Enrique IV (Teatro)

by William Shakespeare, Ángel-Luis Pujante

Si al escribir Ricardo II, Shakespeare fue más allá de los avatares del juego político e indagó en la condición humana del rey y en el comportamiento de los hombres, en Enrique IV no sólo avanzó más aún por esta senda, sino que incorporó por primera vez un decisivo ingrediente de comedia al drama histórico. En pocas ocasiones planteó Shakespeare tan claramente la relación entre diversión y obligación, humanidad y autoridad, logrando una abundancia de contrastes y una riqueza de emociones que ya no volverían a aparecer en este género. La incorporación de este mundo cómico con escenas de taberna y vida popular se centra en la figura de Falstaff, una de las creaciones más extraordinarias del autor y uno de esos personajes de la literatura universal que se salen de la página. Las dos partes de Enrique IV pertenecen a la segunda tetralogía de dramas históricos ingleses de Shakespeare (que comienza con Ricardo II y concluye con Enrique V).
Traducción y edición de Ángel-Luis Pujante, premio Nacional de Traducción.

Genres: Shakespeare, Classics, Plays, Drama, Fiction, Historical Fiction, Theatre

141 pages, Kindle Edition

First published August 11, 1600

About the author

William Shakespeare was an English playwright, poet, and actor. He is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist. He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon" (or simply "the Bard"). His extant works, including collaborations, consist of some 39 plays, 154 sonnets, three long narrative poems, and a few other verses, some of uncertain authorship. His plays have been translated into every major living language and are performed more often than those of any other playwright. Shakespeare remains arguably the most influential writer in the English language, and his works continue to be studied and reinterpreted.
Shakespeare was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire. At the age of 18, he married Anne Hathaway, with whom he had three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith. Sometime between 1585 and 1592, he began a successful career in London as an actor, writer, and part-owner ("sharer") of a playing company called the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later known as the King's Men after the ascension of King James VI and I of Scotland to the English throne. At age 49 (around 1613), he appears to have retired to Stratford, where he died three years later. Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive; this has stimulated considerable speculation about such matters as his physical appearance, his sexuality, his religious beliefs, and even certain fringe theories as to whether the works attributed to him were written by others.
Shakespeare produced most of his known works between 1589 and 1613. His early plays were primarily comedies and histories and are regarded as some of the best works produced in these genres. He then wrote mainly tragedies until 1608, among them Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth, all considered to be among the finest works in the English language. In the last phase of his life, he wrote tragicomedies (also known as romances) and collaborated with other playwrights.
Many of Shakespeare's plays were published in editions of varying quality and accuracy during his lifetime. However, in 1623, John Heminge and Henry Condell, two fellow actors and friends of Shakespeare's, published a more definitive text known as the First Folio, a posthumous collected edition of Shakespeare's dramatic works that includes 36 of his plays. Its Preface was a prescient poem by Ben Jonson, a former rival of Shakespeare, that hailed Shakespeare with the now famous epithet: "not of an age, but for all time".

Reviews

[Dolors · Rating 4 out of 5]

I marvel at how smoothly this play enhance the cyclical nature of history, how the succession of kings, of fathers and sons, mimics a pattern of fall and redemption that is repeated in Richard II, Henry IV, and Henry V, and accordingly, the evolution of styles echoes this pattern of unrestrained chaos, reestablished order and promised posterity.

In Henry IV, part one, there is an unmistakable jesting tone in Mr. John Falstaff’s famous soliloquies, both sage and villain, which are characterized by flexible verse and full sections of unadorned prose that recalls the uncorseted atmosphere of the taverns and brothels that young Prince Harry, heir of the throne of England, frequents with his gang of disreputable friends.
Falstaff’s is the leading voice in this section, where the reader encounters an immature, irresponsible Prince, and ashamed King and a proud surrogate father who casts a questionable influence over an impressionable young man.

Contrarily, in the second part of the play, poetry seems to be reserved for honest and sophisticated speech such as the final words of Henry IV before he dies or the discourses of the Chief of Justice when he publicly condemns the reprehensible behavior of Falstaff and his acolytes.
In that sense, the play subtly criticizes the side effects of acquiring power. Once Prince Harry is crowned king, he has to sacrifice his personal life in favor of public image, with the added cost of severing relations with Falstaff, whose affection for the young ruler is sincere.

The Bard prickles the reader with moral dilemmas that go beyond mere political machinations. Falstaff is a multifaceted character that earns the sympathy of the reader in spite of his evident flaws and vices. He is a rebel, a crook and a buffoon, but he’s also a surrogate father who remains loyal to his protégé with heart and mind.
Prince Harry fulfills his role and becomes a responsible ruler, but in order to do so, he has to abandon his previous life and forsake those who showed fidelity to him.
The forces of regeneration and betrayal become interfused in the erratic evolution of man and history. No achievement can be permanent; no emotion is infallible in the face of collective expectation and discordance between duty and justice, and most times appearances are misleading, so beware of Falstaff!

“Hal’s displaced paternal love is Falstaff’s vulnerability, his one weakness, and the origin of his destruction. Time annihilates other Shakespearean protagonists, but not Falstaff, who dies for love.”
The invention of the human, Harold Bloom

[Cami L. González · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5/5

Es el primer drama histórico que leo de Shakespeare, me gustó que al inicio hubiese una introducción para aclarar qué tan histórico era o explicar ciertos aspectos de la obra. Con los clásicos siempre es algo que agradezco.

Henry IV subió al trono como un usurpador, sus planes de ir a Tierra Santa quedan olvidados cuando debe dedicarse a controlar las revueltas que ocurren en el reino. Mientras, su hijo Hal, el príncipe heredero, se pasa el tiempo en bares.

"A su rebeldía nunca le han faltado tales tintes para colorear su causa, ni ceñudos mendigos con hambre de saqueos desatados y violencias"

A pesar de ser un drama histórico todo mi conocimiento venía de la introducción del libro, pues soy ignorante en este tema. Por eso no puedo hablar sobre la representación del periodo o los cambios que hizo Shakespeare en favor de la historia. Aun así no me deja de parecer muy interesante toda esta "saga" de dramas que hizo con las sucesiones de reyes durante este periodo.

Me gustó mucho el personaje de Hal, es muy interesante e inteligente la forma en que lanzó su reputación al suelo, para luego mostrar un cambio de actitud y cambiar la opinión pública de él. Es una estrategia astuta, al menos yo creo que es una estrategia, nunca fue de verdad un vicioso real. Su relación con Falstaff, era igual de intrincada y compleja, a veces parecía que existía un verdadero cariño y en otras era casi un desprecio por ambas partes, más conveniencia que otra cosa.

