Henry IV Flashcards
Thesis
Positioned as a political dialogue in response of the Elizabethan era’s anxieties over the future of succession, Shakespeare imparts responders with reflections on changing modes of monarchy and honour insofar declaring a necessity for their transformation in new framings if to survive in diverse shifting landscapes
Monarchy
In response to dominant Elizabethan anxieties over the state of monarchy as dominating the collective spiritual consciousness of a theocratic 15th century England, Shakespeare imparts the necessity to abandon modes of monarchy’s spiritual control and transform society into secular individualism. The Tudor myth’s retribution of Providence against blasphemous individuals wanting to rebel against the contextual theocratic monarchy is satirically enunciated by Shakespeare through form the pathetic fallacy of England following the illegitimate usurpation of power by Henry IV from Richard. Invoked in spiritual pain by perversion of the purity of kingship, the “frighted” English earth is “sucking her own children’s blood”, framed by once unified English men under Richard’s crown as engaging in “butchery” following the appointing of Henry IV to kingship. The visceral image of an “shaken” England’s sufferings depending on monarchy for spiritual consciousness and thus facing divine punishment for a crime they did not commit guilts Henry IV, who’s self-reference in “we” indicates his struggles to mediate the “trenching wars” and “bruise[d] flowerets”. While not directly responsible for Richard’s murder, Henry’s title is seen by the Percy family as the “too indirect for long continuance”, suggesting that he is in possession of a borrowed title and furthermore a “cankered Bolingbroke” in the metaphorical skin of England’s political and spiritual landscape. This penultimate violence brought to a head by illegitimate assuming of the guise of purified monarchy by Henry seems to be satiricized when he dresses soldiers “in his coats” to confuse the enemy at Shrewsbury, imparting responders with the thematic fabric of monarchy as so thin it can be utilised as a guise to exploit others – witnessing Henry arrive, Douglas “fear[s] [Henry] art another counterfeit, and yet, in faith, thou bearest thee like a king”, a statement that espouses the hollowness of Henry as a king in context of his deposal of Richard. In the inherent corruption of monarchy as theocratically dominating spiritual consciousness, Shakespeare imparts the necessity to abandon virtuous modes of aligning with monarchy and transform society.
Honour I: Hal and Henry
Positioning the mode of honour as a virtuous spiritual ideal against complex political landscapes, Shakespeare subverts and exposes the mode of honour as a secular vehicle for various ideological means to an end. This discourse is prefaced by Hal’s soliloquy, serving as the narrative’s abstract on the “contagious clouds” permeating theocratic Elizabethan order as “frighted” by Henry IV’s theft of “courtesy from heaven” in illegitimate deposal of Richard II, presenting contextually relevant struggles between relying on inherently corrupt views of honour as a virtuous ideal “imitated” by theocracy’s “sun” and views of honour as shaped by the free wills of Humanism, who utilise honour as a tool for different dynamics. The monarchy of Henry IV, including the “heir-apparent” Henry V, ultimately view honour as a Machiavellian tool for political manipulation as opposed to virtuously naïve beliefs in glory that must be cast as a façade to adeptly obfuscate true motives and act “when men think least [he] will”; to enable the guise in which to operate, façades of a rite of passage into the honour of power are cast by Hal, who passionately swears to “scour his name” with a “garment of blood” to redeem his honour as a person of nobility in imagery that highlights religious allegory of baptismal purification as juxtaposed with the symbol of blood to allow Shakespeare to comment on the nobility’s corruption.
Honour II: Falstaff and Hotspur
In this framing of honour “as to a part to which a player may aspire, rather than an identity with which [they are] divinely endowed” (Boyd), Shakespeare further buttresses a Humanist reading of honour which rebels against the hierarchy such as Falstaff expose as an empty ideal which misleads soldiers to pointless death. Falstaff’s cynical disdain towards honour’s hollowness arises from the fact that it has no palpable use after death, denouncing it as a “mere scutcheon” that possesses neither sense nor substance. This explicit connection between honour and death implies that it is a decorative device used at funerals. Shakespeare insinuates that men, in order to be remembered throughout history, must ultimately be killed during battle in order to achieve both glory and fame, depriving themselves of life’s unlimited gifts. He continues to belittle honour by deriding it as a mere “word”, suggesting that language is skilfully used to obfuscate the brutal reality of war, and to manipulate the population into committing terrible atrocities for the gain of a seemingly altruistic quality. Thus, Shakespeare conveys that such materialistic ideals delude men to willingly go to war, and that honour can never be attained due to its paradoxical nature. This discourse is portrayed through the establishing of the “infant warrior” Hotspur as being an aggressive caricature of the “theme of honour’s tongue” and further framing him as “amongst a grove the very straightest plant”. Lady Percy criticizes this irresponsible obsession with leadership in a monologue that exposes “the spirit within [Hotspur] so at war, and thus has stirred thee in thy sleep” reflecting how he is haunted by the same warfare that rewards him with accolades. Furthermore, Hotspur’s insistence on changing the course of the river and increasing his share of land, “methinks (..) in quantity equals not one of yours”, serves as a metonym for how the rebelling force seeks to disunify England to irresponsibly suit their own personal motives.
