Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Thread for close reading of passages in Part 1. Do we want to try to analyze Hal's speech about his purpose and goals to see whether we believe it?

Are you referring to the speech at the end of Act 1 Scene 2? I just read that part.

John wrote: "Are you referring to the speech at the end of Act 1 Scene 2? I just read that part."

Yes.

Patrice wrote: "Act l, Scene III, line l85

What are they talking about? Studying day and night to pay back debts>"

Which lines exactly? Neither 85 nor 185 in my copy seems to match what you're asking about.

Hal's speech in Act I scene two is a curious thing to me. Noting that it is the play's only verse soliloquy, the Arden editor notes that it sets the tone for any performance. But what tone does it set? Is Hal speaking to confide to the audience something no one else in the play can know at this point? Or is he speaking to himself, trying to work through something?What tone should the actor set: determination? Regret? Resignation? You can see that the way the speech is presented would determine the tone of the rest of the portrayal.

It could be that Hal is self aware at a young age and is acknowledging the duty that have to be respected later on. Or he could simply be rationalizing the immature behaviors that he fully intends to carry on.

He reminds me of a privileged frat boy who knows that no matter what his behavior in college, the deck is still stacked in his favor and he will get a cushy job on Wall Street or in politics.

And yet, he does seem to have some deeper awareness. For example:

If all the year were playing holidays,
To sport would be as tedious as to work;

This is a pretty direct repudiation of Falstaff's worldview.

A couple of notes about specifics in the speech for those who like close reading:

Earlier in the scene(lines 24-28) Falstaff calls for the group to be "minions of the moon, gentlemen of the shade." Here, Hal cites the royal image of the sun saying he will imitate it by brushing away the clouds.

Just before the speech starts (at line 181) in his conversation with Poins, he switches from using the familiar "you" to the more formal "thee" denoting his superiority. A small, "Freudian" slip? Perhaps. Or a telling change of key?

I am interested in the line "And pay the debt I never promised." Recall that his father seized the crown. He wanted it. (And as the plays proceed we will see the consequences for him.) But Hal seems aware that he is obligated for something he hasn't asked for. Is his behavior a rebellion of sorts?

Is Hal revealing that he is an actor? If so how is this different than Richard play acting as king? If everyone is an actor, where can we turn to find an authentic man? Ahhh. I see a fat man in the corner smiling!

The first words of the speech are very significant.(view spoiler)["I know you all." We may remember them in the dramatic scene at the end of Part II when Hal says to Falstaff "I know thee not, old man." (V.5.47) (hide spoiler)]

How about Hal's ambition? He claims he will "redeem time." At a literal level, he is probably just referring to making up for the time he has squandered in his youth. But there are also much deeper associations possible. In religious terms we redeem our time on earth and find salvation.

My reformation glitter o'er my fault,
Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes..."

I suppose this is always true. If someone does everything right from the start they are kind of boring. Jesus tells the parable of the prodigal son. But still I find it a little bit obnoxious to hear Hal say this. I feel as if he is manipulating his pals and cynically toying with us as well.

Patrice wrote: "What debts. Act I, Scene III, 183-ish

"

The debt that Henry owes to Northumberland, et. al.

Henry couldn't have gained the crown without the assistance of Northumberland. Henry owes the Northumberland clan quite a lot.

I think when Hotspur says that Henry "studies" this debt, he means that Henry thinks on it and ruminates on it... Northumberland was king-maker for Henry... might Northumberland might not decided that now it is more beneficial to himself to make Mortimer king??? Hotspur is after all married to Mortimer's sister.

And Hotspur, I think, thinks that Henry might be looking for a way to "put paid" to Northumberland by having Northumberland dead. Then Henry won't have to worry about him anymore.

Zeke wrote: "Earlier in the scene(lines 24-28) Falstaff calls for the group to be "minions of the moon, gentlemen of the shade." Here, Hal cites the royal image of the sun saying he will imitate it by brushing away the clouds.