"El Rumor es una flauta en la que soplan creencias, recelos, conjeturas, y tocarla es tan fácil y sencillo que hasta el vulgo veleidoso y discordante, torpe engendro de innúmeras cabezas, sabe hacerla sonar"

La historia es mucho más lineal y sencilla que sus dramas, pues consiste más en preparaciones para guerras e intrigas políticas, pero de una forma bastante clara. Admito que disfruto del drama de sus obras, los giros exagerados, las reacciones, las traiciones y eso acá es mucho menor. Se centra más en el honor, en los bandos rebeldes que se van formando y las luchas para controlarlos.

Henry IV es una obra que retrata el tiempo posterior a que Henry IV usurpara el trono y los intentos de rebelión que tuvo que sofocar, al mismo tiempo que su heredero tenía sus propios planes para cuando llegara su momento.

[Cindy Rollins · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love this whole series of historical plays by William Shakespeare, especially through Henry V. I am still reading Henry IV, Part 2 but it is hard to find the right edition of a play on Goodreads.

[Timár_Krisztina · Rating 4 out of 5]

Shakespeare királydrámái közül nagyon keveset ismerek. Úgy voltam vele, hogy ha az ember hozzávetőlegesen ismeri a történelmi hátteret, akkor hol marad a feszültség? Aztán, amikor hozzáfogtam ehhez, persze kiderült, hogy a XV. századi angol arisztokraták egymást gyilkolászását a mester csak felhasználta, lazán értelmezve a művészi szabadságot, valami sokkal érdekesebbhez. A IV. Henrik olvasói/nézői véletlenül se fogják lerágni a körmüket az izgalomtól, hogy ki fog meghalni a végére, és ki marad meg. IV. Henrik után fixen V. Henrik jön, a matek győz. Meg lennénk lőve, ha erről szólna a történet, de hála Istennek nem erről szól. Hanem véres konfliktusokról meg az ő kocsmai parodizálásukról.

Részletes értékelés a blogon:
https://gyujtogeto-alkoto.blog.hu/202...

[Manuel Mellado Cuerno]

La verdad es que Shakespeare es el puto amo

[Jason Coleman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Starring the original frat brother, Prince Hal—the slumming trust-fund kid soon to turn prodigal son—this play reads like some great lost Scorsese mob picture. Whether through insight or just proximate empathy, Shakespeare reveals the English nobility for the relentlessly combative, barely-beyond-the-Huns people they really were.

For all the Bardolaters' fascination with Falstaff (who, according to Mark Van Doren, "understands everything and so is never serious"—now there's a profound statement), it is Hotspur who, god help me, sticks in my mind. I cannot get enough of him. His confidence, his impatience, his bemusement at the hopeless fools surrounding him—he is insufferable, that goes without saying, but horribly vivid. Shakespeare caught this crazed alpha wolf in the details. He forgets, in his haste, to bring the map to his war meeting, gets intensely worked up berating himself for it, only to find he brought it after all. He interrupts everyone to bring up again and again his disgust with a sweet-smelling "popinjay" he encountered on the battlefield. And when Glendower, totally unprompted, boasts of heaven and earth shuddering when he was born, Hotspur doesn't let it slide; he takes the old man down. He cannot let anything go. His wife comes to him with her warm arms and he only wants to go to battle. It's true, he's a total dick. War is the perfect place for him, the only place for him. And after all the militaristic foreplay, Hal kills him pretty quickly.

[Madison Head · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really only cared about the parts with Prince Henry. The rest was whatever. The parts with the king were so boring. I wish I could give it 3 1/2.

[Olivia's Bookish Places & Spaces · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read via audiobook.

Okay, I think this is a first for me as a reviewer – I am not just rating this on the story/writing, but on the performance aspect of this as well. This adaptation is Henry IV performed by the LA Theatre Works group.

As much as I love Shakespeare, I do admit that his works can be harder to read because of the Old English. Sometimes, I do think it does us good to see (or hear) the works performed aloud, as it can be easier to understand once it is performed as intended. I figured that since this adaptation had some big names and was done by a very well respected theatre group, I’d give it a shot.
I have to say what a disappointment!

While the performances here were well done (at least from an auditory perspective), the script did not flow well. The story was not engaging and I struggled to make it to the end.

I am trying to be generous with the ratings because I feel this is something that needs to be seen as opposed to just heard.

Three stars because it’s Shakespeare. Deducting two stars because of the poor execution.

[Nora · Rating 3 out of 5]

henry V literally me fr??

[Sarah Hörtkorn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Politisch, intrigant - der Trunkbold Falstaff lockert die Handlung auf und verleiht dem Stück seinen Glanz durch wahre, kluge Reden.

[Barry · Rating 3 out of 5]

The witty repartee and Shakespearean insults between Prince Henry and Falstaff are amusing, but most of Part 1 is pretty boring. After that I just couldn’t work up enough enthusiasm for the sequel.

Rounding up to 3 stars since it’s Shakespeare — my inability to fully appreciate it is surely my fault.

[Samuele Petrangeli · Rating 4 out of 5]

