Everybody in the world has someone they have to answer to. In the present day, many countries have presidents or prime ministers, but in the early modern period, more often than not it was a king or queen. Regardless, these rulers can have a great degree of control over the everyday lives of their citizens or subjects. What happens, then, if these rulers don’t live up to expectations? In the democratic systems of the present day, elected officials have a definite end to their term of office, at which point they may or may not be re-elected. However, in Shakespeare’s time, rulers served for life. Good or bad, they were stuck. Is there any way to depose them, then, other than insubordination? Shakespeare uses the character of Hotspur in I Henry IV to both confirm and challenge early modern English views concerning the legitimacy of rebellion in a nation where the king was seen as the absolute authority, both politically and religiously.
Shakespeare uses Hotspur to bring to life many of the issues plaguing early modern England. In the first act of the play, Hotspur is identified as being one of King Henry’s best military leaders. He recently fought against an army of over 10,000 rebels and achieved a decisive victory, taking hostage several important rebels. King Henry is noticeably pleased at this news. However, what he hears next stops him short: Hotspur refuses to give up the hostages that he captured, keeping all but one (1.1.62-94). This was directly contrary to the practice of the time, and a refusal to obey a direct order from the king himself.
Disobeying Henry’s order had many implications, with one of the most significant being the king’s status as a servant of God. Religion in early modern England was extremely prevalent, much more so than in the present day. Attendance in church was compulsory, and those who dissented could be fined, or even imprisoned. Predictably, the Church of England took a very firm stance on the matter of rebellion. The concept of divine right that began to emerge during the Renaissance asserted that rulers were put in place by God. In a compilation of sermons, titled An Homily Against Disobedience and Willful Rebellion, the church states:
What an abominable sin against God and man rebellion is, and how dreadfully the wrath of God is kindled and inflamed against all rebels, and what horrible plagues, punishments, and deaths, and finally eternal damnation, doth hang over their heads. As to us on the contrary part, good and obedient subjects are in God’s favor . . . (172-4)
This concept clouded the legitimacy of any rebellion. The church took the firm stand that any ruler was put in place by God specifically to rule. Therefore, any rebellion against any one of these rulers would be an affront to God himself. To purposefully go against the orders of the king, and in this case against a superior officer, would be utter blasphemy in a time where religion was such a central part of everyone’s lives.
The next day, when Hotspur is summoned to court, King Henry is furious. Hotspur and Northumberland’s explanation that their refusal wasn’t meant as an act of rebellion did little to soothe his rage. Still, Hotspur refuses to release the hostages until a ransom is paid for his brother in law, Mortimer, who was captured after being defeated in battle. Henry refuses on the basis that he believes Mortimer is a traitor for marrying the daughter of a known rebel, and even goes so far as to say that he likely lost the battle on purpose. He ignores Hotspur’s denials, and once again orders that the prisoners be returned at once (1.3.1-124).
Hotspur’s attitude is a display of the emerging mindset of the importance of the family’s name and honor even though, in this time, such a large emphasis was placed on the ruler. Some even went so far as to hold the honor of their family in higher regard than the crown. However, early modern England’s definition of honor concerned prestige and fame more than the modern definition of truthfulness or integrity. In Order and Disorder in Early Modern England, Anthony Fletcher argues, “A man’s honour, in this period, was the essence of his reputation in the eyes of his social equals; it gave him his sense of worth and his claim to pride in his own community . . .” (93). Henry’s accusation was an insult to Hotspur’s family name. This particularly enraged him, because he is depicted as placing a great emphasis on his family’s status and reputation.
After Henry leaves, Hotspur angrily begins a dialogue with Northumberland and Worcester concerning Henry’s claim to the throne. When Richard II still ruled, he had named Mortimer as his heir. Since Henry had come to power by overthrowing Richard, Mortimer may have a better claim to the throne than Henry himself, and he believes that is the reason why Henry is refusing the ransom. In addition, the Percy family played a major part in placing Henry on the throne, and Hotspur believes that it is for this reason that Henry owes them a debt (1.3.131-300).
It is during this exchange that Hotspur begins to question the legitimacy of Henry’s claim to the throne. Even though the concept of divine right as a basis for rule was heavily endorsed by the church, it was beginning to be questioned by writers of the time. Generally, those who came to rule did their utmost to take care of their subjects and their nation’s interests; however, not all rulers are infallible. John Ponet, a famous bishop and writer of the time, went into great depth concerning this. He argues that, under the law, a monarch should be treated the same as anyone else accused of the same crime. A theft or murder by a ruler would cause said ruler to become a thief or murderer in the same manner as an ordinary citizen. Nobody is exempt from the law. In addition, rulers should be summoned to answer for their crimes in the exact same way as everybody else (192-3). If Henry became king by an illegal act, logic would dictate that he shouldn’t be king, and should be forced to stand trial.
