Irony

Is it ironic that so often in plays or novels or other literature characters end up saying or doing something by the end that they disdained so much in the beginning? 

Let's take Edmund.  When he is first introduced and discusses the idea of omens and fate with his father Gloucester, he tells us after the conversation: "This is the excellent foppery of the world, that, when we are
sick in fortune, often the surfeit of our own behaviour, we make guilty of our disasters the sun, the moon, and the stars; as if we were villains on necessity; fools by heavenly compulsion/knaves, thieves, and treachers by spherical pre-dominance/drunkards, liars, and adulterers by an enforc'd obedience of/planetary influence; and all that we are evil in, by a divine thrusting on (1.1.443-449).  Edmund is a skeptic, to say the least. 

His attitude reminds me of Hotspur in Henry IV, part 1, who I mentioned earlier in one of my musings. 

Unlike Hotspur, however, Edmund apparently has a change of heart when he is dying.  Edgar tells him: "The gods are just, and of our pleasant vices/Make instruments to scourge us/The dark and vicious place where thee he got/Cost him his eyes," and Edmund comes back with, "Th' hast spoken right; 'tis true/The wheel is come full circle; I am here." 

So...Edmund fulfills his own words.  When he's in charge, fate is something to be laughed at.  When he's dying, obviously "the wheel" brought him to that place. 

How often do we do the same thing?  It's easy to think we're in charge when things are going our way.  However, it's just as easy to blame others when things don't. 

Social Discovery!

I found Henry IV, part 1 to be interesting and engaging, despite my initial reservations.  I especially found looking into the characters of Hal and Hotspur to be interesting and informative, and that was originally going to be my only focus, but I found as I kept reading the play and watching the BBC production that this isn't just about the two of them.  This play is character-driven.  Unlike The Tempest, which is about spectacle and mystery, the drama, action, and humor in this play comes from the characters, and I feel like any appropriate analysis of this work will be mostly centered on the characters. 

Let's start with Hotspur.  He is impulsive (as his name suggests), honor-driven, and youthful.  He's willing to sacrifice anything to maintain his honor, including his soldiers, as he shows here when he learns that his father the earl isn't coming to help the rebels:

I rather of his absence make this use:/It lends a lustre and more great opinion/A larger dare to our great enterprise/Than if the earl were here; for men must think/If we without his help can make a head/To push against a kingdom, with his help/We shall o'erturn it topsy-turvy down (4.1.2299-2305).

He likes looking awesome more than he cares about his army's chance of victory.  He exhibits a trait that the Greeks would have called hubris, excessive arrogance and self-confidence.  I previously discussed how this even extends to the supernatural realm (or at least one person's claim to the supernatural).  Hotspur is the classic tragic hero.  Young, strong, rational, and clever, but with that ultimate fatal flaw: arrogance.  The BBC production put more emphasis into this reading of Hotspur, showing his impulsive temper and condescension towards others. 

I also found online a fantastic blog in which the cast of an all-female production of Henry IV, part 1 wrote about their experiences playing various characters, and I thought the post from the actress who played Hotspur was a particularly valuable insight into the character.  Here's the link: http://pcshakespeare.com/blog/2011/08/19/playing-hotspur/

Then there's Hal.  Hal is a little more subtle than Hotspur.  Okay, a lot more subtle than Hotspur.  Hal is the consummate manipulator.  Some have taken this play as Hal's realization of his role in life and his acceptance of the responsibilities of the crown, but the thing is, he already knows what his role is supposed to be.  He's just planning for it by pretending to resemble a lowlife so he can look that much greater when he's the king.  Very Machiavellian, is Hal.  The film brought this out even more, especially during the dialogue when Hal and Falstaff are impersonating Henry IV and Hal at court.  Falstaff gives his famous line "banish not him thy Harry's company: banish plump Jack, and banish all the world" and Hal responds with "I do, I will."  The look on Falstaff's face when he realizes that Hal isn't joking anymore really brought the point home to me that Hal is using his friends as part of his plan.  I thought the director and actors really made that scene telling in the film. 



The man himself.



I was also struck by Henry's character.  I noted earlier that the film brought out his piety and real devotion to the Church, including his desire to crusade.  As I searched the Internet though, I found something I didn't consider: Henry does not consider himself the true king of England.  Historically, Henry IV seized power from his cousin Richard II, and had him executed.  In the play, Henry regrets this and feels as though his honor has been compromised.  He is a cross between Hal and Hotspur, combining Hal's semi-Machiavellian tendencies with Hotspur's desire for honor.  He shows this when he wishes that Hotspur had been his son instead of Hal.  Unlike either of them, however, he tries to redeem himself through the Church rather than seeking solace in combat and rationalism like Hotspur or social vindication like Hal.  Here's a link on Henry's motivations and ideas:

http://nabercoxnet.blogspot.com/2008/02/analysis.html

I felt with this play that Shakespeare's point was to show some of the hard, cold facts of life: it isn't always the heroic characters who succeed in life.  Hotspur dies at Hal's hands, even as Hal finishes Hotspur's last thought-that he is food for worms, and nothing more.  In most plays, the hero succeeds.  In this play, the hero is mortal just like everyone else, and it is the cold, calm planner who comes out on top. 

