Conor Snyder
January 27, 2018
HNL 380WX
Henry IV: Early modern perspectives in England on honor and arms
HR: Henry IV play, sparknotes of play, excerpt on honor and arms.
Part 1
Much of content in Henry IV is surrounded by the theme ‘honor and arms’. Throughout Shakespeare’s play, Harry Percy (Hotspur) and Prince Henry are in constant competition for Henry IV’s approval for who is more honorable and chivalric. In the beginning of Shakespeare’s work, we don’t see much competition between the two because Prince Henry doesn’t have any fame in battle nor does he possess much honor hanging around thieves and criminals. However, as the story develops, we see he is a worthy competitor, vowing that he will “redeem [his honor] on Percy’s head” (III. ii. 132). The characters build their honor in different ways such as Hotspur using martial deeds to gain honor, while Prince Henry purposefully develops a bad image for himself so that he may gain honor by dramatically changing his attitude. Apart from these two examples from the text, there are many other influences during that time period that developed the concept of honor and arms. One of the main influences on honor and arms was the chivalric heritage. Medieval chivalry was a way of life and created honor through mutual understanding of standards such as the warrior’s code. This code provided standards for which warriors would be ethical and fair in battle, developing honor and shared agreement. Moreover, honor was represented in other forms such as your family name, the location you grew up in, religious affiliation, and even in the courts with the code of politics. It was these influences that developed honor within communities, families, organizations, and individuals (Hodgfon 318-334).
More opportunities to develop honor and arms came from the Elizabethan rites and the chivalric rights. As nationalism grew in England, devotion to the throne became more important than devotion to families or clans. It was honorable to support Queen Elizabeth’s sovereign image as she represented all of England. To support her image, tournaments become very popular as they were a way to pay respect to the queen, as well as show your abilities in battle. It was very ceremonial, with a high focus on appearance. Knights wore very expensive armor, that allowed them to show off their status. Furthermore, with victories came fame and glory. However, this glory did not compare to the fame and honor that was won on the battlefield in war. It was a place of chaos, violence, and bloodshed. There was a lot emphasis on war, however participation was not great. Many soldiers were recruited from prisons or forced men from churches to fight. Although, as nationalism grew, military service became more popular and more people got involved (Hodgdon 318-334).
Part 2
The theme of ‘honor and arms’ is present throughout Henry IV, but mostly shines during Act V, scene IV. Throughout the play, there is a build up of who is more honorable between Hotspur and Prince Henry. In the beginning of the play, the initial thought is Hotspur is the more honorable one and by far the better warrior as he has had fame in war, however, we quickly find out in Act I, scene II, that Henry has been faking his persona and has been hanging with thieves and criminals to taint his image so that he can surprise and impress the English people when he decides to grow up. Thus, this leads us to Act V, scene IV, where Hotspur is arguably no longer the more honorable one nor the better warrior. During this scene, Prince Henry gains his glory in battle by protecting his father from danger against Douglas. He gains even more fame and glory by killing Hotspur in a one on one dual. After killing Hotspur, Prince Henry is respectful to Hotspur saying, “fare thee well, great heart” (V. iv. 87). He continues to pay his respect by covering his face with a scarf. These standards of honor are accustomed to the warrior’s code of respecting your opponent and being ethical in battle. Moreover, Prince Henry attributes his victory to the heavens, “take thy praise with thee to heaven!”, paying respect to religion, another form of honor (V. iv. 99) (Hodgdon 318-334).
Throughout Act V, scene IV, there is another element of honor and arms, which is devotion to the throne. This is supported through Prince Henry’s actions to defend the King against Douglas. Even wounded, Prince Henry continues to fight and defend the throne. Prince Henry not only shows his devotion to the throne, but also shows his abilities to bear arms, something that his father was unsure about. Prince Henry’s actions relate the ceremonial tournaments that were performed to show devotion to the throne and fighting abilities. On the opposite spectrum are Falstaff’s actions. He shows his lack of devotion to the throne by pretending to be dead, rather than fight for the King. Falstaff gets up after Prince Henry slays Hotspur, as he is no longer in danger. He finishes off the dying Hotspur, claiming he has killed Hotspur. Not only has he dishonorable by faking his death, but he is also dishonorable by claiming he has killed Hotspur in battle. Overall, Shakespeare’s play uses honor and arms as a central theme throughout the play, however it is most visibly seen during Act V, scene IV, with the actions of Prince Henry, Hotspur, and Falstaff (Hodgdon 318-334).
Works Cited
Hodgdon, Barbara, ed. The First Part of King Henry the Fourth: Texts and Contexts. By William Shakespeare. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1997. Print.
Shakespeare, William. The First Part of King Henry the Fourth: Texts and Contexts. Ed. Barbara Hodgdon. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1997. Print.
