Achieving Balance: Masculinity and I Henry IV
Rachael Murray 2010
What is the meaning of being a man? Surely that question arises in the minds of every male at least once, most likely during adolescence. With the existence of so many words that can proclaim a boy’s lack-of masculinity, when only one action can lead to him being labeled with one of these stigmatizing identities, it is as frustrating to him as it is to any girl being mocked for her lack-of femininity. What appears to be the definition for masculinity in the early modern period of England is everything that femininity can and should not be; the opposite is true for the conventional female identity. What has also been made apparent is that notions of masculinity, such as those displayed throughout Shakespeare’s works, are not so different from modern ideas of what it is, and what one should be, to be a man.
In Shakespeare’s I Henry IV, there is no finer example for the qualities all men should aspire to possess than Hotspur. Alan Dessen describes Hotspur as “outspoken, courageous, witty, and domineering in conversation. Above all, he is a disciple of manliness” (Dessen 370). What one derives from this statement is Dessen’s ideas as to what it is to be masculine. To be outspoken is to show courage in conversation, to be courageous is to act in even the most unsavory of situations. Wit is determined by both intelligence and the quickness of tongue, which lends itself to be a powerful force in many walks of life, especially when conversing to those lacking the conviction to interrupt, or better participate, in the conversation. In the social sphere of existence, masculinity is described as being quick to show one’s intelligence and having the sheer force of personality to control the conversation, which in turn subtly controls the other participants.
Hotspur is also a force on the battle field, being described as an effective, courageous leader. These aspects only solidify the ideals of masculinity within his characterization. His loyalty and chivalry are also apparent; this makes Hotspur both attractive to King Henry IV, as well as the audience (Dessen 370). And, in the presence of such a character, it is surely understandable that the audience cannot help but like Hotspur. The sheer force of his personality and strength characterize his speeches, thus establishing Hotspur as a pivotal character for the audience to observe.
What then of King Henry IV’s son, Prince Hal? His father clearly favors Hotspur over his own flesh and blood, even lamenting that Hal was born to him rather than Hotspur (Shakespeare 1.1.85-89). As this lamentation occurs prior to the audience’s introduction to both Hotspur and Prince Hal, they are certainly led to make the assumption that Hotspur is superior to Prince Hal.
As masculinity is everything femininity cannot and should not be, the audience assumes that Hotspur is the more conventionally masculine of the pair. This idea is later strengthened upon introduction to Sir John Falstaff. Falstaff embodies “merriment and joie de vivre” and that his “vices are Hotspur’s virtues, and the reverse” (Dessen 371). The implication here is that Falstaff is lacking in what Hotspur possesses, the smooth intelligence and charismatic power to dominate conversation and to be a true man.
Prince Hal is strung between two extreme characters and it seems he must pick between being one or the other. This suggests that there cannot be a smooth blending of such contradicting characteristics, though that certainly seems incorrect. Prince Hal can be read as a Machiavellian character, who commits deliberate actions for deliberate reasons. He consorts with commoners to foster loyalty to the crown, which hangs over his future like a star in the night sky. Supporting the reading of Prince Hal as a Machiavellian character is in act two, scene four, the scene in which Prince Hal and Falstaff play-act interactions between Hal and his father respectively, until Hal insists they switch roles. Here, under the identity of his father, he speaks negatively to Falstaff, perhaps allowing his true opinions of the man to show under the guise of another. Regardless, however, this scene illustrates a shrewd intelligence not demonstrated in either Hotspur or Falstaff.
Prince Hal’s resolution, a balance between the extremes, illustrates a more favorable character than both Hotspur and Falstaff. For all of Hotspur’s attractive qualities, he is ultimately a dogmatic, arrogant man. He embodies too many masculine characteristics without attempting a balance. The result here is a man who belittles and dislikes anyone not of his strength, even labeling others with feminine qualities for not meeting his expectations of perfection. Ultimately, Hotspur’s macho characteristics isolate him, and make him easy prey for others to manipulate, which is precisely what occurs. Likewise, Falstaff’s zest for life is unbalanced, fully irresponsible. He is a thief and a cheat, and though he does possess the same manner of insight of Hal, he is utterly useless in proving his own worth as a constructive member of English society, and thus proving him to be a fool.
