Short Assignment on 1 Henry IV
January 27, 2015
Short Assignment on 1 Henry IV
Help Received: None
Matthew Penaranda
January 27, 2015
Help Received: None
Short Assignment on 1 Henry IV
a)
Shakespeare’s plays are as much a reflection of Early Modern England as any other artifact from the time. Henry IV is the recreation of actual conflicts and controversies surrounding the thrown and other noble families in lieu of Richard II’s deposition, albeit with supplemented with some of Shakespeare’s poetic license to forge narratives between the historical figures for the sake of the theater. Despite the fictitious nature of the play, Henry IV is no less an insight to the culture in which it was written. One such characteristic of the culture of Early Modern England was knighthood that had its roots in the Dark Ages and endured throughout Europe in practice and also as a popular motif for depicting the emphasis of honor in those times. Chapter 5 Honor and Arms: Elizabethan Neochivalric Culture and the Military Trades extensively discusses the virtue of honor as a moral compass for especially constituents of serfdom and the nobility but also the common man.
Early modern perspectives in England on honor are the product of the predominant presence of the “warrior culture of the Early Middle Ages” as well as Christianity’s conservative and overreaching political and social influence (pg. 319). Despite knighthood being widely put into practice, the notion of honor was not necessarily universal despite the seemingly straightforward code of ethics of knighthood.
For the loyal knight to the nobles themselves, war was the stage for which one would earn their honor. The distinction between earlier ideas of honor meet contention when “individualistic values of lineage honor culture conflicted with the total Christianization of the codes of war” which favored loyalty to the Crown above all else (pg. 321). Before wars even begin, I would argue that the first battles are in determining to whom one should pledge their allegiance. Where once it was honorable to serve one’s relations or the region’s landowning noble, the conception of the authority of the Crown and a rise to duty to the country became a Catch 22 to the notion of honor. The discrepancies in English early modern perspectives of honor are most apparent in the transition from one’s primary loyalty to the landowning nobles present in the early structure of the feudal system versus later to the conception of all powerful monarchs that should in theory supersede the authority of knights’ prior responsibilities.
The imagery of a knight dutifully fighting for their queen came into fruition especially in the “elaborate pageantry that surrounded the Queen” (pg. 321). As time went on, the relationship between knights and the monarchs would be romanticized in the form of tournaments as well as in literature and theater. The epitome of such romanticism is in the cliché knight fighting for the favor of their own maidens of romance because their chivalrous natures demanded that of them.
b)
William Shakespeare expands on the notions of honor in early modern perspectives of honor in England throughout his play Henry IV. The play itself uses actual historic events and expands upon the interactions between the key figures to create a narrative between the characters that confront the evolving concept of honor at that time. As mentioned before, the battlefield was a primary proving ground for one’s honor in this time but so was one’s behavior in the royal court. Shakespeare portrays varying perspectives of honor in the relationships between characters throughout the play. There are several relationships in Henry IV that open discussion to the idea of honor.
To begin with, Prince Harry’s (Henry V’s) dialogue with his father King Henry IV maintains an ongoing tension over the merit, or lack thereof, of his less than regal behavior. The king has reprimanded him in the past and Prince Harry is very much aware of the poor impression of himself that his choice company afflicts on him and yet he maintains his ties to the criminal sorts, Falstaff in particular. In relation to honor, Falstaff is as indifferent and opposed to the virtue as Thrasymachus was to justice. That being said, Falstaff rivals the king as a fatherly figure to Prince Harry.
Having mentioned the king and Falstaff at this point, the two are arguably foils to each other respectively arguing for and against the necessity of honor. Moreover in terms of foils, the war hardened Hotspur is established as the foil to Prince Harry for his behavior in keeping the expectations of a noble whereas Harry had been contented with mischief amongst the common folk instead of more serious affairs. By establishing these foils, contrasting notions of honor become clear as day and night.
King Henry is representative of a regal sort of honor, one affirmed especially by his position of power. On the other hand, Prince Harry is condemned by his father for being “so common-hackneyed in the eyes of men, so stale and cheap to vulgar company) (III. ii. 40-41). The king suggests that honor is as dependent on one’s presence in court and in the eye of the public as much as it is reflected in one’s victories on the battlefield, all these being requisites of honor that, as of this particular point in the play, the prince had lacked.
In contrast, Falstaff rants on against what he sees as shortcomings of honor. Falstaff questions, “What is honor? A word. What is in that word “honor?” (V. ii. 132). Falstaff’s open declaration against honor is testament to his lack of shame characteristic of his criminal background and failure to evolve even after. Despite the emphasis of honor that was precedent in the culture of knighthood, Falstaff’s character speaks to the idea that early modern England was still less than whole in the sense that similarly to its internal warfare, two characters of the same fatherly figure role to Prince Harry could not even come to a consensus on the idea of honor.
Works Cited
Shakespeare, William, and Barbara Hodgdon. The First Part of King Henry the Fourth: Texts and Contexts. Boston: Bedford, 1997. Print.