Conor Snyder
February 7, 2018
HNL 380 WX
Henry V: English early modern views of civic order rebellion
HR: Henry V play. sparknotes of play, excepts on civic order and rebellion
Part 1
The cultural theme of civic order and rebellion plays a large role throughout Shakespeare’s play Henry V. Civic order during that period was primarily focused on keeping obedience and loyalty to the throne. Civic order was not just devotion to the king, rather it was more encompassing, centering back to God, as well as being devoted to the state of England. In Henry IV, there is this shift occurring from devotion to families to the nation; more of this nationalism is seen throughout Henry V. Although more people were devoted to the nation and the throne, there remained a lot of ambiguity of who was in power and how they got into power. Political authority was under natural law, however those in power were chosen through divine right. Thus, how a king rose to power could have led to the creation of rebellions – some saw the political authority as either a king or a tyrant (Hodgdon 169-172).
The theme of political authority resonates throughout the trilogy of Shakespeare’s plays as it begins with Henry IV gaining power through what seems to be divine right. However, some disagree and see Mortimer as the heir to throne. Ultimately, this claim to authority creates conflict and leads to rebellions. More of this claim to authority is seen in Henry V as King Henry is on a quest to take his ‘rightful’ heir in France. Moreover, the monarchs used religion as a tool for political authority, as they considered themselves ‘vice-regents of God’. This association allowed the monarchs to bring the role of God into their authority and made any disobedience to the throne not only about defying the throne, but also about defying God (Hodgdon 169-172). A great example of this is the Homily Against Disobedience and Willful Rebellion. At the time, attending church regularly was an obligation, so most of the England people attended church. This Homily was read to all churches and became very familiar to the English people. It was broken into five parts, discussing disobedience and rebellion. The first part discussed the creation of heaven and earth, and how obedience was formed. It gives explains of rebels such as Adam, who lost paradise because he was disobedient. The second part provides examples of how those in the scriptures were obedient, touching on the “good and gracious”. Of all the parts, the third part is the most direct at targeting rebellion. In this part of the Homily, they discuss how rebellion is an ‘all-encompassing’ sin, as it not only goes against the throne and England, but also against the Lord. Ultimately, the bulk of the statements in the Homily are parallels on why rebellion is viewed as one of the worst things you can commit against civic order, as well as God. This was the governments response to prevent rebellion (Hodgdon 172-179).
Part 2
The theme civic order and rebellion can be seen in multiple areas of the play Henry V; however, it is most notably seen in Act II, scene II when King Henry discovers the treason that Cambridge, Scroop, and Grey have committed. The start of this scene is crucial for setting the tone, as King Henry is discussing the fate of a drunken man who was in the wrong by speaking out against the King. The drunk man is wrong by speaking out, however the King gives him mercy because he is drunk. On the other hand, the King knows the three have committed treason and have done so willing, so he has no mercy for them. They were conscious about their decision to rebel against the King, so he places a lot of focus on intent and state of being. Furthermore, the theme of religion enters the discussion as the King shames them saying, “seem they religious?” (II. ii. 130). He later adds that “God quit you in his mercy!”, supporting part 3 of the Homily Against Disobedience and Willful Rebellion that rebellion is an all-encompassing sin, and that Cambridge, Scroop, and Grey went against the throne, put England at risk, and defied God based on the Homily (II. ii. 166).
An alternative view point of this scene goes back to the question of how Cambridge, Scroop, and Grey view King Henry. The play is ambiguous in that the audience does not know if the three viewed King Henry as a king or a tyrant. If viewed as a king, then their motives to kill King Henry for gold is without question an act of rebellion and a disobedience to the throne, England, and the church. However, if King Henry is view as a tyrant, then the attempted assassination may be act of ‘good’ to stop what some argue to be an illegitimate throne or to stop England from entering war with the French. Thus, it is important to question the view of the King, as this may have led to the three’s rebellious act (Hodgdon 169-172).
Overall, the impression the audience is most likely supposed to have is that Cambridge, Scroop, and Grey are rebels, and they have disobeyed civic order. This impression can be inferred from the fact that Shakespeare only tells us that gold was their motive and does not give us any more information to assume that King Henry was a tyrant (Hodgdon 169-172).
Works Cited
Hodgdon, Barbara, ed. The First Part of King Henry the Fourth: Texts and Contexts. By William Shakespeare. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1997. Print.
Shakespeare, William. The First Part of King Henry the Fourth: Texts and Contexts. Ed. Barbara Hodgdon. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1997. Print.
