K ing Henry IV tenuously rules England as a man whousurped the throne and is not ordained by God. He is aruler beset with troubles: rebellion in England and attacksby Scottish forces moving across the northern border.Henry postpones his crusade to the Holy Land when helearns of the defeat and capture of his loyal Mortimer by theScottish warrior, Glendower. On another battlefront HenryPercy, nicknamed Hotspur, has quashed a Scottishuprising. Though King Henry is annoyed when Hotspurrefuses to hand over his captives to the crown, he admiresHotspur’s bravery and wishes his own son, Hal, displayedthe same noble qualities.Prince Hal prefers to spend his time frequenting thetaverns of Eastcheap with the errant knight, Falstaff.Though Prince Hal has been leading a life of drinking anddebauchery, he acknowledges that he will take up his royalduties and join his father when the time is right, therebyredeeming himself publicly and seeming more virtuous andnoble. In the meantime, however, Prince Hal plays a jokeon Falstaff: after Falstaff has committed a robbery atGadshill, he is robbed in turn by a disguised PrinceHal. At the tavern, Falstaff relates an elaborate taleof being accosted by a hundred men who stole hisbooty. When Prince Hal reveals the truth, Falstaffpretends to have known all along and insists that hedidn’t fight back because he didn’t want to harm theheir to the throne.The throne is threatened when King Henry confrontsthe Percy family over Hotspur’s refusal to hand overprisoners. Hotspur demands that the King ransomMortimer but King Henry refuses, believing Mortimerhas defected to Glendower after marrying theWelshman’s daughter. The Percys, deeply resentingthe fact that the man they helped to the throneintends to enforce absolute obedience, begin to plottheir revolt by joining with the Welsh and Scottishforces. They immediately run into problems beforethe battle when Northumberland takes ill,Glendower’s forces are delayed and quarrels breakout over the division of England once King Henry isdefeated.While Hotspur and the rebels plan their revolt, KingHenry rebukes his son for neglecting his royal dutiesat court and on the battlefield, comparing himunfavorably to the valiant Hotspur. The chastised

Prince Hal takes control of the royal army, appointingFalstaff as the leader of a company of foot soldiers. Underthis new leadership, the King’s army meets the rebels at theBattle of Shrewsbury. Glendower and Northumberland havedeserted the cause, leaving Hotspur to face Prince Hal’sforces alone. King Henry offers to pardon the rebels if theywill disband but Worcester, the messenger, refrains frominforming the others.

On the battlefield, the rebel Earl of Douglas engages KingHenry in combat, getting the better of the King until PrinceHal comes to the rescue, causing Douglas to flee. Hotspurenters the scene and clashes swords with Hal in one-on-onecombat that will determine the winner of the battle. Duringtheir fight, Douglas re-enters and wounds Falstaff, whoplays dead in an effort to avoid being killed. Hal succeeds inkilling Hotspur, but Falstaff later tries to take credit for theslaying. With the rebel forces defeated and scattered, theplay ends with King Henry and Prince Hal departing side-by-side to battle Glendower and Mortimer.

Synopsis of Henry IV, Part 1

11

Orson Welles as Falstaff and Keith Baxter as Hal in the film Chimes at Midnight,(1965).

Credit:

Museu

mofM

odernA

rt

Allies to the CrownKing Henry IV (1367 – 1413): The eldest surviving son of John of Gaunt, he was calledBolingbroke after the Castle of Bolingbroke and also Henry of Lancaster after his mother,Blanche of Lancaster. His right to succeed the king on grounds of heredity was invalid asEdmund de Mortimer had been named the heir-presumptive by Richard II.Henry, Prince of Wales (1387 – 1422): The Prince of Wales, commonly known as Hal,was the eldest son and heir to the throne of Henry IV. Contemporaries offer no witness tothe wild youth Shakespeare depicts. As Henry V, he claimed a right to the French throneby virtue of his descent from Isabel, the daughter of Philip IV of France and wife to hisgreat-grandfather Edward II. He married Catherine of France in 1420.Prince John of Lancaster (1389 – 1435): The third son of Henry IV, John became theDuke of Bedford in 1414 and fought under his brother, Henry V. As Regent of France, herelieved Orleans in 1429 and arranged for the execution of Joan la Pucelle (Joan of Arc) atRouen in 1431.Earl of Westmorland (1364 - 1425): Created the first Earl of Westmorland by Richard II, Ralph was an ally of Henry IV andthe sixth Baron Neville of Raby.Sir Walter Blount: Shakespeare casts Sir Walter Blount as an ally of Henry IV who, disguised as the king, is killed byDouglas on the battlefield. There is no historical evidence that Sir Blount existed.