La lunghezza dell'Enrico IV, due parti, cinque atti ciascuna, non è dovuta tanto alla Storia in sé, particolarmente semplice (Enrico IV, dopo aver usurpato Riccardo II, affronta dei nuovi moti di ribellione, mentre il figlio, Harry, passa da ubriacone a degno erede al trono), quanto più ai mille rivoli in cui si snoda. In particolare, l'imponenza dell'Enrico IV risiede nella sua duplicità. Da una parte vi è la messa in scena storica e dall'altra vi è Falstaff e la sua commedia umana.
Quando si dice che è commedia umana si intende dire che molte delle scene, se non interi atti, non aggiungono nulla alla vicenda storica in sé. Sembra quasi di indugiare in gozzoviglie e battibecchi. Sia chiaro, indugiare non nel senso spregiativo, ma nel senso che la storia acquista un respiro molto più ampio ed elefantiaco (proprio come Falstaff). Prendiamo, per esempio, la scena della recluta dei soldati nella seconda parte, atto terzo. E' una scena fondamentalmente inutile, che non aggiunge nulla alla vicenda. Vuoi perché i metodi di leva di Falstaff ci erano già ben noti, sia perché i personaggi che vengono introdotti, a eccezione di Shallow, non compariranno più. E' una scena particolarmente lunga, narrativamente inutile. Eppure è meravigliosa e fondamentale. Ci sta tutto il piacere e il gusto della parola e dell'ascoltarla, di vedere Falstaff fare le sua smargiassate, giocare con i nomi, prorompere con la sua costituzione e invadere il dramma storico. Ecco. Ogni volta che compare Falstaff, il dramma storico che è Enrico IV non può far a meno di andare in caciara. E' come se la forza del personaggio facesse strabordare l'opera. Un po' perché Shakespeare, chiaramente, adorava far parlare Falstaff, e un po' perché questa prepotenza mette bene in luce l'influenza che Falstaff ha su Harry. Harry, infatti, per divenire Enrico V dovrà liberarsi di Falstaff. No, non liberarsi: rinnegarlo.
L'Enrico IV si apre, infatti, già con Harry che sopporta a stento Falstaff. Un esempio su tutti, quando facendo finta di impersonare il padre, gliene dice di tutti i colori con una foga spaventosa. Il passo successivo di questa separazione, il momento che per me è il momento in cui Harry si separa, emotivamente, da Falstaff è quello della battaglia, quando Harry chiede a Falstaff una spada e lui gli dà un otre di vino. L'abisso fra i due si mostra con estrema lucidità: Harry che sta lottando per il proprio regno; Falstaff che risponde con una burla (poi ci torniamo sulla burla). Quello che per Harry è un momento, una fase in fondo della sua vita, l'ubriacatura, lo sberleffo, il nichilismo dionisiaco (dio che brutta definizione, ma rende l'idea) è per Falstaff la vita tutta. Non a caso, il loro ultimo incontro in amicizia si conclude con una burla malfatta, che riprende lo scherzo della rapina (Harry travestito ai danni di Falstaff), a segnare tutto lo scarto fra allora e ora. Alla fine, ovviamente, Harry, divenuto Enrico V, rinnega esplicitamente e pubblicamente Falstaff e il suo passato.
Harry diviene proprio come suo fratello, Giovanni, uomo che Falstaff disprezza, definendolo freddino, privo di spirito. E' questo, infatti, l'atrocità più grande per Falstaff: la mancanza di spirito. Credere che la guerra abbia veramente importanza, che essere un Re abbia un vero valore di per sé, che i debiti richiedano di essere realmente pagati. Per Falstaff, l'unica cosa che ha valore è la vita, o meglio, la sua vita. Per Falstaff, l'unico universo che conta è Falstaff, ma nemmeno tanto la sua interiorità, le sue budella e la sua pancia sterminata. D'altronde, lo sberleffo che dedica all'onore e alla sua vacuità, come potrebbe non valere per l'amore o l'odio o qualsiasi altra emozione?
Che poi, in fondo, sulla guerra non ha tutti i torti, Falstaff. L'Enrico IV, prescindendo dalle ribellioni (così stupide che nemmeno è ben spiegato il motivo, e non intendo allo spettatore, ma proprio a chi combatte), si apre e si chiude con l'annuncio di una guerra. Le crociate all'inizio, la guerra in Francia alla fine. Ed è lo stesso Enrico IV sul letto di morte a dire il perché della guerra: "E quindi, o mio Harry, sia sempre tua cura quella di tenere occupati gli spiriti incostanti con guerre in paesi stranieri, per modo che l'azione delle armi, recata così fuor dei nostri confini, possa disperdere la memoria dei tempi trascorsi". La guerra, l'onore, tutte quelle belle parole sono solo parole. Ecco, così, che il dramma storico si dimostra, in realtà, un'unica enorme commedia umana. Tutto è ammantato dallo spirito di Falstaff. Il rinnegato Falstaff, il Falstaff stupido, in fondo, incapace di notare il distacco di Harry, di capire che, una volta diventato Re, per lui sarà finita (o per lo meno di ammetterlo).
Un'ultima cosa sulla modernità di Falstaff. Dentro la sua pancia spropositata, noi troviamo tutti i reietti della nostra epoca. Oltre l'altrettanto elefantiaco Ignatius J. Reilly, ci sta Céline e ci sta Bukowski, ci stanno i personaggi di Nabokov e le arguzie linguistiche di Cortazar. Eppure, nonostante tutto questo, non riesco a togliermi dalla testa che questo sia venuto fuori quasi per caso. Che Shakespeare avesse voluto scrivere il raffreddamento di Harry, da uomo a Re, il suo rinnegamento di Falstaff e tutto, ok, ma in modo molto più contenuto, meno Falstaff-centrico, ecco. Eppure, nel momento di scriverlo, di farlo parlare era impossibile contenerlo, farlo tacere. In fondo, si percepisce, quasi di sguincio, che la storia a cui stiamo assistendo è quella di Harry che diviene Enrico V, di Enrico IV che affronta le sue colpe per l'usurpazione, ma fondamentalmente, non ce ne frega nulla. Proprio come la guerra, Falstaff mostra come questa loro storia sia solo una storia, una fra le tante, e nemmeno una delle più interessanti.

[karo:] · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Ciężka to strata gdy ginie towarzysz,
Lecz ciężka w sensie tym, że dużo ważysz;
Padło dziś w boju ludzi znacznych wielu,
Lecz nikt tak tłusty jak ty, przyjacielu." peak dramatu do czego do doszło że się śmieje na szekspirze

[Jenna · Rating 3 out of 5]

A really enjoyable play. Part One was slightly better, having more action. Overall, very good.

[denudatio_pulpae · Rating 3 out of 5]

„Król Henryk IV” to kolejna kronika autorstwa Shakespeare’a, opisująca panowanie króla Henryka IV (władał Anglią w latach 1399-1413). Jak wiemy z historii i szekspirowskiego „Króla Ryszarda II”, Henryk IV zdobył koronę królewską podczas wywołanej przez siebie rebelii. A jak powszechnie wiadomo, kto mieczem wojuje – od miecza ginie, więc okres panowania Henryka IV również pełen był spisków i planowanych rebelii, a knuli przeciwko niemu zarówno stronnicy obalonego władcy, jak i jego byli zwolennicy. O tych bataliach i powstaniach jest część pierwsza. W części drugiej zaś będziemy zmierzać do przekazania władzy królewskiej na najstarszego syna władcy, również Henryka (będzie panował jako Henryk V).

Całkiem ciekawa i wciągająca jest angielska historia z tego okresu, szczególnie napisana przez Williama Shakespeare’a. Falstaff był całkiem zabawny, a jak przeczytałam taki oto komplement:

„Oj, ty skurwysynie! moje ty słodkie wielkanocne prosiątko!”

to mało co, a spadłabym z łóżka z wrażenia :) Tego to się akurat nie spodziewałam.
7/10

[Dayna Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

The classic historical fiction plays by the Bard himself. These plays trace the rise and fall of King Henry IV of England and the ascension of his son Hal, Henry V to the throne. A must read for all lovers of history and Shakespeare. Make sure to watch The Hollow Crown series, which is a complication of Richard II, Henry IV Part 1, Henry IV Part 2, and Henry V - wonderfully done!

[Manuel Sanchez · Rating 4 out of 5]

Longest work by the bard I have read (parts 1 & 2). Really enjoyed it though!

[Bethany Currie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Part 1- 4⭐️
Part 2- 2⭐️
Part 2 felt like an unnecessary sequel- a Shakespeare cash grab! Could have just gone straight into Henry V after Part 1.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

Henry IV Part I [1596-1597]
----------------------

'How much thou art degenerate' (3.2.128).