Conor Snyder
February 19, 2018
HNL 380 WX
Merchant of Venice: Early modern perspectives in England on Jews
HR: Merchant of Venice, sparknotes of play, excepts on Jews, googled usury, thesaurus.com
Part 1
In Shakespeare’s play The Merchant of Venice, religion is a significant theme that shapes the impressions of the characters in the play. One of those characters in the play is Shylock, a Jewish moneylender. Throughout the play, his character is not favorable, mostly influenced by the prejudice the English had based on his religious background. The prejudice against the Jews began during the reign of King Edward I, when he ordered thousands of Jews to be expelled from England due to a tax that Parliament implemented. This tax allowed Parliament to make revenue because the they were frequently in debt to the Jews. Adding on to the conflict was the rise of Christianity – a religion that would rival Judaism as the primary religion of the time. There was cruel treatment by Christians towards the Jews as there are accounts of mass suicides and suffering among the Jewish people. Furthermore, stories arose that the Jews kidnapped and crucified a Christian child in attempt to ridicule the religion. This is a reminder of the scripture reading of Jesus being nailed to the cross, which also characterizes the Jews as the ones responsible for the crucifixion. The drama between the religions created a feud and prejudice of the Jews; even those that converted from Judaism to Christianity were still viewed negatively and treated poorly. To add on to the bad image painted by the Christians, the Jews practiced usury, representing themselves with greed and excess amounts of money. Granted, they followed the law, as it was not illegal to have high interest rates. However, this practice of high interest rates was looked down upon, separating Jaudism and Christianity with the concept of justice vs mercy. The Jews were just in their actions of charging interest, however they lacked mercy by purposely having high interest rates to gain revenue (Kaplan 244-249).
Part 2
Throughout The Merchant of Venice, Shylock imbodies the prejudice of being a Jew, and reflects the cultural context at time where Jews were perceived in a negative fashion compared to those who were Christian. Shylock, representing the Jew, begins the play with a negative first impression as he calculates Bassanio’s interest, intending it to be high. Shylock then quickly changes his mind and tell Antonio that he wants “an equal pound of [his] fair flesh” (I. iii.141-142). On the opposite spectrum is Antonio, representing the Christian, who begins the play with his selfless act to loan Bassanio money without interest or other compensations. Thus, this clash of characters makes Shylock look even worse because the Christian is perceived to be willing to show mercy and be kind, while the Jew is perceived as unwilling to be merciful and is self-centered in his ways. We see more examples of this lack of mercy from Shylock later in the play when he is unwilling to accept double the amount Bassanio owed – he rather claim the pound of flesh. Thus, this reinforces the feud of Christianity vs Judaism with the issue of mercy vs justice. Shylock wants justice by seeking revenge by having the pound of flesh since Antonio was ridiculing him as a dog. On the other hand, Bassanio wants Shylock to be merciful and take the much better deal of having twice loan repaid during the trial scene. Consequently, the play portrays the popular views at the time as Jews were unmerciful, while Christians were upstanding and merciful (Kaplan 244-249).
Shylock takes on more the Jewish prejudice that all Jews practice usury and are obsessed with money. Shylock makes no intention to reject his practice of usury as he explicitly defends it saying, “and thrift is blessing, if men steal it not” (I. iii.81). He is conscience of his ‘just’ work and makes no effort to be merciful in his lending. His obsession with money is so bad he can’t even spend money to feed his servants. In Act I, Scene ii, Launcelot and Gobbo discuss how poorly they are treated by Shylock because he fails to take care of their necessities. Furthermore, Shylock’s daughter Jessica is upset with his obsession with money saying, “but though I am a daughter to his blood, I am not to his manners” (I. iii.17-18). This scene seals the deal because Jessica is his own daughter, and as family, she should not be pushed away by the same actions that pushed his servants away. In contrast to the merciful, kind, and fair Christian, Shylock portrays the exact cultural characteristics that the English used to judge the Jewish people through his practice of usury, obsession of money, and unmerciful behavior (Kaplan 244-249).
Works Cited
Kaplan, Lindsay, ed. The Merchant of Venice: Texts and Contexts. By William Shakespeare. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1997. Print.
Shakespeare, William. The Merchant of Venice: Texts and Contexts. Ed. Kaplan, Lindsay. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1997. Print.
Conor Snyder
March 3, 2018
HNL 380 WX
Othello: Early modern English perspectives on Venice
HR: Othello, sparknotes of play, excepts on Venice, COL Miller
Part 1
An important element throughout William Shakespeare’s plays is the various locations that they are set in and how the various locations have different meanings. He uses the city of Venice in various plays including most notably, The Merchant of Venice and Othello. The perception of Venice was that it was a great trade city, full of influences from the East and West. It was a Renaissance city, blooming with art and architecture from influences by men such as Leonardo da Vinci. As its popularity grew, stories and myths of Venice arose. Many English imagined that Venice was the place where you could “fight [your] fears and prejudices”, and a place open to strangers (Hall 234). This thought could be due to its diversity of people through commerce and is supported through Shakespeare’s characters such as Shylock in The Merchant of Venice and Othello in Othello.
Venice developed into a cosmopolitan-like society, ruled by elites under strict law. The court system was very important in Venice, which was overseen by the Venetian Senate. Fynes Moryson discussed how the senate was to “guarantee rational and wise decision making in government and virtue in the citizenry” (Hall 240). It was a place of law, filled with guile. They wanted to create a city full of wisdom and justice; however, most Venetians were sly and cunning, creating a city of contradictions. It was a place free of prejudice, yet Venetian art portrays black men as gondoliers, which was a job of a slave or a low-class citizen. Furthermore, they had a strong focus on combating violence as well as punishing those who committed adultery, yet it was common for the impatient Italians to skip the court trial and kill the men that provoked the adultery themselves. The women that were involved in the adultery were just as guilty and were killed. Most Venetian women were viewed as whores or prostitutes; however, women did get married. There was freewill in marriage, but it was strictly controlled by overprotective fathers or jealous husbands. Ultimately, Venice was a powerful and influential city, full diversity and culture – behind the curtain, Venice was full of contradictions (Hall 234-247).