Henry’s claim to the throne raises questions concerning his validity. Since he didn’t become king through succession, but by overthrowing the previous ruler, is his claim to the throne legitimate? On the one hand, according to the church and the religious teachings of the time, since he is king, he is endorsed by God. But if any king can claim divine right, then whether or not a rebel is considered “right” is determined solely by the question of their success. This calls the sanctity of a ruler into question, since apparently God can sanction anybody. In addition, with this revelation, there is no way of knowing whether a cause is just until it has been seen through to its completion. Henry’s status as king may be the most complicated issue raised by Hotspur’s rebellion, in a time where the legitimacy of a monarch’s rule was already coming into question.
Another factor to consider, other than the manner by which Shakespeare raises the common points of contention with a king or queen and his or her rule, is his depiction of the actions and mannerisms of the rebels. On more than one occasion the Percy family and especially Hotspur are seen as being over the top, even to the point of being ridiculous, as well as lacking many of the positive character traits that were so noticeable in other characters. When the leaders of the rebel army gather to discuss how the kingdom will be divided once they are victorious, Hotspur declares that he dislikes a river that curves through his share. He loudly claims that he will have the course of the river changed in order to make his land more desirable. After much bickering, he suddenly becomes completely indifferent (3.1.93-137). While wanting the best share of land following the victory is understandable, changing the course of a river simply because he didn’t like it is absurd. In addition, he almost resembles a child in the manner in which he argues heatedly and then changes his mind and doesn’t care anymore. His approach makes the entire meeting seem as if it were a joke.
These negative character traits extend to the rest of the Percy family as well. After hearing King Henry’s offer of peace, Worcester decides not to even mention it to Hotspur, fearing that he would accept the offer. Being so young, Hotspur would be forgiven, but King Henry most likely wouldn’t be so lenient with the rest of the Percy’s. Worcester lies to Hotspur, telling him that Henry had insulted the Percy family, which causes Hotspur to call for an attack (5.2.26-40). This decision hastened a battle, which resulted in many men losing their lives. Whether or not the audience believed in the validity of the Percy family’s rebellion, a deliberate lie to a family member and fellow soldier was a choice that none could call honorable. Had Shakespeare depicted the Percy family and Hotspur as honorable men pursuing a noble cause, it would have been much harder for the legitimacy of rebellion to be called into question. However, portraying them as dishonorable and ignominious alienates them. No matter the cause, achieving it in an underhanded way is never seen as acceptable.
The entire matter of honor culminates during the final battle. Harry and Hotspur find each other on the battlefield, and agree that it is time to settle their differences. After defeating Hotspur, Harry notices that Falstaff is also lying on the ground, appearing to be dead (5.4.59-110). In this simple display, Shakespeare makes two points. The first is the comparison of Hotspur to Falstaff. Falstaff is described early on as fat, lazy, and a drunkard (1.2.2-9). He is, without a question, the most dishonorable character in the play. By placing them on the ground next to each other, both (ostensibly) dead, they appear to be the same. Hotspur’s actions may have been much more complex than lethargy, but they are inadmissible all the same. The second point is accomplished with Harry standing over both of them. Both of them represent a part of his life in which he was a disappointment to his father and to his kingdom, but he still managed to conquer both. Before leaving to rejoin the battle, he vows to return to bury them; however, by this point in the story, he truly already had.
In early modern England, there were many factors challenging the king. While all of them go against the societal and religious beliefs of the time, the interpretation of their validity relies on the individual. For one who follows a religion other than Christianity, divine right could hold no meaning, in the same way as one may choose to disobey a monarch if they hold the family in higher regard. Shakespeare created the character of Hotspur as the embodiment of both of these. However, it is worth noting that, in the end, Hotspur’s rebellion failed. He’s not the typical antagonist, who aims to get ahead at others’ expense or desires power for the sake of power. To him, and likely to many of the audience, his reasons were perfectly legitimate. Hotspur’s campaign and its ultimate failure demonstrate that the ends can’t justify the means. A desired change in the state of the government can’t be justified by taking matters into one’s own hands. If everybody took it upon himself to act as judge, jury, and executioner, the result would be anarchy. In a time where the principles that a nation was built upon were being called into question, Hotspur’s defeat is a display that, while individuals may not believe in one God or one philosophy, nobody believes in war.
Works Cited
“An Homily Against Disobedience and Willful Rebellion.” The First Part of King Henry IV. Barbara —_____Hodgdon. Boston: Bedford Books, 1997. Print.
Fletcher, Anthony, and John Stevenson. Order and Disorder in Early Modern England. Cambridge: _____Cambridge UP, 1985. Print.
Judkins, David. “Life in Renaissance England.” University of Houston, n.d. Web. 06 Nov. 2014.
Ponet, John. “A Short Treatise of Politic Power.” The First Part of King Henry IV. Ed. Babara Hodgdon. _____Boston: Bedford Books, 1997. Print.
Shakespeare, William. The First Part of King Henry IV. Ed. Barbara Hodgdon. Boston: Bedford Books, _____1997. Print.