Shakespeare: Henry IV. Part 1: Honor - Essay Example

and section Henry IV Part Honor Falstaff versus Hotspur In the play Henry IV Part most people will say that Hotspur is the “honorable” man when compared with Falstaff. Through the review of several literatures, we find basis to argue that both characters – Hotspur and Falstaff – are honorable, but their amount of honor or their “honorability” is based on whose perspective is being considered. Henry IV Part I singles out the story of Prince Hal’s rise to being a leader along with the various valor of war pressed on from inside and outside of England. After King Henry killed King Richard II and was dethroned, he was then at war with his subjects trying to murder each other and with the war the Scotland had been waging in the northern part of the country. Then, Hotspur emerged as a victor in the war against the Scots but he was no champion for the king, in fact, he challenged King Henry IV when he refused to surrender his prisoners to the kingdom. For some time, the king would look up to Hotspur because he embodied all the qualities of a knight – forceful yet kind, brave, yet smart. Hotspur’s success in the war was just the start of his many admirable qualities, and the king looked up to him for these. At some point, theking even wished Hotspur was his son. Yet even when he was bound to lose the king’s favor, Hotspur, refused to bend to the monarch’s request to surrender the prisoners and instead, he said that the prisoners are for his keeping because he fought for them. With this, we can say that Hotspur did not fight the Scots for the kingdom, but rather for himself. Eventually, Hotspur waged a rebellion against King Henry IV and again, there was war in the kingdom. During the battle, Prince Hal, then killed Hotspur and so the play ends. Written at a time of strict social rules, Shakespeare’s Henry IV Part 1 is a novel of valor and honor – two values which were considered most important at the time. Yet, what is honor and why is it important for people? Generally, honor is defined as an “…abstract word for worth, value, prestige and reputation which an individual claims and which is acknowledged by others” (Neyrey). Honor is also classified into two things: (1) to be honorable for others to praise you, which is very much the same as Neyrey’s definition, and (2) to be honorable because you have to live up for someone else’s wants or wishes wherein integrity is opted to be of high value (Robinson). In most cases, the second form of honor is driven by family members, like in the case of Prince Hal wherein he had promised his father that he would be great leader of England, or by one’s country. The first case is then often pushed through by one’s pride. Now that we have a brief understanding of what honor is, we could then proceed in understanding honor in Shakespeare’s characters. Falstaff, or John Falstaff, is Prince Hal’s close friend. He is famous for his free spiritedness, selfishness, laziness and cowardice. In his definition of honor, Falstaff says “What is honor? Air. A trim reckoning! Who hath it? He that died o’ Wednesday. Doth he feel it? No. Tis insensible then? Yea, to the dead. But will it now live with the living? No.” (Shakespeare). In expounding on this, we read that Falstaff seem to not care of what honor is and how it could affect him. In many analyses, critics seem to regard this particular statement as an indication of Falstaff’s character as having no honor. However, if we were to analyze his statement further we could see that what he simply meant was that he did not value honor and this does not mean that he did not have honor himself. If we go back to the definition of honor, we will realize that the term is typically used to connote worth or value that is acknowledged by others. In this case, Falstaff placed value on himself, instead of the more usual high regard for other people’s needs. That may easily be dismissed as selfishness; however, in the liberalist’s perspective that is simply about him living life, the way he wanted, without regard for society’s conventions. He did not care about how people saw him – and for the liberalist view, this is how life should be. Hence, in the liberalist perpective, we can say that Falstaff is honorable because he places value on himself and his happiness. While most people think that honor is all about putting others above oneself, this is just one view, there are others such that of the liberalist and Neyrey’s who did not specify whose perspective (the individual’s or society’s) is more important in judging what is honorable or not. In the latter part of the novel when Falstaff acted dead and when the war was almost over, he got up and placed a wound on the dead Hotspur and then he claimed that he had killed the famed traitor. This event gives Falstaff a very bad image since what he did was to lie but in this sense, he garnered honor from others, although his main goal was only to gain a reward. In this instance, he could be set as a greedy, lying, and shameless man. His shamelessness has then struck a note of dishonor from him which, I would not argue, is true. Yet, of all the honorable men in the world, how many have refused to lying and performing unacceptable deeds just to be seen as “honorable” by the public? Niccolo Macchiavelli is famous for saying that the end justifies the means. He even goes on to say that the “prince” should not mind cruelty, as long as he is seen as more merciful compared to other rulers. And yet, one must note that cruelty is a negative trait, but it can be considered as honorable in a certain degree. If we apply this to the case of Falstaff, not because he lied about killing Hotspur, means that he is dishonorable – if no one knew about this lie, then people will regard him with honor, and will look up to him. Macchiavelli said that it is important for a “prince” to be loved and honored, the means how he gets these favors are no longer of the essence. People thought Falstaff killed a traitor and saved