Is Honor Worth Dying For? In Henry IV, Part One, one of the main points that we see Shakespeare trying to make is the idea of honor and the significance of it. We will be analyzing what honor meant during Shakespeare’s time, connecting and comparing it to what honor meant and represented in the play, and see if any of the characters fulfill honor according to that time. I will concentrate on four specific characters of the play; King Henry, Prince Harry, Hotspur and Falstaff. To each of these characters “honor” had a different meaning from each other, they all interpret it in a different way. I also want to take into consideration of what honor means now and which of these characters are the most honorable ones or one. During Shakespeare’s time in the Middle Ages, honor was something that only important people had; people of name, to them this was very important; it was like a way of life. According to Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages honor had a double meaning, one of these was “I would prefer to die honoured than to live without honour”. Many people today might still feel the same way, but back then we can see that people died for honor, either in war, love or anything else. We also see another meaning of honor during this time “but honour was also an office, a position, and the privileges that went with it, as at Rome where they spoke of the “career of honours”, cursus honorum, the hierarchy of high State offices”(Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages). Honor could have been represented by what you had, how you had of it and how you obtained it. Both of these meanings relate to the play Henry IV Part One. We see how King Henry feels guilty and immoral for taking the crown from Richard II, Prince Hal feels that honor is a virtue and ... ... middle of paper ... ... "Henry IV: From Satirist to Satiric Butt." Aeolian Harps: Essays in Literature in Honor of Maurice Browning Cramer. Ed. Donna G. Fricke and Douglas C. Fricke. Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green University Press, 1976. 81-93. Rpt. in Shakespearean Criticism. Ed. Lynn M. Zott. Vol. 69. Detroit: Gale, 2003. Literature Resource Center. Web. 5 May 2014 "War in Shakespeare's Plays." Shakespearean Criticism. Ed. Michelle Lee. Vol. 88. Detroit: Gale, 2005. Literature Resource Center. Web. 5 May 2014. Scheckner, Peter. "Roth's Falstaff: transgressive humor in Sabbath's Theater." The Midwest Quarterly 46.3 (2005): 220+. Literature Resource Center. Web. 4 May 2014. Shakespeare, William, Stephen Jay. Greenblatt, Walter Cohen, Jean E. Howard, Katharine Eisaman Maus, and Andrew Gurr. The Norton Shakespeare: Based on the Oxford Edition. 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 1997. Print.
Clark, W.G., and W. Aldis Wirhgt, eds. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. Vol 2. USA: Nd. 2 vols.
Prince Hal’s destiny is shaped for him by many forces: his association with the ne'er-do-well Falstaff, the expectations of his father, King Henry IV, and the constant comparison between himself and Hotspur. All three of these forces create in Hal a sense of honor that is an integral part of his education as the ideal king, and throughout the action of Henry IV, Part I, Hal is gaining a knowledge of honor that will shape him into the King that he will become. However, it seems that Hal ultimately chooses one form on honor over the other, although he must compare the honor of Falstaff and the conceptual honor of a chivalric hero before he comes to a final conclusion.
What is honor? Honor coins an individual’s nature. A principle that exists on the purpose of perception, a martyr willing to conform and accomplish. In the case of Shakespeare's play, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, Brutus was the most honorable of men. A brother to Caesar, but a father to Rome, he persist and perish for the future of his child. The idea of ignorance, and the belief of a false faith, turns this noble man toward a vulgar grave, with virtuous notions.
Mack, Maynard. “The World of Hamlet.” Yale Review. vol. 41 (1952) p. 502-23. Rpt. in Shakespeare: Modern Essays in Criticism. Rev. ed. Ed. Leonard F. Dean. New York: Oxford University P., 1967.
In Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar, Brutus and Cassius are both considered honorable men by the public. But, like all traits, honor is in the eye of the beholder. Honor is defined as evidence or symbols of distinction. Those who are placed in power are often chosen because of their traits, which include being honorable. If those in power have any faults, it could diminish their position in the eyes of the public.
