Wang Mengmeng

English Language and Literature

Renmin University
6 April, 2021
Subversion or Preservation: Dialogism in Henry IV

I. Introduction

Henry IV of Shakespeare is a panorama of British society that covers a wider

social range than any previous historical drama. Samuel Johnson commented on the

status of the play, noting that “none of Shakespeare’s plays are read more than the

First and Second Parts of Henry the Fourth” (Bevington 7). There are two worlds in

the play: one is the high world of solemnity in court, council, city and battlefield, and

the other is a low world of vulgarity and leisure in tavern of countryside. The all-

inclusiveness of the play also manifests itself in the number and range of characters.

There are a variety of characters in the play, ranging from pageboy, whores, thieves,

carriers to archbishop and thanes, prince and king. Different characters have their

different voices in the play.

II. Parallel structure: Basis for Dialogism

The structure of the play lays the foundation for dialogism. And the analysis

will hence start from it as “the ultimate standard for the interpretation of art is

aesthetic” (Ornstein 45). Two worlds in the play, the base world of Falstaff and the

noble world of politics are juxtaposed as parallels to each other. In part I and part 2,

the king’s party and the rebel’s party both appear for 17 times. The base world of
Falstaff appears for 19 times. They are almost evenly distributed and are given equal

weight. The scenes of state alternate with scenes of low life. Only Prince Henry and

Falstaff are endowed with the freedom to move into and out of the two worlds, with

Henry mainly at Boar’s Head tavern and Falstaff in the battlefield of Shrewsbury.

With the dialogues between these two characters, the two plots are combined together

and form an organic whole.

Dialogism penetrates through the polyphonic play into every level of it. For

Bakhtin, dialogue is everywhere, and all language, all thoughts appear as dialogical.

“All else’s the means; dialogue is the end. A single voice ends nothing and resolves

nothing. Two voices are the minimum for life, the minimum for existence” (Bakhtin

254). This means that everything anybody ever says always exists in response to

things that have been said before and is in anticipation of things that will be said in

response. Dialogue can be divided into great dialogue and micro-dialogue. Great

dialogue refers to the polyphonic structure of the play and the dialogues between

different characters. Micro-dialogue is also referred to as double-voiced discourse,

which includes parody and hidden polemic. For a double-voiced discourse, “in one

discourse, two semantic intentions appear, two voices” (Bakhtin 189).

III.Dialogues between the kingship and the rebellious power

The dialogues between the divine kingship and the questioning of its

legitimacy are given equal weight in act V, part I. When the war between king’s party
and the rebel’s party is imminent, the king’s speech implies the dark, gloomy

atmosphere of the battlefield: “How bloodily the sun begins to peer Above yon husky

hill! the day looks pale At his distemperature” (Shakespeare 139). In the later dispute,

the king reproaches the Percy family for their betrayal of his trust, and Worcester

criticizes the king for his murder of Richard II and questions the legitimacy of the

kingship, which is also the reason of their rebellion. Both the subversive force

towards kingship and the preservation of it are given equal power and weight.

Parody is the rhetorical art of mimicking a type of speech or behavior in

order to criticize it. (Bakhtin 106). In Boar’s Head Tavern, the prince imitates hotspur

in an exaggerated way. He increases the number of people killed by hotspur, and

magnifies the dismissive attitude of hotspur. In this way, the original meaning of

Hotspur is distorted with this exaggeration. There are two voices in this parody,

Hotspur’s value about battle achievements and Hal’s criticism about it. Hotspur’s

value about honor is “profaned” and leads to absurdity in the prince’s parody.

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” (Shakespeare 154). The wavering attitude of him implies the split of

inner self.

“For the King has in him two Bodies, viz.,a Body natural, and a
 Body politic. His Body natural (if it be considered in itself) is a Body

mortal, subject to all Infirmities that come by Nature or Accident, to the

Imbecility of Infancy or old Age, and to the like Defects that happen to the

natural Bodies of other People. But his Body politic is a Body that cannot

be seen or handled, consisting of Policy and Government…cannot be

invalidated or frustrated by any Disability in his natural Body”

(Kantorowicz, 58).

