Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Henriad
>
Henry IV Pt. 1 - General Discussion
I am only a couple of scenes in, but I am rolling my eyes at Prince Hal and hist buddies. I know that Shakespeare did it first, but I feel like I see this kind of immaturity in every movie and YA book... and I am over it.
I did like this line though:
"It would be argument for a week, laughter for a month, and a good jest for ever."
"Thou wilt not utter - what thous dost not know.And so far will I trust thee, gentle Kate"
Love it.
Cass wrote: ""Thou wilt not utter - what thous dost not know.And so far will I trust thee, gentle Kate"
Love it."
Love it? Sounds pretty insulting to me. Would you want your spouse treating you this way?
Ha, oh please don't misinterpret me.I meant my exclamation to reflect an enjoyment of how Shakespeare is able to make it seem so poetic, not my agreement with the sentiment shown toward a wife. I guess I have begun reading these plays with an acceptance that women are going to be treated in this way. While a discussion of marital relations in Edwardian and Elizabethian times would be very interesting, it would also be a very very big discussion (and probably overshadowing) and not what I was actually meaning to comment on.
Take the husband/spouse out of it (and I almost dropped her name from the quote I posted but I thought the speaker must be speaking to someone, so I left it) and it is kind of a cool way to express a wise stance.
"Thou wilt not utter - what thous dost not know.
And so far will I trust thee, gentle Kate"
If you don't trust somebody (gender and marital relationship aside) it is best not to tell them.
Everyman wrote: "Many people, including many scholars, have a love affair with Falstaff. I have never seen the appeal of him. Will I get enlightened over the next few weeks and learn to have a better appreciation of him?"
What I love about Falstaff is not his character but his wit. He is an almost entirely aesthetic man, a purely musical character. There is not much to love about him, but there is much to enjoy.
Remember that Queen Elizabeth also loved the character of Falstaff which is why he reappears in the Merry Wives. Look how the character of the fat humorous man has appeared in many contemporary American comedies.
I have not got that far yet, but regarding Falstaff I generally agree with what others have stated above. I cannot say I have developed any strong feelings for him one way or the other. I do not love him, but I do not truly dislike him either for I do find his dialog to be amusing. I may not agree with all that he says and does but I appreciate and enjoy witty repertoire.
Cass wrote: "Ha, oh please don't misinterpret me.I meant my exclamation to reflect an enjoyment of how Shakespeare is able to make it seem so poetic, not my agreement with the sentiment shown toward a wife. I..."
Hotspur is also saving his wife from involvement in rebellion, which could end on the scaffold.
Everyman wrote: "Cass wrote: ""Thou wilt not utter - what thous dost not know.And so far will I trust thee, gentle Kate"
Love it."
Love it? Sounds pretty insulting to me. Would you want your spouse treating yo..."
After reading the line in context I would say that Kate holds her own well enough and she herself has some less than endearing terms for her husband, so I would say that it was a fair even exchange between the two of them.
Not that I all together blame Kate, for she does suspect what her husband is up to and knows what the dire consequences of such actions will be.
But I do not altogether blame Hotspur for his own words either. He knows Kate will not approve of his plans and thus knows he cannot trust he with the information he has as well I agree with Roger that it is better for Kate's own well being for her not to know.
By keeping her in the dark and dismissing her he is also protecting her should things end badly for him.
Patrice wrote: "Still in Act I but there is something appealing about Falstaff. I can't put my finger on it. Maybe it's that he's not boring? Not stuffy? Or is it that we can feel morally superior? Lots more ..."I think it could be a little bit of both. He strikes me as being a bit like a Fool at times. He is certainly amusing and not dull and I think our ability to take a moral high ground makes it easier to laugh at him. Humors us, but does not discomfort us with some of his less appealing aspects because it is difficult to take very seriously.
Falstaff was the fool, the comic relief, the entertainment for the groundlings. His lies and cowardly nature make for great comedy as we laugh at the buffoon and not with him.But he proved a great hit and The Merry Wives of Windsor was written after a request from Shakespeare's royal patron to see more of him.
The crass self-interest of Falstaff balances the superhuman nobility of King Henry.
Silver wrote: "But I do not altogether blame Hotspur for his own words either. He knows Kate will not approve of his plans and thus knows he cannot trust he with the information he has "Are you suggesting that she might turn on him, or report him to Henry?
Roger wrote: "The crass self-interest of Falstaff balances the superhuman nobility of King Henry."Superhuman nobility? Really?
Everyman wrote: "Are you suggesting that she might turn on him, or report him to Henry? ."I think it is possible that she might go to Henry, with the hopes of preventing Hotspur from committing such a drastic action which is certain to end in his head and likely the destruction of their family should he fail.
I don't think she would turn against her husband, at least not with the intention of causing him harm but rather fearing the results of his actions would try and protect him and perhaps receive mercy for him if he could be stopped before acting.
Patrice wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Roger wrote: "The crass self-interest of Falstaff balances the superhuman nobility of King Henry."Superhuman nobility? Really?"
is this a spoiler perhaps?"
No spoiler--I haven't read ahead. That's just how the king's behavior struck me.
