Henry IV: Historical Accuracy

After reading Henry IV: Part 1 and discussing the drama of what happened in the past, my group decided to look at Shakespeare’s representation of history and compare it to what historians have found.  We had originally intended to focus on historical happenings and plot-related things, but after running into a road block when we realized that Shakespeare did not use dates, we shifted gears.  By focusing on the characters and their historical roles in what happened during Henry IV’s reign, my group found that Shakespeare’s representation of history matches well with what historians have found.

While Shakespeare’s accuracy is worth applauding, there were a few instances in which he changed character names without changing anything more about them; an example of this is Lady Kate Percy, whose real name was Elizabeth, or Prince Henry “Hal,” who did not seem to have that nickname throughout his true lifetime (per: my research).  Because I am not a historian and I do not know nearly enough about the topic of naming or history to make a conclusion regarding Shakespeare’s decision, I am still uncertain as to why the names were changed.  There may be historic evidence supporting the idea that those were their true nicknames in history, but I have not found it.

Aside from name changes, Shakespeare proved to be quite accurate; motivations were true to history, the results of major wars were clearly in line with what Shakespeare portrayed, and while he may have over-exaggerated some parts of personalities (such as Hal’s tendency to drink and be jolly), those personality traits can be supported with history.  Several things were left out, however, and those include the fact that Hal was shot in the face during the Battle of Shrewsbury (not mentioned in Henry IV: Part 1), the fact that Hotspur’s death was anonymous and that his body was actually mutilated post-mortem, or that some people were not freed at the end as Shakespeare portrayed (a specific example being Archibald Douglas, who was not freed by Hal following Shrewsbury).  Some historical facts proved to be impossible to find for whatever reason, and especially regarding the roles of women in history, there was hardly anything to be found.

As a matter of fact, the lacking information on the women was unsurprising but still disappointing.  Finding a few things about the women in the play was much harder and took much longer than discovering information on male characters; in fact, I likely spent as much time looking for information on Lady Mortimer alone as I did on all of the Percies and other Earls combined.  The lacking information (or hidden information, I suppose) made it more difficult to compare Shakespeare’s accuracy regarding the women’s presentation while simultaneously supporting Shakespeare’s portrayal.  Because the women were hardly important in the play, the fact that there is very little information in history about them shows that Shakespeare, in making them small, less-than-minor characters, was historically accurate.  Women (queue sarcasm) obviously did not do a single thing in history (because clearly obviously definitely certainly if they had, it would have been recorded) so Shakespeare was right in making them tiny characters. Perhaps he was even generous in mentioning them at all!

Following this research and the issues I had in finding historical information on a few of the characters, the question that I would like to further research is “Where did Shakespeare get his information?” I realized that most of my information, while it came from reputable sources and academic journals, was found online; Shakespeare did not have access to thousands of different journals or encyclopedias that I did, and even I struggled finding information.  Taking that question one step further, I would like to know how written history changed as it got passed from one set of hands to another; it is a common thing for some history to be erased, for some to be slightly altered, and after a type of butterfly effect takes hold, history is changed entirely.  Could that have something to do with the difficulties I had finding information on some characters? How accurate is the history in the first place? How can we even know about its accuracy if there is nothing “true” to compare it to?

Works Cited

• Ellis, Sian. “A Bloody Field By Shrewsbury.” British Heritage 24.4, 2003: 48-51. Web. 19 November 2015.
  Dunn, Alastair. “A Kingdom in Crisis: Henry IV and the Battle of Shrewsbury.” History Today, 53.8, 2003: 31-37. Web. 19 November 2015.
• “Sir Henry Percy.” Columbia Electronic Encylopedia, 6th Edition (2015): 1. Academic Search Complete. Web. 19 November 2015.
• Levenson, Jill L. “Shakespeare’s Fallstaff: ‘The Cause That Wit Is In Other Men.'” University of Toronto Quarterly, 74.2: 2005: 722-727. Web. 19 November 2015.
• Norwich, John J. Shakespeare’s Kings: The Great Plays and the History of England in the Middle Ages: 1337-1485. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1999. Print.
• Ore, Jonathan. “The Truth Behind the Fiction.” History Magazine Aug. 2010. Print.
• Hicks, Michael. “The Yorkshire Perjuries of Henry Bolingbroke in 1399 Revisited.” Northern History, 46.1, 2009: 31-41. Web. 19 November 2015.
• “Henry V (king of England).” Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th Edition (2015): 1. Academic Search Complete. Web. 19 November 2015.
• “Henry Percy, 1st Earl of Northumberland.” Encyclopædia Britannica (2015). Academic Search Complete. Web. 19 November 2015.
• “Archibald Douglas, 4th Earl of Douglas.” Encyclopædia Britannica (2015). Academic Search Complete. Web. 19 November 2015.
• “Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland.” Encyclopædia Britannica (2015). Academic Search Complete. Web. 19 November 2015.