Motifs in Henry IV Part 1

Henry IV Part 1 has long been a favorite with audiences among William Shakespeare's history plays. There are a number of reasons that this is the case; there is a wonderfully entertaining blend of high (and low) comedy, noble and heartfelt speeches and scenes, and a few spurts of intense action. In short there is something for almost everyone in this play, not to mention the masterful command of the English language that has made Shakespeare the world's most popular playwright. It must be acknowledged, however, that the one single element that is likely the most memorable in the play for most theatre goers -- as well as readers of he play, though perhaps to a lesser degree -- is the character of John Falstaff. Sir Falstaff is a knight of ill repute and even less reputable deeds; a drunkard, cheat, robber, and generally lazy and lascivious lout, Falstaff is one of the most entertaining and ultimately poignant characters in the play. His importance to the text does not end there, however.

There are certain distinct parallels between Falstaff's actions and character and the overall plot and arc of the play that demand examination. The true action of the play consists of Henry IV's attempts to put down a rebellion in the northern reaches of his kingdom, and there is a sense of theft on the part of the rebel lords just as there is with Falstaff and his highway activities. In fact, robbery and rebellion are motifs that appear in both of the major stories that run through Henry IV Part 1. Hal's group of rascal friends, the rebel lords themselves, and Henry Bolingbroke and his advisors and friends all must grapple with both robbery and rebellion in some sense. Ultimately, however, both of these apparent evils are seen as a means to a more noble end: robbery and rebellion allow for restitution and new allegiance.

Rebellion can occur in many ways. Within the action of Henry IV Part 1, Henry IV references his usurpation -- a definite type of rebellion -- against Richard II and Hal's rebellion against his noble heritage by carousing with Falstaff, the rebel lords declare their intentions against the king (the most overt rebellion in the play), Falstaff vaguely rebels against his future king in repeated verbal assaults, and Hal ultimately rebels against his seeming-mentor Falstaff when he becomes noble and accepts his role as heir to the throne. It has even been suggested that Prince Hal needed to spend time with Falstaff in order to understand his future subjects, and that his seeming rebellion against his nature as heir apparent was in fact designed to make him a better king (Mabillard). This idea that rebellion could actually occur along principles that uphold the position if not the person of the monarchy is seen throughout the play.

This is certainly what is seen in Hal's decision to become a thief. Falstaff initially hatches a plan to rob some travelers on the midnight road, enlisting Hal's aid in the venture. Hal eventually aggress, but hatches his own plan and robs Falstaff and the other thieves in disguise, eventually returning the stolen money and property to its rightful owners. When Hal reveals his deeds to Falstaff, the latter rejoins by saying he knew it was Hal: "Was it for me to kill the heir apparent?" (II. iv. 222). Thus, as Falstaff would have it, the very ignoble behavior exhibited by Hal in the robbery was only allowed to persist so that he may live to be King. The robbery is a step in Hal's rise to his noble nature; his rebellion against Falstaff and allegiance to his destiny.

This transition is not entirely affected within the action of Henry IV Part 1, however. At the end of the play, Falstaff takes credit for killing Hotspur, which is a feat actually accomplished by Hal. This could be seen as a form of treason; though not an instance of overt rebellion, Falstaff's appropriation of a key defeat in the battle with the rebels is an attempt to gain credit despite his lack of true allegiance to the crown and Hal that he shows through his cowardice. It is also a theft of the glory that is truly due to Hal, which also makes it a somewhat rebellious act. Yet William Over reminds us that Falstaff "is an amazing combination of vulgarity and gentility," and though Falstaff certainly does not appear to be displaying any gentility in his actions in the battle, Shakespeare has a very clever point to make with his decision to let Falstaff keep the credit -- and a modicum of glory -- for killing Hotspur. Thogh Hal has conducted himself with honor, nobility, and bravery during the battle and in his challenge and eventual fight with Hotspur, he appears entirely comfortable letting the glory of his victory out of his grasp, showing the perfect balance of majesty and humility (Mabillard).

A somewhat similar pattern, of moments of rebellion and disloyalty leading to a new and often stronger perception of loyalty, is noticeable with King Henry IV himself. Henry Bolingbroke rose to the throne of England by deposing the sitting King, Richard II, despite the fact that King's chosen heir was still alive and had a strong claim to the throne in his own right. This was definitely seen as an act of rebellion by some, and was used as an excuse for rebellion against Henry IV, but this King explains that Richard II "carded his state, / Mingled his royalty with cap'ring fools" (III. iii. 60-4). Henry perceived Richard II bastardizing the respect that the crown deserved, and took it upon himself to restore the dignity and nobility of purpose to the throne (Wentersdorf). This is also, of course, the reason given by those rebelling against Henry.

Henry Percy, or Hotspur, has his own designs for the throne, and no small number of supporters amongst the rebel nobility and the common foot soldiers. The reason that so many join with Hotspur so readily is the same reason that Henry IV had abundant support when he took the crown from Richard II, and the same reason he fears passing the crown to the rascally Hal -- in each instance, someone with more honor is seen as necessary for the job. Douglas, the Scottish lord somewhat at the center of the rebellion movement, says outright to Hotspur "Thou art the king of honor" (IV. i. 10). From this and similar statements it can be seen that the attempt to overthrow King Henry IV is at least as much in favor of loyalty to a new king as it is against the old. There is no act of rebellion in this play that does not in some way match this model; rebellion always leads to -- perhaps requires -- a new allegiance, for better or worse.

At the same time, a certain ignobility is definitely noticeable in many members of the rebel camp, particularly Worcester. He is wheedling and whining in his rebellion; he does not appear nearly as firm in his resolve to go against the throne as his compatriots. After not receiving a favorable response to his proffered list of grievances, Worcester seems outlandishly surprised that the King "calls us rebels, traitors, and will scourge / With haughty arms this hateful name in us" (V. ii. 39-40). It is quite telling that although Worcester is the least certain of his resolve in the rebellion, he also comes off as one of the most cowardly and unworthy nobleman. Though Hotspur is set completely on a rebellious and tyrannous path, he appears noble even to his death. Shakespeare does not simply condemn rebellion in this play, but rather condemns a lack of principled motive that seems to encourage a sort of lazy anarchy.