Part 2
The culture and views of Venice are reflected through the characters in Othello, and it is through Othello’s interactions with these characters that he is influenced to commit the tragedy. Othello in the beginning of the play is a strong character, playing the role of a heroic general. He is a black Moor, which supports the thought of Venice being diversity and prejudice free. As the play unfolds, his interactions with the Venetian characters of Iago, Roderigo, Brabantio, Desdemona, and Cassio create a weakness in his psychological strength due to the cultural context that characterizes the Venetian people. It is through the city of contradiction (Venice) that Othello’s mind is disrupted. These contradictions can be seen through the actions of both the ‘bad’ and ‘good’ characters. Iago appears to be loyal and honest yet represents the guile of Venice. He is first seen deceiving Roderigo by convincing him that he will make Desdemona fall in love with him in return for payment saying, “fill thy purse with money” (I.III. 339-340). Roderigo, another ‘bad’ character, shows deception in act I scene II when he goes to undermine Othello and Desdemona’s marriage. Roderigo goes to Brabantio, stating that Othello used ‘magic’ to woo Desdemona to marry him. Brabantio shows the Venetian overprotectiveness as a father and is enraged saying, “Give me a taper! Call up all my people! This accident is not unlike my dream” (I.I.143-144). There is more contradiction with the views of Venice with racism from Roderigo calling Othello “a knave of the common hire, a gondolier” (I. I. 126). This references back to the Venetian painting of the black gondoliers and how they were considered low class (Hall 236-237).
The same element of contradiction is present in the ‘good’ characters. Desdemona marries Othello in the beginning of the play and stays true to him, even when he leaves for Cyprus, thus presenting a strong marriage. Through the deception of Iago, Othello starts to believe Desdemona has slept with Cassio. This is supported by the view of Venetian women, as most Venetian women were considered whores or prostitutes, making it likely that Desdemona was a whore as well. This messes with Othello’s mind and leads him to believe she is like every other Venetian woman and is a whore. Yet, this contradicts Desdemona’s character because she is very loyal to Othello, making this adultery unfitting. Furthermore, with Venice’s strict law on adultery, it would seem unlikely for Desdemona to have the intent to commit such a crime. It is also questionable as well whether Othello killed Cassio out of pure rage or due to the Venetian influence of getting revenge before the trial in court (Hall 236-237). As it appears, the Venetian characters stimulated Othello to commit the tragedy, influenced by the cultural characteristic that are attached with being a Venetian citizen.
Works Cited
Hall, Kim. Othello, the Moor of Venice: Texts and Contexts. By William Shakespeare. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007. Print.
Shakespeare, William, and Kim F. Hall. Othello, the Moor of Venice: Texts and Contexts. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007.
Conor Snyder
March 21, 2018
HNL 380 WX
Measure for Measure: Early modern perspective on marriage
HR: Measure for Measure, sparknotes of play, excepts on marriage, thesaurus.com
Part 1
The early modern perspective on marriage was that it wasn’t “merely a social institution”, but “the social institution” which others depended on. Marriage was a connection of families, sharing wealth, religion, property, and in some cases the heir to the throne (Kamps and Raber 181). Yet, marriage was complex due to the different views of what constituted a legitimate marriage. The English had common law had a code of civil practices went by certain rules to reject marriages that were based only on vows between the two parties. In English law, marriage was meant to be more than a vow between two parties. It was meant to be publicly announced so that it could be approved by the masses. Furthermore, a ceremony had to be witnessed to ensure the marriage was legal. The church had a different view on marriage compared to common civil law. Up until 1604, the church allowed secret marriages, something that was not accepted through civil law. Furthermore, marriage in Catholicism excluded secondary parties such as the public and parental consent. Catholics saw marriage as was a union between God and the marrying parties (Kamps and Raber 182-183). Similarly, the Protestant church saw marriage as a union in effort to mirror God’s love for Christ, leading to the path of righteousness (Kamps and Raber 185). This was different to the common law that had more of a public focus on marriage. Lastly, common law did not find tokens such as wedding rings or courtships to be important; yet, these practices were particularly important for the Church of England and Catholics (Kamps and Raber 184; 216-219).
