| | 

Character
Directory
KING HENRY IV |
Henry IV, is
historical figure and title character in 1 and 2 Henry IV. (The same
figure appears in Richard II as Bolinbroke.) King Henry is not the
most prominent character in the plays that take his name, but he is
nonetheless an important figure. The major concern of the plays is the
growth of his son and successor, Prince Hal. The question of what
constitutes a good ruler is thus paramount, and as king. Henry personifies
the issue. He is viewed from three distinct points of view in Part 1: he
sees himself as a weary but effective monarch; Hotspur regards him as a
dishonorable politician who first deposed a king (as is enacted in
Richard II) and then betrayed those who helped him do so; and Falstaff
considers him a cold, rigid opponent of comfort and license. By Part 2
Henry is almost a tragic figure. The cost of power shows itself in his
illness and fatigue, while he himself suggests that his decline and death
are the deserved fate of a usurper.
Henry is presented as
a strong ruler: for instance, his dismissal of Hotspur and Northumberland
in 1.3.116-122 of Part 1 makes it clear that he does not tolerate
insubordination, and in 3.1 of Part 2 he overcomes his illness and
melancholy to face the rebellion squarely, saying, 'Are these things then
necessities? then let us meet them like necessities' (3.1.92-93). He is
also politically astute to the point of cynicism. In Part 1 (3.2.39-59) he
describes the appearance of regal splendor that he assumed during his
rebellion against Richard II in order to win the hearts of the populace
(Richard also describes this in Richard II, 1.4.23-36), and his
distinctly Machiavellian deathbed advice to Hal—divert potential rebels by
engaging in wars abroad—is chilling.
But, despite his
strength, Henry's principal characteristic is weariness. From the first
line of Part 1 Henry presents himself as a sick and tired man who wants to
embark on a crusade to the Holy Land to atone for his role in the murder
of Richard II. Moreover, his disappointment over Prince Hal's dissolute
life embitters him. In 3.1 of Part 2 he comments that the terrible burden
of power prevents him from sleeping; he broods, 'uneasy lies the head that
wears a crown' (3.1. 31). He goes on to wish, 'Oh God, that one might read
the book of fate . . .' (3.1.45), in tones that foreshadow the darkly
brilliant meditations of Shakespeare's tragic heroes.
Hotspur sees Henry as
a treacherous usurper who has turned against his allies. Henry himself is
very much aware that he has been a rebel. In his deathbed conversation
with Hal, he plainly suffers guilt for the 'by-paths and indirect crook'd
ways' (2 Henry IV, 4.5. 184) by which he gained power, a reference to the
deposition and murder of Richard II. He observes that many of his allies
against Richard later resented his assumption of power. He anticipates
that Hal will have an easier time when he ascends the throne, being
legitimately descended from a sitting king. This indeed proves to be so,
as the end of 2 Henry IV and all of Henry V demonstrate. However, as
Shakespeare and his contemporaries were well aware, the disputes over the
royal succession that Henry's actions had triggered were settled only by
the disastrous Wars of the Roses, and Henry's sense of guilt is a
reflection of the curse that his sinful usurpation has brought upon
himself, his family, and his country. Nevertheless, Henry is the
established power in these plays, and Hotspur and his allies sin in
rebelling against him and are repeatedly condemned as a result.
Henry's ultimate
significance in the drama is as the holder of the position for which
Prince Hal must equip himself. While Henry's cold. Machiavellian world of
political manipulation is too rigid and inhumane for the young man to grow
up in, he does in the end enter it. In 4.5, in a reprise of the king's
lament over the stresses of kingship (2 Henry IV, 3.1.4-31), Hal
rhetorically addresses Henry's crown and speaks of the burden that
kingship demands. He accepts that burden for himself, emphasizing his
decision by placing the crown on his own head. One consequence of this
decision is that he must become like Henry to some degree; he must enact
in the real world the disciplinarian's role he had taken in the tavern
burlesque of Part 1. Hal is often criticized for his icily brutal
dismissal of Falstaff in 5.5; readers have thought that, in rejecting
Falstaff, Hal also rejects part of his own humanity, but it may equally
well be argued that he is simply adopting a different type of humanity,
that of his weary, careworn father.
The history of
Henry's reign is strenuously compressed in the plays, producing an
impression of greater civil disorder than in fact occurred. While the
various rebellions of the play did take place, they were widely spaced and
relatively easily suppressed. Henry was a strong king, although he was not
a competent administrator and his regime had persistent financial
troubles. Two significant variations from history in the plays concern
Henry personally. First, in Part 1 Henry is committed from the very
beginning (indeed, from Richard II, 5.6.49-50) to a crusade to ease
his conscience, thus stressing sin and retribution as the uitimate causes
of the unrest of Henry's reign. In fact, and in Shakespeare's sources,
Henry did not propose a crusade until late in his reign, when it seems to
have been intended to expand his influence in European diplomacy. Second,
Henry's illness, which he actually developed only a year before his death,
plagues him for most of his reign in the plays, dominating all his
appearances in 2 Henry IV. Shakespeare may have been influenced in this
direction by Samuel Daniel, whose Civil Wars stresses Henry's deathbed
struggles with his bad conscience. The effect produced, a melancholy sense
of impending death, makes more fateful and solemn Hal's acceptance of his
kingly burden. |
PRINCE HENRY |
Prince Henry of Wales
(Hal, later King HENRY V) (1387-1422), Historical figure and character in
1 and 2 Henry IV, the oldest son of King Henry IV. The central
concern of the Henry IV plays is Prince Hal's preparation for
assuming the throne. (He appears as the king in Act 5 of 2 Henry IV
and in Henry V.) The Prince must find his way between two
undesirable extremes—anarchy and obsessiveness—represented respectively by
the irresponsible debauchery of Falstaff and the exaggerated sense of
honor of the war loving Hotspur. In neither play is the Prince the most
prominent character, but Hotspur in Part 1 and Falstaff in both plays
derive their importance from their relationship to the Prince. In Part I
the Prince becomes a chivalric hero by conquering Hotspur, though he
remains friendly with Falstaff. In Part 2 he integrates himself more fully
into the world of statecraft, assumes the crown upon his father's death,
and makes the final, irrevocable break with Falstaff in his famous
rejection' speech in 5.5.
The comparison of Hal
and Hotspur is foreshadowed in Richard II, when Hotspur, then known as
Percy, tells of Hal's disreputable life among harlots in London
(5.3.13-19). In 1 Henry IV the dissolute Prince is contrasted with
the valorous Hotspur. However, Hal assures Henry that 'the time will come'
(3.2.144) when he will conquer Hotspur. Significantly, the Prince does not
have to change his character to arrive at this resolution, for he is
conscious of his destiny from the outset. As he makes clear in his famous
'reformation' speech (1.2.190-212), he intends to fulfill his inherited
duties. He simply chooses to remain in Eastcheap until 'being wanted he
may be more wonder' at' (1.2.196). Once Hal has asserted his readiness to
assume his proper position as Prince when the time comes—and of course,
Shakespeare and his original audiences were very much aware of Hal's
future success as Henry V—the ground is laid for the climactic
hand-to-hand combat in which the Prince kills Hotspur.
Shakespeare took care
to have Hal spurn some of the temptations offered by Falstaff, as when he
rejects the old man's lascivious suggestions about a barmaid in 1.2.46.
The playwright thus establishes that the Prince is not the reckless and
vicious playboy of the well-known farce The Famous Victories of Henry the
Fifth, but rather a good king in the making.
The essential
question of the Henry IV plays is: can a ruler successfully combine
cold-blooded political skills with the spiritual values that derive from
social contacts and appreciation of one's fellows. Hal's development take
place in the irresponsible world of Eastcheap because the Machiavellian
world of King Henry cannot nurture humane values. At the Boar’s Head
Tavern, however, Prince Hal learns about the lives of ordinary people, and
he knows that this education has a purpose. 'When I am King of England, I
shall command all the good lads in Eastcheap', he says in 2.4.13-14). At
the same time, the Prince is learning about himself as well. He places
himself in different contexts: highway robbery, in 2.2 of Part 1, and
menial service in 2.4 of both plays. In the mock drama he enacts with
Falstaff in 2.4 of Part I, he even samples the role of king. In Eastcheap
the Prince is free to make mistakes, to take positions he will later
reject—in short, to learn.