Who’s Who in Henry IV, Part 1

Rebels Against the KingHenry Percy, Earl of Northumberland (1342 – 1400): The brother of the Earl of Worcester,Earl-Marshal under Richard II and father to Hotspur. He conspired with Owen Glendower andEdmund Mortimer against Henry IV and was killed on Bramham Moor. In the play Percy doesnot go to battle due to illness, leaving Hotspur to fight alone against the King’s forces.Henry Percy surnamed Hotspur (1364 – 1403): The eldest son of Percy, Earl ofNorthumberland, and at first a nobleman fighting for Henry IV, defeating the Scots atHumbledon Hill in 1402. He joined the rebellion against Henry IV when forbidden to ransom hisbrother-in-law, Sir Edmund Mortimer. Shakespeare credits Hal for killing Hotspur at the Battle ofShrewsbury, but no historical evidence supports this.Thomas Percy, Earl of Worcester (1344 – 1403?): Admiral of the North Fleet under Richard IIand created Earl of Worcester in 1397. With his brother the Earl of Northumberland he rebelledagainst Henry IV. In the play, Worcester fails to inform Hotspur of King Henry's generous termsto the rebels to avoid war and is put to death after the Battle of Shrewsbury, along with SirRichard Vernon.Sir Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March (1376 – 1409?): Richard dies naming as his official heirEdmund Mortimer, who is the great-grandson of Lionel, Duke of Clarence. Edmund is named asRichard's heir because he is the son of Lionel, the next surviving son of Edward III after Edwardthe Black Prince. Shakespeare seems to confuse two Mortimers—the heir to Richard II and theman who supposedly fights Glendower on Henry IV's behalf. In the play it is later revealed tothe king that Mortimer married Glendower's daughter and led a thousand men to their deaths tojoin his “enemy.”

Portrait of Henry IV.

Statue of Henry Percy, Earl ofNorthumberland, located at theBeverly Minster in Yorkshire, England. 12

Tavern FolkSir John Falstaff: A fictional character based on the historical figure Sir John Oldcastle, who died in 1417. Oldcastle, laterLord Cobham, was probably a friend of the historical Prince Hal. He was executed for his heretical Wycliffite beliefs, later tobe designated a blessed martyr by Bale and Foxe. Shakespeare’s Falstaff is the witty leader of agang of petty thieves and close friends with Hal. Falstaff leads a group of troops against thePercy rebellion, fakes his own death and later claims that he killed the already dead Hotspur.Gadshill, Poins, Peto, Nym and Bardolph: Fictional characters in a band of petty thieveswho are associates of Falstaff and Prince Hal.Mistress Quickly: A fictional character, Mistress Quickly is the Hostess of the Boar's HeadTavern in Eastcheap.

Richard Scroop (1350 – 1405): The Archbishop of York who supported the rebellion against Henry IV and was laterexecuted for treason. At the end of the play, Scroop’s forces are gathering with those of Northumberland's for future waragainst the king.Archibald, Earl of Douglas (1376? – 1439): Guardian of Scotland and a rebel against Henry IV, Douglas was at firstHotspur’s opponent. In the play, Douglas and Hotspur join forces against the king’s army. Douglas almost kills King Henryuntil Hal drives him off, and nearly kills Falstaff. After his defeat, he was pardoned by Hal for his noble manner, though thereis no historical evidence to support this claim.Owen Glendower (1359? – 1416?): Father to Lady Mortimer and a potent figurehead of Welsh nationalism since he rose upagainst the occupying English in the early 15th century. He was of aristocratic stock and laid claim to the title of Prince ofWales. Little is known about this man depicted by Shakespeare as a magician who rebels against Henry IV. Glendower'sforces do not make it to the final battle, dooming Douglas and Hotspur to certain defeat against the king’s forces in Act V.Sir Richard Vernon (? – 1451): A rebel against Henry IV. Not much is known about the historical figure. In the play, Vernonopposes Worcester's plan to deny Hotspur any knowledge of King Henry's terms for ending the rebellion, leading to Vernon’sexecution after Hotspur’s forces have been defeated.Lady Percy (Kate) (1371 – 1417): Historically, Elizabeth Mortimer, wife to Hotspur and sister to Mortimer. She was born atMonmouth and is reported to be an ancestor of Winston Churchill.Lady Mortimer: The daughter of Glendower and wife to Mortimer. In the play, she has no scripted lines, as she speaks onlyWelsh. Not much is known about her historically.

Falstaff, an ink and watercolor sketch byGeorge Cruikshank, (1858).

13

B ecoming the King of England is no easy task, butkeeping the crown once you had it was even harder in 15th-century England. During that time the Wars of the Rosestore the nation in two. Theconflict centered around twoopposing sides of the samePlantagenet family—theHouses of York andLancaster, both descendentsof King Edward III—whofought for possession of thecrown for 100 years. Thename “Wars of the Roses”comes from the traditionaluse of the red rose as asymbol for the House ofLancaster and the white roseas a symbol for the House ofYork. Shakespeare dramatizes the conflict in a series ofeight plays: Richard II, parts one and two of Henry IV, HenryV, the three parts of Henry VI and Richard III. Although thefirst battle of the war was officially fought in 1455, the rootsof the war can be traced to a question of succession in1377.The rules of succession were strict and male-oriented. Heirsto the throne were chosen according to royal bloodlines,following the concept of Divine Right of Kings. Divine Rightis based on the belief that God selected the king’s family torule England, therefore only members of the royal bloodlineor direct descendants of the king could become the nextmonarch. The order of inheritance was based onprimogeniture—the right of the eldest son to inherit hisparents’ estate. Primogeniture, the rule of inheritance forboth citizens and sovereignty, included many provisions incase an eldest son did not exist or died prematurely. Inprimogeniture’s most basic form, when a king died, thecrown passed to his eldest son. If his eldest sonpredeceased him and had no heir, the crown passed to thenext oldest son, and so on through the sons. If no male childwas born to the monarch, the crown then passed to hiseldest daughter. If the deceased monarch had no children,the crown would go to his oldest brother. If this brother diedbefore the king, the crown passed to the king’s next oldestbrother. The order of succession stretched far beyondsiblings and children to guarantee an undisputed heir to thethrone, even if the king’s entire immediate family died beforehim.

