34 Henry IV, Part One

Dr. Gargi Talapatra

General Introduction

In this chapter, we shall focus upon the text, the context and the critical evaluation of the first part of Henry IV by William Shakespeare. Beginning with a quick recapitulation of Shakespeare’s life and times, the chapter shall examine the social and political contexts which led to this play. It shall also attempt a brief analysis of the audience reception towards this play and the manner in which the line of demarcation between history and literature gets obliterated in the process of writing a history play.

William Shakespeare – a brief biography

William Shakespeare was born on 23 April 1564 to John and Mary Shakespeare at Stratford-upon-Avon. He went to King’s New School, a local grammar school, and is said to have left formal education at the age of fifteen or sixteen. Nothing much is known about his life from 1585 to 1590s and these years are hence termed “the lost years”. His emergence as a playwright took place during the 1590s and by 1598, Shakespeare was renowned for writing tragedy, comedy and history plays, besides poetry. He flourished as a playwright through the Elizabethan and Jacobean ages, and died in 1616. The first anthology of his works, known as the first folio, was published posthumously, in 1623.

The text and context

Henry IV is a five act history play by Shakespeare tracing the rule of King Henry IV, the tumultuous social picture of England during his rule, the political unrest, and finally the Battle of Shrewsbury in 1402-03. Shakespeare relied on Holinshed Chronicles for his historical source, as for most of his other history plays. First performed in 1597, this play was written during the regime of Elizabeth I, and the first part seeks to trace the gradual evolution of Henry V as the ideal successor of Henry IV. Since English theatre reached the peak of popularity during the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras and drama was the accepted form of popular entertainment, one may not be incorrect in reading this play as an effort to establish the glory of the Tudor dynasty which, by this time, had already continued a rule of more than a century, and during which time England came to assert its existence as a powerful nation, especially with the rise of colonialism.

The main characters

The story

A play in five acts, the first scene of Henry IV, Part I begins with a conversation between the King, Westmoreland and Sir Walter Blunt in the palace. The King begins his dialogue with an acknowledgement of the disturbances which threaten the throne after Richard II, and which continue to pose a constant danger to the monarchy. He proposes to join the Holy Crusades against the Islamic people to reclaim the Holy Land: “…Therefore, friends,/ As far as to the sepulchre of Christ, – / Whose soldier now, under whose blessed cross/ We are impressed and engaged to fight, -/ Forthwith a power of English shall we levy”. His proposal, however, is interrupted by the news of raging rebels who continue to grow increasingly hostile towards the King and his throne, especially Thomas Percy, with whose help Henry IV had acquired the rule of England by disposing Richard II.

In the same scene, he is informed by Westmoreland about the battle between Harry Percy (Hotspur) and a large army of Scots, which the former has won. He, however, has refused to hand over the war captives to the King except one, which is a direct violation of war conventions, whereby the King has the first claim to the captives of war. After the King’s articulation of the state of unrest prevailing in England, this dialogue foregrounds the latent tension within the nation and makes it the main subject of the entire play hereafter. The scene ends with the King comparing the achievements of Hotspur with his son Prince Henry (Hal) who indulges in merrymaking with a group of common people headed by the Sir John Falstaff and shows no sense of responsibility towards his royal lineage.

In the second scene of the same act, based in a tavern, the audience get the first glimpse of Hal planning a highway robbery with Sir John Falstaff and Pointz. In the concluding soliloquy of the scene, Hal states the reason behind opting for the lifestyle he has chosen for himself: “By so much shall I falsify men’s hopes; And, like bright metal on a sullen ground, / My reformation glittering o’er my fault,/ Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes/ Than that which it hath no foil to set it off”. The first act concludes with a scene based in the palace again where Hotspur displays outright insolence towards the King and leaves with the declaration of a war.