From 'most degenerate king' (Richard II, 2.1.264), to most degenerate prince. Shakespeare clearly has the tetralogy in mind as we traverse through the breaking and making of kings of the Wars of the Roses, and in this second part of the second (written, first chronologically) tetralogy, the centrepiece is Prince Hal, he to be Henry V. For Bolingbroke (Henry IV) is already a waning light, as Hotspur (Henry Percy, Earl of Rutland), his father (Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, formerly Henry's supporter), uncle (Thomas Percy, Earl of Worcester) and brother-in-law (Edmund Mortimer, Earl of [Welsh] March) team up with Welsh Glendower and Scottish Douglas to supplant the king with he nominated by Richard II, Edmund Mortimer. Thus the history.

Meantime, in the comedy, Prince Hal (Henry, Prince of Wales) is up to drunken antics with his jolly rotund friend Falstaff, which reputation, and scarcity there, the court and his father hold in poor esteem, worse, Henry IV admonishes him, than when Richard last rode in the streets. But what is clear, by the half-way mark, is that this is more the story of the making of a king than of the undoing of one. This is Part One of Henry V's story, his coming-of-age and resumption of his royal and honorial duty.

The play is held in high esteem for these several reasons: the powerful dramatization through character of historic episodes; the story of Prince Hal, the comic irreverent characterisation of Falstaff, and the merger of history and comedy. But interestingly, not a lot is made of the language, a mix of verse and prose, but with very little poetry. Rather, the form determines the genre, the verse belonging to royalty and nobility, the prose to the commoners and comedy, as expected. Yet in other plays - Richard II notably, one is always bearing it in mind as we read this - there is some exquisitely rendered speech, but not here. It is a beast of a different order. That combination of verse/prose is its generic formality, and fits the purpose, but where does it shine, as Richard does, through the tears and pain of his tearing soul?

The difference, of course, is that tragedy quite often draws forth phenomenal poetry, whereas these less emotionally powerful genres do not. Of course, this variation is but another string of accomplishment to Shakespeare's bow, and is superbly balanced, but for most of us, it's those passages of passionate poetry that make a play great beyond its technical merits, it's the searing flashes of 'Tomorrow' and 'But hark' and 'Why should a dog, a horse, a rat...' or 'the cloud-capped towers' which meld in the mind and elevate a play and his canon. But nonetheless, one worth re-reading after 40 years. Having lived as a youth a couple of fields away from Battlefield, Shrewsbury my home town, the mystery is now cleared up.

I usually read the RSC Macmillan texts which use the first Folio (1623) for its sources. There are several benefits to this: there is consistency between the presentations of the texts, including the assigned dates of writing of the plays; each individual text provides a decent introduction, which while not sufficient for academic study (such as the Arden and Norton series), is enough to map the action and context to aid understanding when reading the plays; all footnotes, while too comprehensive, covering words which any dictionary would provide for, and so don't need glossing, are all beneath the referenced text; they come with very helpful tables of historical events (chronology of kings, key historical dates) with the histories; there is a full coverage of the pays in performance, with director interviews, which help further discuss the plays' themes and characterisation. I also like the layout and the paper they are printed on.

In a rare exception (I had a bursary remnant left to spend) I took this dual publication of the Henry IV plays, which does not match those advantages, except in introduction only. Footnotes are at the end, along with a glossary, not typically separated. This can speed up the reading, but when you do need to look something up, it takes more time, only fractionally, but enough to irritate after a short while. But the thing that rankles is the lack of modern conventional referencing. It's simple: if you quote from a text, always subscript with the play, act, scene and line(s) so that you know exactly where the reference pertains, providing instant context. While this publication is very recent (2013), the lack of this unversal convention is frustrating. There is a modern standard - for very practical purposes - why not use it? However, this is a Wordsworth Classics printing, and I should have expected such. Or should I? Surely the cost is not prohibitive, using universal modern scholarly conventions? As it was, I reverted to my old copy because of the annotations beneath.

Henry IV Part II [1597-1598] [1598]
----------------------------

'Part 2 [Henry IV] is the necessary complement of Hal's evolution, and Henry's, and Falstaff's' (A.R. Humphreys, 'Introduction', Arden 2nd Edition, 1962, rpt. 1977, p.xxv).

The demise of the (old) King, the rise of the (new) King, and the fall of the (old) fool.

We leave 1HIV at the end of the Battle of Shrewsbury (1403), Henry IV victorious over the rebels Hotspur (Henry Percy, Earl of Rutland), his father (Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, formerly Henry's supporter, absent as 'sick'), uncle (Thomas Percy, Earl of Worcester) and brother-in-law (Edmund Mortimer, Earl of [Welsh] March, absent without excuse - though likely absent since his father, Glendower, is also absent), the Welsh Glendower (absent as having insufficient time to raise his force) and Scottish Douglas (fighting until capture). (It gets a bit complicated in the rebel camp, since Shakespeare compounded two Mortimer's). Prince Hal has redeemed himself in honour by defeating Hotpsur hand-to-hand, and then in defence of his father the King, against a winning Douglas. Prince John (HIV's younger son) is equally honoured for his bravery. Falstaff, meanwhile, has been floored by Douglas, feigning death until Douglas moves on, but witnesses Hal's defeat of Hotspur, later claiming that kill for himself, pretending Hotspur was not dead, but rose as he did, they fought, and Falstaff vanquished him. Hal, hearing this story, gives Falstaff leave to claim the honour. It ends with Prince John and Westmoreland sent to rout the Archbishop of York, Richard Scroop, and Northumberland, the absent conspirators, around York, while Henry IV and Prince Hal go to meet the absent Glendower and the Earl of March, Mortimer, towards Wales.

1HIV ends, then, with much completed business - the rebels are largely defeated, Hotspur, the military ring-leader, hot on honour, dead, Douglas freed without ransom, having shown much honour on the battlefield, Falstaff, satirist of honour, floating his wildest con trick yet, with Hal's silent permission, and Hal redeemed as the worthy Prince and heir. But there is much uncompleted business: the remainder of the rebel forces are to be encountered, Hal and Falstaff are to work out their differences, including the false claim of Hotspur's prize, and Henry IV remains melancholic at his troubled kingdom rife with rebellion and civil war, as prophesied by the Bishop of Carlisle to Bolingbroke (Henry IV) during the abdication/deposition scene of Richard II (1595-6, 4.1).

Shrewsbury is thus an 'interim triumph' (p.xxiv) in the internecine strife, bringing 'each man to a destiny we perceive to be appropriate' (p.xxv, quoting Jenkins, The Structural Problem in Shakespeare's Henry the Fourth, 1956). 2HIV is the workings-out of those fates towards the death of Henry IV and the accession by Prince Hal as Henry V, looking towards his triumph at Agincourt in Henry V (1599), rounding off the first Henriad (3 Henry plays) and the first tetralogy, chronologically/historically, the second to be written. If confusion still reigns, it is because of that Mortimer! Keeping track of the barons throughout the histories is their essential difficulty, unless, like Northumberland, they reappear. This is largely because of their lack of characterisation, unlike the principals, who are necessarily developed. Who can say, who is not familiar with the history, what essential difference there is between Mortimer and Mowbray, or Worcester and Mortimer, whereas John of Gaunt, though appearing briefly, stood out against Richard II because of his oppositional logic, let alone the 'Sceptred Isle' speech (this happy land against an unhappy king). What is clear is that Part 1 is about Hal's chivalric redemption, and Part 2 is about Hal redeeming himself in learning Good Rule, ready for his inheritance.

