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.