In Part 1, although
Hal plans to forsake Eastcheap life at some point, he still participates
fully in it. He rejects duty in favor of pleasure, sending Falstaff to
dispose of the king's messenger, and when the rebellion against his father
is introduced, he boldly suggests, in the callous manner of a soldier,
that a campaign brings the opportunity to 'buy maidenheads ... by the
hundreds' (2.4.358-359). His merriment in the same scene includes a
disrespectful charade of his father. While he does go to Shrewsbury and
defeats Hotspur, the battle seems to be only an interval in his life with
Falstaff. At the end of the fighting, he is ready to corroborate
Falstaff’s lie about his courage 'with the happiest terms I have'
(5.4.156).
However, as his
kingship draws closer, the Prince avoids Falstaff. In Part 2 Hal returns
to Eastcheap only once. The Prince arrives in London from the battlefield
in 2.2, and the uproarious tavern scene (2.4) closes with his being called
back to action. Falstaff’s world is now an interlude for the Prince,
rather than a primary focus. Moreover, his exchange with Falstaff is more
hostile than friendly; he does not accept Falstaff’s bantering excuses, as
he has in the past, and Hal departs with only a cool 'Good night,
Falstaff.' Therefore, when, as Henry V, Hal coldly spurns Falstaff in 5.5,
we have no reason to be surprised.
Prince Hal's
rejection of Falstaff is often considered callous and unfair, but in its
historical context it may be seen as both necessary and relatively mild.
Falstaff’s behaviour is downright criminal in both plays—in fact, the
scenes dealing with his corrupt recruitment of troops (/ Henry IV, 4.2; 2
Henry IV, 3.2) were designed as incriminating satires of contemporary
practices—yet Hal merely dismisses him with a pension. (The imprisonment
imposed by the CHIEF JUSTICE—to an institution reserved for
aristocrats—was understood by the playwright and his audience to be
lenient and temporary.) While Hal can be thought to be rejecting part of
his humanity in order to make himself fit for power, he is in fact simply
adopting a different humanity, that of his weary father. In Henry V the
new king will apply the capacity for fellowship he has learned in
Eastcheap; first, in 2 Henry IV, he becomes a king.
The crucial moment of
Hal's development, and the climax of 2 Henry IV, is Hal's encounter
with his dying father in 4.5. Addressing the crown as it lies beside the
king, Hal recognizes the burden that kingship demands and he accepts that
burden, emphasizing his decision by placing the crown on his own head.
Henry, thinking that Hal has selfishly desired his death in order to wear
the crown, delivers an impassioned speech on the dangers England will face
once his son is king, crying, 'The wilcT dog shall flesh his tooth on
every innocent' (4.5.131-132) and regretting the collapse of the order he
has striven to preserve. This speech asserts powerfully, if negatively,
the value of social discipline. After Hal has sworn loyalty to his
father—and, implicitly, to the values just expressed—the king advises that
Hal keep would-be opponents busy with overseas wars. This militarist
solution—honorable in Shakespeare's world, though reprehensible in our
own—is related to Henry's view of a ruler's basic duty, the maintenance of
order and the avoidance of civil war. The Prince accepts this lesson and
receives his father's wishes for a peaceful reign and a final blessing
(4.5.219).
Shakespeare altered
Hal's biography to suit his dramatic ends. Hal is introduced as an adult
at a time when he was only 12 years old, as part of the playwright's
strategy of presenting him and Hotspur as contemporaries, though Hotspur
was in fact a generation older. Also, Hal did not fight Hotspur at
Shrewsbury; the rebel died at the hands of an anonymous warrior.
Shakespeare may have believed that the two heroes had met—his sources are
ambiguous—but he would surely have had them do so in his play, even if
they had not historically done so, to enhance the play's impact.
Prince Hal's wild
life was evidently real, for contemporaries recorded his conversion to
good behavior upon being crowned. It was reported that the Prince was
given to drunken brawling—and even gang warfare—in Eastcheap. Shakespeare
and his contemporaries believed in the truth of a tradition that Hal had
hit the Chief Justice and been imprisoned for it, but since this story
cannot be traced earlier than 1531 (to an account that omits physical
assault), its authenticity is dubious. A more reliable early account
stated that Hal had robbed his own agents on the highway; a later version
changed the victims to bearers of the king's money. Shakespeare omitted a
striking anecdote, well known to the Elizabethans, that is probably true:
Hal, perhaps in a spirit of atonement, approached his father wearing a dog
collar and a strange garment with many needles sewn to it. This mystifying
story has never been explained, and Shakespeare may have simply found it
too distracting to use. Hal's unwise wearing of his dying father's crown
came from Shakespeare's sources, but it is quite plainly apocryphal.
In any event, reports
of 'wild Prince Hal' probably reflect only isolated incidents, and not a
committed way of life, in the youth of a privileged and high spirited
soldier. Certainly, much of the Prince's energy was devoted to serious
military training, for he fought in Wales beginning in 1400, and he was
considered competent at the age of 16 to command a wing of Henry's army at
Shrewsbury. He governed part of Northumberland shortly thereafter, and he
served in increasingly important offices over the next eight years. In
1411 Hal was dismissed from the king's council, an event that is alluded
to in 7 Henry IV, 3.2. where it is associated with the supposed assault on
the Chief Justice. In fact, it appears that King Henry suspected his son
of treasonous disloyalty, a reconciliation was effected a year later, not
long before Henry’s death, and this appears to be the germ of the
reconciliation scenes in the plays. |
LANCASTER |
Prince John of
Lancaster (1389-1435) is the younger son of King Henry IV and brother of
Prince Hal. (The same figure appears in Henry V and 1 Henry VI
as the Duke of Bedford.) In 1 Henry IV Lancaster first appears in
Act 5, at the battle of Shrewsbury, where his energy and valor are praised
by the king and Prince Hal. He speaks only five lines, but his presence
heralds his greater role in 2 Henry IV. In that play he negotiates a truce
with the rebels led by the Archbishop, only to seize the unsuspecting
leaders once they have disbanded their troops. This treachery is followed
by Lancaster's self-righteous utterance, 'God, and not we, hath safely
fought today' (4.2.121). Then, in 5.5, he sanctimoniously praises Hal's
rejection, as King Henry V, of Falstaff.
Lancaster is
portrayed as an uncompromisingly cold, calculating, humorless man.
Falstaff says of him,'. . . this same young sober-blooded boy doth not
love me, nor a man cannot make him laugh; but that's no marvel, he drinks
no wine' (2 Henry IV, 4.3.85-88). He presents an extreme alternative to
Falstaff’s irresponsibility. But, although Falstaff is a far more
attractive character, Shakespeare clearly felt that Hal's course as king
must lie closer to Lancaster. Prince John's ruse at Gaultree Forest is not
disparaged in the play. Such ploys were common in late medieval warfare,
and neither Shakespeare's sources nor the playwright himself treat it as
particularly heinous when compared to the much greater crime of rebellion
against an anointed ruler.
Shakespeare
inaccurately depicts the historical Prince John. His presence in 1
Henry IV is fictional; he was only 13 years old at the time of
Shrewsbury, and he does not appear in Shakespeare's sources until several
years later. However, in addition to preparing for 2 Henry IV,
Shakespeare wished to bring the Lancaster family together at a point of
crisis. Also, the 16-year-old Lancaster was not responsible for the
negotiations at Gaultree; as Shakespeare knew, they were conducted by the
Earl of Westmoreland. The playwright wished to attach this manoeuvre to
King Henry's family, thus focusing on the web of treachery and conflict
that followed Henry's usurpation of the throne (enacted in Richard
7/).John was not Duke of Lancaster—Hal bore that title, in fact—but
Shakespeare's sources were confused on this point, and the playwright
doubtless thought he was correct. The historical Prince John was a
successful military leader who achieved distinction against the Scots and
who was later, as Bedford, to help govern the kingdom when Henry VI was a
minor. |
WESTMORELAND |
Ralph Neville, Earl
of Westmorland (1364-1425) In 1 and 2 Henry IV, Westmoreland is a
loyal adviser to King Henry IV, though he is rather faceless. In 1.1 of
1 Henry IV he brings grave news of military setbacks, introducing the
unrest that besets Henry's reign. He later appears briefly at the battle
of Shrewsbury. In 2 Henry IV Westmoreland is again a solid supporter of
the king, defending Henry against the rebellious noblemen's claims of
mistreatment. In 4.2 he seconds Prince John of Lancaster in his fraudulent
offer of a truce to the rebels at Gaultree Forest, and he arrests the
leaders after they have unsuspectingly sent their troops home. In 4 4 he
brings news of the final defeat of the rebels, closing the history of
revolts against Henry.
