Category Archives: 1 Henry IV

The Embodiment of honor

1 Henry IV, Death and dying, Tragic hero, Uncategorized

The embodiment of honor, the hero Hotspur is celebrated by the King in the first scene, who wishes that he was his son, instead of the cowardly son he has. Hotspur is a character who shoots and asks questions later. He is brilliant for his sense of honor and backbone, not one to run away from a fight. It is almost unfortunate to see him die at the hands of Prince Harry. Hotspur becomes a one-dimensional character who is a great warrior, but falls to the more all-around character, Prince Harry. This scene is not the only scene where Shakespeare kills off a similar character  in this way.

Laertes, a master fencer, is killed by Hamlet in a fencing duel. I thought that was ironic and showed that even though Hamlet isn’t the fencing expert because he was more well-rounded he was able to win the fight. Hamlet doesn’t win the fight to the death but does make it hard for Laertes and does show that he has some skill in fencing. Hamlet kills Laertes finally by scratching him with the poison sword Laertes sets up for him. Hamlet only kills Laertes by mistake.

Hamlet doesn’t need to kill Laertes, though. Laertes was merely a bystander, an obstacle in order to get to the King, who was Hamlet’s real target all along. I think Prince Harry really needed to kill Hotspur and it was especially important that he did. Once Hotspur was defeated by Prince Harry, Harry is able to live up to his promise early on that he would become a better character one fit to be the King. With this military defeat he take a step closer to becoming King and increases his military experience.

My only concern was that both characters– Hamlet and Prince Harry– got really lucky considering that Laertes and Hotspur were really good at what they do while the heroes, Prince Harry and Hamlet weren’t specifically strong at fighting as their counterparts are supposed to be. I think it’s the heroes’ ability to do more that sets them apart and shows that they can survive. These heroes can do everything possible to survive. I did find it appalling that Hotspur died the way he died. Hotspur is the definition of an honorable man. In the face of defeat, he proudly rode off and fought. He showed true valiance. I admired Hotspur for this; a smarter general would have conceded defeat and try to retreat. He didn’t, he took his family’s problems upon himself and the fact that his father wasn’t able to support him was upsetting. I did feel sorry and upset that Hotspur died. I saw it as a necessary death for Prince Harry to develop as a character but Hotspur was the hero at the beginning of the play only to become the villain at the end.

Hotspur…The son that the King always wanted?

1 Henry IV, Character types, Uncategorized

Probably one of the most aggressive characters to play within Shakespeare’s King Henry IV Part 1, Hotspur’s “hot headed” demeanor is one of the most intriguing and entertaining factors of the entire play. It is almost like a New  Year’s Eve countdown reading a scene with him in it, as the audience just waits for the inevitable moment when the soldier would lose his temper and lash out at who is within a 5-mile radius of him. Maybe that is the characteristic the drew King Henry towards him in the first place. While his son Hal had more of a laid back and intellectual savant type of personality, Hotspur’s aggressive nature was an attractive character trait for the King who knew that in order to rule you must have the will to act at all times.

Yet, what if King Henry did have Hotspur as a son? I believe that Hotspur would not have had the lazy and relaxed type nature of Hal, but would have been a very hyper and willing soldier who’d jump into action at the very first sign of disturbance or an altercation. At first I believe that King Henry would have appreciated Hotspur’s dedication to be the best, and probably would have promoted him to the highest rank of military order. But there is a down side to this alternative scenario; as I believe that while the King would have been proud of his soldier-like son; his life span would have also been shortened. Hotspur’s lust for power would have eventually boiled over to the point in which he would take action towards King Henry and take over the throne. It is a situation in which a character’s position does not change his personality, but only reveals it to a hire degree. Though King Henry did kill his uncle Richard in order to take over the throne himself; so therefore I guess he and Hotspur would’ve have still obtained that “like father, like son” quality.

