contrasted characters in a single play; and the profound representation in their persons of the principle of honour makes the First Part of King Henry IV. the most perfect expression at once of Shakespeare's own philosophy of life and of the ideals which, in the reign of Elizabeth, were urging their conflicting claims on the English imagination. Hotspur is the incarnation of chivalry. He is, as Douglas calls him, "the King of honour."1 Honour, the dazzling image of romantic valour and adventure, is the motive of all his actions. As his father says of him :— Imagination of some great exploit Drives him beyond the bounds of patience;2 and as he himself continues, half rapt in soliloquy :-By heaven methinks it were an easy leap, To pluck bright honour from the pale-faced moon, Or dive into the bottom of the deep, Where fathom-line could never touch the ground, But like the expiring chivalry of the age, his imagination is as remote from the realities of things as are the dreams embodied in Sidney's Arcadia. His uncle Worcester observes of him : He apprehends a world of figures here, But not the form of what he should attend.4 Except in battle he is not a fitting companion for men of action. By his petulant impatience he offends those whom it is his interest to conciliate, and his ungoverned imagination makes him spoil the best laid plans. Falstaff is violently contrasted with Hotspur. This character is the unmistakable child of Shakespeare's invention, who first represented him on the stage under the name of Sir John Oldcastle, as appears from several allusions in Henry IV., and also from a passage in the play of a contemporary dramatist.5 The same knight figures among 1 King Henry IV. Part 1, Act iv. Sc. 4. 3 Ibid. Act i. Sc. 3. 2 Ibid. Act i. Sc. 3. 5 Nathaniel Field in his Amends of Ladies, Act iv. Sc. 3 (1611), speaks of the soliloquy on honour as having been spoken by Sir John Oldcastle. the companions of the Prince of Wales in The Famous Victories of Henry V., but has there none of the attributes of Falstaff. The name of the latter seems to have been substituted for that of the historical Lollard, in consequence of the protests of the living descendants of Oldcastle, backed no doubt by the Puritan faction, who were displeased at seeing any one bearing the name of the martyr presented on the stage in a ridiculous light. The famous soliloquy on Honour contains the kernel of Falstaff's philosophy : FAL. I would 'twere bed-time, Hal, and all well. [Exit.] Yea, but how if honour Can honour set to a leg? FAL. 'Tis not due yet; I would be loath to pay him before his day. What need I be so forward with him that calls not on me? Well, 'tis no matter; honour pricks me on. prick me off when I come on? how then? no or an arm? no: or take away the grief of a wound? no. Honour hath no skill in surgery, then? no. What is honour? a word. What is in that word honour? What is that honour? air. A trim reckoning! Who hath it? he that died o' Wednesday. Doth he feel it? no. Doth he hear it? no. 'Tis insensible, then? Yea, to the dead. But will it not live with the living? no. Why? detraction will not suffer it. Therefore I'll none of it. Honour is mere scutcheon and so ends my catechism.1 Here is the positive and material view of life put forward in all its grossness, but with extraordinary wit. Falstaff is the spokesman of all who are content "propter vitam vivendi perdere causas." In this respect he stands in the sharpest contrast with Hotspur, who exclaims with his dying breath : I better brook the loss of brittle life Than those proud titles thou hast won of me; They wound my thoughts worse than thy sword my flesh : Life, on the other hand, is everything to Falstaff : 1 King Henry IV., Part i. Act v. Sc. 1. VOL. IV 2 Ibid. Act v. Sc. 4. 1 contrasted characters in a single play; and the profound representation in their persons of the principle of honour makes the First Part of King Henry IV. the most perfect expression at once of Shakespeare's own philosophy of life and of the ideals which, in the reign of Elizabeth, were urging their conflicting claims on the English imagination. Hotspur is the incarnation of chivalry. He is, as Douglas calls him, "the King of honour."1 Honour, the dazzling image of romantic valour and adventure, is the motive of all his actions. As his father says of him :Imagination of some great exploit Drives him beyond the bounds of patience; 2 and as he himself continues, half rapt in soliloquy :--- To pluck bright honour from the pale-faced moon, Or dive into the bottom of the deep, Where fathom-line could never touch the ground, But like the expiring chivalry of the age, his imagination He apprehends a world of figures here, But not the form of what he should attend.4 Except in battle he is not a fitting companion for men of action. By his petulant impatience he offends those whom it is his interest to conciliate, and his ungoverned imagination makes him spoil the best laid plans. Falstaff is violently contrasted with Hotspur. This character is the unmistakable child of Shakespeare's invention, who first represented him on the stage under the name of Sir John Oldcastle, as appears from several allusions in Henry IV., and also from a passage in the play of a contemporary dramatist. The same knight figures among 1 King Henry IV. Part 1, Act iv. Sc. 4. 