Another related issue to marriage was the legitimacy of the child. English law recognized children born after marriage to be legitimate and ‘beneficial’. Those that were conceived before marriage were bastards and ‘became a burden to the state’ (Kamps and Raber 188). Bastard children were viewed as unfit for society and were most likely to become bawds, thieves, pimps, and other unfitting burdens. This view is contradictory to norm that Martin Ingram reports, saying at least one fifth of all brides in early modern England gave birth to a child by the time they got married in the church. It was usual for couples to have sexual intercourse before marriage, particularly if they planned on marrying each other. Thus, it is shocking that so many had sexual intercourse before marriage despite its negative connotations. These practices don’t follow church or state laws in regard to marriage, but were influential as they were a common practice of the time (Kamps and Raber 182-194).
Part 2
William Shakespeare uses the couple Claudio and Juliet to present the problem of English law on marriage in his play Measure for Measure. The audience is introduced to the issue in Act I, scene II, when Pompey announces that Claudio is being sent to jail for impregnating Juliet before marriage, or “groping for trouts in a peculiar river” as Pompey puts it (I. II. 72). It is understood that from the cultural context that sexual intercourse before marriage is unlawful and unaccepted, thus putting Claudio and Juliet in the wrong. The couple’s circumstances are unique in the play as they are seeking approval for marriage, yet Claudio is still punished and is sentenced to death, even though he appears to be trying to follow common law. This decision put in question whether the law is just or not.
Claudio notes in Act I, scene II, that Juliet is to be his wife, but the dowry is not yet received.
Thus stands it with me: upon a true contract
I got possession of Julietta’s bed.
You know the lady. She is fast my wife,
Save that we do the denunciation lack
Of outward order (I. II. 118-123).
Since the dowry would make the marriage officially legal based on the law of Vienna, the couple are obligated to get approval from Juliet’s relatives. The Vienna law is very similar to the law in England, where both parties must have approval from the parents or masses. Claudio states “from whom we thought it meet to hide our love till time had made them for us”, explaining that they have not yet publicly announced their marriage, but they are attempting to announce it (I. II. 125-126). Shakespeare exploits this issue of legality and uses Lord Angelo to act as the law and punishes Claudio for fornication because they are unofficially married. It seems as if Shakespeare is unfavorable of the law and is using the play to exploit that this is an issue within English law. He challenges the law, making the audience decide whether Claudio’s punishment is just or unjust. My interpretation is that is unjust because Claudio was not committing any rash crimes such as adultery or rape, as well as the play shapes the couple to be healthy and in love. The couple were having sexual intercourse before marriage, a common practice during that time as Martin Ingram reported (Kamps and Raber 189). Some may criticize their decision to have sexual intercourse because it resulted in Juliet’s pregnancy. Yet, her pregnancy was not unusual as one in five women had a child before they were married in the church (Kamps and Raber 189).
Measure for Measure challenges the views of the audience through the couple Claudio and Juliet, and questions what is right and what is wrong with the law of marriage in early modern England. It was against the English law for them to have sexual intercourse, but was it a crime even though they wanted to marry? They didn’t have approval from the public to marry because Juliet didn’t have the dowry, but does this make them unfit to marry? Furthermore, Juliet’s pregnancy was looked down upon, but was it really that uncommon? These questions are what Shakespeare elicits to challenge the audience to rethink their views on marriage. Lastly, Shakespeare uses the end of play with everyone getting married to encourage the audience to think about marriage. Some marriages in the end of the play appear to be unhappy such as Angelo’s marriage, while others appear to be happy such as Lucio’s marriage. Overall, I believe Shakespeare is sending a message to the audience that marriage is something rewarding and worth pursuing.
Works Cited
Kamps, Ivo, and Raber, Karen. Measure for Measure: Texts and Contexts. By William Shakespeare. Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
Shakespeare, William, Kamps, Ivo, and Raber, Karen. Measure for Measure: Texts and Contexts. Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
Conor Snyder
April 24, 2018
HNL 380 WX
Hamlet: Early modern attitudes toward ghosts
HR: Hamlet, sparknotes of play, excepts from 157-171, thesaurus.com
Part 1
During the early modern period, the attitudes toward the spirits were split into believer and non-believer. William Shakespeare challenges the audience’s view of spirits and questions whether they are real or acts of our imagination through his play Hamlet. Weather these spirits are real or not, they have continually influenced culture and religion. Joseph Hall argues that spirits exist and that these spirts of good and evil are everywhere. Hall discusses that the evil spirits are around to provoke sin and evil through terror and mischief. In contrast, the good spirits or angels as they are referred, are in place to fight temptation, comfort us in our sorrows, and to promote acts of good such as kindness and love. Hall sums up the spirit world as a manifestation of intense emotional moments of fear or joy. He makes his final point, discussing that spirits can take on whatever form they desire. These forms differ in good and evil such as evil “[putting] themselves into the forms of deformed men or of harmful and filthy beasts” (Jordan 159-160).
Another argument is Ludwig Lavater who states spirits are imaginations of a “sick brain”. Yet, he opposes his thought with the curiosity that spirits could be the dead coming from purgatory and wandering the earth to thank the living for the restitution of their sins. He notes that spirits and strange things do sometimes occur, however most men falsely persuade themselves that they have seen something due to the influence of their depression, madness, or fear (Jordan 160-165). George Gifford discusses the nature of the devil and Satan’s relation to the spirit world. He discusses his origin as disobeying God through sin and being cast down from Heaven. Gifford goes on to discuss that the devil targets those fill with anger or those that seek vengeance. He notes that having faith in God will allow us to resist temptation and fight against Satan (Jordan 165-168).