In Henry V
Westmoreland has a minor role and is notable only for expressing a wish
for reinforcements just before the battle of Agincourt, provoking King
Henry V famed 'St. Crispin's Day' speech (4.3.18-b7). The historical
Westmoreland was not present at Agincourt, having been placed in command
of the Scottish border. His more prominent role in the Henry IV plays
reflects his historical position more accurately, though here, too,
Shakespeare altered reality Westmoreland backed Bolingbroke, later Henry
IV, in his deposition of Richard II, although Richard had granted him his
earldom. He served the new king loyally, as the plays show. It was he who
actually tricked the rebel leaders at Gaultree, not Prince John who was a
youth at the time. Shakespeare de-emphasized Westmoreland in order to keep
the focus on Henry s family. Westmoreland married twice and fathered 16
children, and several of his descendants appear in Shakespeare's plays. By
his first wife he was the grandfather of the Westmoreland who appears in 3
Henry VI-by the second he was the father of the Earl of Salisbury
of 2 Henry VI and grandfather of the Earl of Warwick, known as the
'kingmaker', of 2 and 3 Henry VI.
SIR WALTER BLUNT |
Blunt (3), Sir Walter
(d. 1403) is a follower of King Henry IV. Blunt is a respected adviser
and emissary, and his calm personality contrasts with that of the
tormented Henry and the temperamental Hotspur.In 1.3 Blunt attempts to
mediate the quarrel between the King and Hotspur. In 3.2.163-179 he brings
the dramatic news that the rebel forces are gathering at Shrewsbury, a
report that propels Prince Hal into action. In 4.3 Blunt acts as the
King's ambassador, and he is properly short with the bellicose Hotspur. In
5.3 he is dressed as the King, in a standard medieval battlefield tactic,
and is killed by Douglas. The sight of his corpse causes Falstaff to
remark ironically, 'There's honor for you!' (5.3.32).
The historical Blunt
was a long-time follower of King Henry's father, John of Gaunt. He was
Gaunt's executor, and he naturally became one of Henry's chief advisers.
He was indeed killed at Shrewsbury, but he was not among those disguised
as the King. He bore the King's standard, a position of honor that
suggests a sound reputation as a military man. He was the father of Sir
John Blunt, who appears in 2 Henry IV, and great-grandfather of Sir
James Blunt of Richard III.
EARL OF WORCESTER |
Worcester, Thomas
Percy, Earl of (1343-1403) is the uncle of Hotspur and a leader of the
rebels against King HENRY IV. Worcester is presented as a malevolent
figure who introduces the idea of rebellion against Henry, beginning in
1.3.185, and formulates its strategy later in the same scene. In 5.2, in
an illustration of the evil that attends rebellion, Worcester destroys the
rebels' last chance for peace on the eve of the battle of Shrewsbury by
concealing Henry's offer of amnesty, fearing that in a state of peace, the
king would single him out for punishment. Although his efforts to control
Hotspur's impetuosity in 4.1 and 4.3 show that Worcester well understands
the likelihood of catastrophe in the coming battle, he calculatingly
permits his cause to court defeat because his personal interest may be at
stake. After the battle, in which he is captured, Henry sentences him to
death, and he justifies himself, saying, 'What I have done my safety urg'd
me to' (5.5.11).
Shakespeare followed
his primary historical source, Holinshed, in presenting a perfidious
Worcester. Modern scholarship finds the truth unclear, but, while
Worcester was certainly a leader of the revolt, he was probably not its
instigator. He was in fact executed after Shrewsbury, but the tale of the
negotiations is probably untrue. On the day of the battle it was
apparently Henry who broke off the talks and began fighting. Before the
time of the play, Worcester had served ably in the government of King
Richard II, who had made him an earl in 1397. Two years later he allied
himself with Bolingbroke when he usurped the crown and became Henry IV (as
is enacted in Richard II; although Worcester does not appear in
that play, his actions are described in 2.2.58-61 and 2.3.26-28).
NORTHUMBERLAND |
Northumberland is a
supporter of Bolingbroke against Richard II in the first play, and a rebel
against him—after he has begun to rule as Henry IV—in the two later works.
In Richard II Northumberland is Bolingbroke's chief lieutenant; in
2.1 he leads others into rebellion against Richard by providing a
rationale for revolt: 'The king is not himself, but basely led by
flatterers ...' (2.1.241-242). In 2.3 Northumberland himself resorts to
flattering his leader unctuously, and in 3.3 he hypocritically conveys
Bolingbroke's false declaration of loyalty to Richard. In 4.1
Northumberland takes on the most boldly disrespectful functions in the
process of removing the king from his position, and in 5.1 he is the
hard-hearted deputy who separates Richard and the grieving Queen. On that
occasion he tersely states a cruel principle that aptly represents the new
world of Machiavellian politics that Bolingbroke has inaugurated: replying
to a request for mercy, he observes, 'That were some love, but little
policy.' (5.1.84)
In the Henry IV plays
he is a less prominent but no more likeable figure. Northumberland and his
son, the fiery Hotspur, join in rebellion against King Henry, whom they
perceive as ungrateful to the Percy family. However,' the earl fails to
appear with his forces at the crucial battle of Shrewsbury, sending word
that he is ill; the rebel forces are defeated there and Hotspur killed. At
the outset of 2 Henry IV the personification of Rumour claims that
Northumberland was 'craftysick' (Ind. 37), and in 2.3 Lady Percy,
Hotspur's widow, chastises her father-in-law for having dishonorably
abandoned his son; no other evidence is presented that Northumberland's
illness was feigned, however. The earl then deserts the rebels again,
fleeing to Scotland rather than supporting the renewed efforts of the
Archbishop of York. His final defeat is reported in 4.4.97-101.
The historical
Northumberland did first rebel with Bolingbroke and then against him, but
Shakespeare exaggerates his treachery and alters the facts of his life
considerably. A man of King Henry's age in the play, Northumberland was
actually a generation older; this change is part of Shakespeare's
development of the rivalry between Hal and Hotspur by making them
contemporaries. Northumberland, a major landowner in northern England and
a distinguished warrior in the Scottish border conflicts, was a close
friend and supporter of King Henry's father, John of Gaunt. Like Gaunt, he
had supported Richard II against Thomas of Gloucester, but he was
alienated by Richard's seizure of Gaunt's estate, and when Bolingbroke
returned from exile, the earl became one of his chief allies, as in
Richard II. His despicable personality as Bolingbroke's lieutenant may
derive from the playwright's knowledge of a famous incident that,
surprisingly, he did not use. Sent by Bolingbroke to negotiate with
Richard, Northumberland swore a sacred oath that Bolingbroke intended to
allow Richard to remain in power if he were restored to Gaunt's title and
estates. Richard was thus induced to forgo escape by sea and leave the
castle in which he had taken shelter. He was promptly ambushed by
Northumberland and taken to London, where he was deposed. It is not known
whether or not Northumberland used this ploy under orders, but it was
reported in Shakespeare's source, Holinshed’s Chronicles, as a heinous
betrayal.
Once Henry was in
power, disputes arose between him and the Percies, eventually leading to
their revolt. However, Northumberland's role in it in the Henry IV plays
is almost wholly fictitious. According to Shakespeare, his unforeseen
illness shocks the rebels, disturbs their plans, and contributes to their
defeat at Shrewsbury, but in reality he had been sick for some time and
his absence had been anticipated.. The playwright's version is
dramatically more interesting, and it allows the rashness of Hotspur and
Douglas to be emphasized. The earl's pretending to be ill is also
unsupported by Shakespeare's sources; it is simply an appropriately nasty
rumor to associate with his Machiavellian character. Further, his betrayal
of the Archbishop is untrue; Northumberland was the elected leader of the
renewed rebellion, and the Archbishop commenced the uprising prematurely,
before Northumberland could join him. Only after the disaster at Gaultree
Forest, when Henry marched on his headquarters at Warkworth Castle, did
Northumberland flee to Scotland. Several years later, after recruiting
arms and money in Flanders and France, he again revived the rebellion and
invaded England, dying in unsuccessful but valorous combat, according to
Holinshed. This account of tenacious courage did not at all suit
Shakespeare's model of a contemptible rebel, and he simply ignored it.
