As the play Henry IV comes to a close, once the battle is fought, The King is finally proud of his son for displaying, what he thinks is, honor by killing Hotspur. Throughout the play the characters are constantly trying to define honor and what it means to be honorable. However it seems different people have different definitions, whether it’s Hotspur who thinks honor is being the strongest force or The king who believes honor is behaving in a well manner and doing what the court says a king should do. Upon hearing the news of Hotspur’s victory over the Scots, The king thought highly of Hotspur and his honorable duty, but as Hotspur defied the king’s orders to release the prisoners, he became a dishonorable soldier.
Falstaff and Hotspur symbolize opposing viewpoints concerning the main theme of the play – honor. At the time the play was written, honor was defined as “the special virtues which distinguish those of the nobility in the exercise of their vocation–gallantry in combat with a worthy foe, adherence to the accepted code of arms, and individual loyalty to friends, family, and comrades in arms” (Prior 14). Hotspur’s life is no more than a military commitment; he desires only to gain future glory, whether he wins or loses, lives or dies.
Shakespeare’s talent as both a writer and a poet lead to his gift for character development, down to the last detail. Henry IV, Part One contains a variety of deep characters, two of which play key roles in the evolution of the concept of honor in the play. Falstaff and Hotspur symbolize opposing viewpoints concerning the main theme of the play – honor. At the time the play was written, honor was defined as “the special virtues which distinguish those of the nobility in the exercise of their vocation–gallantry in combat with a worthy foe, adherence to the accepted code of arms, and individual loyalty to friends, family, and comrades in arms” (Prior 14).
Although honor is an important subject in the play, this is not to say that it can be found as an inherent quality in any of the characters. Where is the honor in peasants uprising against a usurper king whom they placed in office? The reader is invited to see honor through the eyes of either Falstaff or Hotspur. Hotspur’s pursuit of honor becomes obsessive to the point that he is blinded to everything that doesn’t pertain to his quest for honor. Falstaff holds the opposing viewpoint, concluding that honor is rejected due to its limitations on life and therefore must be seen as empty and valueless.
To Hotspur, honor is more important than life itself, and his blind pursuit of honor ultimately drives him to his death. While he stands for images and ideals, Falstaff hacks at the meaning of honor until he has stripped it to almost nothing but a puff of air, a word. ‘Falstaff is vivid, physical, realistic– a slice of life’ (Kantor 83).
The King complains that ‘riot and dishonor’ stain the brow of his son whereas Hotspur is the theme of honor’s tongue (Wells 141). Henry uses the successes in war of Hotspur, ‘Mars in swaddling clothes,’ as a rod for Prince Hal’s back (Wells 143), accusing his son of being unfit to inherit the crown. To many critics, Hotspur is immensely attractive and rather comical in his impulsive impetuosity–’he that kills some six or seven dozen Scots for breakfast, washes his hands, and says to his wife, ‘Fie upon this quiet life, I want work’’ (2.5.102-6).
Yet, this commitment to bright honor is a dangerous obsession preoccupying Hotspur so much that he is blind to all else. To Hotspur the more dangerous and perilous a situation, the more desire he has to throw himself helplessly into it. To him there are no consequences; he sees no danger. All Hotspur can see is the possibility of achieving great honors– ‘Doomsday is near, die all, die merrily’ (4.1.134).
For Hotspur, who glorifies the honor to be gained in battle against worthy foes, the more hazardous the enterprise, the greater the chance of gaining honor (Prior 14). This concept of honor contrasts greatly with that of Falstaff, a battered old soldier long turned against the nonsense of military glory, who wanders about the Shrewsbury battlefield with a bottle of sack, not a sword, in his holster, intending neither to kill or be killed (Bloom 286). ‘Falstaff lives for pleasure, particularly food and drink. His disdain for honor and bravery directly contrast Hotspur (Bloom 23).’ Falstaff’s instinct for self-preservation at all costs is demonstrated in humorous situations, as when he plays dead on the battlefield in attempt to save his life. Nothing means anything to Falstaff unless it directly affects him (Bloom 23).