Could this be Shakespeare’s suggestion that possessing only masculine qualities makes for a much weaker man? Hotspur’s characterization appears to suggest that, especially when compared to the more level-headed Prince Hal. While Hotspur is manipulated into the revolt against King Henry IV, Prince Hal is ultimately outside of Falstaff’s influencing, as best shown in the role-played conversations. He does not separate himself from the common person, whereas Hotspur stands as a more isolated man, thinking himself superior above the cannon fodder who do not possess his same strength.
People are far too varied to be defined only by the personality traits of their sex; were this true, only two sorts of people which exist, which simple logic and human interaction prove otherwise. There are very few true Hotspurs and Falstaffs in the world; most people exist in a sort of balance like Prince Hal, embodying the strengths of both and lessening the effects of the weaknesses in their personalities. However, Prince Hal is a deceptively clever man, and the audience cannot be positive if Prince Hal truly exists as the true balance, or is shrewd enough to act as so. He does not seem to possess the same arrogance that Hotspur does, though the conversation in which he speaks as his father shows some of Hotspur’s measuring of value for people. Is he merely mimicking his father in an insightful and accurate manner, knowing that King Henry IV certainly likes Hotspur more than him? Or is he taking the opportunity to speak his own thoughts freely under the face of another?
A real man in today’s world would be the same as Hotspur would be labeled for his arrogance and domineering personality; both of these traits carry negative connotations, effectively isolating the person from the majority of people, which parallels Hotspur’s situation. One who cannot integrate and communicate smoothly with others is ultimately a defective leader. The assumption that Falstaff would not have made a good king is likely accurate, as he would belittle his non-warlike political allies and foes. Though these qualities alone can create an effective, if difficult general, a person of extremes would be a true international insecurity, as well as cause strife upon native soil. Thus, Shakespeare suggests that being the ultimate in masculinity is a poor thing to aspire to.
Likewise, behaving as the extreme opposite, Falstaff, also weakens a leader. Nothing would be accomplished under the rule of someone like Falstaff. If the opposite of masculinity is femininity, and if Falstaff is truly a foil to Hotspur, then the reader can infer that Shakespeare believes that being the embodiment of all things feminine is just as poor as the opposite.
Is Prince Hal, the future King Henry V, Shakespeare’s resolution to the balance of masculine traits tempered with their opposites? That he rejects Falstaff in the concluding scene of the play and treats Hotspur’s corpse with the respect his fallen foe deserves is indicative of this choice. Prince Hal shows a sense of honor that surpasses that of Hotspur in this scene, something that earns irritation from Falstaff. The play closes with a prince well on the way to maturing into a wonderful leader.
In subsequent stories of Shakespeare’s line of historical plays, King Henry V proves an effective, intelligent, and benevolent ruler. Though his father in this play laments that Hotspur is not his son, Prince Hal’s England is settled in a more secure environment than how King Henry IV describes the country in the opening speech of the play. As is the case in many walks of life, the balance between the extreme ideals of masculinity and femininity, as established by society, both past and contemporary, is ultimately the most desirable personality to aspire to, and a personality that Prince Hal does and will embody.
Works Consulted
Dessen, Alan C. "I King Henry IV." The Necessary Shakespeare. 2nd ed. 2005.
Fisher, Will. "Handkerchiefs and Early Modern Ideologies of Gender." Shakespeare Studies
28(2000): 199-207.Hendricks, Margo. "Gender and Literacy in Early Modern England." Shakespeare Studies
29(2001): 249-252.Lander, Jesse M.. ""Crack'd Crowns" and Counterfeit Sovereigns: The Crisis of Vaule in I Henry
IV." Shakespeare Studies 30(2002): 137-161.Rackin, Phyllis. "Gender and Heroism in Early Modern English." Shakespeare Studies 31(2003):
276-279.Shakespeare, William. "I King Henry IV." The Necessary Shakespeare. 2nd ed. 2005.
Wells, Robin Headlam. Shakespeare on Masculinity. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2000.