Discussing ‘Honour’ in Henry IV (i)
Discussing 'Honour' in Henry IV (i)
There are differing concepts of honour throughout the play of Henry IV shown by different characters. There are two characters that depict extremes on each end of the scale, Hotspur (Henry Percy) and Falstaff. This essay will demonstrate the different types of opinions towards what honour is from each character and also give a comparison with examples for each.
Hostpur, or Henry Percy, is the son of Northumberland and is a very fiery character with a short temperament and who is quick to jump to conclusions. His idea of honour lies purely on the battlefield and he believes that the only possible way honour can be measured is with the amount of battles won and opponents conquered. He certainly believes himself to be more honourable than any man and this may explain two things. Firstly it will explain his confidence about his fighting and military knowledge as well as his concept that his idea is always the right one. Secondly it may also explain his rudeness, brashness and sometimes complete disrespect when addressing others, especially those in royalty. He gives a good speech when talking to Worcester and Northumberland about his honour and how he has claimed it.
By heaven, methinks it were an easy leap
To pluck bright honour from the pale faced moon,
Or dive into the bottom of the deep,
Where fathomline could never touch the ground,
And pluck up drowned honour by the locks,
So that he doth redeem her thence might wear,
Without corrival, all her dignities. (209-15, I, iii)
This is a great speech that clearly shows two things. Firstly it shows his disrespect when addressing others and his arrogance that comes with it. More importantly it shows that he believes honour can only be earned by doing an act of some kind of bravery. He gives an example of such a deed in the lines 'To pluck bright honour from a pale faced moon' and also 'dive into the bottom of the deep'. He is stating that in situations where there is a problem or where conditions are hard it takes an exceptional kind of man to go into these situations, 'conquer' them and come out with respect and honour. The action of coming from such a situation with honour is depicted in the line 'pluck up drowned honour by the locks, so that he doth redeem her thence might wear'. He is giving an analogy for two things; first the kind of situation at which bravery and courage is required and secondly the kind of person that will go into that situation and come out earning respect and honour. As he refers to these conditions as being battles he is clearly showing that only a man that can use the sword with skill is worthy of being honourable.
Another quote from Hotspur underlines the fact that he feels honour can only be taken from situations where there is danger and risk.
Send danger from the east unto the west,
So honour cross it from the north to south,
And let them grapple! O, the blood more stirs
To rouse a lion than to start a hare! (203-6, I, iii)
This shows once again the conflict between two sides, this time denoted by positions on the compass, meeting and he feels there is more honour to be won with a great battle ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Another quote from Hotspur underlines the fact that he feels honour can only be taken from situations where there is danger and risk.
Send danger from the east unto the west,
So honour cross it from the north to south,
And let them grapple! O, the blood more stirs
To rouse a lion than to start a hare! (203-6, I, iii)
This shows once again the conflict between two sides, this time denoted by positions on the compass, meeting and he feels there is more honour to be won with a great battle than a smaller one. Hence why he states 'the blood more stirs to rouse a lion than to start a hare!' This again shows exactly how Hotspur feels about honour and the way in which it can be won. Another person who can be compared to being like Hotspur in this way is Douglas. He, just before the battle in the rebel camp, goes to the allies' camp and gives them a call for battle as such by defying them in a ploy to start the confrontation.
Finally, when Hotspur has fought Prince Hal and is dying, he states that he is more mortified and distraught about losing the titles and honour to his slayer than he is about dying in the physical sense.
I better brook the loss of brittle life
Than those proud titles thou hast won of me.
They wound my thoughts worse than they sword my flesh. (78-80, V, vi)
This shows that Hotspur has little respect for Hal as he is more hurt by losing the titles and honour he has won to someone of his nature than dying in itself. Hotspur is so self-contained in the idea of honour that he truly feels great pain in losing a battle to Hal, who he considers not to be as worthy as himself. This shows that although Hotspur has a very hard and manly idea of honour, it is not for attraction and he actually believes in what he says and fights for. He can almost be pitied for being so brave as his courage could sometimes be foolhardy. However, it would be interesting to ask Hotspur himself that why, as he considered himself so honourable, he chose to oppose the king, because that in itself is a crime against the country in treason and those that commit treason are punishable by the worst penalties and could be deemed as the people with the lowest amount of honour and most amount of shame.