Just before the speech starts (at line 181) in his conversation with Poins, he switches from using the familiar "you" to the more formal "thee" denoting his superiority. A small, "Freudian" slip? Perhaps. Or a telling change of key."

Nice points.

Zeke wrote: " ."

I may be crediting Hal too much... but remember that Henry had a reputation for courtliness, for being... until he took the crown {into which position Richard had forced him} an admirable man. And has that helped him as king? No, the people had expected better of him. Well...there will be no high expectations regarding Hal... So whatever he manages to do for the good will be hailed as an accomplishment... Hey, better than we expected.

Henry and Hal both speak to the common people. Henry tipped his hat to those in the street. Hal can speak with commoners, too.

Adelle wrote: "Zeke wrote: "Earlier in the scene(lines 24-28) Falstaff calls for the group to be "minions of the moon, gentlemen of the shade." Here, Hal cites the royal image of the sun saying he will imitate it..."

"Thee" is actually the familiar, less formal, intimate form. It's the equivalent of "du" in German or "tu" in Spanish or French. "You" is for social superiors.

Ah. Thank you.

Thanks Roger...I always get these confused....and I think there is some flexibility in it anyway.

Here is one resource that doesn't really make things any clearer.

http://www.shakespeareswords.com/thou...

Probably too much Quaker speak in my youth!

Zeke wrote: "Thanks Roger...I always get these confused....and I think there is some flexibility in it anyway.

Here is one resource that doesn't really make things any clearer.

http://www.shakespeareswords.co..."


Oh,my. Reminds me of all the various cases there were in German... and how glad I was that in English it was "the" in all cases.

Patrice wrote: "Odd.

Line 183

Revenge the jeering and the disdain'd contempt
Of this proud king, who studies day and night
To answer all the debt he owes to you
Even with the bloody payment of your debts
Therefo..."

Okay, my bad. I was using the Riverside in the library since my Arden is in the living room, and it has line numbers on the right, not the left, so I looked at the wrong column.

Okay. As I read it, Hotspur is addressing Northumberland and Worcester, who were important in helping Henry overthrow Richard. So the debt he owes them is their help in his gaining the crown (he is "in their debt," in the common phrase). Hotspur is suggesting that Henry, now that he is king, is plotting night and day how to kill off Northumberland and Worcester -- he must suspect either that they are planning treason, or he wants to get rid of them because they had once turned on a king (Richard) and worked to depose him, and he plans to cement his power by getting rid of those who, having seen it succeed once in overthrowing a king, might be tempted to do it again.

Anyhow, that's how I read the passage.

Edit: I should have read on before responding to your post -- Adelle has already done a better job than I did of explicating it.

I will beat Everyman to the punch by quoting Goddard on Falstaff.

Which is he? A colossus of sack, sensuality, and sweat--or a wit and humorist so great that he can only be compared to his creator, a figure, to use one of Shakespeare's own great phrases, livelier than life? One might think there were two Falstaffs...If it is the glory of the immortal Falstaff that he remained a child, it is the shame of the immoral Falstaff that he never became a man.

That last sentence seems to capture the dynamic tension of the Falstaff-Hal relationship perfectly.

Edit: I decided after posting it that this really belonged in the General thread, so I'm copying it over there. I'll leave it here since it is slightly relevant, but if you want to reply, please go over to the General Henry IV.1 thread and respond to it there.

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."

Patrice wrote: "
So F has been through a lot in his life. ..."

The thought that has pulled me is: Falstaff was "Sir John Falstaff."

Can "sir" be inherited? Or did Falstaff earn the "sir." And what happened in his life that he is no longer seemingly a "sir" character?

Patrice wrote: "But isn't he? I think he's still a knight, just not a very noble noble."

I think that's kinda what I meant. Not a person I would be inclined to call "sir. Not a person I respect.

Knighthoods are not hereditary. At some point in his life Falstaff must have earned his spurs.

Thanks Roger. So wouldn't you imagine there's a sad background story behind Falstaff? He laughs and drinks and plays the bon vivant-- with the bon limited by the size of his purse. His remarks on the battlefield. His suggested morbid obesity. Has this man been eating to stuff down his sorrows? Drinking to forget? What happened to this man?