HOTSPUR |
Hotspur (Henry Percy,
1364-1403) Historical figure and character in 1 Henry IV, a rebel against
King Henry IV. Hotspur, a fiery warrior, is repeatedly contrasted with
Henry's son, Prince Hal. The Prince's dissipation in the company of
Falstaff is compared unfavorably with Hotspur's military prowess and
chivalric honor. The play's major theme is Prince Hal's decision to
abandon the tavern for the field and to compete with Hotspur, whose
example inspires the Prince to adopt his proper role as a military hero.
At the play's climax, the two young men meet in hand-to-hand combat at
Shrewsbury, where the Prince kills his rival. The play makes clear that
Hotspur's volatile temper has led to his defeat and to the failure of his
rebellion: he has carried his ideal of chivalric honor to excess. In this
sense, he is contrasted with Falstaff, whose self-indulgent cowardice
represents an opposite extreme. Hotspur thus resembles a figure from the
Morality Plays, a symbol of a value or attitude. Even before he appears.
Hotspur is associated with military honor and prowess, as well as with
excessive pride, in King Henry's account (1.1.66-74, 90-91) of his
capture—and arrogant possession—of Douglas.
Hotspur begins the
play in the service of the king, but the Percy family harbors a simmering
resentment over Henry's apparent ingratitude for the help they gave him
when he usurped the throne (as enacted in Richard II). When a
dispute erupts over Hotspur's failure to relinquish custody of Douglas,
and the king refuses to ransom a Percy relative, Lord Mortimer, the Percys
decide to rebel. Hotspur's reputation for courage and his proven success
in combat, make him the natural leader of the rebellion, but his older
relatives—his father, the Earl of Northumberland, and his uncle, the Earl
of Worcester—must struggle to curb the young man's temper. Ultimately,
they are unable to do so, and Hotspur's rash insistence on fighting
against the odds at Shrewsbury dooms the rebellion to defeat.
Hotspur's virtues are
manifest; he is a fine military leader in a world that values this trait
highly. King Henry's regret that his own son is not more like Hotspur is
genuine, and the Prince himself, after killing his rival, acknowledges his
worth in a warm eulogy (5.4.86-100). However, Hotspur represents, like
Falstaff, an unbalanced attitude towards life. He lives only for battle
and identifies himself entirely with his reputation for military valor.
His rhetoric grows windy on the subject, as in 1.3.199-206 and
4.1.112-123. As his wife, LADY (10) Percy, tells us in 2.3.48-63, he even
fights battles in his sleep. Utterly single-minded, he rejects even sex,
declaring that 'this is no world to play with mammets, and to tilt with
lips' (2.3.92-93).
His impetuosity makes
him as much a liability as an asset to his allies. He has no control over
his emotions, letting his enthusiasm for honor dominate all other
considerations; his own father calls him 'a wasp-stung and impatient fool'
(1.3.233). At Shrewsbury, messengers present a steady procession of
reasons for caution, as the rebel fortunes grow increasingly uncertain,
but Hotspur's response is almost ludicrously inappropriate: 'Come, let us
take a muster speedily— / Doomsday is near; die all, die merrily'
(4.1.133-134). His foolish refusal to wait for reinforcements condemns his
cause to defeat; he is so overwrought at the approach of battle that he
cannot even read his dispatches, saying that life is too short to waste on
such petty activity. Hotspur's impulsiveness is evident even in minor
details of his speech—e.g., in his habit of interrupting himself, as in
1.3.155-184 and 4.1.13. Characteristically, he dies in mid-sentence.
However, he is not merely a stock emblem of fiery and foolish chivalry; he
displays intelligence, humor, and high spirits, and he has a loving wife
whose affection emphasizes his humanity.
The historical
Hotspur was as celebrated—and evidently as vain and foolish—as
Shakespeare's character, and the play presents his role at Shrewsbury
accurately, except in two important respects. First, his death in the
battle cannot definitely be attributed to Hal, or to anyone else. Second,
and more significant, he was not Hal's contemporary, being in fact older
than King Henry. The alteration in his age serves to make him a more
satisfying foil to Prince Hal, but at the time of Shrewsbury, when Hal was
16, Hotspur was a veteran soldier of 39, having been a famous warrior on
the Scottish border—where he won the nickname Hotspur—for more than 20
years. The alteration in Hotspur's age is established in Richard II, in
which young Percy, who becomes Hotspur, is introduced as a boy.
A theatrical
tradition of playing Hotspur as a stutterer—an effective indication of his
excitability—seems to have arisen in 19th-century Germany, where the
respected translator Schlegel interpreted Lady Percy's recollection of her
husband's 'speaking thick' (2 Henry IV, 2.3.24) as 'stammering'.
Shakespeare may have been referring to his Northumbrian dialect or, more
likely, to his habit of speaking rapidly. In any case, there is no record
concerning the historical Hotspur's speech.
Hotspur's son,
another Henry Percy, was still a boy when first his father and then his
grandfather were killed fighting against King Henry. Prince Hal, upon his
accession as King Henry V, pardoned young Percy and permitted him to
resume the family title. As a result, he fought for Hal's son, Henry VI;
he was the Earl of Northumberland whose death in the first battle of St.
Albans is reported in 1.1.4-9 of 3 Henry VI. His son and successor,
Hotspur's grandson, appears as the Earl of Northumberland later in that
play.
MORTIMER |
Edmund Mortimer
(1376-1409) is a rebel against King Henry IV. Originally an army commander
for the King, Mortimer's capture by Glendower is reported in 1.1.
However, the King learns that Mortimer has married Glendower's daughter,
and he refuses to ransom him. This becomes a bone of contention between
the King and Hotspur—whose wife, Lady Percy, is Mortimer's sister—as the
revolt begins. Mortimer appears at the rebels' council of war in 3.1,
where he proves to be a moderate negotiator among more difficult
personalities. He attempts to maintain amity between Hotspur and
Glendower. He tries to control Hotspur's temper, and he forthrightly
defends his fatherin-law against the firebrand's slurs. Mortimer can only
speak to his bride, now Lady Mortimer, through the translations of her
father, for he speaks no Welsh and she no English. Nevertheless, he
sentimentally asserts his love for her in an episode that lends humanity
to the rebel cause.
Following errors in
his sources, Shakespeare confused Mortimer with his nephew, another Edmund
Mortimer, who was Earl of March and thus an heir to the English throne.
The rebels speak of his claim several times (e.g., in 1.3.144-157 and
4.3.93-95) in making the case for their fight against Henry. Although an
explicit intention to place him on the throne if their rebellion succeeds
is not mentioned, Mortimer is to receive England in the division of the
kingdom contemplated at the war council.
The historical
Mortimer had supported Henry's usurpation of the crown several years|
earlier, which Shakespeare depicted in Richard II, although
Mortimer does not appear in that play. The rebels of 1403, depicted in 1
Henry IV, intended to place the younger Mortimer on the throne, and this
Mortimer acted in support of his nephew, as well as for Glendower. After
Shrewsbury, Mortimer and Glendower were pursued by the King, as Henry
stipulates he will do in 5.5.40, and Mortimer died in the unsuccessful
defense of Glendower's capital at Harlech in 1409.
ARCHBISHOP OF YORK |
Archbishop of York,
Richard Scroop (d. 1405) Historical figure and character in 1 and 2
Henry IV, a leader of the rebels against King Henry IV. In 1 Henry
IV the Archbishop appears only briefly, in 4.4, where he confers with
his friend Sir Michael. He predicts the defeat of Hotspur at Shrewsbury
and lays his plans for the rebellions to be enacted in 2 Henry IV.
Shakespeare may have intended the episode as a preparation for the later
play, or it may simply have served to remind the audience that the battle
of Shrewsbury was not to be the last of Henry's troubles.
In 2 Henry IV
the Archbishop leads the continuing revolt, although his cause is doomed
by the treacherous withdrawal of the Earl of Northumerland. In 4.1 he
states the" dilemma of the good man who is provoked into rebellion by poor
government but nevertheless believes in the divine right of kings.