According to Divine Right, any attempt to remove a propermonarch would be seen as acting against God’s will—amortal sin deserving divine punishment. A question ofsuccession and a potential violation of Divine Right incitedthe Wars of the Roses and began with the death of EdwardIII.Edward III outlived four of his seven sons including hiseldest, who was also named Edward. Young Edward earnedthe nickname the “Black Prince” during his conquests incontinental Europe, where he overpowered armies and wonlands for England. According to Divine Right, the BlackPrince should have succeeded Edward III. When his eldestson died suddenly, the grief-stricken Edward III fell ill anddied shortly after. Even though Edward III still had survivingsons, the Black Prince had a son, Richard, who inherited thethrone (through primogeniture, the descendant of thedeceased assumes succession rights). At ten years old,some noblemen claimed Richard was not ready to assume

the throne; many supportedone of his adult uncles—Johnof Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster,or Edmund of Langley, Dukeof York, the fourth and fifthsons of Edward III. KingEdward III’s Privy Council (hisadvisory group of wealthy,powerful lords) decided thatthe boy should be crownedKing Richard II and that hisuncles should act as regents,or primary advisors. TheDukes of York and Lancasteraccepted this decision and

maintained their regent status well into Richard’s adulthood.In his thirties, King Richard II began ruling England on hisown, but failed to appease frequently feuding English lords.Political squabbles and frequent battles created chaos andunrest; eventually even Richard II’s own Privy Councilbegan to doubt his ability to rule. These negative opinions ofthe king led the descendents of Lancaster and York toconsider usurping the crown.Shakespeare’s Richard II begins at this point in history, withan unpopular Richard II beset with battling noblemen andmany enemies at court, including Henry Bolingbroke (theson of John of Gaunt, the Duke of Lancaster), whom

The Wars of the Roses

Edward III

Richard II

14

overthrew Margaret’s army and was named Edward IV.Edward’s brother Richard Duke of Gloucester, the futureRichard III, killed Henry’s only son to ensure Edward’s claimto the throne. These battles are dramatized by Shakespearein the three parts of Henry VI.Edward IV is on the throne, but very ill, at the beginning ofShakespeare’s Richard III, and he is survived by two sons,the eldest another Edward. After the king’s death, rumors

surfaced that the young heir tothe throne was conceivedillegitimately. It remainsunclear whether Richardhimself orchestrated theseclaims to promote himself tothe throne, where he wasi n v e s t e d i n 1 4 8 3 .Shakespeare’s Richard is anevil man who usurps thethrone from his nephews andhas them murdered in theTower. This view of Richard,t h o u g h p o p u l a r , i s

unsubstantiated in history, and his path to the throneremains a cloudy one. The Wars of the Roses ended withRichard III’s defeat by Henry Tudor—a descendant of theDuke of Lancaster, son of Edward III—who claimed thethrone and married Elizabeth of York, uniting the two housesand beginning the Tudor dynasty as King Henry VII. Thecouple’s oldest son succeeded as Henry VIII, who in turnwas succeeded by his three children: Edward VI, Mary andShakespeare’s own Elizabeth I.In Shakespeare’s dramatization of the Wars of the Roseswe can see a bias beginning to form when the incompetentPlantagenet Richard II is overthrown by the bravery ofLancastrian Henry IV,followed by the schemingbloodthirsty Yorkists takingthe throne from mentally illHenry VI and ending withconquering LancastrianHenry VII killing the evilRichard III. Of course, asHenry VII is QueenElizabeth’s grandfather, it isu n s u r p r i s i n g t h a tShakespeare would havepainted history in a light thatf a v o r e d t h e s i t t i n gmonarch.

Richard exiled to France.While Bolingbroke was inexile, John of Gaunt died,and Richard illegally andunfairly claimed Bolingbroke’sinheritance for himself. Whenthe Lancastrian Bolingbrokereturned to England to claimhis inheritance, the supporthe garnered was enough toseize not only his inheritancebut also the throne itself, andhe became King Henry IV.

Richard was deposed (removed from the monarchy) andimprisoned in the Tower of London. Bolingbroke’s claim tothe throne was tenuous and certainly not as strong asRichard’s; even when Richard died childless, heirs remainedwhose right to the throne superseded Bolingbroke’s.Richard’s deposition defied Divine Right; many citizensbelieved that the newly crowned King Henry IV had goneagainst God’s will by removing Richard and God wouldeventually take revenge. Fifty years later, when the Wars ofthe Roses began, many citizens saw what they believedwas that prophecy coming true.Despite Henry IV’s troubles attaining the crown, he was acapable ruler. As we see in Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1,Henry dealt with frequent uprisings during his reign fromnoblemen still contesting his usurpation. His son Henry Vhad a smooth succession to the throne when his father diedand enjoyed a successful reign during which he conqueredlands in France and married the French princess, Katherine.When he died tragically, his one-year-old son became KingHenry VI.Henry VI had a rocky andultimately unsuccessful reign;a combination of mental illnessand a domineering wifefostered much uncertaintyabout his abilities to rule, andwhen he temporarily left thethrone during a mentalbreakdown, his substituteRichard Duke of York (adescendent of Edmund ofLangley, Duke of York) wasaccused of attempting to usurpthe throne. The result of this accusation officially started thebloody battles of the Wars of the Roses—the Yorks led byRichard and the Lancasters led by Queen Margaret andHenry VI. When Richard died in battle, his son Edward tookover the fight and eventually