Ultimately, the early modern attitudes toward spirits was divided. Some thought of spirits as a figure of one’s imagination, while others thought of spirits as good or evil messengers from Heaven, purgatory, or hell, coming to influence our lives. These attitudes have not changed much to today’s attitude on spirits. Many are still torn between the thought that spirits are real or not. Some have stated they have seen spirits, while others remain skeptical. Until evidence presents itself, this will continue to be an ongoing debate.
Part 2
The role of spirits within Hamlet offers an interesting element in the plot as the audience is unsure whether Hamlet has gone mad and is seeing phantasms of his imagination, or that the spirit he encounters is real, and he is sane. In Act I, scene i, the ghost of King Hamlet appears to the guards and Horatio to request his son. Later, in Act I, scene iv, Hamlet sees the ghost of his father. These instances portray Hamlet as sane because the guards and Horatio have seen the ghost. Although Hamlet was in a grieving state with the loss of his father, the account that multiple people seeing the ghost defies Ludwig Lavater’s statement that those who see spirits are “emanations of a sick brain” (Jordan 158). However, in Act III, scene iv, Hamlet is the only character that can see the ghost as his mother remarks “nothing at all, yet that is I see” (III. iv. 133). The appearance of the ghost comes after Hamlet has previously thought about suicide in Act III, scene i, and has recently killed Polonius. These thoughts and actions provoke that Hamlet has gone mad, in which Lavater’s statement would hold true that the apparition was seen out of madness.
The play touches on another element on spirits, which is what type of spirit Hamlet has encountered. During the play, Hamlet is in an emotionally intense state. This emotionally intense state is when spirits would appear as Joseph Hall argues (Jordan 159). Hamlet’s state of depression and anger is his emotional intense state and would most likely be a target for evil spirits, since the devil targets those who are in a state of anger and weakness (Jordan 167). It is thought that the ghost is evil because George Gifford notes that the devil can appear in human form to mislead and corrupt, which would support Hall’s statement that spirits may take on different forms (Jordan 160-165). The ghost being an evil spirit is supported by Hamlet’s cry to the Angels saying, “Angels and ministers of grace defend us!”, due to Angels having the power to defend against evil (I. iv. 39; Jordan 168). However, due to the truth that the ghost of King Hamlet speaks regarding his death, it is most likely that King Hamlet’s ghost is a good spirit. His spirit does not seek out revenge, rather he seeks justice.
Overall, the ghost of King Hamlet adds another dimension to Hamlet’s character to make the audience to ponder whether he is sane or insane. Furthermore, the ghost raises the question of good versus evil in the form of revenge or justice. Finally, Shakespeare’s use of the ghost develops the discussion whether spirits are real or a figure of our imagination, a common debate during the early modern period.
Works Cited
Shakespeare, William. William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Ed. Longman, Pearson. 2004. Print.
Jordan, Constance, ed. William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. By William Shakespeare. Longman, Pearson. 2004. Print.
Conor Snyder
HNL 380WX
April 28, 2018
Help Received: COL. Miller, in class workshop, cadet Schmitt and cadet Johnson helped with ideas and thoughts, SparkNotes, theasurus.com, literature cited.
The Changing Views of Honor in Henry Part I
One of the central concepts in the Elizabethan era was the role of honor. As Leonard Dacre notes, “better to die in honour than live with shame” (James 342). Although concepts of honor were widespread in England, the view of honor was changing. This change involved a shift of loyalty from family to the nation. Shakespeare often uses his plays to commentate on the culture of time, specifically in this case the view of honor. In King Henry the fourth part I, Shakespeare uses the characters Hotspur, Prince Harry, and Falstaff to reflect this evolving view of honor as it pertains to the culture of the time.
In the Elizabethan culture, there were two contrasting views of honor: honor associated to family and honor associated to nation. The older ideology, honor associated with family, was developed in the northern culture and was rooted in the strength of family through the warrior culture. Shaped from religion, nobility and chivalry, the warrior culture achieved honor and glory through victories in battle and conquering land. The family that was the strongest in the region was the family that held the power. With different families controlling different regions in England, division among the English people became an issue to the Crown (James 270-272; Hodgdon 319-320). The Crown wanted the English people to be unified and loyal to the Crown; however, as ties to family became closer, loyalty to the Crown became a conflicting issue. Being loyal to the Crown meant loyalty to the Crown was more important than loyalty to the family. This ultimately created a conflict of interest between family and nation. In the north, loyalty to family was everything as Mervyn James notes, “[the] lineage world was to be defended to the death” (James 276-277). Many northern people were upset with this conflict between family and the nation and rebelled in return. One historical example of the northern culture is the Earl of Essex. He is a primary example of this culture as he frequently disobeyed Queen Elizabeth’s orders and “established feudal bonds of loyalty that encroached on the allegiance due to the Crown” in effort to make himself more powerful than the Crown (Hodgdon 320). This ideology may have been acceptable in the past when England was under a feudal system but was unacceptable during the new monarch of the Elizabethan era.