However, the Earl of Westmoreland firmly asserts the point of view of the
play: rebellion is a heinous violation of the natural order, and the
gravity of the offence is aggravated when the rebel is a clergyman, for a
representative of God should not oppose a divinely appointed king. In 4.2
the Archbishop disbands his army, after Prince John of Lancaster promises
that his grievances will be considered, and is then arrested for treason
and sentenced to death.
The historical
Archbishop had sided with Henry when he deposed Richard II, although
several members of his family supported Richard, including his brother
Stephen Scroop, who appears in Richard II. (Later, Stephen's son. Henry
SCROOP [I], was executed for treason by HENRY V, as is enacted in Henry
V.) The Archbishop's cousin William Scroop, Earl of Wiltshire, was one of
Richard II's favourites and was executed by Henry in 1399, as is reported
in Richard II (3.2.142). In 1.3.265 of 1 Henry IV where Warwick is
incorrectly identified as the Archbishop's brother, this execution is said
to have sparked the prelate's rebellion against Henry. Although
Shakespeare took his information from Holinshed, it is not true. The
Archbishop supported the new King until 1405, when he and a number of
northern barons—among them his brother-in-law Northumberland—joined to
oppose the heavy taxes Henry had levied in order to finance his wars
against earlier rebels. Once in revolt, the Archbishop was not betrayed by
Northumberland; instead, he impetuously began his campaign against the
King before his allies were prepared to fight, and
he accordingly
found himself outnumbered and then outsmarted at Gaultree Forest.
DOUGLAS |
Archibald, Earl of
Douglas (1369-1424) is the leader of the Scottish army that joins the
rebels against King Henry IV. Douglas' appearance is preceded by word of
his reputation for courage and military prowess. In 3.2 the King speaks of
his renown by way of praising Hotspur, who has captured him at the battle
of Holedon, and Falstaff describes him as 'that sprightly Scot of Scots,
Douglas, that runs a-horseback up a hill perpendicular . . .'
(2.4.339-340). In accordance with Worcester’s plan, Hotspur frees Douglas
and recruits him for the rebellion against Henry. A bold talker ('. . .
there is not such a word spoke of in Scotland as this term of fear'
[4.1.84-85]) and fighter, Douglas' fiery temperament resembles Hotspur's,
and both men urge the rebels into the battle of Shrewsbury without waiting
for reinforcements. During the battle, in 5.3-4, Douglas seeks out Henry,
first slaying Sir Walter Blunt. He nearly kills the King, but Prince Hal
drives him away. He then attacks Falstaff, who feigns death. In 5.5
Douglas' capture is reported, but Prince Hal declares that he shall be
freed without the payment of ransom, as a tribute to his valor. Black
Douglas, as the historical figure was known, was indeed a famous warrior,
although he may have been a bad commander, for he was never on the winning
side in a major battle. He was not in fact released at Shrewsbury; he was
only freed five years later, after the payment of a very large ransom.
Shakespeare followed his source, Holinshed, in this error. Douglas later
fought against the English for King Charles VII of France in the Hundred
Years War, and he died in France.
OWEN GLENDOWER |
Glendower, Owen (c.
1359-c. 1416) is a military leader from Wales who joins rebellious English
noblemen against King Henry IV. In 3.1, at a rebel council of war,
Glendower boasts of supernatural powers, displaying the superstitiousness
traditionally associated with the Welsh, to the disgust of Hotspur. The
clash of these two personalities almost upsets the alliance, though
Glendower, admiring his hot-headed ally, makes peace several times during
the scene. In a lighter vein Glendower interprets for his daughter, Lady
Mortimer, who is in love with her husband, Lord Mortimer, but does not
speak English. Father and daughter together reveal their lyrical
sentimental streak and a love of music, also traits stereotypically
associated with the Welsh.
Later, in 4.4.16-18,
Glendower is reported to have absented himself from the crucial battle of
Shrewsbury, 'o'er-rui'd by prophecies'. This episode adds Glendower's
superstitiousness to the general weakness and incapacity that plague the
rebel cause. Also, the account lends Hotspur's defeat an ominous, fated
quality that is in keeping with the play's condemnation of rebellion.
Although
Shakespeare's sources mention Glendower's training in law and his youthful
service at the English court, he is chiefly portrayed as a barbaric and
ruthless Welsh outlaw, as is reflected in the report on him by the Earl of
Westmoreland in 1.1.40-46. However, Shakespeare amplifies and softens this
figure, and his Glendower is a composer and scholar whom Mortimer can
describe as 'a worthy gentleman, . . . valiant as a lion, and wondrous
affable, and as bountiful as mines of India' (3.1.159-163). Traditional
English bias against the Welsh may account for the brute of the
chronicles; the music-loving sage of the play may reflect Shakespeare's
acquaintance with Welsh residents of London. Glendower's superstitiousness
may also derive from the playwright's personal knowledge, for the English
stereotype of the superstitious Welshman was grounded in the survival of a
strong Celtic religious sensibility in Wales. Although Hotspur finds this
trait ridiculous (3.1.142-158), Shakespeare himself apparently regarded it
more sympathetically, as a humorous failing. Glendower is on the whole a
positive figure, if a weak one. Even Hotspur's raillery against him is
enjoyable rhetoric.
The historical
Glendower led the last and most nearly successful Welsh rebellion against
the English. In 1400, shortly after Henry IV's deposition of Richard II,
Glendower led an uprising that grew from a quarrel with his English
neighbour into a full-scale revolt. In 1403 the Welsh rebels joined with
those from northern England led by Hotspur, and only Henry's decisive
advance on Shrewsbury prevented their forces from combining. That
Glendower's superstition led him to abandon the rebels at Shrewsbury is
not reported in Shakespeare's sources; Holinshed, in fact, mistakenly says
that Glendower was at the battle, and DANIEL, like modern historians,
attributes his absence only to King Henry's superior generalship. In 1404,
with most of Wales under his control, Glendower established a national
government at Harlech, where a parliament elected him Prince of Wales, and
he entered into an alliance with England's enemy, France. In 1405, with
French troops reinforcing his own, he invaded England but was defeated by
Henry. This was the high-water mark of his rebellion, and by 1409
Glendower had lost even Harlech and had retreated deep into the mountains.
After 1410 he disappears from history, though he is thought to have lived
somewhat longer. Although only briefly successful, Glendower united
Wales—a land of petty principalities before the English invaded in the
12th century—and led it to an independence it never again attained. He
remains a great hero of Welsh culture.
VERNON |
Richard Vernon (d.
1403) is a supporter of Hotspur. Vernon arrives at the rebel camp before
the battle of Shrewsbury with news that the King's armies are approaching.
He describes Prince’s Hal’s forces in a speech (4.1.97-110) famous for its
vivid imagery In 4.3 he advises vigorously against Hotspur's insistence on
entering battle before his reinforcements arrive and in 5.1 he
participates, with Worcester, in the negotiations that precede the battle.
Captured in the little, he is sentenced to death by King Henry IV in The
historical Vernon, a powerful magnate of Cheshire, in western England, was
in fact captured and beheaded at Shrewsbury, although he was not a
participant in the negotiations between the two sides.
FALSTAFF |
Sir John Falstaff is
physically huge, stunningly amoral, and outrageously funny—is generally
regarded as one of the greatest characters in English literature.
Lecherous, gluttonous, obese, cowardly, and a thief, he lies to the world
but is honest with himself. His monumental presence, both literal and
metaphoric, dominates the plays in which he appears, and he has become one
of the most familiar of Shakespeare's creations, having inspired work
ranging from pub signs and ceramic mugs to operas and symphonic works.
In the Henry IV plays
Falstaff, although an entirely credible human being, also functions as a
symbol of an extreme lifestyle. In Henry IV, Part 1 young Prince
Hal begins to come to grips with his role as the future King of England,
and he is presented with strong figures who suggest modes of adulthood.
Unlike Hal's father, the calculating and politically shrewd King Henry IV,
and unlike the intensely single-minded warrior Hotspur, Falstaff, in the
free and dissolute ambience of the Boar’s Head Tavern, indulges in food,
drink, and adventure, whether sexual or criminal, and rejects life's
demands for courage or honor. From the beginning the Prince states his
intention to reject Falstaff’s world, in the famous 'reformation' speech
(1.2.190-212). Still, throughout the play he is clearly delighted with his
friend's bold effronteries and witty lies; at its close he promises to
support Falstaff’s claim to have killed Hotspur. In Part 1 Falstaff is a
decided rascal, cowardly and deceitful, but his common sense and tolerance
counter the values of Hotspur and King Henry.