Dialogue within his consciousness is the process for him to find a balance

between the political self and the natural self.

IV. Dialogues between the established order and the carnival spirit

The subversive forces cannot only be found in the court and in the power

struggle among nobles, but also be found in the lower world where Falstaff is the

Carnival king. He is thought highly of by Harold Bloom as “the representative of

imaginative freedom, of a liberty set against time, death, and the state, which is a

condition that we crave for ourselves” (Bloom, 288). He is the Socrates in Boar’s

Head. Both Falstaff and Socrates have grotesque appearances and inner wisdom.

And both of them educate through dialogue. The difference may be that Socrates is

more dialectic, whereas Falstaff is a parodist who inundates his students with

reinvention of language, especially wordplay. The relationship between Prince Hal

and Falstaff can be compared with that of Alcibiades and Socrates and maybe the Earl

of Southampton and Shakespeare.

…
 A more direct dialogue between the prince and Falstaff is in the play-with-

the-play, the parody game of Hal and Falstaff. In the first play, Falstaff plays the role

of Henry’s father, Henry IV. This is the mock crowing of the carnival king. Falstaff

becomes the king for laughter’s sake with his self-coronation: “this chair shall be my

state, this dagger my sceptre, and this cushion my crown” (Shakespeare 79). This is a

coronation with laughter. And carnival laughter is directed toward something higher,

toward a shift of authorities and a reverse of world orders. Therefore, the crowning

and de-crowning processes are inseparable and can transform from one to another

nonstop. The crowing of Falstaff is immediately followed by the prince’s de-crowing

of him. “Thy state is taken for a joint-stool, thy golden sceptre for a leaden dagger,

and thy precious rich crown for a pitiful bald crown” (Shakespeare 79). The

subversive crowning of Falstaff is in a power struggle of the preserving attempt of

Hal. In part II, the real king’s coronation is together with the banishment of the

carnival king. Falstaff is rejected by Henry V, yet his carnival spirit still exists since

Hal has proves himself a good student under the guidance of his mentor. Thus,

Falstaff is everlasting as an absent presence.

V. Conclusion

In conclusion, this play presents a panoramic view of Renaissance England

through juxtaposition. Multiple voices in the juxtaposed two worlds are described

and form the characteristic of heteroglossia, with "another's speech in another's

language" (Bakhtin 324). The juxtaposition and alternation of two worlds in Henry

IV gives the play a spatial form.

 …

Bibliography

Bakhtin, Mikhail. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Ed. Caryle Emerson.

Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984.

Bakhtin, Mikhail. The Dialogic Imagination. Ed. Caryle Emerson and Michael
Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981.

Baldick, Chris. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms.  Oxford and New
York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Barker, Simon. War and Nation in the Theatre of Shakespeare and His Contemporaries.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007.

Bloom, Harold. Shakespeare: the Invention of the Human.  New York: Riverhead
Books, 1998.

Greenblatt, Stephen. Shakespearean Negotiations.  California: University of California

Press, 1988.

Johnson, Samuel. “The Plays of William Shakespeare.” Henry the Fourth

Parts I and II: Critical Essays. Ed. David Bevington. London: Garland Publishing
Inc., 1986. 7-8.

Kantorowicz, Ernst. The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology.
Edinburgh: Princeton University Press, 2016.

Kundera, Milan. The Art of the Novel.  Edinburgh: Grove Press, 1988.

Ornstein, Robert. “The Artist as Historian.” Shakespeare’s History Plays: Richard II to

Henry V. Ed. Graham Holderness. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992. 45.

Shakespeare, William. David Nicol, and Sidney Lamb, eds. Henry VI, Part I. Foster City:
Cliffs Notes, 2000.