Shakespeare's genius for 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 characters and creates 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 creates an almost mirror contrast of characters with Hal and Hotspur in Henry IV, Part I. However, in typical Shakespearean style, the i seemingly mirrored binaries of Richard/Bolingbrook and Hal/Hotspur crumble with the complexity of Shakespeare's character. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay One of the main reasons why these parallels between characters don't hold up perfectly is because of the wonderful character of Falstaff. Absent from Richard II, Falstaff is introduced in Henry IV to create complexity and ambiguity regarding the similarities between these characters. Falstaff significantly complicates the hypothesis that Hotspur is for Bolingbrook as Hal is for Richard II because Falstaff has much in common with the king. Therefore, in contrast to Hotspur becoming Bolingbrook's character, it is the drunken and disorderly Falstaff who becomes the character most parallel to the king. However, the king associates with Hotspur who, as his name suggests, is a relentless warrior. The king gives the sense that Hotspur will act as Bolingbrook did in Richard II, challenging the prince's right to the throne; he feels that Bolingbrook's rivalry with Richard is reflected in Hotspur's position as Hal's challenger. In the first scene of Henry IV, Part I, King Henry immediately establishes a binary opposition between the prince and Hotspur. The king sides with Hotspur, who he would rather have as a son instead of Prince Henry. Upon hearing of Hotspur's successes in battle, Henry IV compares Hotspur to his own son. He declares: "[w]hile I, beholding [Hotspur's] praises, /[s]ee riot and disgrace stain the brow / [of] my young Harry" (Ii84-86). This opposition between Hal and Hotspur is emphasized in the next scene, where we find Prince Hal in the tavern with the drunken Falstaff, while his rival Hotspur prepares for rebellion. These first two scenes create a contrast between Hal and Hotspur that seems to recreate the Richard/Bolingbrook pairing. Hotspur seems to be like Bolingbrook, in that he will fight for what he feels is his due, and Hal acts like Richard, when he has fun with the vile companions of the tavern. 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 and Richard's rivalry: “As you are to this hour was Richard then / When I from France set foot in Ravenspurgh; And just as I was then, Percy is now” (III.II.94-96). Although the king is threatened by Hotspur's advances, he admires his grit and imagines a strong resemblance between himself and the valiant young Hotspur. But if King Henry seeks 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 create an interesting parallel; the similarities between Falstaff, the "King of Misrule", and Henry VI, King of England, are shown in many ways throughout the play, negating the King's vision of himself in the character of Hotspur. The opera oscillates between the serious and disturbing world of the King and the frenetic and comic world of Falstaff. The King directs the serious aspects of the opera, whileFalstaff directs the play. Falstaff's comic scenes provide a flip side to King Henry's world, revealing similarities between the two. Both Falstaff and the King live, to a large extent, by the sharpness of their minds: Falstaff as a criminal and the King as a politician. What separates them is their outward appearance and self-image. While Falstaff seems to be able to accept himself for who he is, the King seems to be tied to his image as a great ruler, and therefore will never admit to being anything less. As a result, King Henry sees himself in the brave and honor-seeking Hotspur, and would obviously 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 bag thief; the king is also a thief, but instead of stealing the travellers' bags, he stole Richard's crown. In this way, Falstaff's activity 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 in a robbery, and Hal states, "Whom to rob?" Am I a thief? Not me, by faith.” (I.ii.129). To this, Falstaff slyly replies, "There is neither manly honesty, nor good company in you, nor are you not of royal blood if you dare not bear ten shillings" (I.ii.130-132). Here Falstaff is implying that since the king stole an entire empire from Richard II, surely his own descendants can engage in a little highway robbery. The king, probably unconsciously, echoes Falstaff's reference to Richard's theft of the kingdom, when he tells the prince of his triumph: "I have stolen every courtesy from heaven, and dressed myself with such humility as to tear loyalty from the hearts of men " (III.ii .50-52). Stealing “the courtesy of heaven” obviously alludes to Henry's theft of the throne of a divine monarch. 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 resemblance between Henry IV and Falstaff. After discovering that the King is preparing for battle, hoping to kill the rebellious Percy so as not to have to repay his debts to them for helping him take the throne from Richard II, we return to the tavern for a bit of comedy. There we find Falstaff engaged in a similar contest: he is arguing with the tavern's landlady, Mistress Quickly, to evade her demands to pay the bill. The Hostess herself calls Falstaff out for this game when she says, "You owe me money, Sir John, and now you pick a quarrel to deceive me" (III.iii.63.63). There is a strong parallel between the way the King is avoiding his debt to the Percys (i.e., engaging in a war against them) and Falstaff's comic method of wriggling out of his large tavern bills. Interestingly, just as the Prince will ultimately save his father's life on the battlefield of the King's contest, Hal saves Falstaff from his fight with the Hostess by paying the bills for him. He also pays back the money from their highway robbery, which irritates Falstaff, who says, "Oh, I don't like this payback!" “It is a double effort” (III.iii.171-172). Falstaff's comments strengthen the connection between Henry and Falstaff, as these words clearly reflect the king's feelings towards Percy's statements. Here, Falstaff seems to express how the king feels about his obligations to the Percys, but would never admit it, and their similarities regarding the notion of debt are emphasized. The cowardly acts of both Falstaff and King Henry on the battlefield further show their similarities. regard: 1985).