Honour, debt, the rejection and St Paul

Abstract

The mainstream criticism of Henry IV Parts I & II has been one of taking sides — ultimately for or against Hal or Falstaff. Or to put it in a more familiar way, whose side do we take at the rejection? Shakespeare compounds the problem, as we shall see, by his presentation of character in the plays which is largely determined by a dualism, both onstage and in the audience. Practically every major character can be seen from opposite points of view, and indeed this dualism can be found in the way some scenes are structured. Again, the question of the structure of the two parts and their manifest differences of tone, as argued by Jenkins (Henry IV Part II an ‘unpremeditated addition’) and challenged by Hawkins (Henry IV Parts I & II planned from the outset), have made criticism problematic. However, in spite of some probable expediency in capitalising on the success of (Henry IV Part I, there is a perceptible coherent development between the two plays. Not just that of the ‘education of a prince’, but something much more profound, anticipating Shakespeare’s tragic phase. Central and most obvious is the question of ‘honour’, which is closely linked to literal and metaphorical notions of ‘debt’. Further, the duality of Falstaff has to be reconciled by recognising how he is both a character and yet something larger, in addition, without becoming the ‘walking symbol’ of L. C. Knights’ view.