I never cared for Falstaff. But knowing now that Falstaff must have earned his "sir" and to see him this way... he becomes a much more intruding character.

I kind of think Falstaff earned his knighthood the way he tried to earn the credit of killing Hotspur.

An interesting (to me) side note regarding Falstaff's satirical nobility. As early as the 1560s or 1570s, Shakespeare's father, John, a glove maker and minor town office holder, inquired about being granted a coat of arms for his family. Nothing came of it. Perhaps because, despite being married to a daughter of Robert Arden, a member of the gentry, the cost was too great for John Shakespeare to handle.

The application was renewed in 1596; probably by William Shakespeare. He was successful and three years later, 1599, an application was made to incorporate the Arden family's existing crest into the Shakespeare one; a process known as quartering.

Henry IV was most likely written between 1596 and 1598.

I am not suggesting that the character of Falstaff is in any sense a commentary on this process. In fact, Shakespeare seemed to value the designation. He probably initiated it and was known to sign his name with "gent," for gentleman.

As a footnote, in 1602, after John had died, the grant was contested with the Shakespeares being accused of being "base persons." It was upheld based on William's success and John's service in the army and as a town official.

I believe that in this scene Falstaff is role playing as Hal's father, the king. However, the notion of him as a kind of surrogate father resonates too. Henry has been off fighting and being King and clearly has not had much time for Hal.

Patrice wrote: " I have never seen an unrelated old man become the friend of a young man in this way. "

As Zeke points out, Henry hasn't been able to be much of a father. When you're brought up in an environment where you are supposed to be good (the "preacher's kid" syndrome) there is a great attraction in the bad boy, which Falstaff certainly is.

Falstaff's speech in Act V scene 1 about "honour" is one I like a lot. He is alone on stage so we can assume that there is none of his play acting in the sentiments. So is he a cynical self preserving cad? Or is he exposing the cynical, self interest of those who would benefit from convincing us that there is such a thing as honor?

'Tis not due yet; I would be loath to pay him before
his day. What need I be so forward with him that
calls not on me? Well, 'tis no matter; honour pricks
me on. Yea, but how if honour prick me off when I
come on? how then? Can honour set to a leg? no: or
an arm? no: or take away the grief of a wound? no.
Honour hath no skill in surgery, then? no. What is
honour? a word. What is in that word honour? what
is that honour? air. A trim reckoning! Who hath it?
he that died o' Wednesday. Doth he feel it? no.
Doth he hear it? no. 'Tis insensible, then. Yea,
to the dead. But will it not live with the living?
no. Why? detraction will not suffer it. Therefore
I'll none of it. Honour is a mere scutcheon: and so
ends my catechism.

Before we are too quick to look down on Falstaff we might consider the words of St Theresa (d. 1582) quoted by Goddard:

[The soul lifted up sees in the word 'honor'] nothing more than an immense lie of which the world remains a victim...with what friendship would we treat each other if our interest in honor and money could but disappear from the earth! For my part, I feel as if it would be the remedy for all our ills."

It may be of interest to note the placement of these remarks. It comes between Henry's offer of clemency to the rebels and Worcester's instinctive distrust of it.

I have to say that frequently as I watch the posturing of "great" men and women I find myself thinking about this speech.

Zeke wrote: "Falstaff's speech in Act V scene 1 about "honour" is one I like a lot. He is alone on stage so we can assume that there is none of his play acting in the sentiments. So is he a cynical self preserv..."

And yet honor is vitally important to many people even today. Not only is it a touchstone for those in the military, but even teenagers in gangs find their honor very important; to be "dissed" is a cause for battle, or even for killing the one who dissed you. Isn't this nothing, really, but honor?

Shakespeare, through Hotspur, has fun mocking the Welsh. He also makes a mild mockery of Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain:

Act III, Scene 1:

...sometimes he angers me With telling me of the moldwarp and the ant, Of the dreamer Merlin and his prophecies, And of a dragon and a finless fish, A clip-wing'd griffin and a moulten raven, A couching lion and a ramping cat, And such a deal of skimble-skamble stuff As puts me from my faith...

