Many scholars have pointed out that the possibilities of protagonists in Shakespeare’s 1 Henry IV include all of the major players except for the King himself, though few actually address it. Robert Fehrenbach, in an essay titled The Characterization Of the King in 1 Henry IV, analyzes what makes him such a distant character in the play.

He begins by reasoning why Henry receives so little attention as a main character, being that he has fewer lines, is less active, and is less interesting as a whole than other characters. He then points out that nothing is written on Shakespeare’s characterization of Henry, although it is masterfully done. After declaring that the other major characters, Hal, Falstaff and Hotspur, are all revealed in a completely direct way, he discusses the three methods of indirect characterization the playwright uses to expose Henry’s character. Fehrenbach’s first, and most prominent method that he brings to light is that although little can be taken at face value from the King’s speeches, much is revealed through the irony and subtext behind his words, and from what he chooses not to say. His next point, based on Henry’s indirect means of communication with other characters, is that the identification of Henry’s character relies on his comparison to other characters. Because of the nature of the direct characterization of the other major roles in the play, descriptions of the King are far more telling than those of other characters. He asserts that Shakespeare’s indirect characterization denies the audience any sort of intimacy with Henry, which creates his role as secretive and distant. Fehrenbach devotes three separate parts of his paper to the three method’s of characterization Shakespeare uses, and reveals the use of these methods with appropriate scenes from the text.

The first section begins by acknowledging that some of his speeches and actions do, in fact, represent his character. His concern for Hal as a capable heir and his orders to prepare for war in 3.2 reveal his fear for the future of England and his ability to be an efficient ruler with businesslike military leadership. That being said, the irony Henry uses in his speeches creates a suspicion within the audience of his character, forcing them to guess his motives rather than know them. In the opening speech, he uses Henry’s quick declaration of the intended crusade, and equally quick breaking off of the campaign, to point out that right from the beginning, the audience cannot take his speech at face value. A later example, in 1.3, explains that Henry’s ironic characterization of himself – playing the role of a suffering ruler – is masking his true anger, which discloses his ability to control his own anger, and subtly defend himself when he is confronted.

After occupying the bulk of his paper with well thought out illustrations of Henry disclosing his character through irony and subtext, Fehrenbach moves to the next section of his paper, discussing comparisons of Henry with other characters. He discusses briefly comparisons with minor characters and the exposed character traits, such as the arguments over prisoner release and Mortimer’s ransom with Hotspur revealing Henry’s lack of honor, before getting into his in-depth analysis of the king-mocking scene in the tavern. This scene provides the bulk of the evidence for his point in this section of the paper, such as the unmajestic portrayal of the majesty referencing Henry’s unmajestic rise to the throne.

Fehrenbach’s last, and arguably least supported point, about the characterization of Henry through description by other characters, is made up mostly of the scrutiny of Hotspur’s many slanderings of the King. He asserts here that Hotspur’s emotionally charged outrage in 1.3 diminishes Henry’s claim to the throne, and makes him a sort of false ruler in the eyes of the audience. He then summaries his paper by repeating the three methods of characterization Shakespeare uses and emphasizing their indirectness, ending on a quote that most likely prompted this scholarly paper.