The Reality and Shakespeare's Interpretation of Lower Class England

Yumiko Sugawara 2008

In 16th century, men were the center of England. Women stayed at home and they were in charge of house chores. Though many lost their jobs and spent their lives poor, households with increased wealth in the lower-class decorated their homes with elaborate furnishings. As more citizens decorate their homes fancy, the importance of household, which women were responsible for the maintenance, in the society increased. However, women’s rights were not recognized despite their power at households because of the male-oriented social system. Shakespeare’s Henry IV is definitely a male-oriented play and more so in the part about Falstaff, Hal and other thieves because there is only one female character that speaks briefly in two scenes. The society was in a dramatic transition in the early modern England in terms of economy and household, and Shakespeare gave his own interpretation in Henry IV mostly agreeing with the facts.

The word “class” was invented later than early modern period, but there was a sense of “class” through “an unequal distribution of property, privilege, and power (Garland, 1).” “During this time, particularly in the half between the 1570s and 1620s, the period of early modern England’s initial formulation of colonial practices and entrance into a colonial economy, the poor suffered the most directly from economic change and, consequently, found themselves rendered as the objects of both the aspirations and anxieties of colonial development (Netzloff, 93).” The lower class suffered from the change of the economy. While colonies developed, temporary farmers called “cottagers” increased by a significant number. “Cottagers constituted a sizable class in early modern England, a group that comprised one-fourth of rural laborers (Netzloff, 204)”  However, “unlike ‘under-world,’ an ostensible criminal class of vagrants, the figure of the cottager did not appear in literary and dramatic texts (Netzloff, 205).” Their farm work was a result of a governmental transition in the agriculture system and it was unstable; “Cottagers occupied an uncertain, transitional social position in early modern England (Netzloff, 204).”
Women did not have a place in the career world. “It is an exclusively masculine form of desire that has enabled ‘the evolution of a certain social order, from its primitive form, private property, to its developed form, capital’(Callaghan, 149).” In the male-oriented world, women’s place was only at home though “various economies of writing operate in the early part of the seventeenth century, some involving money, others not, all of them primarily male-oriented, and therefore operating in a distinctive way for individual early modern women (Malcolmson, 37).” Even in the early modern England, “the association here of learning, wit, drunkenness, and lechery, characteristic of sanguinity, is fatal to a woman’s reputation (Malcolmson, 45)”. However, the household in the lower-class improved in this period and “as householders of lower social status began to fill their homes with stuff, the function of objects, and the relationship of subjects to them, profoundly changed (Korda 19).” People in lower-class started to decorate their homes with “the luxurious, imported ‘trifles’(Korda 21)” because “wealth in household goods among the wealthy increased by over 289 percent, among the middling sort by 310 percent, and among peasants by 247 percent (Korda 16, 17)” and “by the late sixteenth century, according to Joan Thirsk, England’s expanding consumer culture ‘embraced not only the nobility and gentry and substantial English yeomen, but included humble peasants, laborers and servants as well,’ who for the first time had ‘cash and something to spend the cash on’(Korda, 15).” Therefore, while some lower class citizens suffered poor, others enjoyed luxury to some extent. By the improvement of households, “the dressing up of the household, like the dressing up of the subject, was clearly a source of ambivalence in the early modern period, an ambivalence tied to the sense of confusion brought about by both the social ubiquity and mobility of status objects (Korda 21).” “Household objects thereby functioned to signify the subject’s place within the social order (Korda 19).”

It was a women’s responsibility to keep houses well-maintained. As the importance of housekeeping rose, “The housewife’s oeconomy, her duty as keeper, thus positioned her in an active, managerial role that required her not only keep or hold goods, but to deal out, distribute and dispense them, and thereby to ‘govern’ the household economy (Korda 27)” and “the gendered division of labor within the home was gradually coming to be defined as a division between male activity and female inactivity (Korda 29).” Also, “the woman’s duty to keep what the man gets is again linked to her naturally ‘fearful’ disposition, which is here described more specifically as a ‘continual thought and care for lackyng’(Korda 30).” However, “the institution of separate estate did not ‘improve women’s economic position steadily or consistently’ (Korda 40).” “Insofar as female subjectivity was defined as a mode of self-discipline, or self-economy, it carried the threat of a ‘more dangerous’ form of keeping. The mind of the housewife is likened to the privy places or locked chests in which wives like Margaret Phillips keep or withhold goods from their husbands (Korda 50, 51).” It seems that it was possible for women to have some power or rights, but the increased importance of household was not enough to give women any power or rights.

Henry IV is a male-oriented play and does not have many descriptions about women in the lower class in early modern England. Although the household situation changed dramatically and women’s roles in early modern England slightly changed, women did not get as much power as men had. As a result, England remained male-oriented and thus, lower class women do not have important roles in Henry IV. Also, in spite of the significant change in household, Henry IV does not include any household scene where Falstaff and other thieves were because they were at a tavern, on the street, or somewhere outside.