My own feelings about Falstaff were very luke warm when I first encountered him. Over time I have come to appreciate the character much more and, if he is not the greatest character in literature as some claim, I do consider him a major one.
Reading the comments above it occurs to me to wonder about whether part of the issue has to do with the fact that he is, in fact, not a literary character, but a stage one. I wonder if his vitality can really be appreciated when only encountered on the page and in our imagination. Because we have enshrined Shakespeare as such a great "author" it is easy to forget that he is really a playwright and there is little evidence that he had ambitions beyond the stage of the Globe (and Blackfriars).
Reading the comments above it occurs to me to wonder about whether part of the issue has to do with the fact that he is, in fact, not a literary character, but a stage one. I wonder if his vitality can really be appreciated when only encountered on the page and in our imagination. Because we have enshrined Shakespeare as such a great "author" it is easy to forget that he is really a playwright and there is little evidence that he had ambitions beyond the stage of the Globe (and Blackfriars).
Roger wrote: "Patrice wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Roger wrote: "The crass self-interest of Falstaff balances the superhuman nobility of King Henry."Superhuman nobility? Really?"
is this a spoiler perhaps?"
No ..."
Agreed, I haven't read ahead either and I hardly think his morality or nobility of character is anything to be boasted of based on past performance.
Regarding Hotspur/Kate. As I don't know Kate except for this scene, it's difficult to read her. Does she really love Hotspur, or is it an act? I wondered... because I found myself considering the possibility that she is pumping Hotspur for information because MAYBE her true cause is her brother Mortimer.
{Aside. The Mortimer who would have been heir had Bolingbroke not taken the crown, would have been Edmund Mortimer, 8 years old. This young Edmund Mortimer had an uncle, Edmund Mortimer, who had led an army out towards Wales... THIS Mortimer, the grown uncle, had been captured by Glendower. And Mortimer --- in history --- Mortimer, when held by Glendower, married Glendower's daughter. Shakespeare compresses so much... speeds up events to move the storyline...
Has Shakespeare has chosen to write the play as though the grown Mortimer were the heir and thus rightful king... or is the "title" Kate speaks of "uncle to the king"...either scenario would require Henry to Not be king. }
Kate: In faith,
I'll know your business, Harry, that I will.
I fear my brother Mortimer doth stir
About his title, and hath sent for you
To line his enterprize: but if you go,--
I could see this two different ways:
(1) Kate loves Hotspur, she's seen him acting out of character--- his eyes upon the earth,, his being easily startled, his pale face and melancholy, his talking in his sleep, the beads of sweat that have stood upon his brow--that something is worrying him. This can't be his usual way or Kate wouldn't be commenting on it.
Maybe Kate is concerned that Hotspur is considering joining with her brother Mortimer in rebellion against Henry and she is concerned for her husband.
Or, (2) Kate is backing her brother Mortimer, heir to the throne and king if Henry is removed.
She has seen the signs of Hotspurs restlessness and worry. Hotspur himself at the beginning of this scene (Act II, Scene III) read the letter aloud. He spoke aloud of the conspiracy against Henry already in motion. Maybe, I thought, Kate has knowledge that Hotspur is conspiring with her brother Mortimer---knowledge given her by her brother? Maybe Mortimer pushed his sister towards that marriage with young Northumberland in the first place because he had an eye towards using Hotspur in his own cause. These aren't love marriages. They're arranged for reasons.
As I read Hotspur, perhaps as Kate reads him, Hotspur is wont to jump full ahead into a fight. He seems to enjoy it. He seems to discount danger. So why is he worried and sleepless now. Anyway... Might Kate suspect Hotspur of being restless because he's considering NOT backing Mortimer? And does Kate need this information so she can pass it on to her brother?
Did Hotspur not want to tell Kate because he was trying to protect her? That line of thinking appeals to me. Did he not want to tell her out of self-interest... because perhaps Kate has been known to say things out of school? Or so that should Henry's men question her, she can't implicate Hotspur? Did Hotspur not want to tell Kate because he knows or suspects that she passes information on to her brother? At Act III, I can't rule that out either.
{Aside. The Mortimer who would have been heir had Bolingbroke not taken the crown, would have been Edmund Mortimer, 8 years old. This young Edmund Mortimer had an uncle, Edmund Mortimer, who had led an army out towards Wales... THIS Mortimer, the grown uncle, had been captured by Glendower. And Mortimer --- in history --- Mortimer, when held by Glendower, married Glendower's daughter. Shakespeare compresses so much... speeds up events to move the storyline...
Has Shakespeare has chosen to write the play as though the grown Mortimer were the heir and thus rightful king... or is the "title" Kate speaks of "uncle to the king"...either scenario would require Henry to Not be king. }
Kate: In faith,
I'll know your business, Harry, that I will.
I fear my brother Mortimer doth stir
About his title, and hath sent for you
To line his enterprize: but if you go,--
I could see this two different ways:
(1) Kate loves Hotspur, she's seen him acting out of character--- his eyes upon the earth,, his being easily startled, his pale face and melancholy, his talking in his sleep, the beads of sweat that have stood upon his brow--that something is worrying him. This can't be his usual way or Kate wouldn't be commenting on it.