There is only Honor amongst thieves…

1 Henry IV, Character types

Honor is a topic that is quite frequently mentioned throughout Henry IV Part One. It was the glory which men sought, whether they be on the battlefield or for a doing a noble deed. When you try to picture an honorable person, a King or a Lord or may come to mind. At the very least it will be someone who truly lives by a code of moral justice. It is interesting then, that Shakespeare chooses to never have honor mentioned by someone whom we may consider honorable. Instead, only those people who we would normally consider to be dishonorable, mainly Falstaff and Prince Hal, speak of what honor truly is. These characters partake in robberies; loiter around the tavern drinking in excess and lie in order to avoid punishment. They seem to be dregs of society, yet almost exclusively have the privilege of speaking about honor.

The first mention of honor is spoken by Sir John Falstaff, ironically just before they are taking their positions to rob a passing train of people. He exclaims “A plague upon it when thieves cannot be true to one another…” (2.2.27-28) after he can’t find where Poins hid his horse. In this context, honor is a trust amongst those in the same line of work. Next, Prince Hal, equates honor with how much sack (wine) he can drink, the honor being the recognition he receives for it. This comes as he is celebrating with Poins about their joke of robbing their own crew, who just robbed the caravan. The next mention of honor is also from Prince Hal, this time speaking of honor in a more true to the definition manner. His father has essentially called him a shame for whom he keeps company with, and Hal responds that in order to regain his honor he will kill the honorable Knight Hotspur. By doing this, he hopes to win favor back from his father. To back up the claim that Hotspur is an honorable man, Douglass reaffirms this thought by saying to Hotspur “Thou art the King of honor. No man so potent breathes upon the ground But I will [oppose] him” (4.1.10-12).

Finally, the last mention of honor belongs to Falstaff. He gives us yet another perspective of what honor is:
“…a word. What is in that word honor? What
is that honor? Air-. A trim reckoning! Who hath it?
He that died a Wednesday. Doth he feel it? No.
Doth he hear it? No. ‘Tis insensible, then? Yea,
to the dead…”
(5.2.132-138)
Essentially, Falstaff is saying that honor means nothing. It is simply a word that men use to gain fame. In their search for this glory, they often die, thus their legacy lives on with the title “the Honorable Sir so-and-so”. However, if you want to live then you must rely on yourself, and do what you must to scrape by. This may lead you down a path of wrongdoing, but in his view, it’s better to be and old man who enjoys his drink than to be a young man slain and called honorable.

Falstaff and Bottom: Shakespeare was no fool to create these fools

1 Henry IV, Character types, The Fool

Falstaff is a particularly interesting and colorful character in Henry IV.  He couldn’t help but remind me of Bottom from A Midsummer Night’s Dream with his use of bombastic language and silly antics, but above all, the significance behind his reputation as the “fool” of the play.  I was doing a bit of research and found a very interesting article by Arthur F. Kinney that discusses Shakespeare’s use of Falstaff as a prime example of parody.  He is an extremely vibrant and witty character, and because of this, he seems to rival Hal and other characters who are higher in status. As we discussed in class, he is also present throughout much of the play in different realms (such as the tavern, the court, and the battlefield); although he isn’t necessarily taking part in the action, he always has a great understanding of what’s happening around him and makes note of this in a witty and appealing way.  We also see this with Bottom, who is present in all realms of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, though he seems a bit less clued in than Falstaff in regard to what’s happening around him, especially in the woods.

Kinney’s article also reveals that Shakespeare parodied English history with his creation of Falstaff, for many believe that his character is based on Sir John Oldcastle, a true historical figure who served as a knight for the real King Henry IV  (sec. II).  Oldcastle was well-liked by the king, but he was also involved in a religious group that went against the ways of the king’s Catholic church. He was condemned as a heretic and thrown in jail, where he eventually escaped as was said to have conspired with a group to use force against the king.  This reminds readers of Falstaff, who constantly rises back up after what seems like defeat (think: Act 5, Scene 4 when he feigns his own death to protect himself).

