Critical Response 1

Garg 1 Rishi Garg English 10, 1st Period Mr. Fox 6 May 2008

Critical Response 1 This critical response will focus on a piece of literary criticism written by Ernst Kris, from a work titled “Prince Hal’s Conflict”. In his criticism of Henry IV, Part One, Kris describes the conflicts located within three different father-son relationships present throughout the play. Namely, these relationships are between Henry and Hal, Henry and Hotspur, and Falstaff and Hal. Kris begins by recalling Henry’s wish that a fairy had switched Hotspur and Hal at birth. Kris uses one of Henry’s speeches in the first scene of the play to substantiate this claim. It is very clear that Henry disapproves of his own true son. This can be seen when he says: “see riot and dishonor stain the brow of my young Harry” (1.1.84-85). It is also apparent that Henry wishes to have Hotspur as his own son, as shown when he says: “Then would I have his Harry, and he mine” (1.1.89). Kris suggests that there is a triangular relationship being presented here. This is very true, because it is obvious that Henry envies Hotspur and doesn’t care much for Hal. Kris then elaborates on the father-son relationship between Falstaff and Hal. He states that Falstaff is a depreciated father figure who has enchanted both audiences and Prince Hal. Falstaff’s hedonism represents the infantile and narcissistic quest for pleasure in life. From Hal’s point of view, Falstaff

Garg 2 serves to contrast from Henry, who represents an unsatisfactory father. Kris is correct in his belief that Falstaff is Hal’s “surrogate father”, but he fails to explain Hal’s reasons for choosing Falstaff over Henry. Naturally, to some extent, everyone has the desire to find gratification in life. Hal finds pleasure in befriending pub dwellers and committing thievery. While talking to Falstaff, Hal asks, “Where shall we take a purse tomorrow, Jack?” (1.2.105). This shows Hal’s attraction to living a dangerous and adrenaline-filled life. Clearly, Hal finds Falstaff to be a better father than Henry, who would probably only teach royalty-related things. It is plausible to say that Hal receives a different sort of paternal guidance from Falstaff; a more humble, down-to-earth guidance. Hal, Falstaff, and Henry form another triangular relationship. Kris proceeds to suggest the concept that Prince Hal has two fathers and the King has two sons. This statement is not very well-explained. One must infer that Hal’s two fathers are Henry and Falstaff, and the King’s two sons are Hal and Hotspur. The concept of Hal’s two fathers is agreeable; this triangular relationship has already been proved. However, the theory of Hal and Hotspur both being Henry’s “sons” is controversial. It is true that there is a triangular relationship involved, but there is no evidence to prove that Hotspur is, figuratively of course, Henry’s son. Although Henry envies Northumberland and wishes for Hotspur to be his own son, Hotspur despises Henry. This can be seen when Hotspur refers to Henry as the “ingrate and cankered Bolingbroke” (1.3.140) and “this thorn, this canker, Bolingbroke”

Garg 3 (1.3.180). Using this logic, it is not reasonable to call Hotspur the son of Henry. Overall, Kris’ interpretation and analysis of the conflict of relationships present in Henry IV, Part One is very insightful and intellectually stimulating. Although not all of his theories are accompanied by clear evidence, they present new ideas and clarify some of the themes in the play.