Mike Coppolino
9/914
ERH 321 WX
Help Received: attached
Short Assignment on 1 Henry IV
When reading William Shakespeare’s Henry IV part 1, there are many
cultural concepts scattered throughout the play that help paint a picture of what life
in the 16th century was truly like. Barbara Hodgdon elaborates on the actual culture
of this era and allows the ability to compare and contrast the beliefs of that time
period to those in Shakespeare’s play. Of all the concepts present in Hodgdon’s
writing that could be compared to Henry IV part 1, two of the most pertinent and
abundant were views on civic order and rebellion.
Civic order is the way society organizes their positions of power. In the early
16th century a monarch was seen as the vice-regent of God and was put in power to
rule through the vision of Christ himself. Around midcentury, the idea took over
that civil authority supported the construction of the state based on Christian
virtues and values (Hodgdon 170). The king not only had the power over his entire
nation, but the responsibility to keep his people safe and treated just. In this rule,
the Parliament constantly kept the monarch in check, reminding him that he was
not the only symbol of power. Feudal ties were very strong in the bloodline and in
most cases family would prevail over any opposition. This is a large reason why
most of the power in this time period consisted of a single family in many different
positions. The concept of a single family ruling increased loyalty among the ranks
and greatly reduced the chance of overthrow or rebellion. The Northern part of
England in this time seemed to side more with family loyalty, while in the South
near London loyalty lied more with the throne and positional power. More or less,
religion was the guiding force in decisions and could not be trumped by any single
monarch and ruling families were a tight-knit unit.
Rebellion in this time period was the worst decision that a citizen could
make. This crime was seen as more severe than thievery and even murder. In 1563
the Homily Against Disobedience and Willful Rebellion was first published and placed
next to every bible in church. The seriousness of rebellion was made very clear, as
also was the mandatory attendance of church. Because society was governed by
Christian values, there was no option in skipping out. Avoiding this duty could lead
in a fine, or even imprisonment. There were many homilies created for citizens to
gain knowledge and improve their faith. “While other homilies were repeatedly
revised, and so demonstrate a fluid response to cultural change, the homily on
disobedience and rebellion announces a static, authoritarian stance that is enhanced
by its hellfire-and-brimstone rhetoric….”(Hodgdon 173). The views on betrayal to
one’s society never changed, but there still existed brave souls that believed it would
be a bright idea to challenge the threats of their respective nation. In the 16th
century especially, nothing positive came from rebellion as seen in William
Shakespeare’s King Henry IV part 1.
King Henry IV part 1 has a civic structure that compares very similarly to the
passages written by Barbara Hodgdon about 16th century England. There were two
obvious groups of characters being observed in the play. The first group residing in
southern England ruled by King Henry IV and everyone he interacted with. The
second group in the north led by Northumberland, his son Hotspur, and their
acquaintances. The south based most of their actions and decisions on their respect
for the throne and those in power. For example, Falstaff was talking arrogantly of
how he could take Prince Henry out at any time. When Henry asked him why he
wouldn’t do it he responded that he was afraid of Henry’s position as king. This
dialogue shows that even someone as arrogant as Falstaff draws the line when it
comes to his respect of the throne. A contrasting example of the throne’s
importance to southern England was King Henry’s feelings about his son in the
beginning of the play. Westmoreland arrives with the news that Hotspur has taken
out a large army of Scottish rebels led by the Earl of Douglas. Upon hearing this, the
King remarks, “In envy that my lord Northumberland should be father to so blest a
son. A son who is the theme of honor’s tongue…” (I. i. 78-80). The King in this scene
openly expresses that he wished his son were Hotspur due to his superior actions
and conduct over his son Prince Henry. The throne and ruling the nation trumps
bloodlines in the eyes of the King, and he would rather have a son more fit to rule.
As for the North, civic order was geared to family. Hotspur has a chip on his
shoulder the entire play because he feels his family was not compensated for the
help they gave King Henry in reaching the throne. His passion for family and their
well being caused him to choose rebellion, which was the worst decision that could
be made in this time period. In Act 1 Scene 3, Hotspur has the audacity to hold
prisoners from the King until he decides to release his brother-in-law, Mortimer.