Maybe Kate is concerned that Hotspur is considering joining with her brother Mortimer in rebellion against Henry and she is concerned for her husband.
Or, (2) Kate is backing her brother Mortimer, heir to the throne and king if Henry is removed.
She has seen the signs of Hotspurs restlessness and worry. Hotspur himself at the beginning of this scene (Act II, Scene III) read the letter aloud. He spoke aloud of the conspiracy against Henry already in motion. Maybe, I thought, Kate has knowledge that Hotspur is conspiring with her brother Mortimer---knowledge given her by her brother? Maybe Mortimer pushed his sister towards that marriage with young Northumberland in the first place because he had an eye towards using Hotspur in his own cause. These aren't love marriages. They're arranged for reasons.
As I read Hotspur, perhaps as Kate reads him, Hotspur is wont to jump full ahead into a fight. He seems to enjoy it. He seems to discount danger. So why is he worried and sleepless now. Anyway... Might Kate suspect Hotspur of being restless because he's considering NOT backing Mortimer? And does Kate need this information so she can pass it on to her brother?
Did Hotspur not want to tell Kate because he was trying to protect her? That line of thinking appeals to me. Did he not want to tell her out of self-interest... because perhaps Kate has been known to say things out of school? Or so that should Henry's men question her, she can't implicate Hotspur? Did Hotspur not want to tell Kate because he knows or suspects that she passes information on to her brother? At Act III, I can't rule that out either.
Indeed Patrice. Hal does seem to be caught between two father figures. Your comment adds poignancy to the scene where Falstaff actually impersonates Hal's father.
We could add Hotspur to the "family" dynamic. He is the son Henry wishes he had and, thus, Hal's sibling rival.
We could add Hotspur to the "family" dynamic. He is the son Henry wishes he had and, thus, Hal's sibling rival.
Zeke wrote: "Indeed Patrice. Hal does seem to be caught between two father figures. Your comment adds poignancy to the scene where Falstaff actually impersonates Hal's father."Nice point. Father figure indeed. Though what sort of father is it (except perhaps a Timson! [g]) who encourages his son to become a highwayman?
[Timson, in case you don't know your Rumpole, is a family of petty thieves which passes on their traditions from father to son, and are constantly needing the services of Rumpole to get them, or occasionally not get them, out of trouble.]
I made a post on Falstaff in the Close Reading thread, but it really belongs here, so I'm reposting it here.I guess I need to find time to at least skim John Dover Wilson's The Fortunes of Falstaff, which has been sitting on my shelves unread for a long time, a book based on five 1943 Clark lectures given at Cambridge. Wilson isn't well known today, I think, but in his day he was something of a recognized Shakespeare scholar, having also written The Essential Shakespeare and What Happens in 'Hamlet', neither of which I have.
He also mentions Bradley's 1902 lecture The Rejection of Falstaff (and later a book), which Wilson had accepted until he "began checking it with yet another portrait -- that which I found in the pages of Shakespeare himself. As the result of much recent work on the two parts of Henry IV, a new Falstaff stands before me, as fascinating as Bradley's, certainly quite as human, but different' and beside him stands a still more unexpected Prince Hal. the discovery throws all my previous ideas out of focus, and before I can get on with my editing it has to be worked out." [Bradley, btw, is the author of the wonderful, classic work Shakespeare's Tragedy.
You can get a summary of Bradley's views, or at least one person's interpretation of those views, at this site -- scroll down to the header "Falstaff Introduces Freedom." edit: this site contains some spoilers for later plays in the Henriad
Asimov has some very interesting historical background that informs some of the things that go on in the play which aren't obvious from the text.Henry's refusal to ransom Mortimer, for example. While Shakespeare, based on Holingshed, mixes up two Edmund Mortimers, still the Mortimers were the descendants of the third son of Edward III, Lionel (Richard had been the son of Edward's first son, but his lineage was done with his death), whereas Bolingbrook was the descendant from the fourth son, Gaunt. Thus, the Mortimers were, legally, the next in like for the crown after Richard. So it made a lot of sense for Henry to want him cooped up as a prisoner in a castle in Wales rather than out and roaming the country potentially picking up support for his legitimate right to the crown. None of this comes through in the text, of course, but it makes sense of why Henry is so bitterly opposed to ransoming Mortimer.
Also, Percy is actually in the right to have wanted to keep his prisoners. The tradition at the time was that the person who captured prisoners were entitled to their ransom. (Nobles, who were well protected by armor and mounted on horses, were according to Asimov more often captured in battle than killed, and it was normal to ransom them. (Some years earlier, Hotspur himself had been captured by the Scots and was "released on payment of a heavy ransom, much of which was contribute by Richard II, whom Hotspur repaid rater foully ten years later," notes Asimov.)
At any rate, Percy was entitled by tradition to keep his prisoners, and Henry, by demanding them, was acting in the same way Richard had when he wrongfully took Gaunt's estate. So the very thing that, in theory, led Henry to seize the crown Henry is now doing himself, and Percy was quite right to be outraged and to complain that this person they had put on the throne was no better than the one they had kicked off of it.