 

Random Thoughts on Henry IV

I began watching the BBC production of Henry IV while reading the play.  I decided to take the approach of reading an act, then watching the act, so I could compare the two easily.  While I was doing this, I noticed something I thought was interesting.  The BBC production script is taken straight from the text, which means that in order for me to glean interpretation from the film, I had to pay attention to how the actors said things instead of just their lines, in addition to their actions and surroundings.  I noticed a couple things about how the subject of religion is treated in the play. 
In the very beginning of the play, Henry IV complains that he and his nobles cannot go on crusade because of the domestic problems (Scotland, Wales, and the rebels) happening in England at the time.  When I read the play, I honestly didn't think anything of this scene.  Going on crusade was a way for nobles of the time (Crusades went down all the time.  The famous crusades to Jerusalem that we normally think of happened from about 1096-1291, a little before Henry's time-1367-1413, but there were also crusades against southern France, the Baltic region, and pretty much anyone who was an infidel or a heretic) to redeem themselves and be absolved by the Church without any of those things like self-reflection or forgiveness mentioned by Jesus. 



Above: The New Testament says to treat people like this, right?

Anyways, due to the historical context of crusading in general, I didn't think anything of this when I read it, but when I watched the movie, it showed Henry as a devout, solemn, practicing Catholic who was serious and genuine about redeeming the Holy Land.  Everyone at the time was Catholic in England (the Anglican/Catholic split hadn't happened yet) but I thought it was interesting that the movie played up Henry's religion. 

On the other side of this religiousness are Hotspur and all his pals, the most notable of whom is Owen Glendower, a Welsh soldier who in real life was an effective guerilla leader who evaded the English for his entire life and is now a Welsh national hero, but in Shakespeare is a crazy semi-wizard who rambles about how awesome he is.  Anti-Welsh prejudice (admittedly, nearly anti-everything prejudice) had existed in England for a long time, but what I found more interesting than Glendower's weirdness were Hotspur's rebuttals to his claims in Act III, scene I:

Glendower. I cannot blame him: at my nativity/The front of heaven was full of fiery shapes/Of burning cressets; and at my birth/The frame and huge foundation of the earth/Shaked like a coward.

Hotspur (Henry Percy). Why, so it would have done at the same season, if your mother's cat had but kittened, though yourself had never been born.

And again:

Glendower. I can call spirits from the vasty deep.

Hotspur (Henry Percy). Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them?

Hotspur seems to take a rational approach to Glendower's claims of supernatural ability.  Rather than denounce Glendower as a sinner, or as against the Church or Christianity, Hotspur simply tells him that he is not rational, and that the earth is going to behave the way it does whether people try to influence it or not, and he also implies that there is no power in adherence to the supernatural, as the "spirits" aren't going to come if called for.  The character of Henry Percy used to be considered the star performance of the play, with the idea that the main character is Hal (Henry V) being a fairly recent idea.  Is Shakespeare advocating rationalism in this play?  I think I want to look into the debate on Shakespeare's religious preference as part of my looking into Hotspur's character. 

Just Can't Wait To Be King

My assigned play is Henry IV, part 1.  I had to admit, when I saw it on the assignment list, my first reaction was "What? I've never read that play in my life!"  I'm going to assume that I was assigned a history play because I'm a history major (Just a guess), although truth be told, I was hoping for Henry V if I was going to get a history-come on, the St. Crispin's Day speech is awesome, and Agincourt was a legendary battle both in Shakespeare and in real life-but I think I like this play too.  It'll be very interesting to learn the facts behind the events narrated in Henry IV, part 1. 

I've been looking around that font of all knowledge, the Internet, for information on my topic, and I think I want to examine the characters of Hotspur (Henry Percy) and Hal (the future Henry V), the main antagonist and protagonist respectively.  This interests me as a historian because these were the two historical characters who were fictionalized the most in the play.  Hotspur, in real life, was an older noble, a contemporary of Henry IV who led the rebellion, rather than a hothead youth who is pressured into fighting Henry by his noble relatives.  Hal, the Prince of Wales, is a semi-serious youth who runs around with a group of lowlife friends, most notably a fat old man named Falstaff.  He apparently has other motives for doing this, though, as he wants to "imitate the sun, who doth permit the base contagious clouds to smother up his beauty from the world, That, when he please again to be himself, Being wanted, he may be more wonder'd at" (1.1.300-05).  In other words, he's using his friends to look bad so he can look better as king.  Shakespeare deliberately altered the identities of these two historical characters when he didn't have to.  I want to know why that is. 

Falstaff and Hal-Friends don't let friends use them to become King of England.

Here are some links to look up summaries and background on Henry IV, part 1 in case you're interested.  (I won't be upset if you  aren't). 

General Information/Summaries/Analysis:

http://www.gradesaver.com/henry-iv-part-1/

Battle of Shrewsbury/Rebel Motives/Historical Analysis:

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/medieval/shrewsbury/