seems to have regarded the kingly office as something sacred. It is true that as a patriot he placed the welfare and safety of England high above the welfare and safety of any individual monarch; yet he saw evil in usurpation. Just as, in the trilogy of Æschylus, Orestes, though he does right in slaying his murderess-mother Clytemnestra, is nevertheless pursued by the Furies, so Bolingbroke, though he frees England from extortion and misgovernment, has to expiate the crime of usurpation. Shakespeare even makes Henry V feel a sense of the wrong his father committed when, on the field of Agincourt, he prays:

"Not to-day, O Lord, O, not to-day, think not upon the fault My father made in compassing the crown!" (Henry V, iv. 1. 309–311.)

A king as king is in Shakespeare's eyes

"the figure of God's majesty, His captain, steward, deputy-elect"

(Richard II, iv. 1. 125),

and accordingly Nemesis overtakes the man who dethrones him. But though the usurper has to expiate his crime, yet, inasmuch as he becomes the anointed head of his people, he too acquires a sacred nature. The loyal Blunt, when Hotspur reproaches him with being his enemy, replies:

"And God defend but still I should stand so,

So long as out of limit and true rule

You stand against anointed majesty."

Blunt's loyalty to Henry IV is not a merely personal matter: he sees in the King, usurper though he be, "anointed majesty," and for this he lays down his life.

5. THE CHARACTERS

Hazlitt was writing of Henry IV when he said of Shakespeare: "He appears to have been all the characters, and in all the situations he describes." Though the play is deficient in women, it is second to none in the rich variety and lifelikeness of its characterization. We are introduced to a world of full activity: the court, the tavern, and the camp are the scenes of action, and in

each of them the pulse of life beats strongly. Most of the historical characters are drawn from the pages of Holinshed, but whereas in the Chronicle they are often devoid of individuality, they receive at Shakespeare's hands full individualization. Holinshed is content to tell us what his characters did, but Shakespeare lays bare the motives of their action.

The characters fall naturally into two groups, which correspond to the two centers of action the historic plot and the Falstaffian comedy. The central figure in the former group is Hotspur, in the latter, Falstaff; but the true hero of the play, and the man who unites the two spheres of action, is the Prince of Wales.

King Henry, though an imposing figure, is not attractive, and his character in the play is a natural development of his character as Bolingbroke in Richard II. Holinshed's Henry IV is a martial figure, who distinguishes himself as much on the field of battle as in the council-chamber; but Shakespeare, while he reveals the King's promptness and decision in taking steps to quell the Percy rebellion, makes little of his prowess in the fight. He won the crown from Richard by diplomacy, and not by shock of arms, and Hotspur, who scorns diplomacy, calls him a 'vile politician" and a "king of smiles." We come into closest contact with the King when, in his private interview with the Prince of Wales, he lays bare the devices that he used in winning the throne:

"And then I stole all courtesy from heaven,
And dress'd myself in such humility

That I did pluck allegiance from men's hearts,
Loud shouts and salutations from their mouths,
Even in the presence of the crowned king."

(iii. 2. 50-54.)

There is a singular correspondence between these words placed on the lips of Henry and those uttered by Richard years before, when Bolingbroke was being driven into exile:

"Ourself and Bushy, Bagot here and Green,
Observed his courtship to the common people;
How he did seem to dive into their hearts,
With humble and familiar courtesy,
What reverence he did throw away on slaves,
Wooing poor craftsmen with the craft of smiles
And patient underbearing of his fortune,
As 't were to banish their affects with him."

Henry IV has won the crown by subtle contrivings, and no man knows better than he the insecurity of his position, Looked at from one point of view, both parts of Henry IV represent the fulfillment of the aged Bishop of Carlisle's prophecy :

"And if you crown him, let me prophesy:
The blood of English shall manure the ground,
And future ages groan for this foul act;
Peace shall go sleep with Turks and infidels,

And in this seat of peace tumultuous wars
Shall kin with kin and kind with kind confound."

i

(Richard II, iv. 1. 136–141.)

The insecurity of his position renders Henry suspicious and jealous. He is jealous of Hotspur's victory over Douglas, suspi- X cious of Mortimer, whose right to the throne is better than his own, and it is this suspicion and jealousy that foment the Percy rebellion. His growing sense of suspicion bears its own Nemesis with it; it dulls his understanding, and renders his life lonely. He fails to understand the character of his eldest son, suspects his loyalty, and drives him from the court to the tavern. The atmosphere of that court is chill and numbing; no gracious womanly figure, like that of Richard's consort, appears there, and the King looks upon all with mistrust. The Percy rising brings out what is best in him, and in his plans for the campaign we see once again the far-seeing, practical man who won the throne from the hapless Richard He forms a plan of action wisely and swiftly, is generous in his offers of mercy before the battle, and shows that he has the welfare of his people at heart. It is in 2 Henry IV that we fully see how hard the kingly crown has pressed upon his brow. Anxiety and sleeplessness have rendered him prematurely old, remorse for the evil that he has done in compassing the crown pricks him, and his life is lonely and loveless. In his every act we see the success and the failure that attend upon the calculating, diplomatic nature.