Richard III

Henry VI

Henry IV

Henry VII

15

MARRIA

GE

TheWa

rsofth

eRose

sFam

ilyTre

e

Owen

Tudor,

(Kathe

rine’s

2ndhus

band)

Earlof

Camb

ridge

(Richa

rd)

Edward

V(14

83)

Earlof

Somers

et(Jo

hnBeauf

ort)

Duke

ofSom

erset

(John

Beauf

ort)3rd

marria

ge,Cathe

rine

Swynf

ord

Henry

V(14

13—142

2)

1stma

rriage,

Blanch

eLan

caster He

nryIV

(1399—

1413)

marria

geto

Kathe

rine

(Frenc

hPri

ncess)

Earlof

Richm

ond(Ed

mund

Tudor)

Duke

ofCla

rence

(Georg

e)Ric

hardII

I(14

83—148

5)Edw

ardIV

(1461—

1483)

Henry

VI(14

22—146

1)

Marga

retBeauf

ort Elizabe

th

Henry

VIII

(1509-

1547)

Edward

III(13

27—137

7)

Duke

ofYork

(Richa

rd)

Duke

ofYork

(Edmu

nd)

Henry

VII(He

nryTud

or)(14

85—150

9)

Duke

ofLan

caster

(John

Gaunt

)

(Dates

indica

teeach

monar

ch’sre

ign.)

Elizabe

thI

(1558-

1603)

16

Edward

theBla

ckPrince

Richar

dII(13

77-139

9)

Painting of Henry IV’s coronation ceremony by Jean Froissart, early 15th century.D uring the reign of Henry IV (1399-1413), Englishsociety was nearing a point of transformation that wouldmark the end of the Medieval era and 500-some years of thepolitical and economic system known as feudalism. Thefeudal system was a strict social structure in which wealthylandowners allowed farmers to work a piece of their propertyin exchange for the farmers’ pledge of loyalty to thelandowner in times of armed conflict. The lords supposedlyprovided protection to the farmers—called vassals—but theadvantage was held by the lords or “feudal principles” whoconstantly leveraged economic and political power over theirvassals. Feudalism shaped English society into a stricthierarchical structure, in which a select, privileged few heldpower and most people were left to survive as best theycould.

Society of MenHistorian Kate Mertes summarized in her essay“Aristocracy” that members of Medieval society fit into threegroups as a result of the feudal system: “men of war,” “menof prayer” and “men of work.” The rigidity of this structurewas solidified by the belief that God ordained it, placingthose who could best represent God’s work and words atthe top of the hierarchy. The “men of war” included the king,who ruled in the name of God, and the aristocracy, who“classed into” the category because they were able to pulltogether resources—human resources, an army ofvassals—to fight for king and country. This eventuallyresulted in the formation of England’s parliamentarymonarchy in the mid-15th century. Before this time, the kingconsulted only with a select group of nobles and advisors; inthe parliamentary monarchy, the monarch was required toconsult with Parliament, the legislative body, beforemandating changes in government. This ensured the

people, at least those with money, a small say in nationaldecisions. “Men of prayer” were the clergy, who assisted thepeople in finding, hearing and remaining close to the word ofGod. While not a part of the nobility, the clergy were not“men of work”—the largest grouping, which encompassedmost of the English population. Excluded from all of thesegroupings were women and merchants who had no formalvoice or standing in society.At England’s helm was one ruler—a monarch. The Englishmonarchy was part of a long tradition of single-rulergovernment systems in Europe, North Africa and West Asiain which the ruler reigned usually for life and obtained powerthrough hereditary right. This right was considered by manycultures to be of divine origin; some cultures even claimedthe monarch was a god. English monarchs were thought tobe selected by God, providing them the “divine right” to holdthe throne, which would pass on to other members of thefamily should the monarch die. In order to preserve royalfamilies’ God-given right to rule, complex laws of inheritanceand systems of succession were instituted. Challenging amonarch’s rule, therefore, questioned God’s will as well asEnglish law—making for a serious, treasonous act ofrebellion. Some say Henry IV’s rule came about throughsuch an act; he usurped the throne from Richard II in 1399.Henry’s reign was marked by numerous revolts: Richard II’ssupporters fought back after his deposition in 1400, OwenGlendower led the Welsh in an eight-year uprising, thePercy and Mortimer families—originally supporters ofHenry—rose against the king in 1403. Quelling so muchrebellion across the country greatly taxed Henry IV and leftEngland in enormous debt. His ultimate success as king—maintaining his hold on the crown—resulted in large partfrom the military prowess of his son—Prince Henry, laterHenry V.

