Equally Divided?

    So right dab in the the first scene of act three, I’m faced with something I feel the need to discuss about something that has come about. After Glyndwr and Hotspur argue and continue to mock each other, the men take out a map of Britain and decide to divide up the land among them. The men plan to split up the land (England and Wales), when and if their plan to overtake King Henry IV comes about. Glyndwr will be granted the western England and all of Wales; Mortimer will get the southeast section of England; and Hotspur will get the northern part of England.
     After all the arguing that we see between Hotspur and Glyndwr I could not see this plan happening, especially as easy as they make it seem. I feel as if they are counting their chickens before they hatch as an understatement. I was really questioning these men’s sanity as I was reading. Hotspur and Glyndwr argue the whole time and not even Mortimer can control Hotspur’s agitating mouth. Call me crazy but if they are arguing this much already about how to divide the land up among them, how is it they they think they will be able to run their lands in the same country differently? This just seems like a recipe for disaster and a lot more war and bloodshed. All that was running through my mind is the picture of the snake that is split into pieces that we learn about in US history in the seventh grade. “A house divided cannot stand” as Lincoln put it. If only Lincoln was around earlier on to warn these men of the mistake they are about to make.
      I feel as if the arguing between Hotspur and Glydwr should be an omen to Mortimer and the rebels. They should be able to see that they will not be able to work together to get the job done, or if they do get it done that they would never be able to divide up and run the different parts of the same land without a large amount of arguing, or even an eventual war between them. It should be obvious that with the selfishness that is apparent between men that eventually someone will want more than they have received and another battle will begin. Also Hotspur begins to argue as soon as the land is divided up. Hotspur complains about the land he is to receive because there is a river in a part of it that he does not like. Hotspur argues that he will change the shape of the river when he attains his land. Sounds to me like Hotspur is a real pain that the other men should have thought to leave out of this major plan to overthrow the king. All Hotspur really does is continue to create problems, not to mention he seems extremely immature. At this point Hotspur reminds me of Prince Harry. Neither of these boys show much potential in running anything on their own, or even going through and executing a plan of action.
     I just do not see how any plan between these men will work. They do not share the same points other than wanting to get rid of King Henry IV. Hotspur even goes as far to make fun of Glyndwr’s pagin beliefs. I just do not think these men thought this plan through. It seems as if they are just looking to the reward of getting rid of Henry rather than all that would go into the motion. The men seem to unorganized to be able to achieve this big goal that they have set for themselves and I don not see any of their plans working out for them, and if they do there is no way that it will all work out in the end without another overthrow, or fight for more than what they have. I have already learned enough from Shakespeare to know that greed gets the best of just about everyone.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Equally Divided?

  1. Sam Montagna

    I completely agree with you. If these men are already arguing about the amount of land they do not even have yet, there will be many problems in the future. I like how you incorporated Abraham Lincoln into this. If Hotspur and his men actually are able to overcome their issues and overthrow Henry, eventually greed will get the best of them and a Civil War will occur. They are extremely immature and are treating this serious matter of overthrowing the king, committing treason and risking their lives if they lose, like a child's game of war.

    Reply
  2. Brittany M

    I agree with you in that these three men – Hotspur, Mortimer, and Glyndwr – have allied themselves solely on the initiative of dethroning King Henry IV. This alliance will surely become threadbare throughout the play. In fact, we see the beginning of this deteriorating collaborative effort when Hotspur is on the field, unaccompanied by either Glyndwr or Mortimer. They do not arrive, and while we are given no reason behind it, it is implied that they are both loafing around in Wales. It is foreshadowed that Mortimer will be a useless ally, as we are shown how enchanted he is by the mysticism of Wales. As we mentioned in class, these rebels are purposely depicted in a silly, ineffectual light. Shakespeare sets the trio up to fail from the very beginning, as Hotspur’s hot temper clashes drastically with the feminine, disloyal, irregular, and barbaric natures demonstrated by Glyndwr and Mortimer.

    Reply
  3. Jacey Lawler

    I enjoyed reading your posting on the rebels, as they are fascinating characters. While reading this portion of the play, I did not ponder what it would be like to have these three men in charge of a country. It appears it would be more harmful to England to have these three in power, than the country to be lead by one king who is prone to corruption. Hotspur should be content with his celebrated warrior- hood. His immaturity is not needed in any ruler, but his fierce passion could be helpful in battle. A leader must always keep his calm, which Shakespeare shows Hotspur to have a difficult time doing. I love how Hotspur is cast and the energetic lines given to him are so fantastic… with that said, I tend to overlook how he would be a horrible leader. Your post brought this into perspective for me!

    Reply
  4. Ally Farzetta

    These are great thoughts! I think your comparison between Hotspur and Prince Harry is very interesting. I, too, have compared and contrasted these two characters. In my opinion, I think that Prince Harry is much more capable of successfully running a country than Hotspur. Hotspur, like his name suggests, is way too "hot" headed and his plan of attack is to jump down your throat or slaughter you in battle. Prince Harry, on the other hand, is much more politically savvy. He "picks pockets" (like we talked about in class) rather than outwardly attacking you. He is also capable of wearing masks and and concealing how he really feels, which Hotspur could never do. All in all i think Prince Harry has a pretty good set of skills to be a success leader. Hotspur, on the other hand is a petty, hot tempered, child who cant even control his mouth let alone an entire Kingdom.

    Reply
  5. faithkinne

    I definitely see you point here. Not even just within this play, but other Shakespeare plays as well, dividing land between a few people never turns out the way it should. Even when Hotspur starts arguing about how he doesn't like the way the river is bending and he'll have to straighten it out is ridiculous! That comment alone is a major clue to readers that this will not be going according to plan. The incessant arguing among these characters is a little crazy.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s