In opposition to Henry IV stands Henry Percy, the Hotspur of the North. Shakespeare's love of character-contrasts was very great when he wrote Henry IV, and in the person of Hotspur he has presented us with a contrast both to the King and to the Prince of Wales. Hotspur is a heroic figure, a representative of the vanishing age of chivalry. His character is composed of apparently antagonistic elements. Rough in speech, and affecting a contempt for "mincing poetry," he is at the same time full of the imaginative power that makes for poetry, and some of the most

poetic speeches in the play fall from his lips. Placing the quest of honor above all things, it seems to him

To pluck bright honour from the pale-faced moon,"

and then a moment later he talks of having the Prince of Wales "poison'd with a pot of ale." Again, ardent and emotional as his nature is, he opposes a cold septicism to the superstitious arrogance of Glendower, and adopts toward his wife, Lady Percy, a bantering tone that appears to conceal his deep affection for her. This inconsistency springs from his impulsive nature. Hotspur is indeed swayed by impulse, as the King is swayed by calculation. In word and in act he expresses the oughts and feelings of the moment, and by so doing betrays his lack of self-restraint and tact. Thus The offends Glendower by his scornful ridicule of his pretensions, brooks no opposition in the division of the land, and cannot endure the thought of postponing the battle of Shrewsbury until his forces are all on the field and ready for action. Hotspur delights us with his candor, his high spirits and valiant manliness, but we are forced to confess that his nature is not profound. Even his love of honor is superficial when compared with that of the Prince of Wales. He will leap to the moon or dive to the bottom of the sea in quest of honor, provided that he may bear about with him, for all to see, the "dignities" of the honor he has won; but the Prince of Wales, having satisfied his own inward cravings for honor in the moment of his victory over Hotspur, cares little for "the bubble reputation," and is content that the credit of having slain Hotspur shall be Falstaff's. Hotspur's superficiality renders him at times ungenerous. The Prince though in the presence of Falstaff he parodies with complete success Hotspur's restless activity and absent-mindedness - bears on more than one occasion a high tribute to his manly virtues; but his rival will say nothing good of him, nor listen to the praise of others. In Hotspur's eyes he is simply the "madcap Prince of Wales," and when Vernon ventures to praise the Prince's manly bearing, he impatiently interrupts him :

"No more, no more; worse than the sun in March,

This praise doth nourish agues."

4

Yet with all the defects of his qualities, Hotspur is a great and inspiring figure. His greatness is contagious, and compels admira

tion and imitation from his associates. Lady Percy makes rosity vaunt when, after his death, she says:

"He was the mark and glass, copy and book,
That fashioned others."

'ead, m

If he is scornful of Glendower's pretensions, his scorn springs from his deep love of truth. "Tell truth and shame the devil" is his candid advice to Glendower, while to Douglas he avers:

"By God, I cannot flatter; I do defy
The tongues of soothers."

It is his hatred of injustice and hypocrisy that makes him a rebel; his impatience and masterfulness are merely the effervescence of virile force, and his tactlessness flows from his candor. Hotspur's death at the hands of the Prince of Wales indicates something more than inferiority of swordsmanship; in his fall we see the valorous but unthinking heroism of a chivalrous age overcome by one in whom deftness of hand is combined with agility of mind.

The Prince of Wales, though he has had his detractors, has usually, and we think rightly, been regarded as Shakespeare's ideal man of action, and in the play that bears his name, his ideal king. This is a very different thing from saying that he is Shakespeare's ideal man. Some of the finer graces of manhood, which lie remote from the practical issues of life, find no place in his character. He lacks the poetic charm of Richard II, the intellectual subtlety of Hamlet, the ingenuousness of Brutus, and it is only fair to add that if he had possessed these qualities he would not have been Shakespeare's ideal man of action. For Shakespeare knew, as well as Aristotle and Spenser, that the politic virtues — the virtues of kingship are different from the private virtues — the virtues of manhood; the qualities of kingliness that Shakespeare saw in Henry are all of a practical nature, and are united in him with a fineness of proportion which establishes a well-balanced character, and gives to that character elasticity and resilience.

We are concerned here with the character of Henry only in its earlier stages, before he came to be king. The chroniclers were fond of insisting on the sudden and almost miraculous conversion of the Prince on his father's death. Following a not altogether credible tradition, they represent him in his youth as a dissipated rbysterer who is suddenly changed into a model king. Shakespeare accepts this tradition only to a certain degree; he allows the Arch