...I had rather live With cheese and garlic in a windmill, far, Than feed on cates and have him talk to me In any summer-house in Christendom.

Now, I don't have my copy of Geoffrey at the moment, but his prophesy of Merlin chapter was bit of madness, making references to various historical events and prophesied events, using symbols that were perhaps sometimes obvious to his contemporaries, and I imagine they were also often opaque... it also crudely resembled a sort of play on the apocalyptic imagery of the biblical book of Revelation.

Clearly Shakespeare intended to mock the abstruse nature of this kind of prophesy, at least from Hotspur's point-of-view, but one is tempted to wonder whether, on another level, there is really a coded reference to events surrounding Richard and the Henries here. Could one be a clip-wing'd griffin, or a ramping cat?

Meanwhile, best joke of the book for me:

GLEND.
I can call spirits from the vasty deep.

HOT.
Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them?

Zeke wrote: "...I find it a little bit obnoxious to hear Hal say this. I feel as if he is manipulating his pals and cynically toying with us as well."

Ah, I was attempting to comment on this (Prince Henry's rationalization for caddishness) elsewhere. Yeah, I think he's being rather foolish, in a familiar way, and that we should certainly suspect his logic, even if on another level we want to embrace this (cynical) device by which Shakespeare redeems the nobility of the future King Henry V. (Shakespeare is always undermining! Always casting doubt!)

Adelle wrote: "...remember that Henry had a reputation for courtliness, for being... until he took the crown {into which position Richard had forced him} an admirable man..."

But this notion that Henry was forced into his position is one that I can't credit or respect much. Henry was, from the start, ambitious, opportunistic, and without any sense of honor beyond the notion that might makes right and dishonest scheming is a kind of might. He is an usurper who was adept and manipulating his public image and his influence with the nobility (who were also self-serving).

The play starts with Henry talking about what he'd really like to do, go on crusade. But he's stuck manageing random crises in England. He sounds sincere to me.

Patrice wrote: "And in this play there is no mention of the divine right of kings. How could there be when the king was a usurper?
..."


I think that might be a yes and no.

yes. Richard was there because God wanted him there. Therefore Richard was the right king.

no. If looked at as an analogy to the dual... to God will favor he who is right... then God has taken his favor away from Richard... Henry won by right of contest... due to God. Therefore Henry was the right king.

And the nobles could choose to believe the argument that best favored their own interests.

at 42 Zadignose wrote: "
But this notion that Henry was forced into his position is one that I can't credit or respect much. Henry was, from the start, ambitious, opportunistic, and without any sense of honor beyond the notion that might makes right and dishonest scheming is a kind of might. He is an usurper who was adept and manipulating his public image and his influence with the nobility (who were also self-serving). ."

I can respect your opinion. One can absolutely read the play that way.

But I read it as point of honor with Henry... going back to the Richard II play.

No spoilers. (view spoiler)[

(1) Richard, I thought, showed such deep disrespect of Henry and Mowbray. Could Richard call off the dual? Of course. He is the king. But Richard DOESN'T merely call off the dual. No, he goes further. He tries to un-man Bolingbroke and Mowbray who have each thrown down their gages already and Bolingbroke has staked his very soul "or my divine soul answer for it in heaven.

But Richard said "Forget, forgive; conclude and be agreed." THAT can never happen after the words that have been exchanged. Richard could have legitimately called it off BEFORE the gages were thrown. Not afterwards.

Mowbray: "My life thou shalt command, but not my shame." If Mowbray "forgives," he lives with his shame forever. That is too much for Richard to ask.

Bolingbroke: long retort. It would shame him and his father and his name would be forever stained. "O, God defend my soul from such deep sin!"

They both have put their souls, their honor, their names on the line. Their souls are in jeopardy and should they agree to "forgive" each would be un-manned in his own eyes and in the eyes of his fellows.