The World of Henry IV

17

From Father to SonA person’s roles andresponsibilities in daily lifewere predominant l ys h a pe d by f am i l yrelationships. Familiesfunctioned much likeEnglish society: the fatheror patriarch “ruled” thefamily and all the othermembers served him—working to uphold thefather’s name, and so thefamily’s honor. At allsocietal levels thistranslated to the continuation of the family name. Thiscreated a dire need to produce male heirs to ensure thefamily legacy and pass on the family name for generations.Ties between family name and place in society wereparticularly important for the aristocracy. Sustaining thefamily legacy was the key to securing high-standing in theEnglish social order. Law and society worked hand-in-handto ensure the hierarchy’s stability. Inheritance law wasbased on the rule of primogeniture, or the right of thefirstborn son to the entire estate of the father. For noblementhis meant money, property and social standing, and for theprince this meant the crown; in either case the family’sstanding was preserved. Primogeniture did not ensurestability inside the family however; fathers had to watchover-eager sons, sons took mothers to court when theywouldn’t relinquish the purse strings, and brother foughtbrother over the right to be next in line.The English aristocracy’s system of education was designedaround further solidifying a family’s hierarchical place. Sons,especially firstborn, were instructed in hunting and politics—two important forms of “fighting” for “men of war”—andproper behavior in court and manners, particularly diningetiquette. These physical and social skills were highlyregarded in Medieval England where might equaled right. Amore humanist education, including virtues, morals and“nobility of the mind,” was unheard of until the fall offeudalism. Men had yet to see the value in upholding thecommon good for the sake of everyone, not just themselves.An heir-apparent, like Prince Henry, received similarschooling to the sons of aristocrats—little “book learning” butplenty of combat training and royal protocol—but also hadthe educational burden of learning about his lands andpopulation. Then, as now, people wanted a leader who wasknowledgeable about domestic issues and upheld their

beliefs. Future kings were expected to travel through thecountry to become acquainted with the people and placesthey would eventually come to rule. These trips were alsodiplomatic in nature; seeing the prince assured the public ofthe monarchy’s power and stability. This component of aprince’s training was of particular importance whenquestions arose around his family’s right to rule, since a“good leader” in 15th-century England was too often definedby being the divinely ordained ruler.

Honor and LoyaltyMen were loyal to God, king and family. Honor to family andthe understanding of “God’s will” often superceded loyalty tothe king—particularly when the king’s right to the throne wasopenly questioned. The early Medieval period wasdominated by the code of chivalry: a set of principles,customs and rules of behavior tightly connected with knightsand knighthood. Honor and its preservation formed thefoundation for chivalry, giving way to certain virtues thatchivalric men were expected to uphold—bravery, valor,perseverance, righteousness, courtesy (particularly towardwomen) and dexterity with weapons. This system of honorwas linked to possession of horses. The derivation of theword chivalry is the Latin word callabus, meaning “horse,especially a riding horse or packhorse,” and chivalric menwere often dressed in complex and heavy armor, inhibitingthem to move far or quickly without the aid of a horse.Ironically, it was these iron-clad men with horses who ownedland and were in power, and so the last to actually enter intobattle.

Head of Prince Hal, painted by CharlesRobert Lesslie, (1851).

Typical 15th-century Gothic armor, c. 1475. Example of a chivalric knight.

18

Armed ConflictWhen conflict arose in feudal England, it was around thestability of the hierarchy; and in the 15th century the greatestdilemma centralized on the king. People relied on having astable monarchy and a king who rightly wore the crown.Questioned claims to the throne resulted in more civil warsthan battles on foreign soil. If a king sent soldiers into othercountries, it was a two-fold tactic: to divert attention fromchallenges to his rule and solidify his claim to the thronethrough victory abroad.Battles in civil warfare were fought by attrition—each sidetrying to wear down their foe to weaken them to the point ofsurrender, or rub them out altogether. This was preferred bycommanders over the more dangerous pitched battles,during which opposite forces fought in fixed positions andpredetermined formations at close range. Men were sure todie in pitched battles. The result of a war of attritionindicated God’s will, the battle serving as a “trial by combat.”In civil wars, opponents could be neighbors, and thosefighting did not have much choice in their service. Vassalswere expected to fight for the lords who supported them.The poorest members of society were often “drafted” to besoldiers because they could not bribe or buy their way out ofservice. Soldiers were low paid, had no retirementprovisions and often turned to stealing and looting upon their

return home. Advancement within the military was extremelylimited since officers often received their positions throughfavoritism or by purchase; those in positions of powerfrequently abused it. In wartime, an English captain wasresponsible for recruiting new soldiers, which often led toabuses such as “padding the muster-rolls” or falsifying theenlistment records to collect extra salaries. Captains wouldaccept bribes from men with financial means and enroll apeasant in his place, enlist a man into two different militaryunits (known as “bands”) and pocket the additional salary,as well as neglect to report a death to scam the dead man’spaycheck.Toward the end of the 15th century, the feudal systemdeclined, and concepts of chivalry dissipated. With Tudorrule in England came great transformation in politics andreligion, and by Shakespeare’s time the English wereexperiencing a period of rebirth known as the Renaissance.This change in attitude toward society, war and fellow manis obvious when looking from Prince Hal in Henry IV, Part 1to King Henry in Henry V; the young prince matures into acaring, honorable and humble king, leading his countrymen,his brothers-in-arms.

19

Pen and ink drawing of a Medieval combat with swords from a College of Arms Manuscript, (c.1565).