Hotspur and the Percy family are so loyal to each other that they are willing to speak
out against the King to follow their view of civic order. Shakespeare’s King Henry IV
part 1 expresses that the civic order in the south, where the throne is located, will
prevail over the North. The lack of communication and professionalism, as
portrayed by the Percy family, is no match for the leadership and order carried out
by the King and his men.
Furthermore, King Henry IV contains themes related to rebellion and its
repercussions throughout the play. Prince Henry from the beginning of the play is
portrayed as corrupt, a thief, and someone who just doesn’t seem to take his job
seriously. It could even be stretched to claim he is a rebel against his own father’s
rule and wants to sabotage him to get the throne. This could not be further from the
truth. Two examples that support this are his actions toward Falstaff and his other
mischievous friends, and saving his father from near death at the end of the play. In
Act 3 Scene 3 Henry explains to Falstaff and his friends that he had indeed paid back
the money that they had stolen to keep trouble away from them. Henry never
actually stole the money, but just played a joke on Falstaff and the others.
Throughout the play, it’s noticed that Henry never actually takes part in the
unethical acts of his friends, but just sits along the side as they happen. Prince
Henry truly watches over the “wrongdoers” and keeps them from engaging in acts
that are harmful to his father’s rule and society. This may be viewed as disloyal, but
Henry is just gaining respect of a part of his population that will serve him well
when taking the throne following his father’s rule. The second example from King
Henry IV part 1 that proves that Prince Henry is indeed loyal occurs in Act 5 Scene 4
when King Henry is facing imminent death. The king was clearly outmatched by a
stronger Douglas and Henry could have easily let his father die and claim the throne
for himself. As for Hotspur, he is the symbol of rebellion in Shakespeare’s play even
though appearing as the hero in the beginning. Hotspur is portrayed as a war hero
and a noble man, but is too hard headed to not get his way. His loyalty to family is
strong enough to lead him to rebellion against King Henry because he feels his
family has been cheated out of what they deserve. Very few rebels survived
opposition in the 16th century, and Hotspur was no exception. While Falstaff’s
foolish act of thievery only affected few people, the rebellion of the Percy family
drew attention of everyone in England and was treated with the utmost importance.
Last, the true motives of a rebel comes out in Act 3 Scene 1 when Hotspur and
Glendower are arguing over how the land they will receive should be divided.
Hotspur argues with Glendower that he will build a dam to guide the river away
from his land to give him more space. Glendower finally gives in to Hotspur’s
complaints when Hotspur decides to say:
I do not care. I’ll give thrice so much land
To any well-deserving friend;
But in the way of bargain, mark you me,
I’ll cavil on the ninth part of a hair.
Are the indentures drawn? Shall we be gone? (III. i. 132-136)
Shakespeare uses this example of Hotspur’s actions to show that is arrogant to the
point where he will argue to simply prove his dominance and sees it as proof of his
honor. Hotspur’s arrogance only lasts so long until the same throne he tried to
overthrow ultimately defeats him. Rebellion was quelled in every way in Henry IV
part 1.
Throughout the play, William Shakespeare is able to parallel the culture of
his time period to the actions and fait of many of his characters. The civic order that
existed in the South drastically contrasted to the strict adherence to bloodlines in
the North with the Percy family. Rebellion was held as the ultimate sin to commit in
England’s Early Modern Period and the same held true in King Henry IV. These two
categories of culture stuck out in numerous parts of the play, and were carried out
relentlessly up to the moment Hotspur’s dead body struck the ground.
Works Cited
Shakespeare, William, and Barbara Hodgdon. The First Part of King Henry the Fourth:
Texts and Contexts. Boston: Bedford, 1997. Print.
Bonner, Bishop. The First Part of King Henry the Fourth: Texts and Contexts. By
William Shakespeare. Ed. Barbara Hodgdon. Boston: Bedford, 1997. 172-179.
Print.