Richard asks too much. Rich ard REPEATEDLY wants too much.... he wants that which is not his to claim.

Bolingbroke had initially but asked for the dual as an opportunity to clear his name.

Gaunt, after all, in all these years never tried to directly take the crown from Richard.

It is Richard who is moving to secure power for himself. Having Bolingbroke's uncle--a son of Edward III-- murdered.

Maneuvering Bolingbroke out of the country before Gaunt dies. Gaunt is too old to fight. Bolingbroke in exile has no army... Yet Bolingbroke's name has been besmirched... and then his very lands and titles have been taken.... Honor demands he recover what is his. ("For what is a man? What has he got? If not himself, then he have not." Without his titles and lands and very honor... Bolingbroke is not himself. He is not a man. And his son, too, loses his inheritance.)

And I think there's conflicting historical information as to when Bolingbroke decided that he would try for the crown.

Royal Panoply [I can't address how truly factual this information is] says "In February of 1399, Henry learned that his father John of Gaunt had died--and that King Richard had seized the immense inheritance that would otherwise have been Henry's, at the same time banishing him for life" (104-105).

According to Asimov, Gaunt died in February, Richard left for Ireland in May, and Bolingbroke made his move in July.

I will grant you though... Bolingbroke had been getting cozy with the king of France. Bolingbroke had been negotiating a marriage with a cousin of the French King. (This is the marriage that Richard stopped in Richard II.)

So yes... Bolingbroke was seemingly gathering backing where he could....

Still... maybe Bolingbroke has a good idea of who Richard is and what Richard may well do. Gloucester is dead. Bolingbroke has been conveniently exiled... without having been given the opportunity of clearing his name. Richard in over-reaching, I think, is responsible for pushing Bolingbroke into deadly serious opposition. For truly...if Bolingbroke goes to England for his land and title--- and I think he must --- then Bolingbroke by practical default must needs go after the crown. There is no other option. And for allies.... there is no one for him to turn to other than France and disaffected rebels.

lol... perhaps I simply like Henry IV because I like Henry V. And so I accord him every possible benefit of the doubt.

(He was good at cultivating a good image with the public though. Still... that was a tool not to be discounted. Life and death issues are at stake.) (hide spoiler)]

In the context of the Shakespeare play, there is intentional ambiguity, and enough material to support conflicting interpretations, but I'd say the play of Richard II is cynical enough to suggest, not that one is right while another is wrong, but that all are wrong. Everyone is dishonored, and oaths are ploys, and honor is just naked ambition.

Patrice wrote: "Supporting Falstaff's speech about honor then? So Falstaff is the truth teller?"

Yeah, perhaps, or at least he's one who is crude enough to put plainly what others think and act upon though they disguise their thoughts... but Falstaff is also perhaps not one to get taken in by his own deceptions. I.e., with no pretense to honor he need not be held to the expectations of honorable behavior.

Patrice on watching the news--and much else @38: And I want to scream, STOP! Falstaff chooses life, as the Bible says we should. But I know it's not that simple.

I love the phrase "chooses life." Sometimes I think of Falstaff as being pure appetite. In this way he is something of a child. Might we almost think of him as an "innocent?"

The follies of others (like honor as he sees it) are nothing more than opportunities to be seized upon.

Still, Falstaff's ambition is for Hal, when he becomes king, to make him an Earl or even [this may be a small spoiler from Part II) a Justice.

Anyway, pure appetite. Pure ego without restraint.

A final thought. Are his words about honor all that different from Tolstoy's in War and Peace where he writes that there would be no wars if only all of the sergeants would refuse orders to march?

Zeke wrote: "Sometimes I think of Falstaff as being pure appetite. In this way he is something of a child. Might we almost think of him as an "innocent?""..."

I'm glad you put that in quotation marks. Without them, he's about as far from innocent as it's possible to get. But with them, I do get what you mean -- if the Bible tells to be as little children, in a way he is very much childlike.

Adelle wrote: "at 42 Zadignose wrote: "
But this notion that Henry was forced into his position is one that I can't credit or respect much. Henry was, from the start, ambitious, opportunistic, and without any sen..."

