As I was reading Act One and Two, I was noticing that Shakespeare references things from the play Richard II. I'm assuming that Shakespeare assumed his audience knew the details from the Richard play while watching this one. In the beginning of this play it mentioned that Henry has been planning crusades to the Holy Land for a long time. This makes me wonder, did Henry have this plan to go to the Holy Land way before the end of Richard II? It does not reference him going to the Holy Land to "save" himself for what happen to Richard. This makes me think that perhaps during the Richard play, Henry was planning on becoming king and going to the Holy Land way before we the reader, knew Henry wanted to become king and that he was truly evil.
I also noticed some comparisons to Richard II when it came to King Henry and Hotspur. When Henry came back to the kingdom after being banished by Richard, in Richard II, he said he was just coming back for his property and title, yet we the reader soon found out that was not the whole truth. Henry was really looking to gain power and eventually did overthrow Richard. Now in the play Henry IV, Hotspur refuses to give his prisoners to the King. When King Henry asks Hotspur why he will not give up the prisoners, Hotsput says that in the heat of the moment he got angry with the messenger and refused to give up the prisoners. Then we find out that Hotspur still won't give up the prisoners until King Henry pays the ransom to release Hotspur's brother-in-law. Then we find out that Hotspur is angry with Henry and we get the vibe he possibly wants to overthrow him. In Act 2, we find out that he definitely wants to overthrow Henry so that his brother-in-law gets justice. Henry trusts Hotspur just like Richard trusted Henry. Hotspur has other motives, just like Henry did in Richard II. Although we find out Hotspurs feelings and plan, unlike in Richard II, when the reader had no idea what to think of Henry. At least I was uncertain of Henry's motives until he truly overthrew Richard. All of these characters end up being evil and corrupt. We can also see that nobody not even, family or friends can be trusted. No matter what, some people are not going to like the King and are going to think of ways and reasons to overthrown him. We saw this pattern in Richard II, we see it now here and I'm sure it happens in many other Shakespeare plays. I do not know why people try to overthrown the King, do they not realize that sooner or later somebody is going to try to overthrow or perhaps kill them? It's a very vicious, unending cycle.
~ Julie
2 comments:
In reading the history plays, I’m beginning to understand that where there is power, there is also corruption. I believe that the idea of being a ruler overcomes all—family and friends—and that there is no such thing as trust. I wonder if this is truly how rulers were in Shakespeare’s time, or if this is just an interpretation from Shakespeare?
This post was very interesting. The main question that was brewing in my head when I was reading Henry IV is that why does no one respect the heir to the thrown? First Henry for Richards thrown and now Hotsput for Henrys thrown. Isn’t the right to the throw the most important part of their ruling class? Why is it not respected?
Post a Comment