The second act comprises four scenes – three based on the humorous subplot of the highway robbery planned by Hal and Sir John Falstaff, as Hal and Pointz play a practical joke upon Falstaff. As a contrast against the first act which culminates in the anticipation of a war, the second act, through the misadventures and jokes of John Falstaff and his witty conversation with Hal as a rehearsal for what the latter shall say to the King when asked about his misdeeds, ushers in a note of comic relief. The scene, however, concludes as Hal assumes his responsibility as a prince and declares “I’ll to the court in the morning. We must all to the wars…”

Act three comprises three scenes and is instrumental in the reshaping of the character of Hal. The first scene is based in the rebels’ camp as they strategize their moves in the upcoming war and leave for the battlefield. The second scene portrays the vital meeting between the King and Hal. King Henry IV reprimands his son for indulging in such low company and base deeds which do not become his royal blood. He says: “Could such inordinate and low desires, / Such poor, such base, such lewd, such mean attempts, / Such barren pleasures, rude society, / As thou art matched withal and grafted to, / Accompany the greatness of thy blood, And hold their level with thy princely heart?” In response to this, Hal assures his father, “I will redeem all this on Percy’s head”. He assures the King that he will defeat Hotspur in the battle and establish his own worth in the eyes of his father and his countrymen. The concluding scene of this act is based in the tavern where John Falstaff is holding a conversation with the hostess. Hal enters the scene as a transformed individual and declares his intention of joining the war to Falstaff and Pointz. The act concludes with Hal strategizing his own moves in the war and his inclusion of John Falstaff in the same.

The last two acts of the play are based in the battlefield at Shrewsbury, as both the camps plan and execute their share in the battle. In these two acts, the dramatic tension is built by the playwright through the continuous portrayal of the two camps and their strategies, while humour is also brought in by the deeds of Sir John Falstaff, who refuses to change his behavioural pattern – whether in the tavern or the battlefield. Contrasted against the valour of the other soldiers and nobles, Falstaff continues the comic element in the history play despite the grave subject matter it deals with.

In the fifth act, Hal is established in front of the audience as a worthy claimant of the English throne through his heroic deeds and slaying of Hotspur in a single combat. He saves King Henry in the second scene, thereby earning his father’s approval and displaying in himself that ideal related to the royal blood which formed the foundation of the honour of the King. The play concludes with a further consolidation of the royal virtues in Hal, as after the news of victory, he commands that Archibald should be set free without any ransom despite being a prisoner of the war, and moves on to raise a new war against Owen Glendower and the other rebels – which King Henry IV, Part II would deal with.

each his own image in him – his own depth, his own individual experience, his own Shakespeare. His very objectivity appeals strongly to our subjectivity… The whole of Shakespeare is a mirror – even as Nature is a mirror”. This is perhaps the key statement of appreciation towards William Shakespeare. Even in his handling of national history, he does not leave out the commoners. His canvas is all inclusive – incorporating people of all kinds from various walks of life in order to create a totality which lends the character to his plays.

In Henry IV, Part I, Shakespeare, while representing the national history of a specific tim,e period and adhering to political facts, does not abandon the tradition of continuity established by the early Elizabethan drama. In his representation of Prince Henry (Hal) as a character gradually transformed in the course of the play, he follows the popular Elizabethan theme of the prodigal son, who later comes to assume his responsibility. On the other hand, through the dialogue uttered by Hal in the second act (cited above), Shakespeare recreates on the stage the motif of the Machiavellian ruler – much familiar to the contemporary audience.

The plot of the play, right from the first act seeks to establish a contrast between the characters of Hotspur and Hal, beginning with the King’s own comparison of the two young men and even wishing that the valiant former one were his son instead of the frivolous latter. In the course of the play, Hotspur is set off as a foil to the character of Hal, who finally establishes himself as the rightful claimant of the English throne through his capability to think, plan, execute and handle, set against the impulsive and rash behaviour of Hotspur.

In fact, it is Hal and the multiple shades of his character, which form the main content of the play. Whether in his adventures with Falstaff and Pointz, or his vow to prove his worth in front of the King or his final combat with Hotspur, Hal stands apart from the other characters in his ability to rule and take control of people and circumstances. He embodies the qualities of an ideal prince – the one to be loved and feared. His ability to weigh and judge situations reflects his intelligence and maturity. He forms the single link between the main plot and the subplot based in the tavern, and finally unites the two.

Another important creation of Shakespeare in this play is the character of Sir John Falstaff. Old, lazy and dishonest, Falstaff is nonetheless a man who appreciates life. He commits robbery for money as well as entertainment. Despite the flaws in his character, he remains one of the most memorable comic characters created by Shakespeare, often compared to Sir Toby in Twelfth Night. What makes him memorable is his expertise with words. The scenes at the tavern and his conversations with Hal display a wit which enables the entertainment through verbal exchange to attain a level higher than mere farce.

