4
Part One
Before looking at the Machiavellian character of Henry’s rule, we should look, albeit all-
too briefly, at the rich portrait Shakespeare provides in the Henry IV plays of the background
that prepared such an outlook. Most of the action in these two plays features a group of drunks,
thieves, and prostitutes whom Henry, then called “Prince Hal,” spends virtually all his time with.
At the center of the group is a fat, old, but terribly witty knight Jack Falstaff – a character
continually described in terms suggesting that he is a lesser, debauched version of Socrates.
Among other allusions, Shakespeare has him accused of both corrupting the youth (1H4 2.4.445-
6) and making the weaker speech the stronger (2H4 2.1.107-9). His death is also described in a
manner blatantly alluding to that of Socrates’ in the Phaedo (2.3.19-25).
1
As Allan Bloom notes
in his commentary on Hal and Falstaff in Love and Friendship, the relationship between them is
strongly reminiscent of that between Alcibiades and Socrates (Bloom 407)
2
. It is worth noting
here that the first public act of Plato’s mature Socrates is an attempt to persuade the rising star
Alcibiades that “he must first learn and take trouble over himself and practice” (Alcibiades 1,
123e1) before attempting to rule in Athens and on the world’s stage. Shakespeare’s young
Henry seems to be taking this very ‘trouble’.
His tutor Falstaff is relentless in his critique of common opinions about the law, political
honor, and morality in general. That Henry is at least partly moved by a desire to discover the
truth of these things is evident in his seeking out this critique. He seems to have learned the
lesson Alcibiades never could, that one must be wise before one can rule well. Henry surely
thought, as Bloom suggests, “that Falstaff, who had gone a long way on nature’s road, would be
able to teach him about what is to be found along it” (403).
1
All unmarked citations refer to Henry V, and all citations refer to the Arden editions.
2
Grace Tiffany (1999) presents an interesting and more detailed analysis of this connection as well, but only looks
at the positive qualities shared by the two pairs. Alcibiades is perhaps most interesting for his shortcomings, and I
believe Hal and Falstaff cannot be understood without grasping the flaws Shakespeare puts into their characters.
Convention