That is certainly the historical interpretation I have always placed on it; Henry had two choices because King Richard left him that. All things being as they were Richard was too stupid to hold on to his crown.

My neighbor once forced me to steal his car by leaving his key in the ignition.

Zadignose wrote: "My neighbor once forced me to steal his car by leaving his key in the ignition."

But first he kicked you out of your house and took it over for his own use.

Roger wrote: "Zadignose wrote: "My neighbor once forced me to steal his car by leaving his key in the ignition."

But first he kicked you out of your house and took it over for his own use."

Not a bad analogy.

Adelle wrote: Not a bad analogy. a..."

You can A: Freeze in the Gutter or B: Become a thief. Choose.

Of course in this analogy your neighbour is basically all powerful and will hunt you down if you try to take any of your own property back and the choices actually are:

A: Keep well away from your house and lose everything you own with no appeal to the law

OR

B: Kill your neighbour and take all of his stuff as well as your own :-)

Roger wrote: "Zadignose wrote: "My neighbor once forced me to steal his car by leaving his key in the ignition."

But first he kicked you out of your house and took it over for his own use."

By way of analogy, I don't see it fitting, since Henry assembled forces to start a rebellion before Richard seized his family's estate. it's easy to see how Henry would like to justify his usurpation, but Shakespeare gives us every reason to be skeptical of this interpretation.

In all of our discussion of Henry's supposed honor and legitimacy, we haven't even touched on how, despite supposed remorse over the unfortunate circumstances blah blah... he orders richard murdered in his cell. I mean, yeah, he continues to wring his hands about it, but come on.

(1) My source...in some post I wrote I listed it...said that Henry did not gather an army or head to England until that July when he rcvd word that Richard had confiscated the lands and titles and had changed Henry's exile to life-long exile.

But if you have a source with different info, I would consider that. There may well be conflicting information.


(2) Richard. Yes. Dead. But not right away. Months passed and various forces tried to rebel against Henry in the name of Richard.

1400-ish England. The country in turmoil. Assassination (sp?) Plots against Henry and his sons. Revenues down due to unrest. What are the options???

Richard almost had to be dead. As did the princes in the tower.

with Henry....he takes the step he must to recover his lands and titles. .. he must have known this would ultimately require the deposition of Richard.

I could be wrong...but I think he imprisoned Richard...hoping hoping hoping that that would be enough... but it wasn't.

Sigh. I look at Richard. ...he did need to confront Ireland. ...he did desperately need Gaunt's money.

yes....hadhe lived less extravagantly prior to this he wouldn't have been in such straights....but Richard was Richard...

I find it meaningful that the title of the play is "The Tragedy of King Richard II."

It was a tragedy. ... for him....for Henry...for England.

Zadignose wrote: "Roger wrote: "Zadignose wrote: "My neighbor once forced me to steal his car by leaving his key in the ignition."

But first he kicked you out of your house and took it over for his own use."

By wa..."

Did he? I didn't pick that up but I wasn't following the exact timeline of events in the play too closely. In historical context I know that after Gaunt died it was expected that Henry would be allowed back into the country, instead Richard made his exile permanent and then jaunted off to Ireland. Stupidity like that is not a healthy thing in a king. Up until that point Henry had patiently waited out his long but temporary banishment, it was only after this rather unprecedented and shocking act by Richard that he was left with 2 choices. Permanent exile or fighting the king. He chose the later.

Might not much of that derive from Richard having always been the designated heir? And then king at 9?

What if Henry had deposed Richard...to get his lands returned, and had put this second child, Edward Mortimer, on the throne?

I rather think that Endland's nobles including those rascally Northumberlands pushed for Henry to take the crown himself. Endland might not have been able to survive a second child king.

Adelle wrote: "(1) My source...in some post I wrote I listed it...said that Henry did not gather an army or head to England until that July when he rcvd word that Richard had confiscated the lands and titles and had changed Henry's exile to life-long exile.