I n Henry IV, Part 1, Shakespeare explores thecounterculture of Elizabethan England through life in theBoar’s Head Tavern. Although the play takes place in theearly 15th century, Shakespeare is clearly also exploringissues of his own society. Drinking, for example, wascertainly the central form of entertainment in Shakespeare’sEngland, coupled with gaming, dancing and bearbaiting.The public drinking house was central to Elizabethan societyas the place that people met, socialized, did business,committed crimes or simply wiled away their free time.Though moral and social evils existed almost everywhere inElizabethan London, most of London society singled outbrothels, theatres and taverns (or alehouses) as the centersof criminal activity.As the primary socializing space of Elizabethan England,public drinking houses were divided into three differentsettings: the inn, the alehouse and the tavern. The inn wasthe most respectable of these three venues; a place wherepersons of a higher social status might spend the night andwhere people from various social levels gathered andconducted business. Inns also played a vital role in theeconomic growth of Elizabethan England as they replacedthe old open-air markets as the primary setting for trade andbusiness. They usually had a formal host, either male orfemale, welcoming and tending to guests, taking care oftheir luggage and servants upon arrival as well as fulfillingtheir every need during their stay. The inn could also offerluxuries such as drinking glasses, still fairly uncommon andcostly in Shakespeare’s time, rather than wooden cups. Dueto its higher legal, social and economic status as well as itsmostly upperclass patrons, the inn enjoyed much morefreedom from statutory controls imposed on alehouses inthe 16th century.

The alehouse, as the bottom of drinking house society,offered only the cheapest of English ale and the mostdangerous of crowds. Alehouses were dark, dirty, oftenviolent places patronized mostly by the lower classes,including their fair share of criminals and prostitutes. It wasalso, however, a place that allowed for public drinking (andtherefore socializing) by all classes and created a placewhere anyone could meet. In Shakespeare’s London,vagrancy or homelessness was at an all time high. Manymen who became members of tradesmen guilds and cameto London to practice their trade were often detached fromtheir homes in the big city. The alehouse or tavern provideda perfect “home away from home,” in which men couldgather and even sleep away the nights, giving them a senseof belonging and community. It provided cheap meals andgood company for any lonely souls in London.The tavern, just below inns and above alehouses on thesocial ladder, would invite a mix of people from both themiddle and lower classes, a place where those higher insociety could publicly mix with lower classes and lowerclasses could more easily pick the pockets of the drunkenmiddle class. Taverns offered wines instead of malt liquor,including sack, the Spanish wine enjoyed by Falstaff.The actual Boar’s Head Tavern also served as a theatre or“itinerant playhouse” before public amphitheatres becameavailable to acting companies. The portrayal of thisEastcheap tavern in Henry IV, Part 1 may therefore alsoreflect some of the history of playing venues forShakespeare’s company, from a time before they had theirfirst resident theatre. Taverns contained within them severaldifferent rooms, each delineating a different social grouping.In his Micro-Cosmographie (1628), John Earle writes that in

Tavern Life and the Drunken Knight

George Cruikshank’s illustration of Falstaff in the Boar’s Head Tavern, (1858).

20

a tavern “customers are carefully segregated into roomsranging from ‘the bottom of the cellar to the great chamber’.”Notably Hal does not mix much into various groups or roomsin the play, mostly observing and enjoying other lower levelsof society but not actually intermingling with them, stickingclose, instead, to the Drunken Knight. The combination ofalehouse and tavern does, though, provide an environmentin which Hal can be exposed to a variety of social classes,from the knight Falstaff (who might not deign to enter analehouse) to Mistress Quickly (who could, presumably, befound in either an alehouse or a tavern) and Bardolph orPoins (both perhaps often found in the alehouse but neverthe inn). As in Henry IV, Part 1, Hal can also explorecriminal activity in this tavern/alehouse while remainingrelatively safe. He is able to enter the growing Elizabethansubculture of vagrants that he must explore before trulyunderstanding the country he will someday lead as king.Time had very little meaning in the alehouse, and certainlyone of the preoccupations of its inhabitants was to wastetime, a habit that began to come under attack withElizabethans’ increased awareness of time. The publicdissemination of clocks and watches—which had onlybecome compact and cheap enough for most people to ownby the end of the 16th century—had heightened theElizabethans’ sense of time and increased their ire towardsthose who sought to waste it. It also highlighted the fact thattaverns and alehouses had always been a place forspending and wasting time. Shakespeare’s use of a tavernor alehouse rather than an inn enhances our sense of Halwasting his time.Violence and theft also pervaded these alehouses andtaverns. Christopher Marlowe, Shakespeare’s fellowplaywright, was stabbed to death in a barroom brawl.Prostitution openly flourished, as the mistress or master ofthe house would hold rooms just off the main hall forprostitutes to quickly do their business with customerswithout having to leave the alehouse. Ironically, manyalehouses as well as taverns were run by women, or the“mistress” of the alehouse, such as Mistress Quickly, one ofthe few jobs open to women during Shakespeare’s time.Although women often ran them, an alehouse or tavern wasalways a male-dominated space. More often than not,running an alehouse or tavern was actually a family affair,with every member working in some way, similar to manyEnglish pubs today.As the 16th century came to a close, the culture of tavernsand alehouses clashed with the Protestant ideas of sobrietyand the work ethic embraced by Elizabethan society. Asdangerous, disorderly and subversive places, alehousesneeded to be controlled and monitored. Hal’s behavior