Henry IV is a history play that Shakespeare produced. Therefore, the descriptions about the society and people in Henry IV are Shakespeare’s interpretations about the society and people in early modern England, which is a little different from the actual history described above. For example, in another play, Hal and Falstaff are drawn much differently from Shakespeare’s Henry IV. “In subject matter, The Famous Victories may be divided roughly into two parts. In the first we have the exploits of the wild Prince Hal and his followers, including Sir John Oldcastle, or Jockey, who is later to be metamorphosed by Shakespeare into Falstaff. Hal here is far more of a wastrel than is Shakespeare’s counter-part. He is an actual robber and he strikes the Lord Justice of England who has him committed to the Fleet, an incident well established in English legendry, but which, although it lies in the background of 2 Henry IV, Shakespeare never permits upon the stage (68-69 Ribner).” This example shows that although the actual history is only one, different authors look at the same event from different angles through their own filters. Shakespeare took Hal as a noble prince who wants to experience the lower-class life but is eager to come back to the throne when the time comes and Falstaff and his friends as drunk thieves who are considered to be “unproductive (Netzloff, 92)” lower-class citizens. In the first part of Henry IV, Shakespeare described the life of Falstaff, Hal, other thief companions, and a tavern woman. In the first scene of Hal and Falstaff, they are talking about the job of thieves, the robbery plan, liquor, and a woman at the tavern (Shakespeare 375-377). Also in the same scene, Falstaff specifically asks Hal, “When thou art king, let not us that are squires of the night’s body be called thieves of the day’s beauty…let men say we be men of good government, being governed, as the sea is, by our noble and chaste mistress the moon, under whose countenance we steal (Shakespeare 375).” It shows that Falstaff and other lower-class people were considered “England of its poor, masterless, unproductive, and potentially mutinous laboring classes (Netzloff, 92).” Specific example of Falstaff being unproductive, is his drinking habit; Hal jokes around Falstaff and indicates he is fat asking, “How long is’t ago, Jack, since thou sawest thine own knee?(Shakespeare 389)” Bardolph directly tells Falstaff, “you are so fat, Sir John (Shakespeare 397)” in the act 3 scene 3 as well. Although many people lost jobs because there were so many people and also the wage went down to the least amount in 1500-1650 (Netzloff, 93), Falstaff is fat, which indicates his lazy daily routines and perhaps his drinking habit.

Looking at details, a strong male image and male dominated society of England are revealed in many scenes. For example, after the robbery, Falstaff accuses Poins of stealing his deal. He expresses his anger at Poins betrayal to Hal although it was a joke planned by Hal and Poins (Shakespeare 383). In his words, Shakespeare drew the bond among the thief group, male-oriented society (Callaghan, 149). Also, the role of the tavern hostess is not as important as the roles of the male thieves in the context. The hostess of the tavern comes in the act 3 scene 3 searching for thieves. Although she is a woman, she is responsible for the tavern with her husband and she questions Falstaff without hesitation. However, when Hal enters, Falstaff tells him to ignore the hostess and listen to him and Hal obeys Falstaff’s words without doubting (Shakespeare 398, 399). It reflects the society that does not admit women’s powers. As Korda says, “The ‘masculine’ responsibilities inherent in the housewife’s oeconomic role as described in Xenophon’s hive-metaphor are likewise tamed in its subsequent appearances in domestic literature, where the housewife is no longer likened to the queen bee…, but to a bird presiding over its nest (28).”

Another important fact Shakespeare draws is in conversations between Falstaff and Hall. Falstaff asks Hal to “go hang thyself in thine own heir-apparent garters!” and help him find Poins (Shakespeare 383). This sentence agrees with the materialistic society that “Clothing, however, was but one form of moveable property used to signify social distinction (Korda 20).”

Shakespeare has put his own interpretation on English society in the 16th century. Women in the lower-class do not have a place in Henry IV because it is based on the history of England and women’s power or rights were still not admitted as a matter of fact. On the other hand, the society itself was in a gradual, yet significant transition. While some people were deadly poor, as the time passed, the wage increased and those who were employed had enough money to afford luxurious lives.

Works Consulted

Malcomson, Christina, and Mihoko Suzuki, eds. Debating Gender in Early Modern England,
1550-1700. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, England:  Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.

Netzloff , Mark. England’s Internal Colonies: class, capital, and the literature of early modern
English colonialism. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan,
2003.

Callaghan, Dympna. A Feminist Companion to Shakespeare. Malden, Massachusets: Blackwell
Publishers, 2001.

Korda, Natasha. Shakespeare’s Domestic Economies Gender and Property in Early Modern
England. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002.

Orgel, Stephen, and Sean Keilen, eds. Shakespeare: the Critical Complex Shakespeare and
History. London, New York: Stanford University, Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999.

Orgel, Stephen, and Sean Keilen, eds. Shakespeare: the Critical Complex Political Shakespeare.
London, New York: Stanford University, Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999.

Ribner, Irving. The English History Play in the Age of Shakespeare. London: Methuen &Co Ltd,
1965.