By restricting honor to its limited sense of an intangible reward for valor in battle, Falstaff rejects it as empty and valueless, incapable of repairing wounds or surviving detraction after death (Prior 14). To Hotspur there are things more important than life, yet Falstaff, with a genius for self-preservation, is determined to hold onto life as the final good (Wells 145).
Power, usurpation, rule, grand extortion, treachery, violence, hypocrisy, fake piety, and the murder of prisoners and of those who surrender under truce all come under the category of honor as understood by the other characters (Bloom 285), yet Falstaff responds: ‘I like not such grinning honor. Give me life, which if I can save, so: if not, honor comes unlooked for, and there’s an end (5.3.62-7).’ The will to live is particularly strong in Sir John, and though despised by virtuous scholars and rejected by the newly virtuous King Henry V, Falstaff nevertheless retains the desire to live in its truest sense (Bloom 279).
Shakespeare juxtaposes Hotspur and Falstaff’s notion of honor by placing each character in similar situations; Shakespeare exposes each man’s ‘honor’ through his method of handling each particular instance. Early on in the play, Sir John Falstaff is presented to the reader as a gutless thief. In the Gadshill robbery, Falstaff is to be the victim of a practical joke resulting in his exposure as a yellowbelly. When Prince Hal and Poins sneak off and attack the remaining conspirators, all but Falstaff flee; Sir John strikes a few blows and then runs away, leaving the money on the ground. ‘How the fat rogue roared (2.2.96),’ exclaims Poins in regard to Falstaff; however, is this proof that Falstaff is a coward?
Although Falstaff certainly seems to be acting faintheartedly, one could also say that ‘he’s behaving as any self-respecting thief would if he were caught in the act– running away to avoid arrest and hanging. Falstaff is not a coward if he’s a practical man determined to escape the gallows’ (Kantor 46). In this scene Falstaff’s honor emerges; he values life above all else. If he finds happiness and personal honor in idle behavior- robbing others, drinking, and womanizing- so be it. Death can do nothing for Sir John Falstaff.
Later on in the play, Shakespeare allows for comparison between Falstaff and Hotspur as he creates for Hotspur a similar plight to that of Sir John in the Gadshill robbery. While Falstaff’s vocation is robbery, Hotspur’s is battle. Thinking of the honor to be won by rebelling against King Henry, Hotspur’s imagination becomes aroused. ‘He sees himself grappling with honor and danger, diving to the bottom of the sea or leaping to the moon to rescue ‘bright honor’’ ( Kantor 39). As he is preparing the day before battle, he learns that the glorious army of the King outnumbers the rebels three to one. Also, rebel forces to be supplied by Glendower and Mortimer have reported that they are not going to show up at Shrewsbury.
The growing sense that the rebel’s alliance and forces are falling apart, however, seem to have no effect on Hotspur, whose reckless and passionate devotion to the ideal of knightly behavior blinds him to the apparent and accumulating danger. ‘Hotspur’s thirst for battle is self-destructive; he pursues honor like an addict’ (Kantor 12). Thus, knowing the risky odds, Hotspur gives his life and the life of his fellow soldiers willingly to the opportunity of achieving great honor, military awards, and status.
Falstaff was in a similar predicament at Gad’s Hill: he was outnumbered three to one by the men in buckram. In the face of such overwhelming odds, Sir John chose to turn and run. Faced with even greater odds, however, Hotspur will still stand and fight. This is one measure of the differences between these two characters. While Hotspur is willing to ignorantly risk his life, Falstaff is willing to do everything possible to live his to its fullest.
‘Honor Pricks me on,’ Sir John cries as he builds up enough courage to walk off to war. Surprising words to be spoken by a man whose definition of honor thus far is to live comfortably. On his way to war, however, Falstaff stops, thinks, turns around, and has a series of second thoughts. He wonders if honor is something worth dying for, and proceeds to weigh the practical advantages of fighting for honor (Kantor 83). ‘Can honor set a leg?…What is honor? A word (5.1.38-43).’ Sir John realizes that honor can give him neither life nor fame; it won’t help him live through battle or live forever in reputation. The battle of Shrewsbury is being fought for honor, and that is something Falstaff doubts is worth dying for (Kantor 83).
