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.
We’ll look closely at the way in which Hal redeems himself by staining his favors in Percy’s blood. The religious undertones of the play emerge most remarkably in 5.4. Thank you, Karina, for putting up that link; I was surprised to see Hal sit through his father’s speech, but the staging of the scene certainly made prominent the degree to which 3.2 is an argument between adolescent son and exasperated father.