1HIV was a strange yet well-constructed beast: strange because it has Prince Hal as its principal protagonist (only just, with Hotspur the military paradigm), not its title character, and while it brings us comedy, it doesn't bring us tragedy, which was the dominant generic tone of its historic predecessor, Richard II; well-constructed because it strikes a good balance between the chronicle of history and the comedy of Falstaff and his tavern friends; yet not great because it lacked the brilliant articulation of the soul-tearing pain in the tragedy of Richard II, which rose to exquisite metaphysical heights of pathos. The Arden edition goes some way to compare the dramas with its main sources, Holinshead's Chronicles Of England (2nd Ed., 1587), and Samuel Daniel's The First Four Books Of The Civil Wars Between The Two Houses Of Lancaster And York (1595). While Part 1 adheres dramatically closer to Daniel, Part 2 uses the latter for tone, the events scrappier for the sequel.

At 3255 lines, 2HIV is slightly longer than 1HIV (3041). 2HIV summarises its heritage via the Prologue (or Induction) by Rumour. This is an apt device to create the atmosphere of unrest from rebellion and civil war which pervades the two plays, carrying it over from the first part into the current political climate. For what Richard II initiated, 1HIV explored and 2HIV takes up to its resolution, is that, in between the comedy and capers, it earnestly discusses the ideas of kingship, leadership and statecraft, of having kings fit for government. We know in the reading of these 3 plays that in the end kingship comes good as Henry V proves himself a strong king (he disposes of his conspiring enemies at home before going off to war), a valiant leader (he leads the English to miraculous victory in France) and a savvy stateman (he marries the defeated French royalty).

While Richard II was salient in its depiction of the tragedy of loss of kingship of divine right, it raised questions about the assumption of kingship in Bolingbroke's deposition of Richard, and the 2 Henry IVs explore both the guilt and troubles arising from that act. For, even while Mortimer and Hotspur and the rebels may have had a case, they did not seem fit to rule should they have succeeded, dividing up the realm instead of uniting it. And whatever the articulation of their grievances, at the heart of their assumed justification was the shared tacit belief that Henry didn't have the same legitimacy of right to the crown as Richard did, as though religious sanction qualified kingship more legitimately than the will of the people. So essentially they were conservative rebels, not democratic ones. Legitimacy depends on religious and political stance, as well as on baronial privilege and favour.

Historical military manoeuvrings aside, this is a play about the parting between Hal and Falstaff as much as Henry's maturing into kingship. In Richard Eyre's excellent Hollow Crown episode of Henry IV Part 1, Hal leaves the Boar's Head after Poins has convinced him into the double robbery, and we see Hal walking through the alleys of London with his voice-over of the 'I know you all' speech (1.2.199-221). As he wends this way and that in that filthy hive of busyness, he is recognised and nodded to by all and sundry, and this excellent minute says so much more about his position as king-elect and the natural royal responsibility in him than the soliloquy does itself alone. We see the royal person behind the jesting carouser, and we hold it in a place of reserve, as he holds his head royally up, quietly proud of what and who he is. He is quite aware of his responsibility, and this awareness we carry through into the 'disrepute' theme in Part 2. So when the final rejection of Falstaff comes from his royal mouth, we are not entirely surprised: it is not as if he has outgrown Falstaff, but, aware of his destiny from the start, we know as he knows that a reckoning must come.

What much has been made of is that in the process, Hal, now Henry, seems to lose something of himself, some generosity which both he and Falstaff stood for in the earlier play. We feel him withdraw his emotional validation of Falstaff, and when the emotions are withdrawn, we feel their lack. Falstaff indeed becomes a pathetic figure, and for all his several references in Part 1 of Hal's royal destiny, and that he will himself amend his own life, he hasn't himself evolved, and the future he is always trying to forestall with 'sack' has caught up with him. We are left, not with a sentimental old fool, but a sad and pathetic one, and where in Part 1 we shared in the balance of ribald play and brutal war, as Hal himself charts his progression to adulthood, we are here left with but the loss of innocence, and feel the loss in the rejection of Falstaff. Falstaff is judged and found wanting, and we feel for him; Henry is harshly authoritarian, without feeling, and we resent this lack of his earlier humanity. This jars emotionally. It is, thus, a petty tragedy.

Perhaps it is indeed its affinity with tragedy that makes 2HIV feel a deeper play than 1HIV, but not only: the comedy (between Hal and Falstaff) is reduced (certainly, it becomes pastiche, if we already know Falstaff's fate), yet the comedy of the Falstaffian scenes in 1HIV was the counterbalance to its historic-chivalric theme; and that comedy was reduced, ultimately, to satire in Falstaff's negative discourse on honour. Further, we know what becomes of Hal now, and Falstaff is to mend his ways if he is to evolve similarly - but he doesn't. And that, perhaps, is one of the central reasons why we like him, but in his place: he is too fond of his 'sack', and always will be. His own witty comedy is now saddled with a tiredness approaching a mild despair, reflected in the tristesse that tinges the witty observations of his (once) colleagues in jest: 'Is it not strange that desire should so many years outlive performance?' (2.4.258-9) is both witty, funny and sad at once. But while humbled by the new King, his hubris (overbearing pride, presumption, arrogance:) does, of course, live on beyond these histories, in The Merry Wives Of Windsor (1600-1601), in all his fulness.

Meanwhile, history has moved on, and the ramshackle politics of Richard II, 1HIV and 2HIV - placed in doubt by Bolingbroke fumbling into kingship in Richard's spiralling decline, and his doubts about his legitimacy till his death - are now to fall away, as Henry V, with iron-fisted certainty (and courtly-gloved gallantry), is to forge a new (if brief) military-diplomatic course before the flowers of England, the red and the white, bestrew the Sceptred Isle once more.

But what an accrual of history and culture!

***

This Wordsworth edition was bought with the remnant of a bursary, which I had to spend by the end of my degree course. It is okay for a starter, and has a decent Introduction. But it has two clear faults: the commentary is not in footnotes beneath, but at the back, along with a glossary, which is both an inconvenience and an unnecessary split. I reverted, with both plays, to dedicated volumes, and for 2HIV, this was an Arden edition, that in the end had too much commentary for a leisurely read, but is (updated to the recent 3rd Edition, an excellent series) aimed at scholarly study. You pays your money, and you takes your choice.

