Connor Sullivan
Help Received: Work Cited
Manuals of Honor: The Ideals and the Practice
In the sixteenth century was a period called the Elizabethan period. During
that time honor was the foundation of their society and morals. There were a set of
codes called the chivalry codes and honor was closely tied into them. While anyone
could buy a coat of arms the chivalry codes dictated men how to be knights and men
(Hodgdon 318-319). In the late sixteenth century the chivalry codes were reformed
into general military codes that told of the courtesies and punishments of captains
and soldiers (Hodgdon 334).
Sir William Segar wrote codes that dictated what honorable combat was with
regards to knights; Matthew Sutcliffe and Barnaby Rich reformed the codes for
captains and soldiers. Segar’s “Of Knighthood” depicts how medieval knights would
have had to behave while “The Office and Duty of Every Knight and Gentleman” tells
what good behavior is. “Of Cowardice” shows that Segar hates cowardice and it is an
offence against honor in combat. Sutcliffe’s codes applied to captains and soldiers
alike, they were used so strictly that even when soldiers were not present when the
codes were read that soldiers were expected to follow them at all times and without
question while, Rich uses Greek ideals to invoke obedience (Hodgdon 335). Rich
specifically spells out how the Captain and private soldier should behave in “A
Pathway to Military Practice” (Rich 341-344). George Silver documents tells of the
advantages of using a short swords in a battle, that using a sword and shield is
better than using a sword and dagger in battle, that using a heavier shield is better
than a lighter one because the lighter shield will not stand up to a face to face fight
(Silver 344-348).
There are several examples of exemplifying and contradicting honor in
Shakespeare’s Henry IV (Part 1). Some of the characters provide both situations
while others are only an example of one. Many of the examples will draw from Sir
William Segar’s codes of honor; “Of Knighthood”, “The Office and Duty of Every
Knight and Gentleman”, and “Of Cowardice.”
The character that is being examined is Sir John Falstaff. He does not follow
several of the codes of honor, the biggest infraction being from Segar’s “Of
Cowardice.” When Douglas confronted Falstaff in battle and Falstaff instead of
actually fighting Douglas falls to the floor and acted as if he were dead (V. iv. 113). In
“Of Cowardice” it states that a kind of cowardice is to pretend to be sick and to leave
their ranks, Falstaff does both of these by falling to the ground and pretending to be
dead (Segar 337). That exemplifies what cowardice is but that is not the only thing
Falstaff did in the play that was cowardly. Earlier in the play Falstaff refuses to give
his sword to Prince Harry because he wanted to stab Hotspur (V. iii. 109). When
Falstaff finally came across Hotspur while Prince Harry was fighting him Falstaff just
stood by and pretended to be dead while Prince Harry won the fight. When Prince
Harry left Falstaff got up and stabbed Hotspur in the leg and later claimed he had
killed the valiant knight Hotspur (V. iv. 115).
In Segar’s “Of Knighthood” it states that “[h]e should be well favored of face
and comely…he should be sober, and discreet, not inclined to vain delights or
effeminate pleasure…” but Falstaff does not abide by this at all (Segar 336). In the
opening of Act I, Scene II Prince Harry’s description of Falstaff shows just how unknightly he is:
Thou art so fat-witted with drinking of old sack, and unbuttoning
thee after supper, and sleeping upon benches after noon, that thou
hast forgotten to demand that truly which thou wouldst truly know.
(I. ii. 24).
In this quote it is obvious that Falstaff does not abide by the “Of Knighthood” codes
that Segar wrote, but he also does not follow the code of “The Office and Duty of
Every Knight and Gentleman.” Even a little later in the play Prince Harry makes it
known that Falstaff indulges in prostitutes. Falstaff is almost always drunk, he is
very sloth like, and he indulges in vain delight and other pleasures. He does not
defend his prince courageously; he leaves him on the battlefield with no sword and
doesn’t help Prince Harry fight Hotspur (V. iv. 113). He is definitely not honest and
that is evident in the amount of stories he has fabricated. He does desire excessive
riches so much so that he steals it from others (II. ii. 45).
Sir John Falstaff is not by any means an honorable knight. He is extremely
selfish and not at all kind towards others. He has no sense of honor or integrity and
at the end of the play he calls honor useless because it did not save Sir Walter
Blunt’s life (V. iii. 108-109). Falstaff does not follow the codes of honor and chivalry
that were common at the time Shakespeare wrote the play; how he was knighted it
will never be understood.
Works Cited
Hodgdon, Barbara. The First Part of King Henry the Fourth. By William Shakespeare. Boston:
Bedford Books, 1997. Print.
Rich, Barnaby. A Pathway to Military Practice. The First Part of King Henry the Fourth. By
William Shakespeare. Ed. Barbara Hodgdon. Boston: Bedford Books, 1997. Print.
Segar, William. Honor Military and Civil. The First Part of King Henry the Fourth. By William
Shakespeare. Ed. Barbara Hodgdon. Boston: Bedford Books, 1997. Print.
Shakespeare, William. The First Part of King Henry the Fourth. Ed. Barbara Hodgdon.
Boston: Bedford Books, 1997. Print.
Silver, George. The Paradoxes of Defense. The First Part of King Henry the Fourth. By William
Shakespeare. Ed. Barbara Hodgdon. Boston: Bedford Books, 1997. Print.
Sutcliffe, Matthew. The Right Practice, Proceedings, and Laws of Arms. The First Part of King
Henry the Fourth. By William Shakespeare. Ed. Barbara Hodgdon. Boston: Bedford
Books, 1997. Print.