“What is honour? A Word. What is in that word honour? What is that honour? Air.” To what extent do you agree with Falstaff’s view of honour in the play?

During Act 5 of William’s Shakespeare’s history play 1 Henry IV, the comedic tour-de-force Falstaff presents a skewed perception of honour which “comes unlooked for and there’s an end” which contrasts the true meaning of honour that allows for effective rule in the Elizabethan sense. As a play with the allegorical purpose to convey the nature of an ideal leader to Queen Elizabeth I, Shakespeare portrays the idea of honour through concepts that embody the Tudor mythology including the Great Chain of Being, the mutual contractual duty between a leader and his subjects and the knight’s chivalric code which states that each individual possesses the duty to protect the nation and its anointed ruler. These ideas are primarily represented by the Prince of Wales and emphasised through his father, King Henry. Conversely, as Falstaff is portrayed as the leader of the subversive world, his morals act as a contrast to the ideal principles seen in Hal. An alternative view of honour is presented through Harry Percy and the rebels but their treasonous challenge against the anointed king demonstrates that the notion of prioritising power over the welfare of England is undesirable. Thus, through this allegorical play, Shakespeare illustrates the ideal form of honour in the eyes of the Elizabethans.

From the exposition of the play, Falstaff is portrayed as a “misleader of youth” and a “sanguine coward” and it is because of his immoral behaviour that Shakespeare conveys to the audience that his perspective of honour is not ideal. His dishonourable character is evident in the iconic robbery at Gad’s Hill in which Falstaff taunts innocent travellers as “whoreson caterpillars” and “bacon-fed knaves” while mercilessly robbing them of their wealth. However, as the play develops, Shakespeare displays Falstaff’s lack of honour in an insidious light. Not only does he possess the devil’s fruits of “Vice”, “Iniquity”, “Ruffian” and “Vanity”, Shakespeare asserts that “a devil haunts thee” as Falstaff actively places England at risk through his “charge of foot” which goes against the knight’s honour code of prioritising the welfare of the nation and its ruler. Not only does he abuse the “charge of foot”, he uses it to satiate his lust for money in exchange for “pitiful rascals” that are “exceeding poor and bare”. Falstaff is juxtaposed with Hal and is used as a character foil to emphasise not only the inherent honourable qualities within the heir to “England’s chair”, but to reinforce the lack of morality within him. This is demonstrated by Shakespeare as Hal asserts that “thou owest God a death” and that he is “out of all reasonable compass”. Thus, as Shakespeare makes it clear to the audience that Falstaff’s behaviour is immoral, he cannot comprehend the true meaning of honour which is symbolised in his antithesis, the Prince of Wales.

The Prince of Wales acts as Shakespeare’s mouthpiece in displaying the true meaning of honour. Written with an Elizabethan audience in mind, not only does the playwright represent Hal as honourable in the literal sense, he is also portrayed as honourable through the Tudor myth through his understanding of the mutual contractual duty between a leader and his subjects as well as the knight’s chivalric code of prioritising the welfare of England. Although he is at first portrayed as “degenerate” in his participation of “barren pleasures” in the “rude society” of the tavern world, in his soliloquy, Hal reveals his true intention to ‘break through the foul and ugly mists’ by becoming ‘more himself’. Through Hal’s assertion that when he is “King of England, I shall command all the good lads in Eastcheap”, Shakespeare displays that Hal is merely using his time in the subversive world to understand the chaos he must be responsible to contain thus demonstrating his understanding of the mutual contractual duty that he must fulfil. In addition to his strength that causes him to be seen as “a lad of mettle”, he also possesses a “princely tongue” and the mindset of an honourable ruler. His brother, John of Lancaster, whom Hal says “this boy lends mettle to us all” is a character foil used to demonstrate Hal’s respective and humble character. Also, Hal’s honour is seen when he attempts “to save the blood on either side” by ‘trying fortune with Hotspur in a single fight’, which is emphasised by the rebel Vernon who notes that “never in my life did hear a challenge urged more modestly”. His honourable mindset is demonstrated through nature imagery as he asserts to Hotspur that “two stars keep not their motion in one sphere nor can one England brook a double

reign”. Thus, through a contrast with Falstaff, Shakespeare illustrates the true meaning of honour which is reinforced by King Henry.

King Henry is a character foil used by Shakespeare to reinforce the honourable character in Hal and contrast the misguided perspective of honour seen in Falstaff. Henry’s sense of honour is demonstrated during the exposition of the play through strong iambic rhythms and blank verse as he proclaims that “no more shall the thirsty entrance of this soil daub her lips with her own children’s blood”. His magnanimity and knowledge on honourable qualities is displayed during “some private conference” with his son as Shakespeare contrasts Henry to Richard II and consequently likens the initial wayward attitude of Hal to the “skipping king” who “ambled up and down with shallow jesters and rash bavin wits”. Shakespeare uses metaphor to describe honour in terms of articles of clothing such as the “easy robes of peace” and the “robe pontifical” of Henry which he “dresses in such humility that he did pluck allegiance from men’s hearts”. To reinforce King Henry’s honourable character, Shakespeare deliberately draws other honourable individuals towards him. These include the “gentle, cousin Westmoreland” and the “true, industrious friend Sir Walter Blount”. Therefore, the playwright presents to the audience an ideal sense of honour which acts as a juxtaposition with not only Falstaff, but also Hotspur and the rebels.

The honourable qualities of “gallant Hotspur” who is “the theme of honour’s tongue” is initially portrayed as ideal at the beginning of the play as it contrasts both the behaviour of Hal and Falstaff. This is emphasised by Henry as he wishes “that some night tripping fairy had exchanged in cradle clothes our children where they lay” so that “would I have his Harry and he mine”. However, as the play progresses, the audience comes to recognise that the part of Hotspur that is “drunk with choler” is undesirable through Shakespeare’s use of his wife, Lady Percy in which he likens Hotspur to a “mad-headed ape” and a “weasel” who “hath not such a deal of spleen” thus referring to the Great Chain of Being. Therefore, through the comparison of a beast to the “hare-brained hotspur governed by a spleen”, Shakespeare illustrates to the audience that Hotspur’s honour is also skewed. This is reinforced by Hotspur’s rebel company including “foolish Mortimer” who ‘on Henry’s soul, hath wilfully betrayed’, and “ill-spirited Worcester” who has “danger and disobedience in thine eye”. The disunity among the rebels and the imagery of ‘watercolour…causes” behind their rebellion, shows that each individual’s aspirations are fuelled only by selfish greed rather than the protection of England which goes against the knight’s honour code. Through this dishonourable behaviour, Shakespeare illustrates that the perspective of honour within the rebels, is just as immoral as the kind of honour within Falstaff that “comes unlooked for, and there’s an end”.

In Shakespeare’s second instalment of the Henriad 1 Henry IV, Falstaff asserts that honour is merely “a word” and “air”. However, it is the contrasting form of honour which is represented primarily through Hal that Shakespeare believes will allow for effective rule as it is in accordance with the concepts which are embodied within the Tudor mythology and the “kingly graces” both essential to an Elizabethan audience. This sense of honour is further supported through the juxtaposition with Hotspur and the rebels whose dishonourable challenge against the anointed king in search for power ends in defeat. Thus, through 1 Henry IV, Shakespeare illustrates that true honour is more than just a mere “scutcheon”.