Hotspur, however, accepts a challenge from Prince Hal to fight the battle in one-on-one combat. Gladly accepting this risk (there is much more honor to be won in a brave heart battle by a single man), Hotspur promises to kill Hal in a bear hug, a soldier’s death grip embrace. Hotspur appears before Hal, arriving to attempt to win Hal’s title as well as his claim to the throne. Meanwhile, Falstaff engages in battle with Douglas. The fat, old knight fights for as long as he sees reason, and then falls down, pretending to die, moaning in the agony of death. At the very moment that Falstaff feigns death, Hal mortally wounds Hotspur, who mourns the loss of his honor more than the loss of his life (Kantor 90).
Hotspur is interested only with honor and questions of chivalry; he need not think, he attains what he wants through fighting. The engagement between Hal and Hotspur is representative of the fight between the new order and the old: Hotspur was a contender for the throne before Henry IV usurped it from Richard II, leaving Prince Hal to inherit the position of King of England. Though Hal unifies bravery with cunning and strategy, Hotspur, as his name suggests, is too impatient to do so (Bloom 24).
To Hotspur the sole purpose of living is to accumulate vast honors; his existence is based on the code of military glory. His thirst for danger and his love of war all stem from his attempts to fulfill this code to the highest degree possible. Falstaff, however, views life as honorable and does everything within his power to stay alive, be it fleeing in the face of danger or feigning death. ‘Dying, Hotspur sees himself as life’s fool, but there is much evidence for him to be considered honor’s fool (Kantor 90). While he views his death as romantic and tragic, Falstaff would say that his loss of life is ridiculous. Why choose to be food for worms when there are so many good things in life (Kantor 90).
Falstaff’s and Hotspur’s disparate views of honor also shed light on the two men’s relationship toward the play. In Shake-speare’s time, a king’s absolute authority over his country was taken for granted. The monarchy during this time was usurped again and again as it was usurped by Henry IV in the play. If hereditary right does not decide a future king, however, then political power becomes a heated and important issue- how to use it and most importantly, how to get it. The question of maintaining order is also crucial, as the king’s authority most probably will not be accepted by everyone, as it was not accepted by Hotspur due to the injustices his family suffered from the hands of the incoming monarch.
England is thrown into confusion and doubt when treason endangers the court. The harmony between nature and man seem to be attacked, and brother fights against brother in an endless struggle for power (Kantor 16). Shakespeare desired the support of Queen Elizabeth, the monarch during the time of his life. Thus, to please her he had to imply that the monarchy was in fact divine, and anything challenging its authority was in itself wrong, and thus unable to triumph. This notion is ironic because of the mass rebellions occurring during that time against the monarchy.
John Falstaff represents a rejection of established Elizabethan principles- the church, the monarchy, the law, and an ‘honorable’ lifestyle. Because a majority of Shakespeare’s audience were commoners, he decided to instill the beliefs of Falstaff within a satire of the common man- the result, Sir John. Hotspur, however, represents a satire of all those rebelling against a monarchy. Blinded by the possibility of gaining great honors and becoming once again the heir to the throne, Hotspur can not see that is was alone in his rebellion, as his allies proved to be all talk, dropping out of the war in fear of King Henry. Shakespeare instead instills the ‘honor’ of the monarchy within his character Prince Hal.
This honor is ostensible as Hal plots to make himself appear more valiant and reputable through his change from a common tavern-visitor and thief into a royal prince winning wars and honor for his father. Yet Hal’s apparent honor parallels the apparent ‘divine’ right of the monarchy because it is a rule of misrule. Like Hal, the new monarchy validates itself and reforms from rebels to royalty. Although many readers and critics see Falstaff or even Hotspur as the true hero of Henry IV, Part One, ultimately Hal (and thus the monarchy) triumphs over both forms of rebellion, be it by murder or by banishment. Thus, Shakespeare, through Falstaff and Hotspur, provides the playgoers of his time with not only a great historical play, but also a message intended to please the monarchy in rule during the time of his life.
In this interpretation, Shakespeare, rather than Swift, can be viewed as the first satirist, poking fun at not only commoners and rebels, but also the institution of monarchy. Shakespeare’s fascination with the various idiosyncracies of Hotspur and Falstaff allows him to portray diversity concerning the perception of honor.
