1809
Henry IV, Part 1 is the first of Shakespeare's two
history plays that deal with the reign of Henry IV (the other being
Henry IV, Part 2), and the second play in the
Henriad, a modern designation for the tetralogy of plays that deal with the successive reigns of
Richard II,
Henry IV, and
Henry V.
Themes and interpretations At its first publication in 1597 or 1598, the play was titled
The History of Henrie the Fourth, and its title page advertised only the presence of
Henry Percy and the comic
Sir John Falstaff; Prince Hal was not mentioned. Indeed, throughout most of the play's performance history, Hal has been staged as a secondary figure, and popular actors, beginning with
James Quin and
David Garrick, often preferred to play Hotspur. It was only in the twentieth century that readers and performers began to see the central interest as the
coming-of-age story of Hal, who is now seen as the starring role. In the "coming-of-age" interpretation, Hal's acquaintance with Falstaff and the tavern lowlife humanises him and provides him with a more complete view of life. At the outset, Prince Hal seems to pale in comparison with the fiery Henry Percy, the young noble
lord of the North (whom Shakespeare portrays as considerably younger than he was in history in order to provide a
foil for Hal). Many readers interpret the history as a tale of Prince Hal growing up, evolving into
King Henry V, in what is a tale of the
prodigal son adapted to the politics of
medieval England. The low proportion of scenes featuring the title character, the king, has also been noted, with some authors suggesting that the play contrasts the authority of Henry IV, and his struggle to stay in control of the situation, with the chaotic forces of the rebels and Falstaff.
Honor and Falstaff's Catechism A major theme in Henry IV Part 1 is the expression of honour and the intersection and contrasts between honour and war. In Act 5 scene 1, Falstaff delivers a
soliloquy, scholastically referred to as Falstaff's
Catechism, which asserts his pragmatic and matter-of-fact perspective on war. The soliloquy reads:’Tis not due yet. I would be loath to pay Him before His day. What need I be so forward with Him that calls not on me? Well, ’tis no matter. Honor pricks me on. Yea, but how if honor prick me off when I come on? How then? Can honor set to a leg? No. Or an arm? No. Or take away the grief of a wound? No. Honor hath no skill in surgery, then? No. What is honor? A word. What is in that word “honor”? What is that “honor”? Air. A trim reckoning. Who hath it? He that died o’ Wednesday. Doth he feel it? No. Doth he hear it? No. ’Tis insensible, then? Yea, to the dead. But will ⌜it⌝ not live with the living? No. Why? Detraction will not suffer it. Therefore, I’ll none of it. Honor is a mere scutcheon. And so ends my catechism. (5.1.128-142)In this soliloquy, Falstaff dismisses honour as an abstract concept that has no tangible benefits. His repetition of the word "honor" and the subsequent reduction of it to "air" underscores his cynical perspective, suggesting that honour is an empty, meaningless concept that holds no practical value. He questions whether honour can "set to a leg" or "an arm," implying that honour cannot heal wounds or restore life. This practical viewpoint starkly contrasts with the romanticised notion of honour as a noble pursuit worth dying or seriously injuring oneself for. Falstaff's
rhetorical questions serve to undermine the glorification of honour in martial society, pointing out its inability to provide any real, physical benefit to those who seek it. The passage contrasts the other views expressed in the play, and is also unique for its deviation from Falstaff's character, giving him a moment of philosophy distinct from his usual dismissive prose. Shakespeare’s intent with the soliloquy has been debated between academics. While some believe that the passage serves to juxtapose Falstaff’s pragmatic philosophy with the romantic, valour driven views of the rest of the cast, others assert that Falstaff’s catechism highlights his cowardice and can be played comedically. Professor Clifford Davidson drew parallels between
Philippe de Mornay’s 1582 treatise
De la verité de la religion chrestienne, which would have already been translated into English at the time of writing Henry IV Part 1:They that attaine to honor, are in continuali torment, spightfull or spighted, doing mischiefe, or receiving mischiefe, over-mated, or over-mating. What is this but many evils for one, and a multiplying of miseries without number, for the obtainment of one silly shadow of felicity? We will leave the residue to declamers: what are the fruits of these hellish torments, what are they? Forsooth Honor, Reputation, and Power or Authority. What is all this but winde, which cannot fill us, nor scarcely puffe us up? I shall be saluted as I goe abroad, I shall sit highest at meetings. In having these things, what have I, which a wicked man may not rather have than I? And if it be a good thing, how is it given to evill men?De Moray’s passage and Falstaff’s catechism use similar language, both reducing honour to “air” and following a catechetical structure. As de Moray’s passage highlights the dangers of pursuing honour for reputational benefits rather than out of virtue, so Shakespeare uses Falstaff to critique the ill-intentioned pursuit of honour in early modern England. Davidson writes, “Who will pursue the ‘shadow’ of reputation rather than the ‘body’ of virtue?” Falstaff seemingly rejects both the “body” and the “shadow,” denouncing both the virtue of honour and the praise that comes with it. However, at the end of the play, Falstaff accepts praise for Hotspur’s death, suggesting that his wisdom may in fact be a facade for pure cowardice. In the broader context of "Henry IV, Part 1," Falstaff's soliloquy offers a counterpoint to the play's exploration of heroism and honour. His catechism challenges the audience to reconsider the true value of honour and to question the societal pressure to uphold it. Through his catechism, Falstaff juxtaposes both Hotspur’s misguided and vengeful pursuit of honour and Hal’s virtue.