reflects a socialtrend in ElizabethanEngland towards anadolescence of funa n d f r e e d o m -seeking enjoymentthat is still prevalentin our society today.This subculture ofriotous and criminalb e h a v i o r i nElizabeth’s realm,h o w e v e r , w a sbecoming moreproblematic to thisemerging Protestantnation. As a kingdom

that was swiftly moving forward technologically, ideologicallyand militarily, England could no longer afford an entirepopulace of criminals and drunkards roaming the city andcountry unhindered. By the early 17th century, Englishsociety became so worried about the wasteful culture of thetavern that it passed the 1604 Act against “inordinateHaunting and Tipling in Inns, Alehouses” and other drinkingplaces and announced that the purpose of drinking houseswas for “Receit, Relief and Lodging of Wayfaring Peopletraveling from Place to Place” and “not meant forEntertainment and Harbouring of lewd and idle People tospend and consume their Money and their Time in lewd anddrunken Manner.” Although only a minor movement towardseliminating the wastefulness of tavern life from Englishsociety, this act clearly signaled the beginning of the end ofthis period in England’s social life. Life in the tavern as Haland Falstaff know it was slowly being snuffed out by theElizabethan Protestant work ethic and the growth of anempire.

Drawing by David Loggan of “Mother Louse,”an old-style alehouse keeper, (c. 1650).

Photo of Orson Welles as Falstaff from the movie Chimes at Midnight, (1965).

Credit:

Museu

mofM

odernA

rt

21

Drawing of Eastcheap market from Hugh Alley’s A Caveat for the City ofLondon, (1598).

Sir John Falstolfe is recorded in English history as acowardly commander in the French wars and brieflymentioned in an earlier play by Shakespeare, Henry VI,Part 1, when his cowardice causes the wounding andcapture of a fellow commander. The Falstaff of Henry IV,Part 1, however, was originally named Sir John Oldcastle.Oldcastle first appeared in The Famous Victories of HenryIV—a rabble-rousing patriotic play that may have beenworked on by the young apprentice playwrightShakespeare around 1587—in which the young Prince Haleventually reforms and rejects his wicked companion SirJohn Oldcastle. The real Sir John Oldcastle, however, dieda Protestant martyr, and his family was not happy to seetheir famous forefather portrayed as a wicked glutton and abuffoon on the Elizabethan stage. Under pressure from thefamily, Shakespeare changed the name to Falstaff, but stillallows Hal, as an inside joke, to refer to Sir John as “my oldlad of the castle” in their first scene together. Shakespearealso protected himself from any future confusion with adisclaimer during the Epilogue of Henry IV, Part 2: “forOldcastle died a martyr, and this is not the man.” As withmany of his creations, Shakespeare took what had alreadybeen written many times as Sir John Oldcastle and createda character that surpasses anything that had come beforein his language, his depth and his freedom. Sir JohnFalstaff symbolizes the freedom and fun sought byElizabethan audiences in their own time.

Eastcheap in London was the site of the Elizabethan beefmarket, an especially appropriate place for Falstaff topatronize, where domestic animals were slaughtered andheretics were burned, making a connection between the fatknight and the Protestant martyr that partially inspired thecharacter of Falstaff. His drunken revelry and laziness wouldhave allowed audiences to laugh at their own worst behaviorin the pub and at the presumed lazy lifestyles of their socialbetters. Falstaff also, however, reflected a burgeoningElizabethan society that sought to find freedom from itscurrent class system. As English critic A.C. Bradley describedhim, Falstaff is the Elizabethan dream of freedom fromconstraints:

The bliss of freedom gained in humour is the essence ofFalstaff. His humour is not directed only or chiefly againstobvious absurdities; he is the enemy of everything thatwould interfere with his ease, and therefore of anythingserious, and especially of everything respectable andmoral. For these things impose limits and obligations, andmake us the subjects of old father antic the law, and thecategorical imperative, and our station and its duties, andconscience, and reputation, and other people’s opinions,and sorts of nuisances. I say therefore he is their enemy;but I do him wrong; to say that he is their enemy impliesthat he regards them as serious and recognizes theirpower, when in truth he refuses to recognize them at all.

Tavern life and Falstaff’s lifestyle are seemingly celebrated inHenry IV, Part 1, though they are soon to be rejected anddismissed in Henry IV, Part 2. Just as England can no longerafford the wasteful hours and days spent in alehouses andtaverns, Hal can no longer afford wasting time with Falstaff.His tavern education is complete, and he must move on tolead his country, just as Elizabethan England will move on tolead the world.

Title page of John Bales’ Brief Chronicle Concerning… SirJohn Oldcastle, (1544).

22

Shakespeare’s history plays can be read as a windowinto English history and culture; however, they should not betaken as strict historical fact. Shakespeare shaped historyinto fiction, fabricating scenes and altering character detailsto fashion a more dramatic account of history. In his articleThe Historical Background of the History Plays, PeterSaccio writes:

Above all, Shakespeare personalizes. Whether or nothistory is really governed by the characters and the choicesof individual men and women, the dramatist can only writeas if it were. Social conditions, cultural habits, economicforces, justice and the lack of it, all that we mean by ‘thetimes,’ must be translated into persons and passions if theyare to hold the stage.

