Early in Shakespeare’s 1 Henry IV, Hotspur declares that his family’s efforts to support the current king, Henry IV, were a mistake. Instead of “Richard [II], that sweet lovely rose,” the Percys instead “plant[ed] this thorn, this canker, Bolingbroke”. In order to redeem their family’s honor, they must avenge the slights of King Henry and replace him with Richard’s true heir, Edmund Mortimer.[1] Two acts later, audiences are presented by a second version of these events, this time by King Henry, who uses a comparison between himself and his predecessor, Richard II, to highlight the ways that his son, Prince Hal, mirrors Richard, while Hotspur mirrors his own rise to power. And in the play’s final acts, we receive two more versions of these events – a second version from Hotspur, and a new one from his uncle Worcester.
Why spend so much time rehashing the events that led up to this moment? And are any of them telling the truth?
Shakespeare’s earliest audiences would have most likely been familiar with the history he retells in the Henriad (the cycle of plays of which 1 Henry IV is a part). It is also possible that they would have remembered the action of the first play in the sequence, Richard II – either from having seen it performed onstage or from reading one of its many quarto printings. This history is not as familiar to modern audiences, however, nor can productions today rely on audience members having seen any other plays in the tetralogy. For those who might be coming to see our production of 1 Henry IV on November 3, here is a brief summary of events (a “previously on,” if you will):
Richard II is not a great king, and the country is falling apart under his rule. He banishes his cousin, Henry Bolingbroke, and takes his inheritance so that he can lead a fight in Ireland. While he is away, Bolingbroke returns, gathering supporters (including the Percys) and supplies until, eventually, Richard returns. After forcing Richard’s deposition, Bolingbroke is crowed King Henry IV. An imprisoned Richard is murdered by a supporter of Henry’s, who believes he is acting on the new king’s desires to be rid of his cousin; however, Henry declares he did not wish Richard dead, and swears to go on pilgrimage as penance for his murder.
Do any of the four retellings in 1 Henry IV match this? Not exactly.
Henry IV needs to shore up his position and uses his version of events to do exactly that. Because he overthrew Richard II, his claim to the throne as the legitimate heir is weak – and he knows it. King Henry needs Hal to understand that his foolish behavior in Eastcheap is a threat to his father’s hold on the crown. Unless Hal shapes up and becomes the prince his father wants (and needs) him to be, the Lancastrian line is doomed to fail before it even truly begins.
Hotspur and Worcester’s versions support their desire to rebel against Henry. Although his first version of events is spurred by anger at the king’s refusal to rescue Mortimer (who just so happens to be his brother-in-law) and stirred up further by his father, Northumberland, and Worcester, Hotspur’s second declaration is presented as a justification for their efforts to overthrow Henry in favor of Mortimer. His and Worcester’s narratives in acts four and five of the play both highlight their belief that their family deserved more for helping Henry take the throne. “We were the first and dearest of your friends,” Worcester tells Henry, reminding him that when he came to England from banishment, he swore he only came for his inheritance as the new duke of Lancaster. However, because he was swayed by the “flood of greatness” that fell upon him, Worcester says that Henry “forgot your oath to us” and turned away from the men that first supported him.[2] This, along with the presence of Richard II’s named heir, Edmund Mortimer, justifies their rebellion; after all, the men who made the king can just as easily unmake him (a lesson Shakespeare explores more deeply in the Henry VI plays).
But this is not the only narrative in the play that is being manipulated. Hal’s opening speech reminds us that he, too, is trying to manipulate the perceptions of others in order to achieve his goals. By pretending to be “smother[ed] up” by Falstaff and his other companions in Eastcheap, Hal is hoping to set himself up for even greater glory when he eventually becomes king. He may look like a poor choice for a future king now, but that’s the point: “I’ll so offend,” he says, “to make offence a skill, / Redeeming time when men think least I will.”[3]
We invite audiences coming to see Shakespeare’s play in the coming week to consider carefully which narratives they believe. Whose side is the right one? Is anyone in this play telling the truth? Or is every word we are presented with a way to manipulate – and control – the play’s narrative? It is up to you to decide.
[1] W. Shakespeare, King Henry IV Part 1, ed. David Scott Kastan, 3 Arden Shakespeare (Bloomsbury, 2002), 1.3.174-175.
[2] King Henry IV: Part 1, 5.1.33, 48, 58.
[3] King Henry IV: Part 1, 1.2.189, 206-207.