In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

• Horses and Harries:Medieval Depictions of Virtue and Vice in 1 Henry IV
• Ann Hubert (bio)

1 Henry IV interrogates honor: its acquisition, its possession, its loss, its legitimacy. As Shakespeare presents it, honor is a call simultaneously driving characters to action, to inaction, to deception; it is a concept strongly defining constructions of masculinity; it is a behavioral template unabashedly announcing its roots in an ancient and medieval past. And the past is Shakespeare's point of departure for 1 Henry IV, a history play in which he adapts the basic structure of the medieval morality play to explore honor as a chivalric ideal. For many critics, the play's dependence on the morality structure has seemed quite clear: Hal is the impressionable youth who, like the everyman of so many medieval moralities, must choose between the path of virtue (the battlefield and Hotspur) and vice (the tavern and Falstaff) to find salvation. Hence Alan C. Dessen observes that, "to argue for the debt of 1 Henry IV to the morality tradition is apparently to belabor the obvious. For … Prince Hal himself … described Falstaff as 'that reverend vice, that grey iniquity, that father ruffian, that vanity in years.'"¹ [End Page 1]

Yet to simply adopt the morality framework and read Falstaff as vice, Hotspur as virtue, and Hal as redeemed sinner is to oversimplify each of these characters and to obscure, in turn, Shakespeare's use of them to explore honor, chivalry, and masculinity. The complexity of Shakespeare's dramatic engagements with these themes emerges through examination of a motif similarly associated with the medieval literary past: the horse. There are more references to horses in 1 Henry IV than in any other Shakespearian play, a fact in and of itself suggestive of the horse motif's function in this play, but one that nonetheless becomes even more crucial in light of the horse's myriad and often contradictory meanings in medieval literary and cultural discourse.² Hotspur, the nickname given to Harry Percy, illustrates this point: "Hotspur" registers both Percy's fine horsemanship and the overindulgence of his temper, significations of horses stemming from the medieval literary traditions of romance and preaching, respectively. Depicted variously in these two traditions as the foundation of knighthood and unbridled sin, the horse motif reflects Shakespeare's integration of competing medieval ideologies into his play. In this article, I will show how Shakespeare implements these competing ideologies to create a paradigm shift in the form of the morality play, a paradigm shift that destabilizes the clear-cut meanings of virtue and vice by secularizing what should be the morality play's moral center. Shakespeare rewrites heaven as the court, God as the ruling monarch, and the attainment of heaven's reward as the attainment of approval for loyal service to the monarch. Henry IV therefore becomes the center of Shakespeare's play, with Hotspur, Hal, and Falstaff all playing the parts of both virtuous and vicious figures—figures strictly demarcated as either virtuous or vicious in the original morality play tradition. By uncovering how these competing medieval ideologies of the horse contribute to the creation of honor and masculinity in the play, I hope to challenge the seemingly straightforward categorization of Falstaff as vice, Hotspur as virtue, and Hal as reformed sinner that heretofore has dominated the critical understanding of Shakespeare's appropriation of the morality play in 1 Henry IV.

Horses

Inherent to the ancient and medieval exegetical and iconographic traditions that Shakespeare inherits is the tendency to explain "a given [End Page 2] image or emblem in bono and in malo."³ As a result, "the horse" as an image or figure abounds with positive as well as negative cultural associations up to and through the early modern period, associations as contradictory as, on the one hand, "the animals bringing nature closest to perfection"⁴ and, on the other, as the "natural symbol of lust"⁵ whose "neighing is associated with adultery: cf. Jeremiah 13:27 and 5:7–8."⁶ These various equine depictions stem from antiquity and may have their locus classicus in the two horses of Plato's Phaedrus. According to this allegory, the soul is...