In Henry IV, Part 2
the Prince is closer to his assumption of power, and he is accordingly
more remote from Falstaff. Falstaff dominates this play entirely. He is
still very funny—as he puts it, 'I am not only witty in myself, but the
cause that wit is in other men' (1.2.8-but he is presented in a
significantly darker light, contributing to the play's atmosphere of
disease and death. He is ill; his first words deal with a diagnosis
(1.2.1), and he describes himself as sick on several occasions. He refers
to his age several times, as when he doubts his attractiveness to Doll
Tearsheet, say-ing, 'I am old, I am old' (2.4.268). In Part 1 he says he
is in his 50s (2.4.418-419), while in Part 2 his acquaintance with SHALLOW
is said to date from 'fifty-five year ago' (3.2.205), making him at least
70.
Most important, his
misdeeds are distinctly more serious in 2 Henry IV. In Part 1 his
extortion of bribes from draft evaders is merely reported (4.2.11-48),
while we actually see it happen in Part 2, 3.2. Moreover, his impressed
soldiers, anonymous victims in Part 1, take human shape in Part 2 as such
sympathetic, if minor, figures as Shadow and Feeble. The recruiting scene
is hilarious, but it remains on the record as evidence of Falstaff’s
criminality. In fact, the episode was clearly intended as a satirical
condemnation of a real practice that plagued the English poor in
Shakespeare's time. Perhaps Falstaff’s most serious offence is his selfish
exploitation of his friends. He promises love but instead bleeds money
from his loyal admirer the Hostess, as she herself describes in
2.1.84-101. The preposterous Shallow is a natural victim, but Falstaff’s
cynical rationale for fleecing him—If the young dace be a bait for the old
pike, I see no reason in the law of nature but I may snap at him'
(3.2.325-326)—is, however wittily put, morally repugnant.
Hal is distant and
hostile to Falstaff when they meet in 2.4, and when the knight seeks to
profit from Hal's succession to the crown, the new king forbids his
presence. Hal is cold and forceful—although he mercifully provides his
former friend with a generous pension—and Falstaff’s fall seems abrupt,
although it has been prepared for throughout both plays. The needs of the
greater, political and military world of Prince Hal triumph in the end.
Still however fully one may endorse Prince Hal's rejection of Falstaff
(and many people do not accept it at all), the fat knight remains a
generally sympathetic figure If his misdeeds would be offensive in real
life, they are frequently delightful on stage. He deflates pretension with
the needle of his satire, and he counters excessive rigor with his
entertainingly flexible morals. His combination of grandiose rhetoric,
penetrating wit, and common sense shines in such virtuoso passages of
comic monologue as his battlefield rejection of courage (7 Henry IV,
5.4.110-120)-leading to a particularly outrageous gesture, the stabbing of
Hotspur's corpse—and his tribute to wine (2 Henry IV, 4 3 85-123), long
acclaimed as one of the most delectable discourses in English literature.
In the plays’ tavern scenes (2.4 in each) he is uproarious and hearty. His
ceaseless flow of parody and imitation evokes a wide and enjoyable range
of personages from aristocrats to highwaymen.
Falstaff is a figure
of immense psychological resonance; through him we can enjoy our own
fantasies of life without responsibilities. When it seems he can offer no
excuse for some misdeed and must surely be brought down, like the rest of
us, he devises some extravagant lie or joke and escapes. His vitality
seems limitless; as he puts it himself, 'banish plump Jack, and banish all
the world' (Henry IV, Part 1 2.4.473-474). However Falstaff is banished,
for he also represents amoral disloyalty, criminal exploitation, and weak
social values. Less sternly, he is often compared to spring like weather
in autumn (e.g., in Henry IV, Part 1 1.1.154-155, and Henry IV, Part 2
2.2.112), a common metaphor for youthful energy in old age. The fat knight
clearly reflects Shakespeare's fond appreciation of tavern lite and its
pleasurable delinquencies, but one of the values most important to the
playwright-as is especially plain in the History Plays—was the maintenance
of social order. Thus Falstaff is repudiated in no uncertain terms, both
in the Henry IV plays and in The Merry Wives, part of Falstaff s humor
lies in his burlesque of the chivalric values of the aristocracy, and part
of his vital force in his energetic individuality.
These traits lead
many modern readers to think of the Henry IV plays as ironical satires of
war and government and of Falstaff’s rejection as proof that human
authenticity is tragically at odds with the practice of politics. However,
this ascribes to Shakespeare the views of our own age, when the worth of
the individual is placed above that of traditional societal values. But in
earlier times Falstaff was held to be flatly villainous. The first great
Shakespearean editor, Nicholas Rowe, called him a Thief Lying, Cowardly,
Vainglorious, and in short every way vicious' in his 1709 edition of the
plays. A little later, Samuel Johnson wrote that Falstaff has nothing in
him that can be esteemed'. Although Shakespeare himself was surely less
critical of his creation, he certainly would have understood their point
of view. In the Renaissance the potential of the individual was beginning
to be recognized, as Shakespeare's interest in and respect for human
psychology exemplify, but the ancient, biblically sanctioned, hierarchical
society of medieval Europe is persistently championed in the plays, as
well as in other works of Elizabethan literature. Therefore,
necessity—that national order be restored after a civil war—demands the
rejection of the thoughtless pleasures and the irresponsibility that
Falstaff displays. Falstaff’s popularity on the Elizabethan stage prompted
Shakespeare to announce, in the Epilogue to Henry IV, Part 2, that
the fat knight would appear in another play. However, he does not appear
in Henry V, although he may have been a character m a lost,
probably unacted version of that play. A number of textual peculiarities
make it clear that Henry V was altered after it was first written;
most strikingly, Pistol takes on Falstaffian characteristics in several
passages. Following his humiliation in 5.1, he speaks of growing old and
of losing Doll Tearsheet, lines that are plainly more appropriate to
Falstaff. Also, Pistol's capture of the French Soldier parallels
Falstaff’s comic achievements in 1 and 2 Henry IV. Scholars speculate that
in an original draft of the play, Falstaff was the chief comic character,
that he was deleted by the playwright—for it appears that the present
version of the play derives from Shakespeare's manuscript—and that much of
his part was transferred to Pistol. This theory cannot be proven, but it
does explain the textual evidence.
The fat knight's
death is instead described in Henry V 2 3 by Pistol, the Hostess,
Bardolph, and Nym and their affection for him reflects the playwrights.
When Bardolph wishes he were with Falstaff where some'er he is, either in
heaven or in Hell! (2.3.7-8), the Hostess asserts that he is surely in
heaven; she goes on to describe his death-bed touchmgly:'... after I saw
him fumble with the sheets and play with flowers and smile upon his
fingers' end, I knew there was but one way; for his nose was as sharp as a
pen and a babbled of green fields ... a' cried out "God, God, God!" three
or four times . . .' (2.3.14-20). Thus Falstaffs humanly believable end
summons our sympathy one last time for the knight who had 'more flesh than
another man, and therefore more frailty' (7 Henry IV, 3.3.167-168).
The Merry Wives of
Windsor was written before Henry V, probably during the creation of 2
Henry IV, and here Falstaff is a less complex figure than the giant of the
Henry IV plays. His function is more purely comic and stands at the centre
of the play rather than in contrast to the realities of history. He is
more nearly a traditional character type, the comic villain whose downfall
is obvious from the outset. He is also associated with another type, the
foolish and boastful would-be lady's man, although in attempting to seduce
the wives to get at their husbands' money, Falstaff is not erotically
inclined. However, he is thereby linked with the familiar theme of the
jealous husband, and the sexual side of his story links him with the
sub-plots centered on the courting of Anne Page. The complications caused
by Falstaff’s greedy impulses lead him to receive a humorous retribution
and then forgiveness. His personality has not changed—he is still brassy,
shrewd, and amorally selfish—but the resourceful prankster and brazen
reprobate of the Henry IV plays no longer has the initiative. He is easily
tricked by the wives, not once but three times. This is sometimes regarded
as an unfortunate trivialization of a great character, but it may also be
argued that Falstaff’s lesser magnitude in The Merry Wives suits his
simpler function as a comic butt. In the world of Prince Hal, Falstaff was
a shrewd courtier in addition to his other roles, and he never forgot his
status—indeed, several of his fantastic excuses for his misbehavior refer
to the exalted position of the Prince. In Windsor he assumes regal
attitudes: he tyrannically bullies Pistol and Nym, and he attempts to lord
it over the townspeople. His changed behavior—-in addition to
demonstrating Shakespeare's acute perception of social relations—makes
Falstaff an entirely appropriate target for a comic comeuppance.
