Honor and Redemption

           The theme of redemption has a strong current throughout Henry IV Part, most notably with the character of Prince Hal and his rise from the lowly, ignoble prince to the worthy and honorable King of England. But the man who competes with him for the throne, Hotspur, also goes on a quest for redemption and to claim the honor of being king. But in a more general sense, Hotspurs quest for redemption is more about external redemption, like regaining social status through honorm while Prince Hal's rise to the throne is comes from his attempts to become a good king and so his redemption is more about internal changes. Given that Prince Hal defeats Hotpsur at the end of the play, it seems Shakespeare is suggesting throughout the whole of the play that true redemption comes from an effort to grow as a person, not simply a desire to regain honor. For example, when Hotspur talks about honor and redemption he says, "By heaven, methinks it were an easy leap, / To pluck bright honour from the pale-faced moon, / Or dive into the bottom of the deep, / Where fathom-line could never touch the ground, / And pluck up drowned honour by the locks; / So he that doth redeem her thence might wear / Without corrival, all her dignities:  / But out upon this half-faced fellowship!" (1.3 532 - 539). Notice how often honor is referenced when Hotspur talks about redeeming himself. He talks about how redemption is gained by plucking up a drowned honor, not actually changing anything about himself that led to the loss of honor. Compare that to Prince Hal, who says to the audience after he exhibits conduct typically unbecoming of a prince in Act 1, " 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" (1.2 315 - 320). Hal's prediction of his redemption is about showing people he has changed and sharpening his skills of offending people. While both rivals suggest that redemption has to do with reclaiming social status, Hal's has a stronger emphasis on showing people his true character, while Hotspur seems only to care about honor. Also earlier in the soliloquy by Hal, he compares his honor and redemption to the sun being blocked by the clouds (1.1 300 - 306), whereas Hotspur compares it as something to be taken like an object. These mirrored metaphors tell us that Hal believes that honor and redemption are solely products of how you are viewed by people and that there are two components to redemption, an internal component and an external component (Hal is the shining and brilliant sun (internal) and he just needs people to see him (external) to be honored). Whereas Hotspur's metaphor about honor and the moon suggests that he believes that honor and redemption are things to be won and that there is no internal component. Then these two rivals go on to clash and by Hal's victory it would suggest that the play and Shakespeare are suggesting that Hal's viewpoint of honor and redemption (that it requires internal growth and change and then people need to recognize it) is the correct one. 

Blog Prompt 4: King Henry IV Part 1

Bloggers, this week I want you to try something very specific. Use the concordance (in the tools section at the top right of the blog site) to find an example of the word "redeem" (or its cognates--redeeming, redeem'd) that appears in the play. Then tell me something about the play's philosophy of redemption--and whether it accords with the character's usage of that term.

This is the kind of prompt that could easily turn into a full-length paper, but keep yourself to 300 words. And use quotations, both from the passage you've chosen and elsewhere.

Sorry this was late getting posted. I had a truly catastrophic episode of stomach flu yesterday afternoon/evening. Stay well!

Why him? Why her?

Dr. Helen Fisher, an anthropologist at Rutgers University and scientist behind Match.com, gave a lecture discussing the biological reasons that humans fall in, and stay in, love. During “Lust, Romance, Attachment: The Drive to Love and Who We Choose,” Dr. Fisher discusses the four main categories (based on the chemicals in the brain) that a person can fall into that define their love personality. These four groups are: Dopamine, Serotonin, Testosterone, and Estrogen and Oxytocin. Which group we are in determines whether we fall in love with those who are similar to us or different. But, as Dr. Fisher also points out, there are many factors involved when two people fall in love. So why do two people fall in love? Why don’t they fall for someone else? In Cymbeline, why does the King’s daughter marry against her family’s wishes? Based on Fisher’s categories, some people are more likely to fall for someone that is of a different category. Although socioeconomic status, intelligence, education, physical features, religion, and social values are very important in a relationship, they are not always this way. Why would Imogen fall for Posthumus if she knows he is below her? They have many things in common. But if Imogen is the Testosterone or Estrogen groups, she will seek a partner who is unlike her.