In Shakespeare's Henry IV Part One, the characters' many different conceptions of honor govern how they respond to situations. Each character's conception of honor has a great impact on the character's standing after the play. For instance, Falstaff survived because he dishonorably faked his own death, and his untrue claim that he was the one who killed Hotspur may get him a title and land. On the other hand, Hotspur lies dead after losing a duel for honor. Hotspur, who is in many ways the ideal man by the standards of his time, is killed by his lust for honor. In creating Hotspur, Shakespeare has created a variation on the tragic hero of other works: the stubborn tragic hero, who, dying for his fault of honor, does not at last understand his weakness.
In Henry IV, part 1 each character's individual conception of the abstract notion of ‘honor’ effectively defines them. Falstaff elucidates his views about the concept of ‘honor’ as the troops assemble for battle at Shrewsbury:
Shakespeare, William. Othello. Ed. Barbara A. Mowat and Paul Werstine. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2009. Print
In Shakespeare’s play Henry IV Part I, the concept of honor plays a key role in the actions different individuals throughout the play. Honor is a broad word that encompasses various definitions and varies from person to person. Thus, it is no surprise that the main characters also perceive honor in their own specific ways. However, the key aspect of the variability lies within the distinction of class. However, each character perceives honor differently, which in turn leads them to very different courses of action. Three particular individuals who take honor into account differently throughout the play are Prince Hal, Hotspur, and Falstaff. For Hotspur, honor relates to feelings of duty on the battlefield and reputation, while Hal believes
Honor is one of those concepts that is seldom defined. One’s reputation is based on his or her honor, integrity, honesty, and purity. William Shakespeare’s Henry IV is a one of his many plays that deal with the varying ideas of honor, as well as issues of courage, loyalty, and ambition, interposing examples of dishonor, weakness, and the deceitful plots among both the drunkards and noblemen. Shakespeare utilizes suggestive metaphors to create illusions, imagery, and to reinforce the different views of the major issues people were faced with in his time and in ours. His plays often focus on the imagery, either on some obvious important symbol, or some image pattern that recurs throughout the work. Readers are then pushed and pulled through different conceptions and actions of the word, so much so, it gets to the point where it becomes clear that one of the key motifs of the play is an ironic exploration of what that word really means. Falstaff begs explanation, “What is honor? A word. What is in that word “honor”?”, just as the readers do during the course of the play (5.1.133-134).
Shakespeare, William. Othello. Ed. Barbara A. Mowat and Paul Werstine. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2009. Print
Honour within the Elizabethan era primarily stood for the reputation of a person, and it offered respect and admiration. Shakespeare undoubtedly chose to position the responder to depict his own perception on honour due to the prevalence of it throughout his political landscape and its impacts on everyday life. The notion of honour, is first established within the guilt-ridden King Henry IV, who wears a figurative bloody crown as a result of his deposition of his cousin, Richard II. King Henry IV kicks off the play with an attempt to clear his conscience while maintaining the illusion of a clear one to his subordinates. He says to the Lord of Lancaster and the Earl of Westmoreland: “To chase these pagans in those holy fields / over whose acres walked those blessed feet / which fourteen hundred years ago were nailed / for our advantage on the bitter cross.” in Act 1, Scene 1. There are two red herrings Shakespeare throws out to produce the illusion of a stable conscience and an honourable heart to his subjects and these are the use of blank verse to signify nobility and thus power, and the use of the pluralistic language found within ‘our advantage’. The King shies away from the singular ‘I’ so as not to draw attention to the plague ravaging his conscience, and Shakespeare through this shines light on the gratuity of an act such as a Holy
Cohen, Walter, J.E. Howard, K. Eisaman Maus. The Norton Shakespeare. Vol. 2 Stephen Greenblatt, General Editor. New York, London. 2008. ISBN 978-0-393-92991-1
Clark, W. G. and Wright, W. Aldis , ed. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. Vol. 1. New York: Nelson-Doubleday
Scott, Mark W. Shakespearean Criticism: Volume 8, Excerpts from the Criticism of William Shakespeare's Plays and Poetry, from the First Published Appraisals to Current Evaluations. Detroit, MI: Gale Research, 1987. Print.