[Victoria Bodenska · Rating 5 out of 5]

Henry IV, part II
This continuation makes us realize that political power struggles never end, they are eternal, and man somehow tries to live, surrounded by them.
The new play is started by the new battle, the rebels are again led by the Earl of Northumberland, who wants revenge for his lost son, Henry Percy, Hotspur.
Introduction is made by the metaphoric image of The Rumor, in the style of today’s tabloids and fake news.
Rumor
Open your ears, for which of you will stop
The vent of hearing when loud Rumor speaks?
I, from the orient to the drooping west,
Making the wind my post-horse, still unfold
The acts commencèd on this ball of earth.
Upon my tongues continual slanders ride,
The which in every language I pronounce,
Stuffing the ears of men with false reports.
Lord Bardolph reports fake news to the Earl for the outcome of the battle. 
Lord Bardolph
As good as heart can wish.
The King is almost wounded to the death,
And, in the fortune of my lord your son,
Prince Harry slain outright; and both the Blunts
Killed by the hand of Douglas; young Prince John
And Westmoreland and Stafford fled the field;
And Harry Monmouth’s brawn, the hulk Sir John,
is prisoner to your son.
Soon the sad truth is known.
Morton
Douglas is living, and your brother yet,
But for my lord your son—
Northumberland
Why, he is dead.
See what a ready tongue suspicion hath!
He that but fears the thing he would not know
Hath, by instinct, knowledge from others’ eyes
That what he feared is chancèd.
To make the news even blacker, King Henry sends an army against Northumberland, led by Prince John and the Earl of Westmorland. But that won't stop Northumberland from taking revenge, even as the news lifts him from his sickbed. Throughout the play there are touching moments of true patriotism, which has always made the English proud.
Northumberland
Now bind my brows with iron, and approach
The ragged’st hour that time and spite dare bring
To frown upon th’ enraged Northumberland.
On the background of this inhuman heroism and important political events, Sir John Falstaff appears again: he is only interested in the success of his own dubious affairs and how to secure his slothful life. He is unimaginably cocky and engrossed in directing his life as one endless clowning around. Before the Chief Justice, who comes to question him about the organized robbery, Falstaff rants and quips in his own arrogant style.
Chief Justice
Your means are very slender, and your
waste is great.
Falstaff
I would it were otherwise. I would my means
were greater and my waist slender.
As well as the King, the Chief Justice warns Falstaff about his bad influence on the young Prince Henry. 
Chief Justice
You follow the young prince up and
down like his ill angel.
Falstaff
Not so, my lord. Your ill angel is light, but I
hope he that looks upon me will take me without
weighing. 
Although, if left to him, Falstaff would have remained a drunkard and debaucher in London, he must go to fight against the Archbishop of York and the Earl of Northumberland. He is outraged, but he must obey.
Falstaff
But it was always
yet the trick of our English nation, if they have a
good thing, to make it too common. If you will
needs say I am an old man, you should give me rest.
Falstaff is bankrupt: he has only two shillings and six pennies and decides to propose to Mistress Ursula in order to settle down well so he sends her a letter. 
Falstaff
…
and this to old Mistress Ursula,
whom I have weekly sworn to marry since I perceived
the first white hair of my chin. 
From now on, the play will follow the structure of a succession of heroic exploits and battles with the ridiculous disgraces of Falstaff and his company. The King and Prince Henry march against the Welsh, and Falstaff tries to escape from Mrs. Quickly, to whom he owes money. These images are absurd and shameful but they make life seem not so sad and brutal.
Hostess (Mrs. Quickly)
A hundred mark is a long one for a poor
lone woman to bear, and I have borne, and borne,
and borne, and have been fubbed off, and fubbed
off, and fubbed off from this day to that day, that it is
a shame to be thought on. 
A scandal breaks out and everyone plays their dummy roles.
Falstaff
What is the gross sum that I owe thee?
Hostess
Marry, if thou wert an honest man, thyself
and the money too. Thou didst swear to me upon 
parcel-gilt goblet, sitting in my Dolphin chamber at
the round table by a sea-coal fire, upon Wednesday
in Wheeson week, when the Prince broke thy head
for liking his father to a singing-man of Windsor,
thou didst swear to me then, as I was washing thy
wound, to marry me and make me my lady thy wife.
At the end of the scene, a messenger arrives from the king, who is on his way to Northumberland with Prince Henry, and Falstaff gives himself airs with questions about the course of the war, even inviting the messenger to lunch - an invitation which, due to the urgency of the situation, is declined.
Prince Henry continues to spend time with his rambunctious company, but their dialogue already shows that they allow themselves more than the prince can take as a joke. To Poins' accusation of not grieving enough for his father, Henry responds thus:
Prince
By this hand, thou thinkest me as far in the
devil’s book as thou and Falstaff for obduracy and
persistency. Let the end try the man. But I tell thee,
my heart bleeds inwardly that my father is so sick;
and keeping such vile company as thou art hath in
reason taken from me all ostentation of sorrow.
Falstaff continues to gossip and intrigue: he sends a letter to Henry in which he accuses his comrade Poins of intending to marry his sister Nell to the prince himself. Falstaff manages to successfully combine his insolence with being absurdly funny: he signs his letter as: Jack Falstaff with my ⟨familiars,⟩
 John with my brothers and sisters, and
 Sir John with all Europe.
Around Falstaff always gravitate colorful and dubious personalities such as Doll Tearsheet, about whom the Prince notes:
Prince
What pagan may that be?
Page
A proper gentlewoman, sir, and a kinswoman of
my master’s.
Prince
Even such kin as the parish heifers are to the
town bull.
The scenes of Falstaff's outrages are alternated with the plans of the rebels against the king, so that there is entertainment, but also an impressive representation of the historical facts. Northumberland's wife and daughter-in-law admonish him not to engage in the decisive battle with the king until it is clear who will be the victor, it is typical of Shakespeare for these female characters to have power over mens’decisions - as shown to the extreme in Lady Macbeth.
Northumberland is following their advice:
Fain would I go to meet the Archbishop,
But many thousand reasons hold me back.
I will resolve for Scotland. There am I
Till time and vantage crave my company.
Falstaff continues with his circus and his drunken revels in the pub. He sings the popular ballad: 
When Arthur first in court—
And was a worthy king—
The conversations are typical of Falstaff, with witty banter and mockery. Pistol makes a drunken scandal in a tavern and Falstaff has to throw him out. Then the commissioned musicians turn up.
Falstaff
Let them play.—Play, sirs.—Sit on my knee,
Doll. A rascal bragging slave! The rogue fled from
me like quicksilver. (meaning Pistol)
The scene is funny, but at the same time shows lower vices. Fastaff, who likes to slander others, explains why the prince likes Poins.
Doll
Why does the Prince love him so then?
Falstaff
Because their legs are both of a bigness, and
he plays at quoits well, and eats conger and fennel
and drinks off candles’ ends for flap-dragons, and