The drive to fall in love is deeply rooted in humans and is often stronger than the sex drive. When someone falls in love, certain regions of the brain involved in basic decision-making shut down, allowing us to look past someone’s flaws or circumstances. This is possibly the reason why Imogen, and many other Shakespearean characters, fall in love outside of their social circles, even if it means risking their own family relations.

Just Desserts? Probably Not

     In Cymbeline, the ending was wrapped up fairly quickly with few hard feelings and even fewer consequences. Despite everyone’s wrongdoings, no one receives any real consequences. Cymbeline basically performs the literary equivalent of waving a magic wand: “Pardon’s the word to all,” (5.4.503), he pardons everyone and everything returns to a romanticized notion of normal. Cymbeline then closes the play with the most Disney ending ever scene outside of a cartoon: “…Our peace we’ll ratify, seal it with feasts. Set on there! Never was a war did cease. Ere bloody hands were washed, with such a peace,” (5.4.569-571).

     The idea of such unconditional dismissal of all these deeds is really interesting to think about in the context of a play based on royalty. I interpret this as a way of Shakespeare saying, monarchy, and the like, is untouchable in a sense. Their actions are completely rectifiable and regardless of the severity of their actions, they will be fine. This can also be viewed as evidence of their divine status; God chose them, and they can do no wrong. I think particularly in other plays where Shakespeare is writing about more recent monarchy, this duality would certainly be in his favor. He has to shed a kind light on England’s elite because his livelihood depends on their approval. The outcome of Cymbeline makes me feel that everything will be alright for Henry IV, or at least for his son. 

Disguise, Disguise, and More Disguise

Cymbeline is obviously rich in identity crises and false identities. The “good” queen is evil; the stolen princes are alive, well, and returned; Iachimo is a liar and a creep; Innogen is a girl, then a boy, then a girl; Cloten is Posthumus…the list goes on indefinitely. This seemingly never ending montage of trickery and disguise certainly colored my perspective on reading King Henry IV part 1. While reading Act I, I kept looking for the catch. Who was pretending to be someone they weren't? Who is lying and putting on a front? The answer: Prince Hal.

With all the supplemental knowledge of English history, the audience would've know that Prince Hal would eventually become King Henry the V and lead England to victory over France and a plethora of other noble deeds. In Act I of King Henry IV part 1 however, Prince Hal is quite the rebel. Hal is drinking in a bar surrounded by various miscreants, not exactly the type of friends a prince should have. To make matters even more astounding, he is discussing a robbery he will soon commit! Hal is a disappointment to his father the king, who remarks “O, that it could be proved that some night-tripping fairy had exchanged in cradle clothes our children where they lay”. (1.1.85-86)

However, the aspect of Prince Hal’s rebellious attitude that is reminiscent of Cymbeline, is his motives for committing these actions. Hal isn't truly a horrible kid. It’s all an act, a disguise. In the Prince’s soliloquy he reveals to the audience that he just wants the kingdom to think the worst of him before he assumes his rightful place on the throne, in which time he will shock the world with his noble, honorable character. “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.” (1.2.198-201)

Underestimation and the Road to Character Development

Being the rather hopeless romantic that I am, I was more than annoyed when King Cymbeline dismissed Posthumus as a suitable husband for his daughter due to his lack of noble blood. “Thou took’st a beggar; wouldst have made my throne A seat for baseness” (1.1.178-179) he decries to Imogen furiously after Posthumus’ banishment, showcasing a pettiness that immediately marks him as a dislikable character. While Imogen’s tart comeback is more than welcome after such a remark, this underestimation of Posthumus is a crucial line because it sets up the path of his character development.

