Tragical-Comical-Historical

“Tragical-Comical-Historical Hotspur”, written by Roberta Barker, analyses the constantly evolving role of Hotspur in Henry IV. She understands that the perception of Hotspur shifted in accordance with the theatrical “construction of Heroism” (P.289). Evaluating Hotspur’s representation in performances over time and his role as a Hero gives an insight into the cultural understanding of “masculine honor” (P.289) Hotspur can be seen as a flag barer for Heroism. He was a ‘virtuous’ character who showed unwavering military bravery, but the theatrical interpretation of his Heroism is dependent on its critical understanding at the time.

For example, Hotspur was a extremely popular character with the ‘star actors’ of the 19th Century. An imperialist England placed more and more value on “military bravado” (P.292) and his noble death in battle also played a part in his attraction as a role. He was a bold and brash character who pursued his moral code, rightly or wrongly, with no fear of personal cost. Tis image of Hotspur as a tragically flawed war hero lasted until after World War 2. Laurence Olivier played Hotspur, in 1945 at the Old Vic, as a “chivalric hero destroyed… by his rebellious impetuosity” (292). This tragic understanding of Hotspur was a response to the events of the recent World War. He was a victim of War, like many of the people at the time, and was doomed to tragedy on the battlefield given his naturally chivalric nature.

After 1945, and Olivier’s performance, there was a shift from understanding Hotspur as tragic hero, to interpreting him as comical Hero, a foil for the true Hero of the play: Hal. Hal represented the renaissance ideal of “education and self control” (P.294). This was opposed to Hotspur, who was brash, rarely using his brain and more often using his brawn. He is a ‘barbarian’, simple in his nature, especially viewed in contrast to the complex Hal. This mid 20th century understanding of Hotspur has Hal as the center of the play, flanked by Hotspur and Falstaff, both he antithesis of Prince Hal. This shift of Hotspur from tragical to comical was a response to the events of World War 2 and the need for politically savvy leaders, like Hal, in the post war world, rather than bold military leaders, like Hotspur. In Anthony Quayle’s 1951 production “Hal’s rout of Hotspur had suggested the defeat of a parochial feudalism by complex humanism” (P 296). This understanding of Hotspur continued through the 20th century and the need for a politically savvy Hero was again emphasized by the particularly un-heroic military events of the Vietnam War. It was not imperialist England and war was no longer popular vehicle for Heroism. Rather it was criticized and ridiculed, and this resulted in the comical interpretation of Hal’s military Heroism.

In the last quarter of the 20th century Hotspur was found to be neither tragical nor comical, but historical. Hotspur was viewed as a “sympathetic figure destroyed by the inexorable process of historical change” (296). Hotspur is a final relic of the feudal period as Europe moves into the renaissance. He is not viewed in either a positive or negative way, rather just a victim of the inevitable historic change.