Honor and Arms

Ryan Freiwald                                                                                                Help Received:

ERH 321WX-01

Col. Miller

20 September 2017

 

Part 1: Summary of the early modern perspectives in England on honor and arms

From a VMI perspective, it is very interesting to analyze the early modern perspectives on honor with the current perspective. In the early modern period, although honor was something that was “inherited through blood lines” and was “coupled to a family name” it was also something that had to be “gained by martial deeds.” (Hodgdon 319) Broken down, this means that a person who was born into a family with honorable roots would remain honorable until they proved themselves to be dishonorable. After reading the Henry IV and Henry V texts, I found it very interesting how Hal was able to be so dishonorable and act so un-noble then turn around to be considered very honorable in the eyes of everyone he was in charge of. This is because of a few different things. First of all, when Hal became the king, he disowned all of his company that was dishonorable. These were the people that he used to drink and rob with. Secondly, as the text put it, war was viewed “as a testing ground for nobility” and leaders that were able to do well in combat were considered to be honorable. (Hodgdon 326)

This idea of honor being gained through combat is further reiterated later in the text when the author talks about how honor and “chivalric rights” were showcased in tournaments that were “ceremonial, highly ritualized” and “focused almost exclusively on appearances and on the desire to be ‘well seen in arms.’”(Hodgdon 321) The author talks about these tournaments and tells how in some cases, one of the competitors might have “the Queen’s gloved tied to his arm” and by doing this, do the crowd, he would be “portray[ed] as the Queen’s knight.” It can be assumed that to be labeled as the “Queens knight,” a person would have to be very honorable themselves and be trusted not to do anything that could jeopardize the honor of the royal family. (Hodgdon 323) From this, it can be seen that honor was gained through works of strength and, mainly, individuals that were dominate on the battlefield and acted noble while in garrison were considered to have honor.

One last thing that the text talked about was the need to have leadership that was honorable. In the early modern era, “the Crown was unable to pay for a military establishment.” (Boynt 91-96) This mean that unlike countries now that have standing armies payed for by citizens, the armies were payed for by feudal lords, and were supposed to be controlled by the royal family. However, as the text states, “it was difficult to distinguish among rival claims of nonfeudal fealties, common law obligations, commissions of array and muster, and royal control over the military.” (Hodgdon 328-329) From this, it can be seen that feudal lords that were known as honorable also had the traits of loyalty and availability to the crown.

 

Part 2: Honor and arms analysis in Henry IV Act V, Scene IV

In this scene, the rebellious Hotspur and Hal have their final showdown. During the dialog between the two combatants, different views of honor are brought head to head. These views can be summarized in Hotspurs thought process which would have been is someone who has spent their time as prince messing around at bars and robbing people worthy of being king? This thought is brought out when Hotspur questions whether the prince’s “name in arms were now as great as mine.” (Henry IV, Act V, Scene IV, Line 70) Hotspur goes on to say “I can no longer brook thy vanities” referring to the lift style that the prince had. (Henry IV, Act V, Scene IV, Line 74)  By saying this Hotspur is saying while you have been screwing around, I have established myself as a great warrior with honor and by letting you become King, I would be doing a disservice to the people of England. In the Honor and Arms text, the author talks about “noble rebellion” and how if people believed that honor was at risk, it was socially acceptable to rebel. (Hodgdon 320) From the text, it can be seen that what Hotspur did was, not only socially acceptable but also honorable in a way. If he thought that what he was doing was doing the right thing, that’s the only thing that would have mattered to him because according to the text it was “‘better to die in honor than live in shame.’” (James 276, 309-II, 342-43) This idea is also tied into VMI with the idea of “death before dishonor” that is engraved on all of our rings and is part of the VMI life style. Hotspur was doing what he thought was right and that’s all that mattered to him.

 

Works Cited:

  • Barbra, Hodgdon. Honor and Arms: Elizabethan Neochivalic Culture and Military Trades. New York: Bedford Books, 1997. Print.
  • Boynton, Lindsay. The Elizabethan Militia 1558-1638. London: Routledge, 1967.  
  • James, Mervyn. Society, Politics and Culure: Studies in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1989.
  • Shakespeare, William. The First Part of King Henry The Fourth. Barbra Hodgdon. New York: Bedford Books, 1997. Print.