In a complete contrast, Falstaff, a drunken lout and thief, is on the other end of the range. He shows complete distaste and is dishonourable in his ways. He condemns the word of honour in his soliloquy at the end of Act V scene i. To summarise his speech he states that honour cannot heal a wound, nor pay back for a dismembered limb and is simply a word that carries no weight for the living nor the dead. He therefore disassociates himself from the concept and seems to do so with some pride and belief. This small but quite hard-hitting speech can account for his ways throughout his life. He lies continually, exaggerates stories to boast to his friends and is even caught out in his ways when Hal tricks him after he has robbed some people. All these acts and his way of life does not compare to perhaps his lowest and dirtiest manipulation of the situation when he acclaims responsibility for slaying Hotspur. Before this incident, when Hal and Hotspur are fighting, Douglas comes in and fights Falstaff. He falls down and pretends to play dead, which is a despicable piece of behaviour in itself that shows nothing but cowardice and lack of self-esteem and morale as well as a lack of honour. This leaves Douglas to go elsewhere and the Prince (Hal) and Hotspur to fight. Once Hostpur has died Hal goes off to find the King and show him what he has finally done, Falstaff arises and when the King returns he claims to have battled Hotspur after the Prince had gone and it was he himself who had killed the man. This is the height of ignorance and dishonour. It shows what a coward and scheming kind of person Falstaff really is and does a huge injustice to Prince Hal. It shows he is also a liar. His statement to the king reads:
I grant you I was down, and out of breath, and so was he; but we both rose at an instant, and fought for a long hour by Shrewsbury clock. (152-4, V, iv)
What it more preposterous is that when Hal claims to the king that it was he that had killed Hotspur, Falstaff comes out with a comment that is pure irony, saying "Lord, Lord. How this world is given to lying." Eventually Hal accepts that he cannot persuade the king otherwise and leaves it at that. There is no honour whatsoever in any of his acts and this proves that what statements he made in his speech were true and he stands by them, even though they make him less of a man. The lack of shame shown by Falstaff underlines that he does not care about honour and for him it plays not part in life. In this way at least he could perhaps be forgiven as he has stated that honour is, for him, not important in life and has no meaning. In this context he cannot be said as having no honour at all because he does not believe in the word, but by other's standards he could be labelled as such.
Prince Hal is an interesting character to include, as he seems to go from both ends of the spectrum throughout the play. At first he is seen as Falstaff's friend and drinking partner, simply a lowly drop out from the royal family rebelling against his father's wishes. However in his own soliloquy he makes a pledge that once the crown beckons to become his he will change his ways and make his father proud of him once again. He compares himself to the sun, as a person that will be 'breaking through the foul and ugly mists of vapours that did strangle him'. He makes a promise and, like a honourable person would, keeps it to the letter. He battles with Hotspur and proves to his father that he is the prodigal son, completely changed and ready for the crown of England. What is also noticeable is that the Prince has occasion to talk in rhyme in early parts of the play whereas Falstaff is always in prose. This shows some kind of other character that Hal has as when in rhyme and being poetic it is seen in plays as having more strength and weight with the words. Falstaff never seems to do this and may account for why he is so scheming and dastardly throughout, never wanting to change his ways for anything.
As well as keeping his promise and redeeming his ways, Hal pays tribute to Hotspur both before they do battle and after he dies. This shows he, as well as being noble on the battlefield, also has respect for others and can bring himself down to such a level whereas he will listen to others and pay them respect where it is earned and deserved. He says of Hotspur beforehand:
The Prince of Wales (Hal) doth join with the entire world
In praise of Henry Percy. By my hopes-
This present enterprise set off his head-
I do not think a braver gentleman,
More active-valiant, or more valiant-young,
More daring or more bold, is now alive
To grace this latter age with noble deeds. (88-94, V, i)
This shows his respect for Hotspur before they do battle. Immediately afterwards he then states another apology saying that he knows he has been off the track in the past, a little wayward and not acting as he should, but he wishes to put that right with this deed and with what is to come. He could therefore been seen as the most honourable person in the play as he can accept his wrong doings, keeps his promises and even pays tribute to his enemy at the time. Although Hal does not condone the action Hotspur is undertaking at this instant ('this enterprise set off his head) he still has respect for what he has achieved in the past.
After killing Hotspur, Hal gives a small tribute to the man and wishes him well in the afterlife. This shows perhaps more honour than any other incident in the play as although he has killed the man and could do what he wishes from this moment, he stays true to what should be done and carries it out with dignity. It seems ironic that he gains so much honour from one mans death when he has led a whole life off of the righteous course, but this is part of the play and shows that one can always repent and come out of if stronger.
The King is quite a misguided man and in history made many wrong decisions during his reign and found it hard to keep the country in order. In his treatment of the rebels he seems to be a little dishonourable but they did commit the biggest offence in treason and perhaps deserved what was brought about. To summarise all the characters, Falstaff is a man who lacks honour but as he has never claimed to believe in the concept he has an excuse of sorts. He leads a life of theft and robbery but does suffer for it at a later time. Hotspur is a man of the battlefield, living and ultimately dying by the sword. He believes one can only gain honour by taking the difficult course in life and that he has done it better than most. Prince Hal lived a wayward life but eventually got back into a position that could be seen as an ideal one and one that is a model for people to follow. He earned honour and kept onto it, becoming a fine king of England. All have different concepts of honour but there is a similarity in that whatever they pledge, they stick to. Hotspur preferred the battlefield, Falstaff preferred to not indulge in anything honourable at all and Hal preferred to earn it when the time was right.
Neil Christie 11N Henry IV Part I Mr. Tobias