Falstaff’s wit is perhaps best seen in Act II, Scene iv, where he talks to Hal, feigning the King and demanding the latter to justify his priorities over the court and his duties towards his country. In the course of this conversation, Falstaff, posing as the King, finally asks Hal to abandon all his company except Sir John Falstaff. This is how he describes himself – “A good portly man, i’ faith, and a corpulent; of a cheerful look, a pleasing eye, and a most noble carriage; and, as I think, his age some fifty, or, by’r lady, inclining to three-score; and now I remember me, his name is Falstaff: if that man should be lewdly given, he deceiveth me; for, Harry, I see virtue in his looks. If, then, the tree be known by the fruit, as the fruit by the tree, then, peremptorily I speak it, there is virtue in that Falstaff: him keep with, the rest banish”. It is Falstaff’s wit and humour which arouses laughter even in the last scene at the battlefield, when he stabs the already dead Hotspur in order to create a heroic image of himself. It is the

Analysis

Henry IV Part I, one of the earliest history plays by Shakespeare, upholds the capability of the master playwright to blend into his plot elements of the serious as well as the trivial. In his book entitled Airy Nothings, Armando Menezes writes of Shakespeare: “All men find blend of intellect and emotion in the humour of Falstaff which immortalizes him as a comic character even in the pages of a history play.

Allardyce Nicoll sums up the character of Sir John Falstaff thus: Falstaff is a braggart, perhaps a coward, certainly a disreputable old sinner, yet there is hardly anyone who does not feel for him and sympathize with him. If we regard him in the cold light of reason we are bound to shun and to condemn him; but no audience could ever regard Falstaff in the cold light of reason because of this intangible sympathy which Shakespeare has transfused into his pages. The humour of the man is so broad; he, like, the characters of the purely romantic comedies, can laught not only at others, but at himself. His intellect is so acute, his sense of fun so highly developed, that we cannot but take him to our hearts”.

Audience reception and adaptations

Henry IV Part I forms one of the plays of the tetralogy based on the English history by Shakespeare – Richard II, Henry IV (Parts I and II) and Henry V. The play celebrates the rise of the house of Lancasters in England. Part II was received well by the contemporary audience and is said to be the most popular printed text of Shakespeare – the first quarto version being printed as early as 1598. A major controversy related to the play is the Oldcastle controversy because initially Falstaff was named Oldcastle, based on John Oldcastle, a Protestant martyr of England. The name was, therefore, later changed to Falstaff.

A history of the staging of Henry IV Part I, strangely, shows an emphasis on the character of Hotspur, while little attention was paid to Hal in the initial years. Even as late as 18th century, the performance history seems to focus on Hotspur, with actors like David Garrick focusing upon him instead of Hal. It is only in the 20th century that the potential inherent in the character of Hal comes to be read in a new light reflecting the actual social picture of the Elizabethan age. Several versions of the play were also made into films in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

Conclusion

Though history and literature form two distinct academic disciplines, it is in their intersection through which the original picture of an entire age is documented. In Henry IV, Part I, Shakespeare provides an excellent example of this blend. This is perhaps the reason why literature based on history is now considered to form archives of alternative histories by the academicians. Alluding to the historical reign of Henry IV and the battle of Shrewsbury, Shakespeare in this play creates characters who outlive the boundaries of space and time to which history is confined. Through a proper utilization of the social scenario and accepted theatrical norms of the age, he portrays the real social picture of Elizabethan England. This is perhaps the reason why the play still lives to be reinterpreted from various angles and re-explored by critics and film makers, even in the 21st century.

Reference

1. Boris Ford ed. The New Pelican Guide to English Literature, Volume I: Medieval
2. Literature. England: Penguin Books, 1984.
3. Carter, Ronald and John McRae. The Routledge History of Literature in English. New York: Routledge, 2009.
4. Menezes, Armando. Airy Nothings: Essays in Literary Criticism. Dharwar: Karnatak University, 1978.
5. Nicoll, Allardyce. British Drama. London: Goerge G Harrap & Co. Ltd, 1927.
6. Poplawski, Paul. English Literature in Context. India: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
7. Sampson, George. The Concise Cambridge History of English Literature. New Delhi: Foundation Books, 2001.
8. Trevelyan, G.M. English Social History. India: Orient Longman Limited, 2001.
9. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions Ltd., 1996.