In his soliloquy at the end of Act 1, Scene 2 Prince Hal tries to justify his wayward and irresponsible behavior by appealing to the concept of a foil. He states, "My reformation glitt'ring o'er my fault, / Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes / Than that which hath no foil to set if off." (1.2. 220-2). Much like a jewel looks more brillaint when contrasted with dull metal, so will his future exploits seem more virtuous when contrasted with his youthful vices.
This passage could be a manifesto for Shakespeare's use of a foil. In much the same way Shakespeare contrasts characters who are in similar circumstances or stations in life to highlight features of their character. In Henry IV, for instance, we have two young heirs/pretenders to the throne (Hal and Hotspur) and two father figures for Hal (Henry IV and Falstaff). But you could argue for other examples of this kind of contrasting pairings such as two rebel leaders (Hotspur and Glendower) or two wives (Lady Percy and Lady Mortimer) or two actual fathers (Henry IV and Northumberland).
Choose ONE such pair of foils, explaining ways they are similar but also ways their words and action are contrasting and how this use of foils illuminates their character.
In Shakespeare's play, King Henry IV, there are a myriad of different characters from different backgrounds. One of the most important aspects of creating such diverse characters for play writing is giving each their own unique goals and plans for the future. However, the same could be said for characters of similar backgrounds. The way a true master of the medium makes each character feel unique despite similar circumstance is by providing them with different motivations and driving forces. The epitome of this is Falstaff and Hal. Although both characters are amicable and close to one another, they each represent contrasting world views. Falstaff, through his inaction (which is represented by his physical body), represents the idea of stagnation in ones self and the shirking of responsibility. Hal, on the other hand, is made to represent the idea of personal growth. These two ideologies, while not interfering with their current selves, pose the two as foils to one another in the future, a fact very clearly put forward in scene 4 of act 2. As they act out a hypothetical scenario with Falstaff playing the role of Hal why Hal himself plays the role of his father, Falstaff attempts to convince the "king" of Falstaff's (his own) normality to protect him from possible punishment. He states: "If to be old and / merry be a sin, then many an old host that I know is damned. . . No, my good lord, / banish Peto, banish Bardolph, banish Poins. . . and banish / all the world." (2.4. 488-498). Not only is Falstaff arguing his innocence in this monologue, he inadvertently argues the innocence of the common man as a whole. He implies "If everyone does it, then it can't be wrong, right?" Not only does this mentality keep him from exploring the idea of personal growth, it shows his world view as a whole. He sees the faults of the world as infallible and doesn't think they need to be worked past. Instead, he says the rules should change to fit the sins and faults of the people. However, Hal has a different view of the world. He hopes for change in himself and the world around him. His response to Falstaff's plea, "I do, I will." (2.4. 499) is not only a response to his pleas for mercy for himself, but a rejection of Falstaff's proposal. This passage shows their positions to one another. Although they are friends at the time, it's clear the conflict of interests between the two will cause problems in the future. It's a friendship and allyship doomed to fail.
ReplyDelete