It adds a significant new dimension to this first scene, doesn't it?
Another interesting historical note from Asimov. Apparently young Prince Hal had indeed, in historical fact, engaged in highway robbery. Shakespeare apparently felt he had to include this well known fact in the play. But as Henry V, he was quite well respected by the nation, and it would have been impolitic, Asimov contends, for Shakespeare to actually have shown him in such gross violation of the law. So Shakespeare cleverly incorporates the story of the highway robbery, but does it in a way that is innocuous and humorous, saving Henry V's reputation. Again, a piece of historical background that adds a different dimension to the scene of the robbery, eh?
Finished reading the play. Going back to the beginning.
The king's opening speech put me in mind of Richard II at three points.
He says So shaken as we are, so wan with care
and I immediately thought of Richard during that sad, sad deposition scene:
Bolingbroke: Part of your cares you give me with your crown.
Richard:... My care is loss of care, by old care done;
You care is gain of care, by new care won: Act IV, Scene I, 190-ish
How apt that Henry Iv opens with Henry feeling the heavy weight of those cares.
The king's opening speech put me in mind of Richard II at three points.
He says So shaken as we are, so wan with care
and I immediately thought of Richard during that sad, sad deposition scene:
Bolingbroke: Part of your cares you give me with your crown.
Richard:... My care is loss of care, by old care done;
You care is gain of care, by new care won: Act IV, Scene I, 190-ish
How apt that Henry Iv opens with Henry feeling the heavy weight of those cares.
Henry continues his opening speech:
No more shall trenching war channel her fields,
Nor bruise her flowerets with the armed hoofs
Of hostile paces A1, S1, 7-9
This put me in mind of Richard when he had returned to England from Ireland when he said Dear earth, I do salute thee with my hand,/ Though rebels wound thee with their horses hoofs AIII SII 6-7
Both as kings spoke as though they were protective of, solicitous of English soil.
For me, this lent credence to the view of Henry acting as a true king, caring not only for Lancaster and Bolingbroke lands, but for English soil throughout England.
No more shall trenching war channel her fields,
Nor bruise her flowerets with the armed hoofs
Of hostile paces A1, S1, 7-9
This put me in mind of Richard when he had returned to England from Ireland when he said Dear earth, I do salute thee with my hand,/ Though rebels wound thee with their horses hoofs AIII SII 6-7
Both as kings spoke as though they were protective of, solicitous of English soil.
For me, this lent credence to the view of Henry acting as a true king, caring not only for Lancaster and Bolingbroke lands, but for English soil throughout England.
Thirdly, Henry reminds us of the vow he made at the close of Richard II. Henry had said that yes, he had wished Richard dead, but hated the murderer. To atone ... Henry vowed to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land:
Lords, I protest, my soul is full of woe,
That blood should sprinkle me to make me grow:
Come, mourn with me for that I do lament,
And put on sullen black incontinent:
I'll make a voyage to the Holy Land,
To wash this blood off from my guilty hand:
March sadly after; grace my mournings here:
In weeping after this untimely bier. Act V, close.
Bolingbroke's plea that his mourning might be graced has not been granted. The country does not March all one way as Bolingbroke had hoped. Now, as Henry IV, he recognizes he will not make that journey. ...this our purpose now is twelve month old, / And bootless 'tis to tell you we will go.
The unrest of the country would show that many think Henry IV guilty of usurping the throne.... (or...they see an opportunity to further their own interests.)
Lords, I protest, my soul is full of woe,
That blood should sprinkle me to make me grow:
Come, mourn with me for that I do lament,
And put on sullen black incontinent:
I'll make a voyage to the Holy Land,
To wash this blood off from my guilty hand:
March sadly after; grace my mournings here:
In weeping after this untimely bier. Act V, close.
Bolingbroke's plea that his mourning might be graced has not been granted. The country does not March all one way as Bolingbroke had hoped. Now, as Henry IV, he recognizes he will not make that journey. ...this our purpose now is twelve month old, / And bootless 'tis to tell you we will go.
The unrest of the country would show that many think Henry IV guilty of usurping the throne.... (or...they see an opportunity to further their own interests.)
Everyman wrote: "Another interesting historical note from Asimov. Apparently young Prince Hal had indeed, in historical fact, engaged in highway robbery. Shakespeare apparently felt he had to include this well kn..."That is quite interesting. When I began reading the play I was at first surprised at the idea that the prince was essentially a brigand. I was curious about the scene and tried to do some research on it, but I could not find out anything about it, and as weather or not Prince Hal really did act as a thief.
Thank you for the useful information. Also the bit about the King technically being in the wrong for demanding Hotspur's hostages is also interesting and does shed new light upon the play, and the characters and events.
Highway robbery was very common and often unpunished in the absence of any kind of police force. Travelers who stopped for the night at an inn might find the owners tipping off robbers who would await them the next day.
