connection between Henry and Falstaff, since these words reflect: 1985).