Honor and Idealism: Henry "Hotspur" Percy's First Impression
Carley Becker
Hotspur. The name brings to mind images of fire and passion, of horses and battle. It is more than fitting for a warrior of its owner's countenance. Hotspur's first lines, seen in Act One, Scene Three of Henry IV Part 1, exemplify his extreme sense of duty and honor as a soldier. He says:
My liege, I did deny no prisoners.
But I remember, when the fight was done,
When I was dry with rage and extreme toil,
Breathless and faint, leaning upon my sword,
Came there a certain lord, neat and trimly dressed,
Fresh as a bridegroom, and his chin new reaped
Showed like a stubble land at harvest home.
…
And as the soldiers bore dead bodies by,
He called them untaught knaves, unmannerly,
To bring a slovenly unhandsome corse
Betwixt the wind and his nobility.
With many holiday and lady terms
He questioned me, amongst the rest demanded
My prisoners in your Majesty's behalf. (I.iii.30-49)
When Hotspur refuses to send the king any prisoners save Mordake Earl of Fife, Henry IV accuses him of ignoring kingly rights. Hotspur argues, however, that he only denied the king's courtier. Hotspur is a warrior with very little patience for those who do not respect the battlefield, and he deems the "certain lord, neat and trimly dressed" unworthy of cooperation (I.iii.34). The messenger infuriates Hotspur, who is already "dry with rage and extreme toil / Breathless and faint, leaning upon [his] sword" (I.iii.32-3), by calling the dirty soldiers "untaught knaves" and "unmannerly" (I.iii.44). Hotspur denies the messenger, even at the request of the king, because he does not respect him.
This depiction of Hotspur's character is not a far cry from the way the real Hotspur would have felt. According to Edward Hall's chronicle, The union of the two noble and illustre famelies of Lancastre and Yorke, Northumberland, Worcester, and Hotspur "grudged agaynste his [the king's] welthe and felicitie. And specially greued, because the kynge demaun-ded of the Earle and his sonne suche Scottishe prisoners as they had taken at the conflictes fought at Homeldon and Nesbit" (Hall, 19). Hall continues to write that the Percy family refused so long to hand over the prisoners "that the kyng openly saied that if they wolde not deliuer theim, he woulde take them without deliuerance" (19). But who was correct in this situation, the refusing Hotspur or the demanding king?
"Hotspur's intense personal commitment to moral order" blocks even his adherence to the throne (Mitchell & Wright, 121), and, as it turns out, he is in the right. "Prisoner ransom comprised war's greatest gain" in the late middle ages and Renaissance (Rauchut, 96), so it was not unusual for someone in Hotspur's position to take captives. It was, however, rare for the king to demand all of a soldier's prisoners. Prisoners were treated "like other booty" and (96-7), with the exception of nobility, they were ransomed, with payment split between the government and the captor. Legally, the king had the right to take full control of noble prisoners, so Henry IV was out of line in demanding all of Hotspur's captives. In fact, Hotspur followed the law when he returned Mordake; he was not legally bound to hand over anyone else. "In demanding that Hotspur surrender all his prisoners, then, Henry asserts his royal right while ignoring the law of arms, traditional compensation, and the formal chivalric bond between Hotspur and his captives," so it isn't really any wonder that Hotspur is bitter towards the crown (97).
This impatience for anything other than strict adherence to the codes of honor and law shows Hotspur's "strength of mind, his noble temper, and his excessive ambition" (Small, 243). He is a "type of headstrong hero" (245), so his annoyance with ransoms and the king's accusation that Mortimer "willfully betrayed / The lives of those that he did lead to fight" leads him into a rebellion against the crown (I.iii.83-4). He is not even in the wrong, as chivalric code is a form of law, and, king or not, Henry IV is the one in violation. From this view, then, Hotspur is not a villain, but a vigilante and a deeply honorable man, bravely fighting for his rights and ideals
This depiction of Hotspur's character is not a far cry from the way the real Hotspur would have felt. According to Edward Hall's chronicle, The union of the two noble and illustre famelies of Lancastre and Yorke, Northumberland, Worcester, and Hotspur "grudged agaynste his [the king's] welthe and felicitie. And specially greued, because the kynge demaun-ded of the Earle and his sonne suche Scottishe prisoners as they had taken at the conflictes fought at Homeldon and Nesbit" (Hall, 19). Hall continues to write that the Percy family refused so long to hand over the prisoners "that the kyng openly saied that if they wolde not deliuer theim, he woulde take them without deliuerance" (19). But who was correct in this situation, the refusing Hotspur or the demanding king?
"Hotspur's intense personal commitment to moral order" blocks even his adherence to the throne (Mitchell & Wright, 121), and, as it turns out, he is in the right. "Prisoner ransom comprised war's greatest gain" in the late middle ages and Renaissance (Rauchut, 96), so it was not unusual for someone in Hotspur's position to take captives. It was, however, rare for the king to demand all of a soldier's prisoners. Prisoners were treated "like other booty" and (96-7), with the exception of nobility, they were ransomed, with payment split between the government and the captor. Legally, the king had the right to take full control of noble prisoners, so Henry IV was out of line in demanding all of Hotspur's captives. In fact, Hotspur followed the law when he returned Mordake; he was not legally bound to hand over anyone else. "In demanding that Hotspur surrender all his prisoners, then, Henry asserts his royal right while ignoring the law of arms, traditional compensation, and the formal chivalric bond between Hotspur and his captives," so it isn't really any wonder that Hotspur is bitter towards the crown (97).
This impatience for anything other than strict adherence to the codes of honor and law shows Hotspur's "strength of mind, his noble temper, and his excessive ambition" (Small, 243). He is a "type of headstrong hero" (245), so his annoyance with ransoms and the king's accusation that Mortimer "willfully betrayed / The lives of those that he did lead to fight" leads him into a rebellion against the crown (I.iii.83-4). He is not even in the wrong, as chivalric code is a form of law, and, king or not, Henry IV is the one in violation. From this view, then, Hotspur is not a villain, but a vigilante and a deeply honorable man, bravely fighting for his rights and ideals