This aspect of the character is particularly evident in Falstaff’s
apologetic confession following his final humiliation (5.5.122-129)—often
seen, in its 'un-Falstaffian' quality as evidence of a lost source play.
However, in the masquelike finale, where none of the characters present
their ordinary characteristics, symbolic expression is given to the play's
implicit moral—the triumph of domesticity. Here, then, Falstaff makes the
formal surrender that his status as a traditional comic butt requires.
In this respect,
Falstaff has been seen as a representation of an ancient fertility spirit
in a tradition that in the playwright's time was still alive in remote
regions of Britain and was still generally understood. As such, his
figurative role was that of the sacrificial victim punished for the sins
of society in ancient religious practices. This image need not be taken
literally to see that the Falstaff of The Merry Wives is identified with
common human foibles. Indeed, Falstaff has the same function in the
Henry IV plays as well. He moves us, in a way that Hal or Hotspur or Anne
Page cannot, because, like him, we all often feel irresponsible,
dishonest, selfish inclinations. We know that Falstaff is part of us, like
it or not. In the Henry IV plays he represents a childish, self centered
universe of pleasure that adults are doomed to leave and that is defeated
by a harsh and demanding political ideal, insistent on duty and order. In
The Merry Wives Falstaff is again opposed by a triumphant principle, in
this case the world of domestic security. In both cases, he embodies the
need of each of us to rebel against the constraints of society and thus
find our individual potential, and his defeat symbolizes the need to
sublimate that rebellion in light of our innate dependence on each other.
In his first
appearance, Hal excuses Falstaff from even an awareness of time, 'unless
hours were cups of sack, and minutes capons, and clocks the tongues of
bawds, and dials the signs of leaping-houses, and the blessed sun himself
a fair hot wench in flame-coloured taffeta' (1 Henry IV, 1.2.7-10). The
essential nature of Falstaff’s personality is revealed in this passage,
for the thrust of his wit, and of his life, is to elaborate this fantasy
and to defend it against the demands of reality. We delight in the
brilliant energy of his efforts, and we mourn the impossibility of their
success.
SIR MICHAEL |
Sir Michael is a
friend of the Archbishop of York. In 4.4 the Archbishop and Sir Michael
discuss the rebels' likely defeat against King Henry IV at Shrewsbury. The
episode introduces the Archbishop's subsequent further rebellion against
the King, to be enacted in 2 Henry IV. No historical Michael is
known among the Archbishop's associates. Sir Michael's presence in the
play may reflect a lost source that the playwright consulted, or he may be
Shakespeare's invention.
POINS |
Poins, Ned Character
in 1 and 2 Henry IV, friend of Prince Hal. Poins suggests the two jokes
that he and Hal play on Falstaff. In 1 Henry IV, 1.2.156-185, he
devises the plan to rob Falstaff of his takings in the highway robbery of
2.2, and in 2 Henry IV, 2.2.164-165, he proposes that he and the
Prince disguise themselves as Drawers and spy on Falstaff. He also
participates in the Prince's joke on Francis in 2.4 of 1 Henry IV.
In 2.4 of 2 Henry IV Falstaff, unaware of Poins' presence,
describes him, insultingly but with considerable accuracy, in a hilarious
presentation of a rowdy, empty-headed party boy (2.4.241-250). In 2.2.42
Poins demonstrates his blindness to Prince Hal's true character, expecting
him to be pleased at the imminent death of his father, King Henry IV. But
in 2.2.61-65 he is conscious of his position as part of the world of
delinquency that the Prince must reject, and he accepts his own
limitations. Poins is Shakespeare's version of a character named Ned in
the Famous Victories, his chief source for the material on Hal's riotous
early life. His last name may refer to the lace ribbons, known as points,
that were a prominent feature of a 16th-century courtier's elaborate garb.
GADSHILL |
Gadshill is a highway
robber and friend of Falstaff and Prince Hal. In 2.1 of 1 Henry IV
Gadshill uses a well-known highwayman's tactic: an accomplice, the
Chamberlain of an inn, tips him off about the travel plans of rich guests.
Then he and Falstaff and others rob these Travelers in 2.2, only to be
robbed in their turn by the Prince and Poins. Gadshill—a professional
thief, unlike Falstaff and the Prince—serves to demonstrate the depths of
delinquency from which the Prince must emerge. Gadshill is a nickname
taken from Shakespeare’s anonymous source, the Famous Victories, where it
is applied to a highwayman whose favorite working locale was Gad’s Hill.
No proper name is given for Shakespeare's character.
PETO |
Peto is a follower of
Falstaff. Peto participates in the highway robbery in 2.2 of 1 Henry IV,
and he later tells Prince Hal how Falstaff attempted to disguise his
cowardice. In 2.4 of 2 Henry IV Peto brings the Prince news of the King's
preparations against the rebellion, stirring Hal to action. Peto was
originally given the name Harvey, but the name was changed after early
performances, probably to avoid offending a prominent aristocrat, William
Harvey.
BARDOLPH |
Bardolph is a
Character in 1 and 2 Henry IV, The Merry Wives of Windsor,
and Henry V, a follower of Falstaff. In 1 Henry IV Bardolph
participates in the highway robbery of 2.2, and in 2 Henry IV he
assists the fat knight in his illicit recruiting efforts in 3.2,
collecting bribes from men who wish to avoid service. When Falstaff is
rejected by Prince Hal in 5.5, Bardolph goes to prison with him. In The
Merry Wives Bardolph is only a minor figure who occasionally delivers
messages to Falstaff. In Henry V he is a soldier in the army of King Henry
V. In 2.1 he defuses the feud between Pistol and Nym. In 3.2.28-57 the Boy
convincingly describes him as a coward and thief. In 3.6 we learn that
Bardolph is to be executed for having stolen a sacramental vessel from a
French church, and in 4.4 the Boy reports that Bardolph has indeed been
hung.
Despite his
swaggering, he has little distinctive personality. His peacemaking role in
Henry V ironically counters King Henry V's bellicosity in an
anti-war reading of the play, but if one interprets Henry as a epic hero,
then Bardolph remains a comic soldier, a petty villain whose end helps to
demonstrate the King's dedication to justice. Bardolph's most prominent
characteristic is his diseased facial complexion, florid and fiery, 'all
bubukles, and whelks, and knobs, and Hames o' fire' (Henry V,
3.6.105-106). He is teased mercilessly about his skin disorder by Falstaff
and other characters, finding himself compared to lamps, torches, blushing
maids, red wine, red petticoats, hellfire, and even 'Lucifer's privy
kitchen' (2 Henry IV, 2.4.330).
Bardolph was
originally called Rossill, but after 2 Henry IV was written the
name was changed, probably to avoid offending a prominent aristocrat,
William Russill, Earl of Bedford. The fact that the name Bardolph had
already been assigned to another character in 2 Henry IV, Lord
Bardolph, is only one instance of Shakespeare's tolerance for minor
confusions and inconsistencies in his plays.