In terms of Falstaff’s rhetoric skill, Kinney writes, “His quick repartee is heavily grounded in alliteration, repetition, and classical allusion that characterized euphuism, the sophisticated language of an earlier Elizabethan court; from the start, he is parodie” (sec I).  We must remember that Bottom, too was a character surrounded by allusion in Shakespeare’s work, and though he could be deemed the fool of the play, his use of language brought attention to many of the greater issues lying beneath the surface of the work, such as living a life governed by reason rather than the fickle heart and wandering imagination.  Falstaff might be considered to be the fat, cowardly jester of the play, but as Kinney points out, “style…can override substance”. He goes on to say, “serious ideas may be diminished or even erased if their examination is funny enough…seen this way, parody is not a means of translating ideas but a means of overturning them” (section V).  If looked at this way, Falstaff’s purpose is actually quite different from Bottom’s.  His linguistic style arguably draws attention away from what readers would see as “substantial” ideas in the play; instead, it rests on the idea of parody itself and Shakespeare’s awareness of its underlying significance in Henry IV.

Source:

Kinney, Arthur F. “Shakespeare’s Falstaff as parody.” Connotations 12.2-3 (2002): 105+. Literature Resource Center. Web. 1 Oct. 2013.

Debts paid in blood

1 Henry IV

1 Henry IV opens with what  is essentially the King’s version of a politician’s speech. Driving home the imagery of blood soaked Earth and the evils of war, specifically civil war.  Imagine my surprise when the Prince evokes this image yet again but instead of speaking of the pain of war, he soaks honor in blood.  This stark contrast makes for a particularly interesting scene drawing my attention away from Hal’s ability to justify his many downfalls and shameful behaviours,  and pulls it towards another example of his calculating mind and the question of honor.

What is honor in Henry IV? Who defines it? Hal gives it the only definition in his speech but then I highly doubt that Percy or Glendower would agree.  Every character has their own version of the widely undefined status of honour, and yet Hal, the tactician of the play, promises to redeem all of his wrongs with Percy’s head “and stain [his] favors in a bloody mask.”  He plans to regain his footing through the very civil war that his father denounced, he plans to regain his loyalties through blood.

Funny enough blood often refers to family relationships in Henry IV, with Falstaff accusing Hal of having no royal blood in him.  So if the heir apparent Hal, accused of having neither honor nor royal blood is always being compared to Percy, the most honorable and most acclaimed.  One can see why his calculating mind would plan to repay his debts and seek redemption by soaking him self in the blood of the man who has all that he is lacking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Js_DMEsP10

A Highwayman and His Guilt

1 Henry IV, Psychological states

Shakespeare shows an account of guilt in 1 HenryIV and draws a picture of how it literally consumes a king for his past deeds throughout his ruling time.  Henry IV’s overthrowing king Richard II seating himself on the throne is presumably the source of his guilt. Once a strong and chivalric nobleman, Henry Bolingbroke now turns out to be a weak and aged king Henry in 1 Henry IV. We, the audience, can take a peek into his spooky soul through his words usage throughout the play.

 

In the beginning of the play, the audience hears the tension and hardship king Henry going through by the word “ shaken,” which echoes the sound of civil war across his kingdom. It can also be a reminder to the audience, those who have seen King Richard II, of Henry Bolingbroke and his usurpation of  the throne, followed by taking King Richard a prisoner and having him assassinated. As a result, we aren’t surprised at all seeing him tremble at the news of civil war, since it may bring King Henry back through flashback to Henry Bolingbroke. He may have foreseen another uprising and be terrified of another invasion to his illegitimate kingship.

 

Robbery, Rochester, Roads- all seem to symbolize the sick environment of king’s kingdom that gives rise to highwaymen. The robbery scenes in Act 2 Scene 2 and 4, to my mind, is an allegory of King Richard’s kingdom loss to Henry. Henry, in a sense, robbed this kingdom, like a highwayman, from King Richard. Falstaff, along with Gadshill and Peto firstly robs the travelers, and then he gets robbed by Hal and Poins. By this robbery scene Shakespeare maybe tries to give his audience a subtle hint that King Henry and Falstaff both act out of same motivation even though Henry hasn’t got robbed ( he still has his kingdom) in the play unlike Falstaff.

