We revisit Shakespeare because of his distinctive crafting of character and perceptive examination of

our capacity to both defy and uphold expectations.

Plan
1. Hal v Henry (appearance/reality, Hal must defy expectations)
2. Hal v Falstaff (immorality, Hal must uphold expectations of leader)
3. Falstaff v Hotspur (Falstaff defies expectations with regards to honour)

Intro
We revisit William Shakespeare’s history drama King Henry IV Part 1, because its distinct crafting of character
and perceptive examination of how leaders achieve political success illuminates the importance of defying and
upholding expectations imposed by society. Spurred by concerns over the lack of a clear successor to Queen
Elizabeth I, Shakespeare illustrates that successful leaders must uphold an appearance of majesty expected of
a ruler or undergo a great transformation that defies expectations in transforming in order to achieve political
success. He further warns how leaders must uphold expectations of moral integrity in the eyes of the public in
order to succeed in leadership. Lastly, Shakespeare perceptively explores the value of a utilitarian view of
honour, where it is politically advantageous, but encourages us to defy social expectations that see honour as
an end in itself. Thus, Shakespeare’s King Henry IV Part 1 remains popular due to its unique characterisation
and insightful exploration of the necessity to uphold expectations of leadership yet defy impractical
expectations in order to achieve political success.

Body
We revisit the play as Shakespeare illustrates the importance of maintaining an image of majesty to meet
social expectations of a leader in order to garner support and loyalty which remains relevant to modern
audiences. Influenced by the Great Chain of Being and the Divine Right of Kings which expects kings to be
heavenly authorities, Shakespeare portrays how King Henry crafts an image that meets expectations of a king
as he “stole all courtesy from heaven, and dress’d myself in such humility That I did pluck allegiance from
men’s hearts” where the clothing motif as well as the gratifying connotations of ‘courtesy’ and ‘humility’
emphasise Henry’s crafting of a favourable image, as illustrated through the emotive symbolism of his
subjects’ devotion. Shakespeare shows that Hal recognises the importance of adopting a kingly appearance,
promising in his soliloquy to “like bright metal on a sullen ground, my reformation glittering o’er my fault”
where the simile and juxtaposition foreshadow his transformation as he creates a political image that defies
his roguish perceptions. As such, Hal defies expectations placed upon him by the rebels as Vernon describes
him as “gorgeous as the sun at midsummer” where Shakespeare’s use of celestial imagery, that alludes to
Hal’s soliloquy, illustrates the success of Hal’s transformation by abandoning his previous easy-going
behaviour. Thus, by illustrating how leaders must uphold expectations of a royal appearance in order to be
politically successful, the play remains relevant today.

Shakespeare advocates that leaders must uphold expectations of moral integrity by warning how hedonism
corrupts individuals and degrades society. Inspired by the moral virtue of Queen Elizabeth I’s successful rule,
Shakespeare advocates that leaders must behave in morally acceptable ways to meet societal expectations.
Shakespeare characterises Falstaff as the embodiment of Christian Vice when Poins asks “how agrees the
devil and thee about thy soul, that thou soldest him on Good-Friday last for a cup of Madeira and a cold
We revisit Shakespeare because of his distinctive crafting of character and perceptive examination of
our capacity to both defy and uphold expectations.

capon’s leg” where the use of religious and hellish imagery comedically criticises Falstaff’s overt gluttony
and immoral behaviour as a catalyst for social disorder. Shakespeare uses the scene juxtaposition between
Hal’s glorious appearance in act 4 scene 1 and Falstaff’s ragged army of “Slaves as ragged as Lazarus in
painted cloth, where the glutton’s dogs licked his sores” in act 4 scene 2 where biblical allusion is used to
describe how an army, symbolic for a nation’s strength, has been reduced to a weak vulnerable state through
which Shakespeare warns of the internal instability caused by immoral leaders. Shakespeare shows that
successful leaders must reject such influences in the metatheatrical play within a play of Act 2 scene 4 in the
accumulation of rhetorical questions of “wherein craft, but in villany? Wherein villainous, but in all things?
Wherein worthy, but in nothing?” in which Hal shows audiences his awareness of Falstaff’s corruptive influence
and foreshadows his eventual rejection. Hence, Hal rejects Falstaff, ignoring pleas of “banish plump jack, and
banish all the world” to which Hal replies “I do, I will” where Shakespeare’s use of high modality dominates
the silence of the stage in order to convey the finality of Hal’s decision to live a morally virtuous lifestyle and
succeed as a leader. Thus, Shakespeare represents how leaders must meet expectations of moral integrity
and reject corruption in order to prevent harm to society and succeed as leaders.

Finally, we revisit Shakespeare’s play as he advocates for a pragmatic approach to honour, defying
conventional expectations of honour as a purpose.Shakespeare warns against strict adherence to codes of
honour which can lead to political downfall, however, when honour is used correctly it can further one’s political
agendas. Shakespeare subverts adherence to medieval codes of chivalry by portraying the downfall of Hotspur
who is “the theme of honour’s tongue… the very straightest plant” where the botanical metaphor and the
personification characterise Hotspur as the paragon of honour. However, Shakespeare shows that Hotspur
defies expectations as his strict adherence to chivalry ultimately leads to downfall, lamenting “I better brook the
loss of brittle life than those proud titles thou hast won of me; they wound my thoughts worse than sword my
flesh” where the analogy accentuates how seeking honour has warped any sense of self-preservation.
Shakespeare ironically constructs Falstaff as a knight. Shakespeare uses the hypophora in Falstaff’s
soliloquy to expose “What is that honour? Air” to warn against over prioritising honour due to its lack of
tangible value. However, Shakespeare illustrates that when used properly, honour can be politically beneficial
through the metaphor of “Honour is a mere scutcheon” which illustrates its potential to advance ones’ political
standing when Falstaff takes credit for slaying Hotspur. Thus, Shakespeare defies expectations associated
with honour and warns of its potential political consequences but also explains how honour can be beneficial to
one’s political standing when used properly.

Conclusions
Finally, we revisit Shakespeare’s play because of his unique characterisation of Hal and Hotspur, advocating
for a pragmatic approach to honour which defies social expectations of honour as an end. Inspired by the rise
of Renaissance Humanism in his time period, Shakespeare illustrates the

Ultimately, audiences revisit Shakespeare’s King Henry IV Part 1 because of its distinct characterisation and
exploration of how successful leaders arise from defying and upholding expectations imposed upon them by
society.