The purpose of this research is to examine the impact of rebellion in Shakespeare's 1 Henry IV, 2 Henry IV, Henry V, and The Tempest. The plan of the research will be to discuss forces behind coups and attempted coups in the plays and the level of sympathetic and unsympathetic portrayals of rebels in each of them, with a view toward determining Shakespeare's view of the status of authority, its power, and its vulnerability.
1 Henry IV, 2 Henry IV, and Henry V can be considered as pieces of a unitary presentation of the self-conscious assertion of monarchical attitude and dignity in England by one of its founding royal families. But this assertion is made in the context of multiple rebellions. To begin with, Henry IV's reign was established by rebellion, Bolingbroke having become the Lancastrian/Plantagenet Henry IV when the vain and foolish Richard II abdicated (in Richard II). But in 1HIV, the new king is also a target of rebellion, both political and personal.
Political rebellion against Henry IV arises because of the complex interaction of three distinct areas: Scotland, Wales, and (later) Northumberland, in the house of Percy. At the open ing of the play, it appears that two areas are being disposed of effectively. Northumberland (which, with Bolingbroke, had supported replacement of Richard II by Henry) has secured Henry's position once for all against Scotland via young Harry Percy's (Hotspur) military victory. But Hotspur refuses to hand over the Scots leaders to the king's jurisdiction, first because Henry's envoy had insulted Hotspur after the battle and second (and more crucially) because of the facts surrounding the Welsh rebellion. Wales has not been suppressed by Henry's general and kinsman Mortimer; instead of defeating the Welsh king Glendower militarily, Mortimer, whose sister is Hotspur's wife, has married Glendower's daughter.
Mortimer's ambiguous resolution of Henry's fight with Wales and Hotspur's defiant d...