Hotspur's Unhealthy

1163 Words3 Pages

In King Henry IV Part 1, Shakespeare’s exploration of war, politics, and family strife portrays bloodthirstiness as a costly but necessary virtue. As a play birthed from and mired in conflict, Shakespeare’s characters present multiple arguments for, and critiques against, the utility of bloodthirstiness in war. Through Harry ‘Hotspur’ Percy, one sees the self-destructive and sabotaging behavior that such behavior can bring. Prince Hal comparatively rises to Hotspur’s level of lethality accompanied by wisdom and humility, enabling him to use Hotspur’s own violent and impulsive tendencies against him. Introspections by other characters, such as King Henry himself, provide the audience with more facets to Shakespeare’s opinion on violence. Over the course of Henry IV, Hotspur’s bloodthirsty tendencies ultimately lead to his downfall, while Hal’s …show more content…

Yet Hotspur’s repeated dismissal of others, from the King to his wife to his battlefield allies, demonstrates his priorities of ego over strategic thought. After being directly challenged by Prince Hal in single combat, he jumps at the thought without consideration, “O, would the quarrel lay upon our heads,/And that no man might draw short breath today/ But I and Harry Monmouth!” (V.ii.49-51) He also lacks the social and leadership qualities of Hal, even admitting after calling his forces to arms: “Better consider what you have to do/Than I that have not well the gift of tongue/Can lift your blood up with persuasion.”(V.ii.78) As his sleeptalking of war and bloodshed. While in the modern day such symptoms would be classified as PTSD, in Shakespeare’s time this can be attributed to Hotspur’s choleric attitude, his violent dreams highlighting the mental cost of his violent nature. By contrast, when Hal is first introduced, there is no context of fighting or

Open Document