Although we have noted Hal's participation in the robbery, we have not yet mentioned what may be a more serious transgression. He lies to the sheriff to cover for Falstaff and the others. Will this come back to haunt him in some way?
Although we have noted Hal's participation in the robbery, we have not yet mentioned what may be a more serious transgression. He lies to the sheriff to cover for Falstaff and the others. Will this come back to haunt him in some way?
Zeke wrote: "He lies to the sheriff to cover for Falstaff and the others."
In point of fact, he does. Do you think it makes a difference that he hasn't "sworn" and that he has finessed his statement?
Hal says The man, I do assure you, is not here;. How finely is he defining "here." Falstaff is not "here".... he is over "there" behind the drapes.
Hal says that he himself will answer thee, or any man, / For any thing he shall be charged withal. And then Hal takes such action [repaying the money with interest] to insure that Falstaff is not formally charged with anything.
In point of fact, he does. Do you think it makes a difference that he hasn't "sworn" and that he has finessed his statement?
Hal says The man, I do assure you, is not here;. How finely is he defining "here." Falstaff is not "here".... he is over "there" behind the drapes.
Hal says that he himself will answer thee, or any man, / For any thing he shall be charged withal. And then Hal takes such action [repaying the money with interest] to insure that Falstaff is not formally charged with anything.
I agree Adele that it is a fair point. However, Hal's relationship to the Law is something we will want to watch. There is Falstaff libertine life and there is Henry's royal power. Somewhere in between in the law which, in one view, is a necessary check on both.
Adelle wrote: "How apt that Henry Iv opens with Henry feeling the heavy weight of those cares. "And still accepting, he seems to admit, some guilt which he must expunge by taking a crusade to the Holy Land. Or does he? Is he sincere about this? Or only as sincere as he was when he claimed not to be after the crown? Just how honest, or not honest, is he?
Of Prince Hal's famous speech at the end of Act 1 Scene 2, According to Asimov this apparently has no historical basis, and he believes that Shakespeare probably included it as another sop to public opinion, making Hal look better than he really was as a young man, before becoming Henry V.
Zeke wrote: " Hal's relationship to the Law is something we will want to watch. There is Falstaff libertine life and there is Henry's royal power. Somewhere in between in the law which, in one view, is a necessary check on both. ."
Yes. I think that is and will be an important question.
Yes. I think that is and will be an important question.
Falstaff is old, dissolute, and hugely fat. Is it not remarkable that he can hoist up Hotspur on his back, a grown man, and in armor to boot? There's a remarkable amount of vigor in the old wine-sack.
Patrice's initial comment led me to spend time this afternoon thinking about Hal's relationship to Falstaff. Although we will have to wait until future plays to come to final conclusions, I think there is much in this one to consider.
For starters, I think the F-H relationship is more complex and better presented than the one between Hal and his father. That one is mostly dealt with in the scene when Henry confronts Hal and Hal, inexplicably in my opinion, folds:
And I will die a hundred thousand deaths
Ere break the smallest portion of this vow.
In some ways the foreshadowing play acting scene where Falstaff and then Hal play king is subtler and more interesting. Up to the place where he indulges in comic self aggrandizement, Falstaff (as Henry) voices some uncomfortable truths:
Shall the blessed son of heaven prove a micher [truant] and eat blackberries?...There is a thing, Harry, which thou has often heard of, and it is known to many in our land by the name of pitch. This pitch, as ancient writers do report, doth defile; so doth the company thou keepest.
The reference is to Ecclesiastes 13.1: "Who so toucheth pytch shall be defile withall.
Thus, before the comedy begins, Falstaff has basically stated exactly what Henry will and what Hal in his deepest self knows.
When his turn comes Hal (as king) is pretty cruel to Falstaff (as Prince). Indeed, throughout the play he tends to be meaner than necessary for the sake of whatever game is afoot. Why is this?
Falstaff says "Banish plump Jack and banish the world." This is followed by the knock on the door. (Goddard notes that similar portentous knocks occur in Julius Caesar and Macbeth. Hal says, (to whom?): "I do. I will."
Is this Hal acknowledging how he will behave when reformed? Or do all young men figuratively banish their fathers at some point whether they realize they will or not?
For me, the real complexity in the relationship is shown at Shrewsbury. After all the taunting and cruelty, when Falstaff shows up claiming to have slain Hotspur, Hal plays along. Perhaps he knows the fiction cannot hold up and is just showing some generosity. If so, it is a new trait compared to his abuse of the waiter, Francis, at the inn and of Falstaff in general.
I found myself moved by Falstaff's words that follow. "If I do grow great, I'll grow less, for I'll purge and leave sack and live cleanly as a nobleman should do." There is an echo here (ironic to be sure) of Henry's pledge to go to Jerusalem on pilgrimage.
Perhaps he actually means it. Perhaps, like many failed, disappointed old men he is looking at his "son" and wishing he could be worthy of him.
I don't know. As I said, it's complex.
For starters, I think the F-H relationship is more complex and better presented than the one between Hal and his father. That one is mostly dealt with in the scene when Henry confronts Hal and Hal, inexplicably in my opinion, folds:
And I will die a hundred thousand deaths
Ere break the smallest portion of this vow.