 

Shakespeare makes it more relevant to the plot of 1 Henry IV by creating the character the Highwaymen where the king himself holds one on the same skeleton.

The Witted Abilities of Falstaff

1 Henry IV, Character types

In third scene of act III, we are once again provided with a visual of Falstaff’s skill in the art of wit. In this scene, we return to the tavern where we find Falstaff complaining to Bardolph about how weak he has gotten along with the drastic loss of weight he has suffered (ln. 1-11). This can be rather humorous because we, in fact, know that he is far from thin due to his overweight stature. Soon after the crying of Falstaff begins, the hostess of the tavern enters demanding the payment of all food and drinks he has consumed but has not paid for. Not having any money, Falstaff quickly thinks on his feet and claims to have been pick-pocketed. After an exchange of words, he uses the Hostess’ emotions against her and claims that she might’ve been the source who had victimized him.

At this point, Prince Harry arrives and admits to being the one who pick-pocketed Falstaff. While, Falstaff claimed to have had great valuables at his time of misfortune, we know he had worthless items along with various amounts of receipts from earlier scenes (Act II scene 4). Once Prince Harry confronts his clump of lies, Falstaff immediately confronts the situation of being victimized, completing disregarding being caught in a series of lies.His mastery of wit places him in a position to say that he forgives the hostess and continues to order breakfast.

While it is not a good trait to be considered a habitual liar, Falstaff creates a sense of admiration to readers because of his insane ability to turn any situation into an advantage.

Honor as Property in 1 Henry IV

1 Henry IV, Class and status, Imagery, Verbal texture

For most of Henry IV, Shakespeare handles honor in an indirect way. Although nearly every character stakes some claim to honor, the audience is left without a fundamental definition of it on which to  build an understanding and more importantly, against which the “honor” of a character may be measured. There is, however, a notable shift away from this pattern of the indirect treatment of honor in Act 3, Scene 2, when King Henry and Hal are reunited after the Prince’s self-imposed “exile” to discuss the “villainous news” (2.4.334) of the Percy rebellion. During his discussion with his father, Hal’s description of honor implies that he perceives it as form of property, i.e., a thing whose ownership of can be transplanted. This notion of honor as property not only deepens our understanding of the rivalry between Hotspur and Hal, but also helps us find a better bearing on the dynamics of honor in Henry IV.

Continue reading Honor as Property in 1 Henry IV →

Shakespeare Fashion Craze: Royalty

1 Henry IV, Costumes and props, Imagery, Stage techniques, Verbal texture

The repetition of a particular metaphor type in a William Shakespeare play can signify and complement a theme of the play.  In Henry IV Part 1, the repeating metaphors that stand out to me relate to dress and wardrobe.  In a play that is concerned with the crown and the role of royalty, dress metaphors are especially appropriate when considering that a king can simply “wear” the crown or be the crown.  Specifically, does the occupation of the throne automatically make every action of a king royal or does the content, the spirit or the motive of the act define royalty?

This observation is why I liked Prince Henry at the end of the Act I. The idea that, “when  this loose behavior I throw off,”  is like him suggesting that he can change his roles like his clothes and throw off that tattered jacket of adolescence for a more appropriate garb. ( Act 1, Sc. 2, 213) Instead of taking the title or royalty and the responsibility that comes with it, Henry shows his understanding of what royalty is by doing the exact opposite. Rather than take it for granted that all of his actions are seen under the guise of the crown, he does the dastardly and goes in cahoots with thieves. He’s taking to defining royalty on his own terms rather than adhering to the expectations of others.

In a plot line where the occupation of the throne seems to be on the mind of anyone with any relation or claim to the throne, it is interesting to see a character who is not crazy about the responsibility of the crown rather than be dazed by the glory of the title and instead opts to con everyone into accepting whatever he wills to deliver as long as it is not thievery. It’s almost like a plot of a Guy Richie movie.