But if you have a source with different info, I would consider that. There may well be conflicting information...."

My one and only source is Shakespeare. It's the only relevant one to the question of whether Henry Bolingbrook, the fictional Shakespeare character, was honorable, justified, or rather an opportunist, traitor, usurper, and murderer who managed to turn Richard's faults and weaknesses to Henry's advantage.

Whether an actual person 700 years ago may have usurped the throne of England because he had no other option may be indeterminate, but it doesn't trump the play's version of events.

Yes and no, in my opinion. Others are of course right in reading however feels right to them.....

I probably wouldn't post this except that you wrote that history doesn't trump the play... but for me, it's important ... for me... it makes the play come alive.

And I feel that that is legitimate for me.

and your way is legitimate for you. Of course.

"Yes." One can absolutely, legitimately read the play as a stand alone. And many of my views come from the text and I've tried to support my views through the text.

And yes, I'm sure it could be read with a different point of view.

and ... I have been influenced by historical information. I admit it.

but also, I think," no."... No, the play cannot be read strictly based on the play..at least for me....because Shakespeare didn't create these characters and this plot line out of whole cloth.

He chose to character his plays with real people that everyone knew about... he wrote in the plot --by and large-- that he had read in the historical accounts that people knew and that he had studied.

This is only my opinion. .. but BECAUSE Shakespeare wove his work into real world events... and real people reputations are on the line... I need to take that into account.

That may be a personal quirk.

I have enjoyed reading your posts.

because even when I view some events differently I can see that you are engaged with the piece.

I hope I haven't offended you. I probably argue too much.

Adelle wrote: I probably argue too much. ..."

Please continue to do so, no one learns anything if we all just agree with each other.

I'm not offended at all, so don't worry about that. My perspective, however, if I haven't made it explicit enough already is:

-A work of historical fiction makes choices. These choices serve the purposes of the the author and his dramatic work. If the work is a good work, then these choices are worth understanding and examining within this context, and they are legitimate (or illegitimate) based on their dramatic function. If they run contrary to what one believes to be historical "truth", then of course they can't change the facts of the past, but they take on the role of "truth" within the context of the play.

-Much of history is a matter of indeterminate, fuzzy knowledge, isolated facts, legend, myth, and grafted-on interpretations which are often politicized. Epics, ballads, drama, and all forms of historical fiction can participate in this myth-making process.

-There is no reason to believe that Shakespeare's audiences were in any way more knowledgeable about the real Henry IV than the typical American is knowledgeable about the life story of Benjamin Franklin, or the typical Korean is knowledgeable about King Sejong. (As an interesting aside, Korea has basically two giants of history that all Koreans know of and admire: Sejong, and I Soon-Shin. But most Koreans only know one or two things about them, and these things they know are more the stuff of legend than historical fact.) Shakespeare's audience must have predominately consisted of two types: those who were ignorant of the history of Richard II and Henry IV, and those whose "knowledge" was really a highly prejudiced belief in whatever myth served in their days. A small third minority group, which would include Shakespeare himself, would be closer to historical experts on the subject, yet members of our discussion group today may have easier access to the facts than any of Shakespeare's contemporaries had.

-If we judge Henry Bolingbroke (in the context of the play) only by his own words and what he has to say of himself and his actions, then we can be sympathetic to his point of view and we can support a party line that claims legitimacy for his kingship. But behind this face-value approach to Henry, Shakespeare the cynic very knowingly sews enormous doubt and gives us all the material we need to condemn Henry as a self-serving hypocrite. For resolving this problem of interpretation, no outside source, including history, can provide an answer.

Nicola wrote: All things being as they were Richard was too stupid to hold on to his crown. "

Are you sure it was stupidity? He may just have been tired of all the constant stress and fighting. I agree he wasn't a great king, didn't handle some people problems very well, but a lot of quite smart people don't handle people problems well.

Perfect. No offense given, none taken.

I'll simply ask. What specifically from the play brings you to judge Henry as a "self-serving hypocrite."

What text, as you read, supports that view ?