I welcome any criticisms from all, this was done under exam conditions. Thanks!
Despite what the title suggests, Henry IV is far less important to the play’s drama than Hal, Hotspur and Falstaff. Discuss.
In his seriocomic history play, Shakespeare depicts the drama in the year leading to a prolonged civil war in medieval England. Indeed, the drama stems for a variety of sources, names the illegitimacy of King Henry IV’s reign, which creates an unstable political environment and thus brooding rebellion. Whilst Hotspur and Henry play significant roles in this overarching plot, it is the subplot of a wayward prince’s education which compounds upon the tensions raised from the rebellion. Here, Hal takes centre as the outcome of the war becomes increasingly dependent on his rejection of Falstaff and the anarchic spirit of life that Falstaff embodies. In this sense, Falstaff is more important in trivialising the drama rather than building upon it. Essentially, the title is appropriate as Henry IV is the catalyst for drama within the play, however as the intricacies of the play unfold the audience may see Hal as the instigator in building upon the tension.
It becomes clear from the onset of the play that Henry IV’s usurpation of the throne is the cause for drama throughout the kingdom. Indeed, even he has grown “wan with care” and seeks to avoid this conflict by unifying the kingdom in fulfilling their religious role “to chase these pagans in those holy fields”. Yet whilst Henry appears to be discontented by the ongoing conflict, he displays political inaptness, unlike his nature, to insult the nation’s most revered knight Hotspur, addressing him as “sirrah” and tarnishing Mortimer’s name as “revolted” and “foolish”. Indeed, the very act of usurping the throne has inevitably created distrust among him and his former supporters – the Percy’s – thereby leading to more drama as Henry looks to affirm his position. Worcester acknowledges that the King will always think “of us in his debt” and hence the rebellion is seemingly unavoidable as by breaking the ecclesiastical belief of the King’s divine right, Henry has broken the ability for any trust to exist. Henry IV is certainly important in the instigation of the play’s drama – his deposing of Richard II had broken the founding beliefs which dictated England and her children.
Hotspur as the figurehead of the rebellion and the embodiment of valour and chivalry is vital to the play’s drama. Shakespeare creates an awkward tension as Hotspurt’s absolute desire to be the “King of Honour” supercedes his own consideration for safety. Thus, if it was not for Hotspur’s desire to “stir” his blood by rousing a “lion than to start a hare”, the rebellion’s cause would be less dramatic. Hotspur portrayed to be the rival of the Prince, also represents an obstacle for Hal to overcome as the events of the play culminate in the play’s denouement where they engage in a final battle. If it was not for “gallant Hotspur, this all-praised Knight” there would not be anyone for Hal to battle in order to redeem himself. Hence, Hotspur plays an important function in building drama by leading the rebellion but also representing the obstacle for Hal.
The dilemma that faces Hal who has to choose between two worlds and thus essentially two divergent philosophies of life compounds the drama developed by the rebellion. Whilst from the beginning Hal indicates his desire for a “glittering” “reformation” and intentions to redeem “time when men think I will”, the audience is invited to question the veracity of his soliloquy as it is difficult to accept that he does not genuinely enjoy himself in Eastcheap. Thus as we see Hal weave between two disparate worlds, tension is built as it becomes increasingly apparent that the outcome of the rebellion lies solely in his decision to choose one of the other. Indeed, it is once Hal “rises from the ground like feather Mercury” that the drama of the play seems resolved. Hence, whilst Henry’s reign remains in dispute, it ultimately comes down to Hal, as the heir, to be the savior and whether he will do so is a source of drama throughout the play.
Whilst Falstaff is often hailed as the great comedic figure, we should not ignore his role in building the play’s drama. Whilst being the “fat rogue” and “white bearded Satan” it is essential to recognise the questions raised by Falstaff as he subverts the social norm of the moral and just way of journeying through life. This is especially pertinent given that, although he is the antithesis of the play’s leaders in Henry and Hotpsur, he also shares common features. The play’s drama extends to the audience as Shakespeare poses the questions whether Falstaff’s blatant honesty to “live by [his] vocation” is a sin or not. Indeed, his unscrupulous behavior is matched by the Machiavellian politicians who seek only to further their own means. It is also of vital significance that Falstaff is also able to achieve some sense of happiness unlike his political counterparts. Hence, Shakespeare uses Falstaff as a vehicle to not only act as the Vice and create drama for Hal who has to eventually “banish plump Jack” but leaves the audience with considerable afterthoughts on whether they would have done the same.
Essentially, it would be remiss to suggest that a single character is more important than another in Henry IV: Part One. Particularly the four main characters play a defining and varying function in contributing to the play’s drama within and also for the audience. Indeed, Shakespeare’s ultimate challenge to the audience is whether they will pursue a life of freedom that is rife with dishonor
Home
Help
Search
Login