FRANCIS |
Francis is an
indentured servant at the Boar’s Head Tavern. In 2.4 of 1 Henry IV
Prince Hal teases Francis, engaging him in conversation while Poins, by
pre-arrangement, summons him. The endearingly simple-minded Francis can
only reply with the well-known protest of the harried waiter, 'Anon,
anon', as Hal has predicted. Hal suggests that Francis might run away from
the tavern, and then he extravagantly promises Francis £1,000 for a packet
of sugar. He next asks if Francis will rob the innkeeper and goes on to
speak of Francis' likely future 'Why then your brown bastard is your only
drink' he says, 'for look you, Francis, your white canvas doublet will
sully. In Barbary, sir, it cannot come to so much' (2.4.72-74). Francis is
now hopelessly confused, and he exits hurriedly as Poins, Hal, and his
boss, the Vinter, all call him at once. This puzzling exchange has
elicited a number of explanations, the simplest of which is that Hal is
merely playing a practical joke on Francis, an example of the idle tavern
life that he will later reject. However, while a joke is clearly intended,
the Prince is deliberately placing himself on familiar terms with an
'under skinker' (2.4.24), continuing his exploration of the lives of the
common people whom he will later rule. Thus the episode helps to
demonstrate that Hal's participation in Falstaff’s world is part of his
preparation for his greater role, and not simply dissipation. He suggests
as much when, asked by Poins what the point of the joke was, he replies
that he is now 'of all humours' (2.4.90) and compares his good mood with
Hotspur’s mania for war. In Francis' humble life, he has seen a
contentment that the warrior can never discover Further, Hal observes
that, if Francis will not be tempted by theft or flight, he must accept
the low life of a servant. This may reflect, albeit in a resigned manner,
Hal's attitude towards his own destiny. In 2 Henry IV, Francis seems to
have been promoted as he organizes the service for Falstaff’s dinner in
2.4
LADY PERCY |
Elizabeth Percy Lady
(1371-c. 1444) Historical figure and character in 1 and 2 Henry IV, wife,
and then widow, of Hotspur. In 2.3 of 1 Henry IV Lady Percy is distressed
that her husband apparently intends to return to war. She playfully
attempts to extract his plans from him, but he teasingly refuses to tell
her. In 3.1, just before Hotspur departs for Shrewsbury, she joins him. He
affectionately teases her about her refusal to sing while Lady Mortimer
serenades her husband. He finds another target in her mild oath 'in good
sooth' (2.3.240), and he fondly scorns her temperance. These episodes
reveal that the fiery Hotspur, whose rivalry with Prince Hal is the play's
major theme, is also a loving husband who has plainly inspired affection
in his wife. Hotspur's warm relationship with his wife complements the
fierce fixation with battle that otherwise dominates our picture of him.
Without these scenes, Hotspur might seem so one dimensional that we could
not accept the favorable opinion of him held by King Henry IV and Hal.
Lady Percy also displays a personality of her own, that of a modest,
possibly somewhat stiff, but spirited and pleasant young matron.
In 2.3 of 2 Henry
IV Lady Percy makes a single appearance, joining her mother-in-law,
Lady Northumberland, in persuading Lord Northumberland not to rejoin the
revolt. Lady Percy bitterly observes that the elderly lord had failed to
assist the rebels when Hotspur was still alive, and she goes on to
eulogise her late husband glowingly.
Lady Percy's name in
Shakespeare's source, Holinshed’s Chronicle, is given inaccurately as
Elianor, but Hotspur calls his wife Kate. Shakespeare was decidedly fond
of this name—he frequently used it, perhaps most notably for Katherina in
The Taming of the Shrew—and he may have regarded it as an
affectionate nickname for a woman, regardless of her real name.
LADY MORTIMER |
Lady Catherine
Mortimer (active 1403-1409) Historical figure and character in 1 Henry
IV, daughter of Glendower and wife of Lord Mortimer. Lady Mortimer
speaks only Welsh (with the consequence that her lines are dropped from
many productions of the play) and must converse with her husband through
the interpretation of her father Glendower reports that she is upset that
her husband is leaving for battle and that she is likely to cry. Through
him, she asks her husband to lie in her lap while she sings to him. She
sings in Welsh, to the amusement of the fiery Hotspur, in an episode that
lends humanity to the rebel cause. It is thought that the scene may have
been prompted by the presence of actors from Wales in the Chamberlain’s
Men, one of whom played Lady Mortimer. Practically nothing is known of the
historical Lady Mortimer. She is thought to have died in London after
being taken prisoner when her father was defeated and her husband killed
at Hartech in 1409.
MISTRESS QUICKLY |
Hostess Character in
1 and 2 Henry IV and Henry V, the proprietress of the Boar’s
Head Tavern in Eastcheap. The Hostess, a good-hearted woman whose
affection for Falstaff withstands his exploitation of her purse, is
comically loquacious. Aspiring to conversational brilliance, she displays
a considerable vocabulary, but she unfortunately misplaces one word for
another, in an ancient comedy routine, going so far, in a state of great
excitement, as to confuse 'honeyseed' and 'honeysuckle' for 'homicide' and
'homicidal' (2 Henry IV, 2.1.49-51). She is a denizen of the
quasicriminal underworld of London (she associates with highwaymen and
harlots and is arrested when a murder is said to have occurred in her
tavern), but no crimes are explicitly attributed to her. Indeed, her
amiable and forgiving nature contains no hint of villainy.
The Hostess' role in
1 Henry IV is very minor. In 2.4 she is an amused spectator of the
mock drama played by Prince Hal and Falstaff, and in 3.3 she disputes with
Falstaff over his debt to her. He mocks her, and his insults spark her
honest indgination.
In 2 Henry IV the
Hostess is a somewhat more substantial character. She escalates her
dispute with Falstaff by summoning two officers, Fang and Snare, to arrest
the fat knight for debt. She elaborates on her complaint, remembering at
length (2.1.83-101) that he had promised to marry her in order to borrow
money. However, Falstaff not only talks her into calling off her legal
action but also into lending him more money. She weeps, but she agrees,
showing the gullibility and kindness that mark her relationship with him.
In 2.4, when Falstaff is called to join the armies assembling to oppose
the rebels against Henry IV, the Hostess displays her sentimental
attachment to him, weeping and saying, 'Well, fare thee well. I have known
thee these twenty-nine years, come peascodtime, but an honester and
true-hearted man—Well, fare thee well' (2.4.379-382). Even the Hostess'
credulousness does not extend to a belief in Falstaff’s honesty; she is
merely expressing her love with conventional sayings that come first to
her mind. The Hostess' tolerance and affection for Falstaff are important
in Shakespeare's presentation of the fat rogue as an humane, though
flawed, person. It comes as a shock when the Hostess and her friend
Dolltearsheet are arrested in 5.4, in a demonstration of the rigorous law
enforcement of the new regime, anticipating Prince Hal's rejection of
Falstaff in 5.5. In Henry V the Hostess (now married to Pistol) has a
small but striking role, as she describes her attendance at Falstaff’s
death-bed, in a speech (2.3.9-27) that is one of the masterpieces of
English comic literature, being simultaneously extremely funny, even
bawdy, and touchingly tender. Her efforts to comfort a dying and
conscience-stricken sinner reflect Shakespeare's own forgiving humanity.
The Hostess is given
the name Mistress Quickly in all three plays (e.g., in 7 Henry IV, 3.3.90;
2 Henry IV, 2.1.44; Henry V, 2.1.19), but she is plainly a different
person from the Mistress Quickly of The Merry Wives of Windsor;
Shakespeare simply reused the name and comical verbal habit of the Hostess
with his customary disregard for questions of consistency. Some scholars
hold that the correct pronunciation of Quickly should be 'quick-lie', a
legitimate Elizabethan variant that carries an obvious implication that
she is a prostitute. Falstaff hints that she is (e.g., in 1 Henry IV,
3.3.128), but, although she consorts with Doll, who is a courtesan, there
is no other evidence to support this. It is more probable that her name,
pronounced ordinarily (as it commonly was in the 16th century), is simply
intended to suggest the hustle and bustle of an innkeeper's life.
Sheriff |
Sheriff is a
policeman who investigates the highway robbery committed by Falstaff. The
Sheriff, who has a witness who knows Falstaff, accepts Prince Hal’s word
that Falstaff is not present at the inn and that the Prince will guarantee
the return of any stolen money; he then leaves.
Vintner |
The wine steward at the Boar's Head Tavern
who commands Francis to attend t his duties in 2.4.
Chamberlain |
An employee who scouts for the highwayman
Gadshill. In 2.1 he spots two rich travelers. In Shakespeare's
time these were employees for inns and taverns.
First Traveller |
One of the unfortunate pilgrims that get
robbed by Falstaff and his crew of highwaymen.
Messenger |
Member of Hotspur's rebel army who brings
news of the King's impending forces. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
To view other Henry
IV, Part 1 sections:
Main Play
Page Play Text
Scene by Scene Synopsis
Character Directory Commentary
To view the other Plays
click below:
By Comedies
Histories
Romances Tragedies
To view other
Shakespeare Library sections:
Biography Plays
Poems
Sonnets Theaters
Shake Links
|