The Many Ways to Be a Rebel
Divergent forms of rebellion in Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1
William Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1 is an exploration of the dynamic and complex interplay between morality and power during King Henry IV’s reign over England nearing the close of the Middle Ages. In the play, two distinct stories of rebellion and disorder run parallel — the story of Prince Hal’s rebellion against his father, and the rebel uprising led by the Percys.
Evident also is a rejection of feudalistic conventions and virtues, as well as the aftermath of an illegitimate seizure of the throne. In all these cases, Shakespeare illuminates the inevitable drawbacks of rebelling without a just cause.
Hotspur and the Percys: rebellion for retribution
The Percys’ rebellion against King Henry is born out of fear and a desire for vindication. In the play’s opening scene, Henry is informed by Westmoreland of the “civil butchery” that has broken out in England. Most notably, “gallant Hotspur” has defeated the Douglas and is refusing to release “the prisoners in your highness’ name demanded.”
This issue becomes magnified when Henry denies a request to “ransom straight… foolish Mortimer”, inciting Hotspur’s rage to the point where he “make[s] a hazard of my head” and plots, together with his father and uncle, an uprising against the king.
Worcester, the key instigator of this rebellion, declares that their motive is to no longer “live scandalized and foully spoken of”, offering insight into the injustice of this rebellion. Hotspur, too, shares this burning desire to “redeem your banish’d honours”, and the audience would be quick to realise that this plot is not a righteous endeavour to dethrone an illegitimate ruler and establish a rightful one instead.
Rather, it appears that the Percys resent Henry’s treatment of them despite the fact that they “did give him that same royalty he wears”. However, this rebellion is shown to prove fatal by Shakespeare. On the eve of the battle of Shrewsbury, Hotspur is notified that his father Northumberland is “grievous sick” and cannot raise his army.
Not long afterwards, there is also news that Glendower “cannot draw his power this fourteen days” and will not participate in the battle. While the veracity of these reasons for absence remains dubious, they highlight the infirmity of a rebellion that is the product of unethical and morally reprehensible rationale.
Henry IV: rebellion for authority
Similarly, the upshot of Henry’s illegitimate usurpation of Richard II’s crown is that he must strive to maintain the pretence of a worthy and rightful king when it is clear that he is not.
The audience, at the play’s outset, is met with a “melancholy” Henry who describes himself and his country as “shaken” and “wan with care”. From his mentioning that “find we a time for frighted peace”, it is implicit that civil warfare has been the theme of events for much of his reign.
Henry is evidently and deeply affected by the disorder that reigns tyrannical throughout the kingdom, as illustrated by his wish that England no longer “daub her lips with her own children’s blood”. It becomes clear later, however, that much of the social chaos has erupted as a result of Henry’s usurpation of Richard, and he must now endure the hardships that he faces in attempting to restore order to a fractured realm.
This, in turn, compounds the notion that an unwarranted rebellion leads to deficiencies and impediments that are not easily overcome. When Henry reproaches Hal for his dissolute behaviour, he makes a point to portray his uprising against Richard in a favourable light.
He lauds the way he “stole all courtesy from heaven” and “pluck[ed] allegiance from men’s hearts”, urging Hal to follow in this path in order to gain public affection. However, it is ironic that the reason Henry must admonish Hal at all is due to his own former “mistreadings”. Hal is pressured to fulfil the “debt I never promised” to ensure that Henry’s reign is not further tarnished, but rather bolstered by Hal when he himself becomes king.
It is here that the full impact of Henry’s usurpation resonates with the audience. Through the repercussions of Henry’s seizure of the throne, Shakespeare highlights the dangers that rebelling against a monarch may present.
Falstaff: rebellion for revelry
Aside from the explicit instances of rebellion that are prevalent in Henry IV, Part 1, Falstaff represents a complete rejection of medieval convention and common conceptions of virtues. Widely compared by critics to the Lord of Misrule — who would preside over the Christmas revelries in the pagan tradition of Saturnalia — Falstaff embodies many carefree and irreverent qualities.
He is questioned by Hal “What a devil has thou to do with the time of day” in their first meeting in the play, and his lack of regard for time is also apparent on the battlefield when Hal reproaches “What, is it a time to jest and dally now?”
Falstaff seems content to live “all out of compass”, heeding nobody’s rules but his own — in essence a rebellion born of hedonism and contempt. Falstaff cannot countenance the chivalric notions of the time adhered to by the nobility, as they lend themselves to dying with honour — “Die all, die merrily” — and he does not fathom the sense in this pursuit.
His famous catechism illustrates how he perceives honour as a “mere scutcheon” that cannot “set to a leg” or suffer “detraction”. This pragmatic view is subversive, especially for an anointed knight, and while it culminates in the preservation of his life, the ramifications of his disregard for chivalry are apparent.
Although his pleasurable lifestyle in the tavern is virtually harmless and enjoyed by the audience, as the battle of Shrewsbury draws nearer, Falstaff’s actions take on a more sinister quality. He “misused the king’s press damnably” by pocketing bribes from affluent members of society who prefer to avoid conscription.
Falstaff also appears out of place on the battlefield: alighting from encounters with any enemy he faces; holding a “bottle of sack” in his pistol holster; and eventually feigning death at the hands of the Douglas. These behavioural patterns, while once amusing, portray the faults in a rebellion against convention that is not predicated upon sound motivation.
Hal: rebellion for reformation
Unlike those of the play’s other characters, Hal’s rebellion against his father and his destined position of kingship proves to result in his own favour, and by extension, the kingdom’s.
Appearing on stage as an apparently degenerate youth carousing with members of Eastcheap’s tavern, Hal allows the audience a more intimate perspective of his behaviour with his soliloquy. He boldly and unflinchingly claims to “herein… imitate the sun” by temporarily “uphold[ing] the unyok’d humour” of his tavern companions.
This sets the stage for Hal’s “glitt’ring” reformation designed to “show more goodly… than that which hath no foil to set it off”. Hal’s rebellion diverges from the play’s others in the sense that he has praiseworthy intentions to “throw of” his “loose behaviour” as it if were a mere cloak. This strategy is presented to Henry by Hal, and the King appears relieved that his son has plans to “redeem all this on Percy’s head… in the closing of some glorious day”.
Hal’s rebellion ends as the battle edges closer, precipitating the reformation which culminates at Shrewsbury where he “redeem[s] thy lost opinion”. No other character’s rebellion is shown to have positive outcomes, save Hal, who is eventually lauded for his tremendous and dramatic behavioural shift, priming himself as England’s next king.
By the denouement of Henry IV, Part 1, it is clear to the audience that there are indeed many fashions in which one may rebel. Each form of rebellion manifests itself differently in society and has varying, but typically devastating, effects.
However, Shakespeare’s portrayal of Hal’s apparent behavioural abasement is to emphasise the absolute integrity with which he reforms and to show that a rebellion with a righteous and moral enterprise is the only type that will ultimately prosper.