2 Ibid. Act i. Sc. 3. 3 Ibid. Act i. Sc. 3. 4 Ibid. Act i. Sc. 3. 5 Nathaniel Field in his Amends of Ladies, Act iv. Sc. 3 (1611), speaks of the soliloquy on honour as having been spoken by Sir John Oldcastle. the companions of the Prince of Wales in The Famous Victories of Henry V., but has there none of the attributes of Falstaff. The name of the latter seems to have been substituted for that of the historical Lollard, in consequence of the protests of the living descendants of Oldcastle, backed no doubt by the Puritan faction, who were displeased at seeing any one bearing the name of the martyr presented on the stage in a ridiculous light. The famous soliloquy on Honour contains the kernel of Falstaff's philosophy : FAL. I would 'twere bed-time, Hal, and all well. PRINCE. Why, thou owest God a death. [Exit.] FAL. 'Tis not due yet; I would be loath to pay him before his day. What need I be so forward with him that calls not on me? Well, 'tis no matter; honour pricks me on. prick me off when I come on? how then? Yea, but how if honour Can honour set to a leg? no: or an arm? no: or take away the grief of a wound? no. Honour hath no skill in surgery, then? no. What is honour? a word. What is in that word honour? What is that honour? air. A trim reckoning! Who hath it? he that died o' Wednesday. Doth he feel it? no. Doth he hear it? no. 'Tis insensible, then? Yea, to the dead. But will it not live with the living? no. Why? detraction will not suffer it. Therefore I'll none of it. Honour is mere scutcheon and so ends my catechism.1 Here is the positive and material view of life put forward in all its grossness, but with extraordinary wit. Falstaff is the spokesman of all who are content "propter vitam vivendi perdere causas." In this respect he stands in the sharpest contrast with Hotspur, who exclaims with his dying breath : I better brook the loss of brittle life Than those proud titles thou hast won of me; They wound my thoughts worse than thy sword my flesh: Life, on the other hand, is everything to Falstaff :— 1 King Henry IV., Part i. Act v. Sc. 1. VOL. IV 2 Ibid. Act v. Sc. 4. I I like not such grinning honour as Sir Walter hath give me life which if I can save, so; if not, honour comes unlooked for, and there's an end.1 If it be asked what there is in Falstaff a knight without sense of honour, a boastful coward, a fat debauchee to attract the heroic soul of Prince Henry, the answer is that Falstaff is a comic character appealing with peculiar sympathy to that reflective humour which the Prince possessed. His character is an illustration of the truth of Plato's subtle observation that "the sense of the ridiculous is mainly excited by exhibitions of selfdeception." 2 He is a genuine representative of the selfish side of human nature, and puts into forcible words thoughts and feelings which other men do their best to keep out of sight. His cowardice is absolutely transparent, yet he is content with himself, and the witty euphuistic logic, the theatrical bombast, the enormous lies, under which he seeks to disguise his real nature, only serve to bring it into stronger relief. Hence his character produces, in the imagination of the spectator, not only an idea of incongruity-the most essential element of the ridiculous-but that sense of superiority so forcibly described by Hobbes: "The passion of laughter is nothing else but a sudden glory, arising from a sudden conception of some eminency in ourselves, by comparison of the infirmity of others, or of our own formerly." For Prince Henry, conscious of real superiority, and at the same time deeply impressed with the sense of "vanity," such a character naturally provides an endless fund of entertainment, so long as he chooses to indulge his merely contemplative tendencies. But when the moment for action comes, the Prince shows that he realises in the highest degree the true requirements of honour : And that shall be the day, whene'er it lights, 1 King Henry IV. Part i. Act v. Sc. 3. 2 Plato, Philebus, 48. 3 Cited by Butcher in his Aristotle's Theory of Fine Art (2nd edition), P. 365. |