In some ways the foreshadowing play acting scene where Falstaff and then Hal play king is subtler and more interesting. Up to the place where he indulges in comic self aggrandizement, Falstaff (as Henry) voices some uncomfortable truths:
Shall the blessed son of heaven prove a micher [truant] and eat blackberries?...There is a thing, Harry, which thou has often heard of, and it is known to many in our land by the name of pitch. This pitch, as ancient writers do report, doth defile; so doth the company thou keepest.
The reference is to Ecclesiastes 13.1: "Who so toucheth pytch shall be defile withall.
Thus, before the comedy begins, Falstaff has basically stated exactly what Henry will and what Hal in his deepest self knows.
When his turn comes Hal (as king) is pretty cruel to Falstaff (as Prince). Indeed, throughout the play he tends to be meaner than necessary for the sake of whatever game is afoot. Why is this?
Falstaff says "Banish plump Jack and banish the world." This is followed by the knock on the door. (Goddard notes that similar portentous knocks occur in Julius Caesar and Macbeth. Hal says, (to whom?): "I do. I will."
Is this Hal acknowledging how he will behave when reformed? Or do all young men figuratively banish their fathers at some point whether they realize they will or not?
For me, the real complexity in the relationship is shown at Shrewsbury. After all the taunting and cruelty, when Falstaff shows up claiming to have slain Hotspur, Hal plays along. Perhaps he knows the fiction cannot hold up and is just showing some generosity. If so, it is a new trait compared to his abuse of the waiter, Francis, at the inn and of Falstaff in general.
I found myself moved by Falstaff's words that follow. "If I do grow great, I'll grow less, for I'll purge and leave sack and live cleanly as a nobleman should do." There is an echo here (ironic to be sure) of Henry's pledge to go to Jerusalem on pilgrimage.
Perhaps he actually means it. Perhaps, like many failed, disappointed old men he is looking at his "son" and wishing he could be worthy of him.
I don't know. As I said, it's complex.
Zeke wrote: "I found myself moved by Falstaff's words that follow. "If I do grow great, I'll grow less, for I'll purge and leave sack and live cleanly as a nobleman should do." There is an echo here (ironic to be sure) of Henry's pledge to go to Jerusalem on pilgrimage.Perhaps he actually means it. Perhaps, like many failed, disappointed old men he is looking at his "son" and wishing he could be worthy of him.
I don't know. As I said, it's complex. "
Very interesting. I had been looking more at the Hal-Hotspur-Henry relationship and less at the Hal-Falstaff, but you've raised some really nice issues to contemplate.
BTW, nobody has yet commented on the fact that about half of this play is in prose, not blank verse. Does this have any meaning or importance?
When I took this up, again going in blind, I didn't realize I was about to read a comedy.The play certainly has a feeling of being an incomplete story, dependent on surrounding context. I had the wacky notion to compare it to the experience of watching the movie M.A.S.H. That movie gives the strange impression that you're watching an episode in the TV series, except for the fact that it existed prior to the program, and thus was context-free. It was odd. Characters and situations arise, seemingly loaded with preexisting relationships, there's no setup, you're just in the midst of something... other...
Well, maybe that's a fair analogy, or maybe not. But Richard II had a sense of completion, whereas Henry IV, Part 1, seems certainly to be a Part 1... or rather, episode 2 of the Henriad. I can't imagine taking it as a standalone play.
Meanwhile, with reference to Hotspur's pithy comment about not telling his wife his plans so that the secret stays well kept, I thought it worth mentioning, for context, that in Richard II, Aumerle was not cautious enough to conceal his participation in a plot from his own parents, and thus through York's report the first conspiracy against Henry IV was foiled and the conspirators lost their lives. So... lesson learned, secrets cannot be entrusted to almost anyone.
Additional comments for the moment:-I for one thought Prince Henry's rationale for being a rogue and thief was quite laughable, naive, and foolish (perhaps thus necessitating a comic approach). I mean, really, I'll be a worse sinner now so that my later turn and redemption will more glorify me? Yeah, and I'm going to smoke a little more crack cocaine today because I know I'll be a good man when I quit tomorrow. I did have to wonder to what extent Shakespeare may have intended to skewer hypocritical attitudes of the time regarding sin and salvation.
-Anachronism: I assume Shakespeare occasionally does such things, and doesn't mind introducing elements more suited to his own late 16th Century England than to the period/setting of his plays. But anyway, Hotspur falsely justifies his refusal to send his hostages to Henry by complaining of the snuff-sniffing dandy who solicited him. This predated Tobacco in England/Europe, and probably served as a recognizable figure of contempt for Shakespeare's audience... or perhaps even a contrast between the manly men of 14th Century vs. the feminized ones of 16th.
-Shakespeare has no good guys! All of his characters are at least ambivalent, and most major players are severely flawed. There's no nobility without a smirch. Even more peripheral characters such as Douglas, paragon of heroism, courage, victory... he only ever tastes defeat in the context of this play, and turns tail when the going gets tough.