rides the wild mare with the boys, and jumps upon
joint stools, and swears with a good grace-
In Falstaff's world, everything is colorful and glittering, but it's actually false and it’s apparent. He and Doll are exchanging pleasantries, but she has other clients too. In spite of his high-sounding words, Falstaff chooses a life of safety, in the shade, without danger. Falstaff always frames the others up as to avoid punishment.
Falstaff
The fiend hath pricked down Bardolph irrecoverable,
and his face is Lucifer’s privy kitchen,
where he doth nothing but roast malt-worms.
He doesn't hesitate to do the same with the ladies.
Prince
For the women?
Falstaff
For one of them, she’s in hell already and
burns poor souls. For th’ other, I owe her money,
and whether she be damned for that I know not.
This fabliau is followed by a serious, important scene, in which we see the King's restlessness and anxiety before the battle—to Englishmen this is the good play—the spectator wants to laugh to the limit at many peppery and obscene jokes, and then the action mingles with an important, patriotic theme from history in which courage and bravery are displayed.
King
How many thousand of my poorest subject
Are at this hour asleep! O sleep, O gentle sleep,
Nature’s soft nurse, how have I frighted thee,
That thou no more wilt weigh my eyelids down
And steep my senses in forgetfulness?
…
Canst thou, O partial sleep, give thy repose
To the wet sea-boy in an hour so rude,
And, in the calmest and most stillest night,
With all appliances and means to boot,
Deny it to a king? Then, happy low, lie down.
Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.
King Henry IV was not born king, but made one by necessity, he deposed Richard II, and his subsequent reign was a constant vindication of his right. The temptation to get involved in power is always so blinding that it always seems necessary to us, when in fact it is not. The prophetic words of Richard II do not give Henry peace:
“The time shall come,” thus did he follow it,
 “The time will come that foul sin, gathering head,
Shall break into corruption”—so went on,
Foretelling this same time’s condition
And the division of our amity.
King Henry speaks poetically but is also pragmatic, another typical English virtue. 
King
Are these things then necessities?
Then let us meet them like necessities.
The next scene we are back with Falstaff who will again recruit soldiers together with the friend from his youth, the country justice Shallow. The judge is nostalgic and passionate about their youthful exploits with Falstaff.
Shallow
You had not four such swinge-bucklers in all the Inns o’
Court again. And I may say to you, we knew where
the bona robas were and had the best of them all at
commandment. Then was Jack Falstaff, now Sir
John, a boy, and page to Thomas Mowbray, Duke of
Norfolk.
Recruiting soldiers by Falstaff is a parody: he doesn't want Wart because he thinks he has lice, Bullcalf and Mouldy buy their exemption, and Feeble will go to fight, showing unexpected courage.
Bullcalf
Good Master Corporate Bardolph, stand my
friend, and here’s four Harry ten-shillings in
French crowns for you. 
Mouldy
And, good Master Corporal Captain, for my
old dame’s sake, stand my friend. She has nobody to
do anything about her when I am gone, and she is
old and cannot help herself. You shall have forty,
sir.
Feeble
By my troth, I care not. A man can die but
once. We owe God a death. I’ll ne’er bear a base
mind. An ’t be my destiny, so; an ’t be not, so. No
 man’s too good to serve ’s prince, and let it go
which way it will, he that dies this year is quit for
the next.
To the astonished Shallow, who believes that only Bullcalf and Mouldy are fit for military service, Falstaff replies:
And this same half-faced
fellow, Shadow, give me this man. He presents
no mark to the enemy. The foeman may with
as great aim level at the edge of a penknife. And for
a retreat, how swiftly will this Feeble, the woman’s
tailor, run off! O, give me the spare men, and spare
me the great ones.
After they part, Falstaff vilifies Shallow, telling a story about the judge that seems like an urban legend: how John of Gaunt was angry with Shallow for joining the Lord Marshal's men and beat him up. However, upon returning, Falstaff plans to stay with Shallow to rob him.
The political events unravel: Westmorland meets the Archbishop of York and blames him for starting the war. But the Archbishop stands his ground.
Archbishop
Wherefore do I this? So the question stands.
Briefly, to this end: we are all diseased
And with our surfeiting and wanton hours
Have brought ourselves into a burning fever,
And we must bleed for it; of which disease
Our late King Richard, being infected, died.
The military conflict is easily resolved by deception: King Henry's son John Lancaster pretends to accept the rebels' demands and makes them disband their troops, then captures them.
Falstaff and King Henry have completely opposite opinions about Prince Hal's future.
Falstaff
Hereof comes it that Prince Harry is
valiant, for the cold blood he did naturally inherit
of his father he hath, like lean, sterile, and bare
land, manured, husbanded, and tilled with excellent
endeavor of drinking good and good store
of fertile sherris, that he is become very hot and valiant.
If I had a thousand sons, the first human principle
I would teach them should be to forswear
thin potations and to addict themselves to sack.
King
For when his headstrong riot hath no curb,
When rage and hot blood are his counsellors,
When means and lavish manners meet together,
O, with what wings shall his affections fly
Towards fronting peril and opposed decay!
Despite the victory, the king's health is deteriorating, and there are bad omens.
Thomas of Clarence
The river hath thrice flowed, no ebb between,
And the old folk, time’s doting chronicles,
Say it did so a little time before
That our great-grandsire, Edward, sicked and died.
At the king's deathbed, Henry places the crown on his head, an act that the dying king will misinterpret.
King
He puts on the crown. Lo,where it sits,
Which God shall guard. And, put the world’s whole
strength
Into one giant arm, it shall not force
This lineal honor from me. This from thee
Will I to mine leave, as ’tis left to me.
The king misjudges the prince's action, that for the sake of the crown he wishes him dead and digs his grave. And at the very end, Henry is still displeased with Harry.
King
The Prince hath ta’en it hence. Go seek him out.
Is he so hasty that he doth suppose my sleep my
death?
And then comes the news of the ascension of the new king, Henry V. Falstaff and his company are in ecstasy, expecting great acquisitions and glory.
Pistol
Sir John, I am thy Pistol and thy friend,
And helter-skelter have I rode to thee,
And tidings do I bring, and lucky joys,
And golden times, and happy news of price.
The end of the play is not ecstatic and dazzling, but serious and sobering: the new king Henry V rejects Falstaff and puts an end to the time of youthful follies and revelries. For all the colour and entertainment it brings, Falstaff will be a thing of the past.
Falstaff
God save thy Grace, King Hal, my royal Hal.
…
God save thee, my sweet boy!
King
My Lord Chief Justice, speak to that vain man.
…
Falstaff
to the King
My king, my Jove, I speak to thee, my heart!
King
I know thee not, old man. Fall to thy prayers.
How ill white hairs becomes a fool and jester.
As usual with these historical plays, the end is a new beginning: the viewer is informed that there will be a new play only for Henry the Fifth, which will tell about his marriage to Katherine of France, an event that is sure to attract audiences for the next performance.