中文翻译：

---

马和哈里斯：1 亨利四世中对美德和罪恶的中世纪描述

代替摘要，这里是内容的简短摘录：

• 马和哈里斯：1 亨利四世中对美德和罪恶的中世纪描述
• 安休伯特（生物）

1 亨利四世审问荣誉：它的获得、它的占有、它的丧失、它的合法性。正如莎士比亚所说，荣誉是同时驱使人物采取行动、无所作为和欺骗的召唤；这是一个强烈定义阳刚之气的概念；它是一个行为模板，毫不掩饰地宣布其起源于古代和中世纪的过去。过去是莎士比亚对亨利四世的出发点一部历史剧，他改编中世纪道德剧的基本结构，探索作为骑士理想的荣誉。对于许多评论家来说，该剧对道德结构的依赖似乎很明显：哈尔是一个易受影响的年轻人，就像许多中世纪道德的普通人一样，必须在美德（战场和热刺）和恶习（酒馆）之间做出选择。和福斯塔夫）找到救赎。因此，艾伦·C·德森 (Alan C. Dessen) 观察到，“争论亨利四世对道德传统的债务显然是在夸大其词。因为……哈尔王子本人……将福斯塔夫描述为‘可敬的罪恶、灰色的罪孽、流氓父亲，那几年的虚荣心。'” ¹ [End Page 1]

然而，简单地采用道德框架并将福斯塔夫解读为恶习，将急躁号解读为美德，将哈尔解读为被救赎的罪人，这将过分简化这些角色中的每一个，并反过来掩盖莎士比亚使用它们来探索荣誉、骑士精神和阳刚之气。莎士比亚对这些主题的戏剧性参与的复杂性是通过考察一个与中世纪文学历史类似的主题而出现的：马。《亨利四世》中提到马的次数比其他任何莎士比亚戏剧都多，这一事实本身就暗示了马主题在这部戏剧中的作用，但鉴于马的无数且往往相互矛盾，这一点变得更加重要中世纪文学和文化话语中的意义。²Hotspur，Harry Percy 的昵称，说明了这一点：“Hotspur”记录了 Percy 精湛的马术和他过度放纵的脾气，马的含义分别源于浪漫和讲道的中世纪文学传统。在这两种传统中，作为骑士身份和肆无忌惮的罪恶的基础，马主题被不同地描述，反映了莎士比亚将中世纪的意识形态相互竞争融入他的戏剧中。在这篇文章中，我将展示莎士比亚如何实施这些相互竞争的意识形态，以创造道德剧形式的范式转变，这种范式转变通过将道德剧的道德中心世俗化来破坏美德和罪恶的明确含义. 莎士比亚将天堂改写为法院，将上帝改写为统治君主，以及获得上天的奖励，作为对君主忠诚服务的认可。因此，亨利四世成为莎士比亚戏剧的中心，急躁号、哈尔和福斯塔夫都扮演了善良和邪恶人物的角色——这些人物在原始道德戏剧传统中被严格划分为善良或邪恶。通过揭示这些相互竞争的中世纪马的意识形态如何有助于在戏剧中创造荣誉和男子气概，我希望挑战看似简单的将福斯塔夫归为恶习、急躁号归为美德、哈尔归为迄今为止主导批评的改革罪人的观点。理解莎士比亚对道德戏剧的挪用 因此，亨利四世成为莎士比亚戏剧的中心，急躁号、哈尔和福斯塔夫都扮演了善良和邪恶人物的角色——这些人物在原始道德戏剧传统中被严格划分为善良或邪恶。通过揭示这些相互竞争的中世纪马的意识形态如何有助于在戏剧中创造荣誉和男子气概，我希望挑战看似简单的将福斯塔夫归类为恶习、将急躁号归为美德、将哈尔归为迄今为止主导批评的改革罪人的观点。理解莎士比亚对道德戏剧的挪用 因此，亨利四世成为莎士比亚戏剧的中心，急躁号、哈尔和福斯塔夫都扮演了善良和邪恶人物的角色——这些人物在原始道德戏剧传统中被严格划分为善良或邪恶。通过揭示这些相互竞争的中世纪马的意识形态如何有助于在戏剧中创造荣誉和男子气概，我希望挑战看似简单的将福斯塔夫归为恶习、急躁号归为美德、哈尔归为迄今为止主导批评的改革罪人的观点。理解莎士比亚对道德戏剧的挪用1 亨利四世。

马匹

莎士比亚所继承的古代和中世纪释经和肖像传统的内在倾向是解释“一个给定的[End Page 2]图像或标志在 bono和malo 中。” ³因此，“马”作为一种形象或形象，在近代早期和整个早期都充满了积极和消极的文化联想，一方面，这些联想是“使自然最接近完美的动物” ” ⁴，另一方面，作为“欲望的自然象征” ^5，其“嘶鸣与通奸有关：参见耶利米书 13:27 和 5:7-8”。locus classicus在柏拉图的Phaedrus的两匹马中。根据这个寓言，灵魂是...