@ 35 Everyman wrote: "Again, a piece of historical background that adds a different dimension to the scene of the robbery, eh? "
Historically, young Henry would have been not the 25 or 26 that Shakespeare has him, but about 15. I would evaluate a 15-year-old who is under the influence of older, disreputable companions differently than I would a 26-year-old.
Historically, young Henry would have been not the 25 or 26 that Shakespeare has him, but about 15. I would evaluate a 15-year-old who is under the influence of older, disreputable companions differently than I would a 26-year-old.
@ 43 Everyman wrote: "And still accepting, he seems to admit, some guilt which he must expunge by taking a crusade to the Holy Land. Or does he? Is he sincere about this? Or only as sincere as he was when he claimed not to be after the crown? Just how honest, or not honest, is he?
I've decided to put him in the honest-about-this category. I take him to be sincere in his oaths. (Indeed, I rather think that Richard pushed him over the edge when Richard didn't recognize the importance of Bolingbroke's oath. [Scene w/Bolingbroke and Mobray.])
Henry in real life HAD made a journey to the Holy Land when he was younger. {I will put my source over in historical.} So I factor that into my evaluation.
And then, too, I factor in that scene from Richard II, the deposition scene. Act IV, Scene I, from about line 230 on.
Northumberland demands of Richard that he read his wrongs.
Richard has given two heart-rendering speeches. Must I do so? ..... If thy offences were upon record, / Would it not shame thee.... To read a lecture of them................................. And water cannot wash away your sin.
I think this resonates with Henry. He never pushes that Richard recite his wrongs.
Northumberland pushes.
Richard says he sees traitors.
Northumberland pushes.
Bolingbroke: "Urge it no more, my Lord Northumberland."
Northumberland pushes.
Richard asks for a mirror. Bolingbroke commands that one be brought.
Richard asks for a favor.
Bolingbroke... doing what he has to do... ie, depose Richard... yet makes the solicitous gesture. He feels his guilt.
Richard: I beg one boon....... Shall I obtain it?
Bolingbroke: Name it, fair cousin.
Bolingbroke: Yet ask.
Bolingbroke: You shall [have it].
Add to that the historical. That there had been a Sir John Oldcastle (a Lollard---unacceptable in the kingdom) and that Henry/Hal's father had shielded him, then it would seem that Henry perhaps grew up in a household atmosphere in which a man's religious beliefs were taken seriously.
Then, too, Henry IV alludes to his own guilt. He suggests that young Henry/Hal is living a tarnished life which brings no credit to Henry IV due to something he himself has done. {He deposed Richard.}
Act III, Scene II, At the palace. "I know not whether God will have it so
For some displeasing service I have done,
That, in her secret doom, out of my blood
{i.e., in making Henry his son dissolute]
He's bred revengement and a scourge for me"................................................................"make[s] me believe that thou art only mark'd
[nice throw-back to the blood of Abel crying out in Richard II]...
For the hot vengeance and the rod of heaven
To punish my mistreadings."
He carries guilt.
I DO think Bolingbroke feels his guilt. I DO think that had England been quiescent he would have made the journey of atonement to the Holy Land.
I've decided to put him in the honest-about-this category. I take him to be sincere in his oaths. (Indeed, I rather think that Richard pushed him over the edge when Richard didn't recognize the importance of Bolingbroke's oath. [Scene w/Bolingbroke and Mobray.])
Henry in real life HAD made a journey to the Holy Land when he was younger. {I will put my source over in historical.} So I factor that into my evaluation.
And then, too, I factor in that scene from Richard II, the deposition scene. Act IV, Scene I, from about line 230 on.
Northumberland demands of Richard that he read his wrongs.
Richard has given two heart-rendering speeches. Must I do so? ..... If thy offences were upon record, / Would it not shame thee.... To read a lecture of them................................. And water cannot wash away your sin.
I think this resonates with Henry. He never pushes that Richard recite his wrongs.
Northumberland pushes.
Richard says he sees traitors.
Northumberland pushes.
Bolingbroke: "Urge it no more, my Lord Northumberland."
Northumberland pushes.
Richard asks for a mirror. Bolingbroke commands that one be brought.
Richard asks for a favor.
Bolingbroke... doing what he has to do... ie, depose Richard... yet makes the solicitous gesture. He feels his guilt.
Richard: I beg one boon....... Shall I obtain it?
Bolingbroke: Name it, fair cousin.
Bolingbroke: Yet ask.
Bolingbroke: You shall [have it].
Add to that the historical. That there had been a Sir John Oldcastle (a Lollard---unacceptable in the kingdom) and that Henry/Hal's father had shielded him, then it would seem that Henry perhaps grew up in a household atmosphere in which a man's religious beliefs were taken seriously.
Then, too, Henry IV alludes to his own guilt. He suggests that young Henry/Hal is living a tarnished life which brings no credit to Henry IV due to something he himself has done. {He deposed Richard.}
Act III, Scene II, At the palace. "I know not whether God will have it so
For some displeasing service I have done,
That, in her secret doom, out of my blood
{i.e., in making Henry his son dissolute]
He's bred revengement and a scourge for me"................................................................"make[s] me believe that thou art only mark'd
[nice throw-back to the blood of Abel crying out in Richard II]...