Oldcastle controversy Henry IV, Part 1 caused controversy on its first performances in 1597, because the comic character now known as "
Falstaff" was originally named "Oldcastle" and was based on
John Oldcastle, a famous
proto-Protestant martyr with powerful living descendants in England. Although the character is called Falstaff in all surviving texts of the play, there is abundant external and internal evidence that he was originally called Oldcastle. The change of names is mentioned in seventeenth-century works by
Richard James ("Epistle to Sir Harry Bourchier", ) and
Thomas Fuller (
Worthies of England, 1662). It is also indicated in detail in the early texts of Shakespeare's plays. In the quarto text of
Henry IV, Part 2 (1600), one of Falstaff's speech prefixes in Act I, Scene ii is mistakenly left uncorrected, "Old." instead of "Falst." In III, ii, 25-6 of the same play, Falstaff is said to have been a "page to Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk"—a statement that is true of the historical Oldcastle. In
Henry IV, Part 1, I, ii, 42, Prince Hal calls Falstaff "my old lad of the castle". An
iambic pentameter verse line in
Henry IV, Part 1 is irregular when using the name "Falstaff", but regular with "Oldcastle". Finally, there is the explicit disclaimer at the close of
Henry IV, Part 2 that discriminates between the two figures: "for Oldcastle died [a] martyr, and this is not the man" (Epilogue, 29–32). , proposes diverting the river southwards to give him a still greater share. The plan highlights his destructive and argumentative nature. There is evidence that Falstaff was originally called Oldcastle in
The Merry Wives of Windsor as well, the only play (outside of the two parts
Henry IV) that contains the character. When the
First Folio and quarto texts of that play are compared, it appears that the joke in V.v.85–90 is that Oldcastle/Falstaff incriminates himself by calling out the first letter of his name, "O, O, O!," when his fingertips are singed with candles—which of course works for "Oldcastle" but not "Falstaff." There is also the "castle" reference in IV.v.6 of the same play. The name change and the Epilogue disclaimer were required, it is generally thought, because of political pressure: the historical Oldcastle was not only a Protestant martyr but a nobleman with powerful living descendants in Elizabethan England. These were the Lords Cobham:
William Brooke, 10th Baron Cobham (died 6 March 1597), Warden of the Cinque Ports (1558–97), Knight of the
Order of the Garter (1584), and member of the Privy Council (1586–97); his son
Henry Brooke, 11th Baron Cobham, Warden of the Cinque Ports and
Knight of the
Order of the Garter; and Frances Brooke, the 10th Baron's wife, and 11th Baron's mother, a close personal favourite of Queen
Elizabeth I. The elder Lord Cobham is known to have had a strongly negative impact on the lives of Shakespeare and his contemporaries in the theatre. The company of actors formed by Shakespeare (the
Lord Chamberlain's Men) in 1594 enjoyed the patronage of Henry Carey, first Lord Hunsdon, then serving as
Lord Chamberlain. When Carey died on 22 July 1596, the post of Lord Chamberlain was given to William Brooke, Lord Cobham, who withdrew what official protection they had enjoyed. The players were left to the care of the local officials of the
City of London, who had long wanted to drive the companies of actors out of the city.
Thomas Nashe, in a contemporary letter, complained that the actors were "piteously persecuted by the Lord Mayor and the aldermen" during this period. The interval did not last; when Cobham died less than a year later, the post of Lord Chamberlain went to Henry Carey's son George, 2nd baron Hunsdon, and the actors regained their previous patronage. The name was changed to "Falstaff", based on Sir
John Fastolf, a historical person with a reputation for cowardice at the
Battle of Patay, whom Shakespeare had previously represented in
Henry VI, Part 1. Fastolf had died without descendants, making him safe for a playwright's use. Shortly afterward, a team of playwrights wrote a two-part play entitled
Sir John Oldcastle, which presents a heroic dramatisation of Oldcastle's life and was published in 1600. In 1986, the
Oxford Shakespeare edition of Shakespeare's works rendered the character's name as Oldcastle, rather than Falstaff, in
Henry IV, Part 1 (although not, confusingly, in
Part 2), as a consequence of the editors' aim to present the plays as they would have appeared during their original performances. No other published editions have followed suit. ==Adaptations==