the kingdom, as a result, people saw Falstaff as honorable; hence, Falstaff is honorable. Moreover, in the case of Falstaff playing dead while the others were at war, even though many have said that this was cowardice, I shall say otherwise. Playing dead also involves risks – one can get trampled on by horses or stepped on by soldiers. This was seen as cowardice if we use the traditional standards wherein men were supposed to fight their battles. But Falstaff did not have skills in wielding swords, he does not have the capability to win a fight head on. So he did what he could and protected himself – he played dead until the war was over. If look at his action in in the Kantian view which says that every person is valuable and has an intrinsic worth, therefore, when one save himself from possible harm then that act is considered honorable, thus, Falstaff’s action in saving himself by acting dead so he no longer needs to fight was, in the Kantian perspective, honorable and right. We could now, therefore say, that Falstaff is honorable in the sense that he has placed justice in valuing himself. However, since “honor exists only in the eyes of the public who expects certain things and evaluates individuals accordingly” (Neyrey) then Falstaff still falls on the dishonorable category since most people who have criticized him has said so. Then, Falstaff is an honorable man in his own sense but since the public views him as otherwise, then he is not. Hotspur, or Harry Percy, on the other hand is known as the iconic honorable character in the play despite his hot temperedness and his rebellion against King Henry IV. This is because even at his introduction, he was admired for his chivalry and his success in overcoming various feats. As such, King Henry IV said “…in envy that my Lord Northumberland should be the father to so blest a son—A son who is the theme of honor’s tongue…” (Shakespeare) when he was talking to the Earl of Northumberland, Hotspur’s father. From this introduction alone we could then say that, by a public’s view, Hotspur is the more honorable character than Falstaff. Aside from what other people have said, however, Hotspur’s honorability conforms with Neyrey’s definition wherein Hotspur, unlike Falstaff, has incorporated “worth, value, prestige and reputation” to himself which had made him an icon of honor from the play. He is then more ideal than Falstaff when it comes to honor. In categorizing Hotspur’s honor, we are then led to the first category wherein he is driven to honor by his pride. This could be seen in his unfailing principle first in thwarting King Richard II in Richard II and then in his unsuccessful triumph in trying to remove King Henry IV. He did not stop in trying to remove King Henry IV for he had to stand on principle and, even though he was already losing; his principles were intact and his pride urged him to go on with his goals. This then led to his death which he had embraced even at the last moment as he said “O Harry, thou hast robbed me of my youth! I better brook the loss of brittle life…” (Shakespeare). In liberalism, since they believe that what one does should not be held or controlled by any form of government (Sandel) then what Hotspur did in waging war over the royal family and sacrificing himself in the process was a justifiable, ergo, an honorable thing for him to do. In contrast to this, for Emmanuel Kant what Hotspur did was not an honorable thing to do. This is because for Kant every man is important no matter what he did and what he is bound to do, he is still worth the same as every other man (Sullivan). So, therefore, since waging war despite a good motive is bad since war is intrinsically not a good thing to do, what Hotspur did was not a very honorable thing to do. When we add his acceptance of death and putting himself in the line of death, this could be seen as him not putting value on his humanity, on his self, and is, thus, not a justifiable thing and is then a form dishonor to oneself. Therefore, we could say that, despite being the mostly favored honorable character and for posing many characteristics of an honorable man, based on Neyrey’s and on Robinson’s definitions of honor, and for satisfying the liberalist’s view, Hotspur is not very much honorable in the Kantian perspective due to his incapability to put value in his life and self which is very much very important in satisfying this view. Honor is, therefore, given to both Falstaff and Hotspur despite their extremities in perception and embodiment of the said characteristics. Based on the definition of Neyrey and Robinson about honor, both character poses honor, though show they show it in different manners. Hotspur would see honor to be prestige, worth, value and reputation, Falstaff would only satisfy worth and value and his selfishness is translated as a form of self honor. Aside from this, both characters are liberalist in a sense that they follow what they wanted and are therefore honorable. For Kant, however, Falstaff is the only honorable people for valuing himself. However, it is important to note that when it comes to honor, the public is still the judge. In the old days, Falstaff may be regarded as dishonorable but modern people will see his actions as befitting his capabilities – he is true to himself, hence he is honorable. On the other hand, Hotspur may be honorable for most people, but his wish to over throw the king may be dishonorable. Hence, one may say that honor cannot be defined by just one act, but rather on the intention behind such acts. Works Cited Neyrey, Jerome H. Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew. Westminster John Knox Press, 1998. Robinson, Paul. Military honour and the conduct of war: from ancient Greece to Iraq. Taylor and Francis, 2006. Sandel, Michael J. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Shakespeare, William. Henry IV PArt 1. New York: Washington Square Press, 1960. Sullivan, Roger J. Immanuel Kant's Moral Theory. Cambridge Universuty Press, 1989. Read More