For the hot vengeance and the rod of heaven
To punish my mistreadings."
He carries guilt.
I DO think Bolingbroke feels his guilt. I DO think that had England been quiescent he would have made the journey of atonement to the Holy Land.
Zeke wrote: "For starters, I think the F-H relationship is more complex and better presented than the one between Hal and his father. That one is mostly dealt with in the scene when Henry confronts Hal and Hal, inexplicably in my opinion, folds:
And I will die a hundred thousand deaths
Ere break the smallest portion of this vow.."
Yes. Complex. Or, in modern parlance, "It's complicated." But really….I don’t think the relationship between Falstaff and Hal would have been so complex had not the relationship between Henry the father and Henry the son been complex. No spoilers. Long. (view spoiler)
And I will die a hundred thousand deaths
Ere break the smallest portion of this vow.."
Yes. Complex. Or, in modern parlance, "It's complicated." But really….I don’t think the relationship between Falstaff and Hal would have been so complex had not the relationship between Henry the father and Henry the son been complex. No spoilers. Long. (view spoiler)
I think that at best this fictional character King Henry the Fouth's oaths are akin to the oath of an alcoholic swearing for the forty-seventh time to quit drinking, and he really means it this time--like he meant it all those other times--But don't hold me to it. That's at best, but at least in the context of the previous play Richard II, Henry was quite willing to swear an oath to Christ on the Cross that black is white and fire is cold as ice. Scruples are only for show, only for after-the-fact, and not necessary if the day can be won by force.Compare him to Mowbray. Bolingbroke swears to a six year exile and as far as we can see he immediately sets about raising a military force to support a rebellion. Mowbray, on the other hand, is the one who sets out for the holy land and loses his life fighting for his faith. And, as far as we know, Bolingbroke's exile may have come about due to a completely libelous accusation sworn in the highest terms.
If he feels guilt, it's because he's damned guilty. And now he continues his machinations by ensuring that those who supported him, if they represent a potential threat, get neutralized (I'm using this as a euphemism for killed).
Zadignose wrote: "Henry IV, Part 1, seems certainly to be a Part 1... or rather, episode 2 of the Henriad. I can't imagine taking it as a standalone play."
Although apparently it was very successful as a stand-alone play, even before Part II was written a year or two later.
Patrice wrote: "Good catch on the snuff! "Shakespeare does the same thing with the dandy accosting Hotspur after the battle and complaining about the saltpeter and gunpowder.
Although gunpowder was known at the time of Henry IV, it wasn't used in battle at that time, so the dandy had no reason to fear it. Armor was still very effective in protecting those wealthy enough to own a set. But by Shakespeare's time, guns had been invented and were enough of a danger that a dandy probably would avoid battle if he could because of the danger of getting shot.
A couple of additional thoughts about Falstaff as a comic character. Like a number of modern comic geniuses he seems to be masking depression. We don't know why he is depressed, but I think he clearly is.
Also like modern comics most of us are probably familiar with he is a genius of improvisation. I have heard it said that the key to improv is to agree with the last statement of your counterpart and then embellish on it. It seems to me that this is exactly what Falstaff does every time he is exposed--as after the robbery and after his claim of killing Hotspur.
Also like modern comics most of us are probably familiar with he is a genius of improvisation. I have heard it said that the key to improv is to agree with the last statement of your counterpart and then embellish on it. It seems to me that this is exactly what Falstaff does every time he is exposed--as after the robbery and after his claim of killing Hotspur.
Zadignose wrote: " I think that at best this fictional character King Henry the Fouth's oaths are akin to the oath of an alcoholic swearing for the forty-seventh time to quit drinking,..."
lol. So neither of us has managed to convince the other of our own particular point of view. :-)
lol. So neither of us has managed to convince the other of our own particular point of view. :-)
I found it deliciously ironic that Hotspur Act IV Scene III in his speech to Sir Walter Blunt is outraged at Henry IV for having deposed the king.
Yet...Hotspur, etc., nominally fighting for the "true" king, Mortimer, have no intention of allowing the "true" king, the "true" England. No, only a third.
Is that what they thought Henry owed them? Was their gift of support to Bolingbroke one of those "gifts" that are never paid off?
lol. The wrangling over the river. This even BEFORE they have wrested control from Henry. Even had the won, I think they would soon have fallen out.
Yet...Hotspur, etc., nominally fighting for the "true" king, Mortimer, have no intention of allowing the "true" king, the "true" England. No, only a third.
Is that what they thought Henry owed them? Was their gift of support to Bolingbroke one of those "gifts" that are never paid off?
lol. The wrangling over the river. This even BEFORE they have wrested control from Henry. Even had the won, I think they would soon have fallen out.
Prince Hal makes a major transition during the play. Does Shakespeare set up the change persuasively? Of is it too much, too soon?
Many people, including many scholars, have a love affair with Falstaff. I have never seen the appeal of him. Will I get enlightened over the next few weeks and learn to have a better appreciation of him?