From the very beginning of the play, we find via the conversation between the two gentlemen of the court that despite his status, Posthumus is a “worthy gentleman” (1.1.9). In fact, after hearing the reason behind his banishment, the second gentleman remarks to the first “I honour him Even out of your report” (1.1.61-62). Throughout the play, we readers search for reasons to believe the second gentleman’s esteem of Posthumus and we root for him even when he does things that let us down (such as his lightning quick denouncement of his wife after Iachimo’s machinations) because we believe that in order for the fairy tale ending to work Posthumus must prove the king wrong.

I’ve noticed that Henry IV also uses underestimation to jumpstart character growth. Just like Posthumus, Prince Hal is vastly underestimated by a king (in his case, not just a king but his own father). However, unlike Posthumus, who is underestimated only by a small number of individuals (aka Cymbeline and Cloten), an entire kingdom frowns upon Hal. Also unlike Posthumus, it is found that Hal’s poor reputation is all a ruse- he wants to be underestimated because he’s waiting for the day he can finally show everyone his true greatness.  I look forward to seeing how this take on overcoming underestimation works for him. 

Characteristics: the Issue of Honor within All Nobility

After reading Cymbeline, the idea of divinity of nobility became a prominent problem within the play. The two stolen sons of King Cymbeline maintain their nature of noblemen despite being raised on the false identity of being Welsh countrymen. In this instance, the power of nature overrules the power of nurture and the true ‘divine’ sons of the king are worthy and honorable.

In the beginning of King Henry IV Part 1, King Henry IV proclaims his wish that his lazy son Prince Hal was more like Hotspur, a noble boy who embodies the nobility and characteristics that a ruler should possess. Henry even fantasizes that the boys were somehow switched, and that Hotspur was actually his son who was destined to become king someday. This fantasy that Henry imagines goes against the idea of divine rule and that the honorable characteristics of rulers can be found within men who are not in line to inherit the crown. I believe that the idea of honor and nature of nobility was present in both plays to show there are flaws in the system and that the idea of only royalty displaying royal qualities is a false belief.

            Within King Henry IV Part 1, King Henry exclaims, “O that it could be proved that some night-tripping fairy had exchanged in cradle clothes our children where they lay, and called mine Percy, his Plantagenet!” (1.1. 85-88) Though Henry is already plagued with the idea of legitimacy of the crown due to the recent overthrow, he can’t help but hope his son was more like Hotspur, or rather that the two were actually switched. Henry is ashamed of what his lineage has to show, and wants his line to succeed the reign for many years, but worries about the succession when his son has little honorable qualities. The idea of honorable nature ruling over the royal lineage is a false claim that is a major problem within Cymbeline and King Henry IV Part 1.

Vying Kings and Competitive Princes

Vying Kings and Competitive Princes.

In Cymbeline, Cloten is depicted as the vying prince, and Cymbeline as the old king. As the play unravels, it is proven that the queen’s main intentions of marrying Cymbeline are to insure that Cloten will obtain the throne. In this way, the queen is also acting as the vying prince, attempting to help Cloten in his efforts to achieve the throne.

Although the theme of vying kings and competitive princes emerges in Cymbeline as well as other plays, such as King Lear, there is an opposite theme in King Henry IV Part 1.

King Henry represents the vying king as he wishes Hotspur were his son, and next in line to take the throne. While talking about how he respects Hotspur, the King proclaims “O, that it could be proved that some night-tripping fairy had exchanged in cradle-clothes our children where they lay, and called mine 'Percy' his 'Plantagenet'! Then I would have his Harry, and he mine” (1.1.85-89). Here the king admits that he wishes Hotspur were his son and not Harry. King Henry views Prince Harry as immature, since he spends his time robbing thieves and manipulating friends. In contrast, the King looks upon Hotspur as a noble prince who deserves the throne. As the play continues, the respectable side of Hotspur is questioned as he often “explodes” with temper outbreaks. For example, when his wife asks him where he is going, and why he hasn’t been himself, he responds “Away! Away, you trifler. Love, I love thee not. I care not for thee” (2.3. 82-84). Telling his wife he doesn’t love her or care for her is extreme, as she was only showing her love and consideration for him. This scene further demonstrates Hotspurs temper and unfavorable attributes.