The new ideology, honor associated with the nation, was established in the courts of London by Queen Elizabeth during a time when England was divided by the older ideology of honor associated with family. Queen Elizabeth’s goal was to revise the outdated ideology and establish unity within England (Hodgdon 318-322). To bridge this gap, she held tilts where men could come fight for their family’s honor and glory, while still honoring the nation through their professionalism and pageantry. The tilts became increasingly successful and later developed into more of a ceremonial practice, focusing less on combat and more on appearance. The men involved in these tilts used special garments and decorative armor to honor both the Queen’s sovereign image as well as honor their family (Hodgdon 321-326). Richard McCoy described the tilts as “a socially sanctioned and carefully regulated release of aggressive energies” (McCoy 20-26). Ultimately, these tilts were a way to honor the older ideology of family, while embracing the newer ideology that focused on nationalism.
The evolution of honor from family to nation brought about changes – not only the focus from family to nation, but to the development of humanistic values and character. Those that associated honor with family lacked certain humanistic values that were developed in those that associated honor with the nation. Since honor was passed down from kin to kin, honor associated with family was never developed because one was born with honor (Hodgdon 319-320). Their view on honor was selfish and entitled, as they grew up believing they deserved honor based on their name (Hodgdon 334-335). However, honor associated with the nation was different as honor was earned in a legitimate fashion as Phyllis Rackins describes (Rackins 77-78). Honor was developed by embodying the characteristics of obedience, professionalism, loyalty, and honesty. These characteristics were also the core values of the knighthood. The knights, men of “good behavior” as Sir William Segar notes, followed the manuals of honor, which established the guidelines and courtesies for combat (Hodgdon 335). These guidelines were not only established for knights, but for all other men involved in combat. In a place of chaos, violence, and bloodshed, guidelines were needed for men to fight honorably as the battlefield was the “supreme arena for winning honor and lasting fame” (Hodgdon 326). The battlefield demanded courage as it was a gruesome and frightful place. Thus, valor played an important role in the manuals of honor as it separated honorable men from fearful men. Although most men followed these guidelines in combat, there were expectations. Some men showed cowardice, treason and disobedience in combat to include leaving ranks or faking an illness (Hodgdon 335-338). These infractions of the manuals of honor separated those who were honor and those who dishonorable.
Shakespeare embraces the cultural shift of the Elizabethan era through his play King Henry the fourth part I. Specifically, his play touches on the central theme of honor and its evolution from family to nation. With the use of Shakespeare’s characters Hotspur, Hal, and Falstaff, Shakespeare is able to convey this changing view on honor.
The conflict between the Percy family and King Henry is the cultural representation of the honor associated with family in King Henry the fourth part I. The Percy family represents the view of honor associated with family due to their northern roots, their commitment to the warrior’s code, and their disagreement with the throne when King Henry fails to repay the Percy family for their previous help. Shakespeare promotes this expression of honor associated with family through the actions of the main character Harry Percy (Hotspur). His character throughout the play is represented as a strong leader, who in the eyes of several people, is viewed as honorable. King Henry describes Hotspur as “a son who is the theme of honor’s tongue” (I. i. 80). Most of Hotspur’s honor can be attributed to his family name; however, a great deal of his honor comes from his victories and glory won on the battlefield:
“Hotspur took Mordake, the Earl of Fife and eldest son
To beaten Douglas, and the Earl of Athol,
Of Murray, Angus, and Menteith.
And is not this an honorable spoil?
A gallant prize? Ha, cousin, is it not?” (I. i. 70-75).
Hotspur’s character can also be defined being ambitious, especially in his desire to be honorable. Hotspurs ongoing quest for honor and glory, “to pluck bright honor from the pale-faced moon”, represents not only his confidence and cockiness, but also his downfall (I. iii. 202-203). He later makes an unwise decision to fight King Henry, leading to his death. His motive throughout the play is far too focused on achieving honor that he ends up dying in a selfish act for personal gain. For him to put his family over the nation is not only selfish, but an act of treason against England.
Shakespeare uses King Henry and the royal family to represent the view of honor associated with nation. The royal family represents the point of authority with Prince Henry (Hal) as the main representative of honor associated with nation. There is a quite a difference in the way Shakespeare develops Hal’s character and Hotspur’s character, and he does this to show the distinction of the two as they represent different types of honor. The audience’s first perception of Hal is the beginning of the play when King Henry refers to the image of his son saying “riot and dishonor stain the brow of my young Harry” (I. i. 84-85). Contrary to Hotspur, Hal is inexperienced in battle and lacks any fame in this area. As the play progresses, the audience learns more about Hal and how he surrounds himself with low-class friends who are either thieves or drunks. These actions give Hal a tainted image of being immature and unfit for the throne. However, in Act I, scene ii, Hal reveals that he faked his identity in attempt to fool the English people to think poorly of him so that when the time is right, he can surprise everyone’s expectations.
