The Character of Falstaff in Henry IV, Part I
Shakespeare's genius in character and plot development is exemplified in two of his most complex history plays, Richard II and Henry IV, Part I. With these sequential plays, Shakespeare vividly develops characters and sets up complicated plots by juxtapositioning people with others. Specifically, he first creates a binary opposition between Richard and Bolingbrook in Richard II, and then, recalls the plot and carries out an almost mirror image character contrast with Hal and Hotspur in Henry IV, Part I. However, in typical Shakespeare fashion, the seemingly mirror-image binaries of Richard/Bolingbrook and Hal/Hotspur break down with Shakespeare's character complexity.…show more content…
Upon hearing of Hotspur's successes in battle, Henry IV compares Hotspur to his son. He declares, ì[w]hilst I, by looking on the praise of [Hotspur], /[s]ee riot and dishonor stain the brow / [o]f my young Harryî (I.i.84-86). This opposition between Hal and Hotspur is emphasized in the following scene, where we find Prince Hal in the tavern with the drunken Falstaff, while his rival, Hotspur is preparing for a rebellion. These first two scenes set up a contrast between Hal and Hotspur that seems to recreate the Richard/ Bolingbrook binary. Hotspur appears to be like Bolingbrook, in that he will fight for what he feels is owed to him, and Hal acts like Richard, in his reveling with base tavern buddies.
Prior to battle, the King continues to perceive a similarity between himself, as Richard's challenger, and Hotspur, as Prince Henry's challenger. He articulates to Prince Henry that the battle against Hotspur is a reflection of his and Richard's rivalry: ìAs thou art to this hour was Richard then / When I from France set foot at Ravenspurgh; And even as I was then is Percy nowî (III.II.94-96). Even though the King is threatened by Hotspur's advancements, he admires his grit, and envisions a strong resemblance between the valiant young Hotspur and himself. But if King Henry is looking for the person that most resembles him, he should go to the taverns and ask for Sir Jack Falstaff.

In greater detail the King compares Hal to the Hotspur, explaining that Hotspur has a greater claim to the throne than Hal simply because of his prowess and merit, “He hath more worthy interest to the state than thou, the shadow of succession.,” (3.2.

Freud, Rousseau, and Society

Hotspur describes himself as 'tender, raw, and young' (II.iii.42); he fights courageously in behalf of Bolingbroke and is present at the deposition of the anointed monarch, Richard II. Young Prince Hal does not make an appearance in this earlier play, but in it he is set in opposition to the valiant Hotspur.
At first thought, Hotspur seems to be the easy winner, for all Hal does is spend his time with his friends gallivanting around, stealing and drinking. Hotspur, on the other hand, has returned from a battle in which he defeated the Scots led by Glendower. He has taken many.
Yet Shakespeare has carefully prepared us as an audience to see the flaws beneath the surface in Hotspur and the 'diamond' in Prince Hal. Hotspur is a chivalric warrior, noble, brave, honorable.

Both Freund and Rousseau describe society in terms of sacrifices made by the individual and the benefits he receives in return. Rousseau speaks in terms of the social contract, a rational agreement between people. Freud's civilization is an instrument for the repression of instincts of the aggressive type, but a 'process in the service of Eros.'

Rousseau's community is essentially synthetic, resulting from human reason, not instinct. The group is a problem-solving device, for the general good, to overcome obstacles to human existence which the individual alone could not handle (book I, chapter 6, pg. 59). Humans form groups in order to accomplish tasks for the general good, but there is always the possibility that the ideas of the group are mistaken, so in actuality, society may not always work for the general good. A democracy would be a nearly ideal form of decision-making, because it is representative of the general will, an idea which Rousseau holds as fundamental to a well-run nation. The general will should be the basis of government. A law is an expression of the general will, and since each citizen is a part of the general will, to obey the law means only to obey your own will. Rousseau's contention is that one must not sacrifice to be a citizen - or not quite: the individual sacrifices his particular freedom but then gets it back in the form of a greater general freedom.

Freud's society is formed in part because of mutual need, but there is more. The aggressive instincts would pull groups apart if it weren't for the Eros in man, the instinct to unite people into groups; additionally, scapegoats are available for left-over aggression. Society is an uneasy equilibrium of these three forces. War is an example of just how uneasy the balance is. Freud's civilization has no real contract in the sense of Rousseau, but he does make an indirect contract which forces the desire of the individual to conform to society's commands. 'The super-ego takes the place of the parental function, and thenceforward observes, guides, and threatens the ego in just the same way as the parents acted to the child before' (A.M., pg. 89). In this way the societal values (which are embodied in the laws) are transmitted through the parents to the individual. Thus, one automatically submits to the repression of desires because the super-ego is a cultural product. Freud's goal here is the repression and sublimation of natural desires, for these make co-existence impossible. Sublimation is more effective and less wasteful than repression.

'Every member of the community,' says Rousseau, 'gives himself to it .. with all his resources, including all his goods.' How then can Rousseau keep up his idea of something for nothing? 'The state, vis-a-vis its own members, becomes master of all their goods ..' The definition of vis-a-vis in Webster's leads me to think that he means that the state and the citizen operate together in the custodianship of property. In a sense, then, the state owns property through the individual, so that he has not given it up. Rousseaus's social contract is a considerably more complicated concept than Freud's.

According to Freud, we make sacrifices to join civilization; we must suffer our natural instincts to be repressed. And Freudian society has benefits; that of 'the advantages of work in common' for the common good. Rousseau's society either does or doesn't require sacrifices from us; I think he wants to say that it doesn't. And Rousseau's society has advantages; 'the state has been established to achieve .. the common good.' Freud sees civilization as the answer to some of the problems of the human condition; Rousseau also sees that 'the human race will perish if it does not change its mode of existence' into the state. Both Freud and Rousseau, then, see the state as saving us from the problems of the human condition, but each sees the problems of the human condition somewhat differently, or emphasizes different aspects of the problems of the human condition, and so constructs the saving state in a somewhat different light.

Freund, Hobbes, and the Metaphor of the Ant

Or,

All about Ants (an animalistic, albeit apt, alliteration): an altogether asinine, and amazingly anemic, article

In their considerations of the origin of civilization, both Freud and Hobbes turn to ants to illuminate human society. There are both similarities and differences in their explanations of why the state is not like the anthill, which they both consider to be at least partially ideal (perhaps because both have materialistic tendancies). Both view man's nature negatively and see the community as the cure for the human condition.

The first of the six reasons Hobbes gives for the ant-gap is that men have ambition, a 'joy consisting in comparing himself with other men,' which makes a person work sometimes against others, instead of working for the common good (both Freud and Hobbes think that comparing one's self with others is fundamentally an unsympathetic atitude, against Rousseau and others). Freud would generally agree with this, restating it as manifestation of the Oedipus complex and the outwardly directed aggressive instincts.

The second reason given in the Leviathan for the ant-gap is that men have ideas of 'honor and dignity' which are connected with possession (a person 'owns' these things) and from possession arises envy and jealousy and finally war. Freud's final ideas abou

Compare And Contrast Hal And Hotspur