Better late than never. Rebellion, anyone?

Due to the lack of interest on my original tweethis (I feel like it was too narrow/specific), I am taking a different route. I'm going to 'tweet-this' new idea in hopes that I can get interesting/useful feedback from people. This paper is far from done, but any and all feedback will be appreciated.

One of the great themes of Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 1 is how Prince Hal transitions from the carefree and raucous tavern crowd to the more serious court life that he is to inherit. While the coming of age theme is very obvious, a focus on Hal's first half of this transition, rebellion, brings about an understanding of the general idea of human change and improvement. Why rebel? There are many reasons why people choose to dissent from authority. Rebellion in general is a sort of phase in life, sometimes playing a large role once or twice, and sometimes playing many small roles here and there. Looking at Prince Hal and then the rebels from this play, much can be learned about the benefits of rebellion for humankind and individuals.

            Looking historically at King Richard II, Henry Bolingbroke (future Henry IV), and his son (Hal), there is one chronicle that was recorded by a partisan of Richard II which shows some of the affections of Hal to King Richard, as he had been in the king’s keeping as a surety for his father’s good behavior (Hodgdon, 314). This account is from The Brut, or The Chronicles of England, and suggests that there is more to Hal’s later rebellion. The historian records:

“Then the King and the Duke met and spoke together . . . and after departed. And in the departing, Henry, the son and heir of the said Duke, come to his father, and knelt down before him, and welcomed him, as he ought to do. And there forthwith his father him charged the next day to come from the King, and wait upon him. Then this young knight Henry brought the King to his chamber with a sorrowful heart, because he should depart from his godfather and his Sovereign Lord, for he loved him entirely. And when he came unto the King’s chamber, he told the King how he must, the next day after, wait upon his father, by straight and hard commandment . . . And so on the next day after, Henry took his leave of the King his godfather with a heavy heart, and went to his father, Duke of Hereford.” (Hodgdon, 314-315)

Bearing this account in mind, one could wonder if Prince Hal is not just passively ignoring his princely duties, but more actively opposing his father’s usurpation of the crown from a man that Hal loved and respected. Little phrases like ‘sorrowful heart’, ‘heavy heart’, and ‘for he loved him entirely’ show that the future Prince Hal’s rebellion becomes more justified on account of personal disagreement with his father’s treatment of the former king. True, by associating with commoners during his tavern times, Prince Hal is better able to familiarize himself with how they think and work, which later serves a great purpose when he is King Henry V. He didn’t have such noble connections at the time of rebellion though. At the latter end of the first of Shakespeare’s adaptations of Hal’s merriments away from the court, the prince muses to himself that he sticks with the low crowd because it will make himself look better when he gets around to finally being who he is supposed to be. Looking at his exact words, he says,

“So when this loose behavior I throw off / And pay the debt I never promised / By how much better than my word I am / By so much shall I falsify men’s hopes / And like bright metal on a sullen ground / My reformation, glittering o’er my fault / Shall show more goodly, and attract more eyes / Than that which hath no foil to set it off / I’ll so offend, to make offence a skill / Redeeming time when men think least I will.” (Act I, Scene ii)

Here the young prince desires attention, thinking that from throwing off his time in the social mire he can dazzle everyone as a sort of prodigal son. Hal gets the best of both worlds, the experience of the lack of attention to obligation and duty as a prince, and the freedoms this neglect gives him.

How does rebellion serve Hal personally? By neglecting his father and the court, as already mentioned, hanging out with the crowd in Eastcheap tavern gave the prince insights to how the low class lived, which would help him be a better king to his people. Another benefit of his youthful rebellion comes out later in Shakespeare’s version of his life when he is King Henry V, on the eve of the Battle of Agincourt. He prays:

“Five hundred poor I have in yearly pay / Who twice a day their withered hands hold up / Toward heaven, to pardon blood: and I have built / Two chantries where the sad and solemn priests / Sing still for Richard's soul. More will I do / Though all that I can do is nothing worth / Since that my penitence comes after all / Imploring pardon.” (Henry V, Act IV, Scene i)

The grown up Hal felt a need to repent of the previous wrongs that had occurred in his life, so he made up for it by giving money to the poor and building churches. Acting in a penitent manner due to a guilty conscience was a good motivator for him to do good deeds. Speaking of the churches he had built, this also furthers the idea that he did indeed have a love of and respect for the old king. Does his rebellion serve his people better?

A bishop in the mid-16^th century named John Ponet wrote quite a bit about political power and the rest of man in an essay of his, “From a Short Treatise of Political Power”. He writes about topics such as ‘Whether Kings, Princes, and Other Governors Have an Absolute Power and Authority Over Their Subjects’, ‘In What Things, and How Far Subjects Are Bound to Obey Their Princes and Governors’, and ‘Whether It Be Lawful to Depose an Evil Governor, and Kill a Tyrant’, among others. In the second topic mentioned above, Ponet writes, “men ought to have more respect to their country, than to their prince: to the commonwealth, than to any one person. For the country and commonwealth is a degree above the king.” (Hodgdon 187) While this essay did not exist during Henry IV’s time, it can be used somewhat as a justification of the rebelling Percys. However, their personal aims did not exactly line up with what Ponet thought. He continues, “Next unto God men ought to love their country, and the whole commonwealth before any member of it: as kings and princes (be they never so great) are but members and commonwealths may stand well enough and flourish, albeit there be no kings, but contrarywise without a commonwealth there can be no king.”