Shakespeare's Legitimacy In Henry IV Part I
The relationship between the two rulers and their own legitimacy led to its fair share of rebellion and resistance as well. Henry IV Part 1 deals primarily with the aftermath of Henry’s taking of the throne, which took the shape of an armed rebellion by the Percies; this rebellion mirrors the feelings and resistance of Catholic dissenters during Elizabeth’s time both historically and through Shakespeare’s guidance. Hotspur and the Percies retained great loyalty to Richard II despite supporting Henry’s claim to the throne -- Hotspur expressed this sentiment many times throughout the play, describing Richard as a “sweet lovely rose” and Henry as a “vile politician,” among other things (1.3). Richard’s effervescence in the minds of the rememberers
…show more content…
Because gender was viewed less as a strict binary and more as a continuum that men and women could inhabitant differing parts of at differing times, it is possible for one to analyze Shakespeare’s feminization of Henry in a way that makes it obvious that he is a surrogate for Elizabeth herself (Andrews, 377). In fact, Henry IV Part 1 “virtually demands that we associate the maternal, doubly gendered Henry with Elizabeth” (Andrews 381). Shakespeare presents Henry as physically feminine, as evident in the lines, “But be sure / I will from henceforth rather be myself, / Mighty, and be feared, than my condition / Which hath been smooth as oil, soft as young down / And therefore lost my title of respect” (1.3.4-8). In the sixteenth century, men were seen as hot and dry while women were wet and cold, so Henry’s self-description fell considerably more in line with notions of femininity than masculinity (Andrews 379). Shakespeare goes on to have Hotspur describe him as “pale” and “trembling” (1.3.140-142) and having begged with “tears of innocency” (4.3.63) for his duchy back, which creates a historically feminine image of Henry throughout the
Because gender was viewed less as a strict binary and more as a continuum that men and women could inhabitant differing parts of at differing times, it is possible for one to analyze Shakespeare’s feminization of Henry in a way that makes it obvious that he is a surrogate for Elizabeth herself (Andrews, 377). In fact, Henry IV Part 1 “virtually demands that we associate the maternal, doubly gendered Henry with Elizabeth” (Andrews 381). Shakespeare presents Henry as physically feminine, as evident in the lines, “But be sure / I will from henceforth rather be myself, / Mighty, and be feared, than my condition / Which hath been smooth as oil, soft as young down / And therefore lost my title of respect” (1.3.4-8). In the sixteenth century, men were seen as hot and dry while women were wet and cold, so Henry’s self-description fell considerably more in line with notions of femininity than masculinity (Andrews 379). Shakespeare goes on to have Hotspur describe him as “pale” and “trembling” (1.3.140-142) and having begged with “tears of innocency” (4.3.63) for his duchy back, which creates a historically feminine image of Henry throughout the