It will be interesting to see how Hotspur and Prince Harry change in the eyes of King Henry, and if they continue to keep acting the same, or if they have a change in character. I think Prince Harry is going to “win” over Hotspur in the end. Because Hotspur begun being perceived as the noble one, and has started to decrease his own status, I think Prince Harry will begin to increase his status, seeming less immature and untrustworthy, consequently happily surprise everyone. I think King Henry IV Part 1 is rooting for the underdog. Although this statement is slightly ironic because it is expected that the “vying prince” should be the underdog, in this case, the next prince in line is the underdog. The theme of the vying character changes from Cymbeline to King Henry IV because in Cymbeline the vying price desires the throne, whereas the vying king wants a different prince. I predict that despite each vying character, all will work out in the end as the respectable character among Henry and Hotspur is revealed.

Nobility: Innate or Attained?

           What is nobility? By definition, nobility is "the quality of being noble in character, mind, birth, or rank." In Cymbeline and Henry IV Part 1, the issue of nobility - or generally the lack thereof - seems to be a rather large issue to me. Specifically, where does nobility come from? Can it be attained, or is one simply born with it?

            In Cymbeline, Belarius – captor and caretaker of Guiderius and Arviragus – laments how impossible it is to prevent the shows of nobility in his two “sons.”

“How hard it is to hide the sparks of nature!

These boys know little they are sons to th’ King,

Nor Cymbeline dreams that they are alive.

They think they are mine, and though trained up thus meanly,

I’th’ cave wherein they bow, their thoughts do hit

The roofs of palaces…” (III.iii.79-84)

            When compared to Prince Hal, who is royalty yet shows no sign beyond birthright that he is royalty, I begin to see the issue of tabula rasa vs innate traits. Guiderius and Arviragus present the case for “innate traits.” Even though they were raised most of their lives in lowly conditions, they still act nobly and behave as if they belong in a high court (which, of course, they rightfully did). Hal, though, is a complete blank slate. Taking part in completely ignoble activities and flouting his duties, it’s hard to imagine him as a prince in any case.

            Presenting two completely different cases of nobility in two princes is an interesting aspect to Shakespeare that pits both sides of the nature vs nurture argument against each other. All things considered, Guiderius and Arviragus could certainly have grown up to be as rough as the environment they lived in, but their nobility shines through, while Hal stays ignoble and stubborn when contained within a royal party his whole life.

Children: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

In Cymbeline, the matters associated with children are always of great concern because of the family's royalty. Whether a child is good or bad seems to always be under scrutiny. Imogen is closely watched and her decisions are limited. Posthumus is banished by her father in attempt to protect his lineage, despite how honorable Posthumus is. Imogen is undeniably good as well, and although the king recognizes this even when she is disguised, he fails to recognize the evil and ugliness in Cloten. The king even instantly sentences his own valiant, biological son to death because he murdered Cloten, even though Cloten had planned to rape his daughter.

This theme is also present in Henry IV Part 1, even though the king is fully aware that Prince Hal is a bad prince. King Henry IV even wishes he had another son, saying, “O that it could be proved that some night-tripping fairy had exchanged in cradle clothes our children where they lay, and called mine Percy, his Plantagenet!” (1.1. 85-88). The prince’s behavior is not fit for a future king and this is a great issue since the kingdom is already unstable due to the recent overthrow of the crown.

I believe that Shakespeare portrays certain characters as good and bad in order to bring about a higher contrast. Would we have been as shocked at Posthumus’ actions if we had not known how virtuous and chaste Imogen remained? Would we have been as disgusted by Cloten if he had not gone after such a good princess? I believe that, like every society, Shakespearean societies need deviance and ugliness to contrast the good and provide an outline for how one should behave. I think that Prince Hal’s misbehaving will only make us see him as an even greater king in the future.