[Verena Wachnitz · Rating 4 out of 5]

This edition with the original and modern English versions side by side is very helpful.

[Steve Hemmeke · Rating 3 out of 5]

In part 1, a play in itself, Henry has taken the throne but is uneasy since he usurped it from Richard II. He wants to go on crusade to unify his kingdom but has too much trouble with rebels on his borders (Scotland and Wales) and within from the Percy family and its firebrand son Hotspur. His own son, Harry, who will be Henry V, is carousing with Falstaff, which troubles him greatly.

But when battle is joined against the rebels, Harry shows his stuff and kills Hotspur. Falstaff also shows his stuff, cheating, deceiving and dishonorably avoiding fighting his way back home.

The second part of Henry IV is all about betrayals, some right and some wrong.
Rebels York, Northumberland, and Prince John all show the dastardly kind of betrayal, rising up against Henry again. The rebels betray each other as well, such that their strength is no longer enough to match the king. But on the other hand, Prince Harry does right to betray Falstaff in the end, who is expecting friendship and favors from the newly crowned king. Instead Henry V stands by the chief justice who locked him up once for his carousing. He deals well with his nobles, a promising beginning to a new reign.

When we act dishonorably we should not expect honor. We always have the opportunity to set aside folly and begin a life of loyalty to the virtuous.

[João Esteves · Rating 3 out of 5]

Part 1: I would like to say i did or didn't enjoy the plot but i think, in Shakespeare, you have the book more than once. From what i understood, though, i didn't like too much of it. Too many characters. The only one that caught my attention was Falstaff and his comedic interventions.

Part 2: Same problem as the 1st Part, although i think that you can understand this Part's plot better than the 1st Part. Still, i liked the attitude Hal took at the end of the book and Falstaff, once again, made my reading much better. I think he's the only reason i'm giving it a 3 out of 5.

[Sparrow · Rating 4 out of 5]

Henry IV, Part 1

This was a surprising play. It started out rather boring for me, but towards the 4th and 5th acts, it got a lot better. I suppose this was due to the need for exposition before action. I'm glad I was required to read this for school, otherwise I would never have read it. This was an interesting view of British royalty vs. rebels. I loved Hotspur :)

[Fady B · Rating 1 out of 5]

اسخف مسرحيات ويليام شكسبير على الاطلاق واكثرها كآبة واثارة للملل والسأم..
مسرحية ثقيلة جدا والاحداث تسير فيها ببطء شديد و كثرة الابطال العددية (كثافتهم) من اهم نقاط الضعف بهذه المسرحية السمجة..
مسرحية الملك هنرى الرابع لشكسبير هى اسخف ما قرأت من الادب الانجليزى عموما بحياتى.

[Fennec · Rating 5 out of 5]

"We have heard the chimes at midnight." - Falstaff

[J. A. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Just read "Part 1" for class

[Alfie Kennedy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read Part 1.

I’m really enjoying this story! Unfortunately it’s taking me longer than ideal because of being busy with the play and such, but I’m making good progress today and I’ll also start part 2.

As a gentle recap, King Henry IV came together to fight against Hotspur and his side, after Hotspur’s rebellion due to the King’s dying allegiance to those that got him into power in the first place. Prince Hal goes from being a thieving crook with people such as Falstaff, to becoming a valiant soldier and in the end killing Hotspur himself in battle. The play ends with a victory on the side of the king, and plans for their next outings, such as confronting those of the rebels who avoided the battle but still live in defiance.

In terms of Prince Hal, my main focus for this reading (due to using a monologue of his), I think he’s a very interesting character. He hangs around the likes of Falstaff but even at his first scene in the play his ulterior motives are clear - he wants to move past the squalor he is seen to dwell in and on turn seem even better than if he had already been valiant and true. Within Part 1 you really witness his conniving nature, as he persists with making fun of Falstaff at every opportunity. And when called to battle, he finds it a good time to make up for his misdemeanours and ends up being looked at fondly and proudly in his father’s eyes.


I like the scale and drama of Shakespeare’s histories, and this one is no exception. The building of the fight and witnessing both sides preparing for war is very thrilling! And even beforehand, seeing the disagreements form alongside Hal’s scenes in the darker, drunker parts of town is an engaging contrast. I look forward to seeing what happens in Part 2!

-

I really enjoyed this play! I’m starting to realise I do quite like the histories - the battles and historical references make it an enjoyable read for me. I look forward to watching the plays and seeing how they’re meant to be seen.

Falstaff is a brilliant menace, he’s a joy to read about.

Henry V seems to make a just and strong king, I’m honestly wanting to read Henry V now straight after!

Some good character work and research can now go into my monologue for Prince Hal, and I look forward to that.

[Erik · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have really enjoyed the books from the "No Fear Shakespeare" collection that I have read. And this is no exception. I can read along with Shakespeare's original language and ignore the modern translation when I feel that I am completely understanding. But, it is very nice to have the modern translation when Shakespeare's meaning is unclear. I referred to the modern translation very often with this book. There were very few pages that I didn't feel the need to reference it.

I think the modern translation is not perfect, though. For example, there is one section in Henry IV part I Act IV Scene II where Falstaff refers the Bible parable of the rich man and Lazarus the beggar. A note accompanying the modern translation says that this Lazarus was raised from the dead by Jesus. This is incorrect. That parable of the rich man and Lazarus does not refer to the same Lazarus as the brother of Mary and Martha who was raised from the dead. There were also a couple other minor instances where I felt the modern translation of a more-familiar archaic phrase seemed a little off. But, 99% of the time, the modern translation column in these books is an invaluable help to understanding.

I was surprised at the simplicity of the plot of this book. There are also quite a few scenes that seem to be nothing but humorous interludes and don't really forward the plot. But, regardless, I found it be an enjoyable read. I enjoy reading Shakespeare and realizing just how much of an influence his plays have had on sayings, phrases, and ideas that have become a part of our English-language consciousness.

[Winnie · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.4/5.0

Among the royal dramas, Shakespeare's Henry IV stands as one of the more tolerable ventures into the genre, a claim I make with a fair degree of relief. The plot itself, revolving around courtly scheming, power struggles, and familial discontent, feels rather rote—palatable but unremarkable in its predictability. The nobility in question, barring the occasional glimpse of Prince Hal’s transformation, remain archetypes: hollow figures serving the gears of political intrigue rather than dynamic agents of humanity.

The saving grace, of course, lies elsewhere: among the rabble. Falstaff, that icon of indulgence and wit, along with his band of merry degenerates, breathes life and texture into an otherwise formal and distant narrative. Their escapades lend the work a charm and vitality absent from the royal proceedings. Through them, Shakespeare's command of dialogue and humor truly radiates, rendering even the weighty themes of duty and rebellion surprisingly nimble.

Technically, Shakespeare delivers as always; the writing itself—a symphony of eloquence and deft phrasing—remains a marvel. While the thematic exploration of honor, legacy, and societal roles isn’t groundbreaking, its articulation keeps one engaged. Ultimately, it’s not the crown but the jesters that carry the day. For that alone, I’d revisit this play, rascally antics and all.