“My reformation, glittering o’er my fault,
Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes” (I. ii. 166-167)
As the play progresses, Hal matures and starts to develop his honor. His transformation is most notably noticed near the end of the play where his heroism and professionalism are apparent on the battlefield. Hal’s ability to develop and mature allows him to earn his true honor, in contrast to Hotspur who has earned his honor in an illegitimate fashion through his family. Shakespeare uses Hal’s development as an example of true honor, as it was developed through service to the nation and learned characteristics, rather than given by birth. Even in Henry V, Shakespeare mentions this change with the Bishop of Canterbury saying, “the course of his youth promised it not… never such a sudden scholar made” (I. i. 25;33). Ultimately, there is a transformation of Hal’s character that shapes the view of honor associated with the nation.
Shakespeare’s use of Falstaff in King Henry the fourth part I adds another layer to the view of honor. Falstaff’s character defies every motion of honor as he does not believe in honor.
“What is honor? A word. What is in that word “honor”? What is that “honor”?
Air. A trim reckoning. Who hath it? He that died o’ Wednesday. Doth he feel it?
No. Doth he hear it? No. ‘Tis insensible, then? Yea, to the dead. But will it not l
ive with the living? No. Why? De-traction will not suffer it. Therefore, I’ll none
of it. Honor is a mere scutcheon” (V. i. 132-137).
Falstaff’s act of dishonesty in Act IV, scene ii, when he discusses how he took multiple bribes from the wealthy people to not fight is a clear example of his lack of honor. Furthermore, he continues his treachery by targeting the poor because they are unable to afford his bribe. Not only is he focused on his own wealth, but he is selecting weak soldiers to defend the Crown. Falstaff is again dishonorable in in Act V, scene iv, when he cowardly fakes his death in battle. Later in scene iv, when Hal fights Hotspur and severely stabs him, Falstaff quickly gets up and stabs Hotspur in the leg right before death. Falstaff then grabs Hotspur’s body in an uncourteous fashion, to which he claims he has killed Hotspur so that the King will honor him as “either earl or duke” (V. iv. 136). His character represents a negative side of honor, as lack thereof. Thus, Shakespeare uses Falstaff’s lack of honor to show that not all are men has honor in England. Moreover, he uses this opportunity to strengthen the role the honor, as it is central not only to the play, but to England.
Through the characters Hotspur, Hal, and Falstaff, Shakespeare reflects the evolving view of honor. From the old ideology of honor associated with family to a newer ideology of honor associated with the nation, King Henry the fourth part I reflects the shift of honor in England. Not only does Shakespeare reflect this view of honor, but he preferences Hal to reinforce the new concept of honor. He uses his play as an opportunity to emphasize this nationalistic view on honor in effort to the shape the Elizabethan culture. Overall, Shakespeare’s play King Henry the fourth part I reflects the changing views of honor in England, while attempting to shape the culture of the Elizabethan era through his preference of honor associated to the nation.
Literature Cited
Hodgdon, Barbara, ed. The First Part of King Henry the Fourth: Texts and Contexts. By William Shakespeare. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1997. Print.
James, Mervyn. Society, Politics and Culture: Studies in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1986.
McCoy, Richard C. The Rites of Knighthood: The Literature and Politics of Elizabethan Chivalry. Berkeley: U of California P, 1989.
Rackin, Phyllis. “Foreign Country: The Place of Women and Sexuality in Shakespeare’s Historical World.” Enclosure Acts: Sexuality, Property, and Culture in Early Modern England. Ed. Richard Burt and John Michael Archer. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1994. 68-95.
Shakespeare, William. The First Part of King Henry the Fourth: Texts and Contexts. Ed.
Barbara Hodgdon. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1997.
Shakespeare, William. King Henry V. Ed. Claire McEachern. The Pelican Shakespeare Series.
Penguin, 1999.
Strong, Roy. The Cult of Elizabeth: Elizabethan Portraiture and Pageantry. Berkeley: U of California P, 1977.
Reflective Tag
This research assignment on Shakespeare’s play King Henry the fourth part I has allowed me to explore areas of honor within the play that I would have no otherwise notice. Until this research, I never knew that there was such a split on the view of honor in England. I find it particularly interesting that Queen Elizabeth used tilts to bridge the gap between the two views of honor. I had always thought tilts were just for sport, but now I understand they had a deeper meaning. As for my perception of the play, I have grown to like Hal more for this growth and development throughout the play and have grown to dislike Falstaff merely for lack of honor and guile. To apply Shakespeare’s work to the real world, I would say I developed a deeper appreciation for honor. I believe it is important to be honorable; not only at VMI where our honor system is strict, but in every facet of life. People trust and depend on honorable people. As I go into my future career as a dentist, I want people to trust and depend on me and to know me as a person of true honor.