The Thrill of The Hunt: One Man’s Search for Truth

            The power of group dynamics can quickly become a slippery slope. The Danish film, The Hunt shows the horrible extremes society takes when faced with troubling issues.

            The film starts with a picturesque scene centering around Lucas, a lonely yet good-hearted man working at a Kindergarten. Lucas’ life takes a turn when one of the Kindergartner’s, Klara, accuses Lucas of sexual abuse. All of a sudden, Lucas finds himself alone, betrayed and trapped.

            The remarkable yet frightening outcome of this is how quickly events unfold. One day, Lucas is drinking a beer with his best friend, the next, he’s being accused and exiled. How can someone you trust so quickly become your enemy?

            The answer is group polarization where a group of people’s beliefs will be strengthen if other confirm or agree upon these ideas. This is certainly the case for Lucas. Once Klara releases her lie, it spreads like an epidemic until the whole town knows and shuns Lucas because of it.

            There is also a further level to this, which involves people’s self-fulfilling prophecies. People are engraved with the stereotype that children are innocent and, therefore, don’t lie. And further, they want to protect that innocence. So when they hear such foul and direct words come from a child’s mouth, they automatically assume it to be true. Adult’s, on the other hand, are cunning and know the trick of the trade. Naturally, they will take Klara’s side over Lucas’ because it’s easier for them to believe a child is innocent than a ‘corrupt’ adult.            

            This is a terrifying idea. One’s whole life can be flipped just by one person’s lie. The power that gives people to manipulate and control society makes one squirm uncomfortably. We want so desperately to believe that all people are naturally honest and good, but, in actuality, that is false. And those that suffer most from these acts are often the innocent and good-hearted as seen by Lucas.

            This idea of isolation and exile can also be seen in Timon of Athens. Timon’s generous and kind attitude directly causes his downfall.  As he turns to his (faux) allies for help, they all turn away unwilling to listen to his pleas. They band together similarly as the society in The Hunt do. Clustering together and feeding off one another’s words.

            While these group dynamics seem extreme and unrealistic, they are an everyday occurrence in society. People constantly sway what others believe in order to benefit them as seen in politics, media and the workplace. The best way around these ploys to become better acquainted them to avoid succumbing to the fates of Timon and Lucas. 

Kings, Queens, and Their Shakespearean Spawn

      Something notable between the two works is the relationship between parent and child; both works have many of their major characters linked through a direct bloodline. This is an important dynamic to note because the complexities of father-daughter/son-relationships often provide us with most of our major plot points in each play.   

     In Cymbeline, we know from reading the title that the king, and the relationship he shares with Imogen, will have a large effect on what takes place amongst the characters. Without Cymbeline’s overwhelming need to protect Imogen from marrying outside of the noble ranks, we wouldn’t see the banishment of Posthumus and the antics that ensue.

     Despite Cymebline’s err in judgment (in both banishing the beloved Posthumus, as well as trusting his scumbag queen of a wife) the intimacy of his and Imogen’s bond is something that cannot be ignored. When Cymbeline says upon seeing Fidele (the disguised Imogen) “I have surely seen him. His favor is familiar to me.—Boy, Thou hast looked thyself into my grace And art mine own” (5.5.106-109), though the literal recognition of identity between Cymbeline and his daughter is not present, there is recognition of spirit, and their familial ties are still there despite the façade that Imogen must maintain.

     Keeping this dynamic in mind, I read King Henry paying special attention to the relationship between the King and his eldest son, Prince Harry. It’s an interesting relationship because it plays on the common theme of children disappointing their parents, not living up to their expectations, etc. Just like Imogen disappointed Cymbeline by marrying Posthumus, the Prince lives a life of mischief and irresponsibility rather than the life the King most likely desires for him. This tension between father and son is something that will most likely carry great weight throughout the play.