Yet, these strategies executed by Shakespeare wereperfectly in line with historiography of the time. The practiceof changing details of historical records permeated 16th-century chronicles as rulers and writers alike recognized thepower that history could have over people. Shakespearelooked to historians of his time for inspiration, borrowingfrom several different accounts of the Wars of the Roseswhen writing his history plays. Shakespeare did not creditthese historians as we would expect today; duringShakespeare’s time this apparent act of “plagiarism” was notseen as a condemnable practice.The 16th century in England was a time of widespreadinterest in history. The country experienced change sociallyand economically, and its citizens and rulers looked to thepast for clues on how to live and rule. Historians of the timeplaced more importance on the lessons that could beascertained from history than on the actual facts. In order toinspire, historians would create pictures of brave, moralmen, hoping that the reader would aspire to the samebehavior.This interpretive or allegorical way of representing historycomplemented Medieval chroniclers’ notion that history wascompletely influenced by fate—every incident fit intofortune’s plan. This concept included the Medieval idea ofFortuna, the goddess whose whims decided who wonbattles or which nation would rise above others. This beliefcan be traced to Christianity and divine providence. It wasthought that only when events had completely played out,could the meaning of an event be understood. According toShakespeare scholar Barbara Hodgdon in Historiographyand the Uses of History, “English historians’ view of historywas teleological: seeing events as directed toward anultimate purpose, they wrote history accordingly, tracingoutcomes back to their beginnings.”

As well as providing a moral center, history also provided atool for political manipulation. English monarchs recognizedhistory’s influence and saw it as a way to authenticate theirown claim to the throne. The resulting historical accountsgenerated loyalty among citizens, ultimately resulting in anational unity that had been previously shaken by the Warsof the Roses. Henry VII sponsored the first in a string ofaccounts of England’s history with his commission of a playfrom Polydore Vergil that would trace Henry’s own ancestryback to King Arthur. Vergil’s account maintained Henry IV’sright to the throne over Richard II, supporting the Lancasterline over the York. It is the first history written that chroniclesthe Wars of the Roses, important because it set the trend ofwriting history critically—including interpretation of eventsand lessons that could be learned from these events.

Borrowing heavily on Vergil’s account is Edward Hall’sUnion which puts side by side the claims of the Lancasterswith those of the Yorks. Hall’s The Union of Two Noble andIllustre Families of Lancaster and York (1548) is seen as apossible source for Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, but it isRaphael Holinshed’s Chronicles of England, Ireland, andScotland (1578) and Samuel Daniel’s The Civil Wars, bothof which incorporate Hall’s account, that are Shakespeare’smain sources. These works all have differing points of viewthroughout, making for an inconstant view of history duringthe Wars of the Roses. Some believe Shakespeareenforced the Tudor Myth through his treatment of theLancasters and Yorks. Since Shakespeare wrote duringQueen Elizabeth I’s reign, it is highly possible that hefavored the Lancasters in order to please his queen.Another of Shakespeare’s history sources is the anonymouswork The Famous Victories of Henry V, Shakespeare’sfoundation for the scenes with Falstaff.

Sources and Plagiarism

Title page of Holinshed’s Chronicles, (1578).

23

Perhaps this fear of being seen as a heretic promptedHolinshed to cite others’ opinions rather than his own. Inany case, it is one of the few instances of a writer of thistime period giving credit to his sources; atypical, as theemphasis placed on plagiarism today was not a concern inthe 16th century.When writing Henry IV Shakespeare took liberties with hissources to instill his historical tale with dramatic qualities.One specific change from historical fact concerns Hotspur.Shakespeare makes the character of Hotspur younger in hisplay to compare the outwardly ambitious and brave Hotspurwith Hal, who possesses these qualities but withholds themfrom his father. These supposed inadequacies are amplifiedwhen compared with Hotspur. When Hal throws aside hisyouthful demeanor and takes on one of bravery andresponsibility, he is proving to the reader/audience that hecan be a capable ruler of England. By enforcing the ideathat ability, rather than inheritance, makes an able ruler,Shakespeare asserts the Tudor claim to the throne as wellas pleases his Tudor Queen.It is Shakespeare’s responsibility to instill dramatic qualitiesinto historical narrative. As a playwright, Shakespeare isgiven license to shape the historical figures into charactersof depth and meaning, giving his audience not only theheroes they desire but also creating a stronger connectionto history than narrative can create. It was understood thatthe final result of the play, and the influence it could have onthe audience, was more crucial than adherence to historicalfact.

Holinshed’s work provides the most complete account of theWars of the Roses, and it is the second edition of this workthat Shakespeare relied on for plot details. Shakespeareeven went so far as to paraphrase speeches fromHolinshed’s Chronicles in his history plays. Holinshed reliesmainly on Hall’s account, and he recognizes this in hiswriting by often acknowledging where he borrows Hall’s andother writers’ opinions. In his preface, Holinshedemphasizes that his work is assembled from many differentsources, including differing views and opinions. Rather thanforming his own opinions, Holinshed preferred to offer thoseof other historians and invite the readers to make their ownjudgments. There was a very real reason for Holinshed totake this tactic and defer to the reader, as allegations ofheresy had become widespread. Hall’s work had beenadded to the list “Prohibiting Seditious, Heretical Books” andHolinshed’s work was even censored by the Privy Council.

A depiction of the Battle of Bosworth Field found in Holinshed’sChronicles, (1578).

Derek Smith as Hal and Edward Gero as Hotspur in The Shakespeare Theatre’s 1995 Henry IV, Parts 1 & 2.

24