Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Henriad
>
Henry IV Pt. 2 - close reading
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Everyman
(new)
Dec 16, 2014 05:37PM
I love the opening with Rumor. It's a very unusual way to open a play, and the personification of rumor is lovely. I also think there may be more in that speech than appears at first reading.
reply
|
flag
Since I'm online...
It was a lovely opening.
Immediately made me think of the scene in the Aeneid in which Rumour was spoken of as a character (almost character?...I can't recall ) .. with many tongues.
It was a lovely opening.
Immediately made me think of the scene in the Aeneid in which Rumour was spoken of as a character (almost character?...I can't recall ) .. with many tongues.
Haven't started it yet, I'm reading 12 books atm so I guess I had better add Henry IV part 2 for a lucky 13!
I didn't intend to participate in this play.
But it's like Godfather...."They keep pulling you back in."
But it's like Godfather...."They keep pulling you back in."
So I have to point out. Act I Scene II.
Remember how in Part 1 Henry was about 25 or 26?
Look here... Shakespeare has him back to about his true age of 15.
Falstaff is concentrating everything on this one (piglet)(Hal).
He speaks of Hal as a jewel--the juvenal, the prince your master, whose chin is not yet fledged. I will sooner have a beard grow in the palm of my hand than he shall get one on his cheek.
Isn't hair growing in one's palm a sign that one is lying? I will have to google that. There is something about hair growing on one's palm, I think.
Remember how in Part 1 Henry was about 25 or 26?
Look here... Shakespeare has him back to about his true age of 15.
Falstaff is concentrating everything on this one (piglet)(Hal).
He speaks of Hal as a jewel--the juvenal, the prince your master, whose chin is not yet fledged. I will sooner have a beard grow in the palm of my hand than he shall get one on his cheek.
Isn't hair growing in one's palm a sign that one is lying? I will have to google that. There is something about hair growing on one's palm, I think.
With many tongues. So PERFECT for Rumor.
Oh. Another thing. Both Richard and Henry Part one mentioned what I had thought were allusions to the Iliad. "Trojans" in Richard. "Priam" on HIV 1. But maybe it was the Aeneid all along. Wonder what Shakespeare had access to???
Oh. Another thing. Both Richard and Henry Part one mentioned what I had thought were allusions to the Iliad. "Trojans" in Richard. "Priam" on HIV 1. But maybe it was the Aeneid all along. Wonder what Shakespeare had access to???
Everyman wrote: "I also think there may be more in that speech than appears at first reading."
Yes...and I look forward to reading your thoughts.
Yes...and I look forward to reading your thoughts.
Along with Time in Winters Tale I believe Rumour is th only allegorical character in Shakespeare. However, in our next play we will meet Chorus. We might want to refer back to this speech when we do to note if there are differences.
I wonder why Shakespeare would begin the play by having the rebels believe they were victorious? Was this a significant historical incident? If not, it must be for some dramatic purpose.
He speaks of Northumberland (Hotspur's father) lying "crafty sick." We remember from Part I that he refrained from joining the battle. Now he will get the reward for his deception. Where Part I was filled with images and references to false identity and counterfeiting, Part II will be filled with images of disease, mortality and death. These two words link the imagery of the two plays.
Rumour claims to speak of "smooth comforts false, worse than true wrongs." A beautiful phrase. Worth keeping in mind as we go about our own lives I think.
Remember how Hal promised to "redeem time" in Part I? The editor of the Cambridge Edition, Giorgio Melchior, claims that "The redemption of time promised by the prince is the actual subject of the whole play." Will he succeed? Or will this prove to be another example of a "smooth comfort false" that we should have anticipated from the start?
I wonder why Shakespeare would begin the play by having the rebels believe they were victorious? Was this a significant historical incident? If not, it must be for some dramatic purpose.
He speaks of Northumberland (Hotspur's father) lying "crafty sick." We remember from Part I that he refrained from joining the battle. Now he will get the reward for his deception. Where Part I was filled with images and references to false identity and counterfeiting, Part II will be filled with images of disease, mortality and death. These two words link the imagery of the two plays.
Rumour claims to speak of "smooth comforts false, worse than true wrongs." A beautiful phrase. Worth keeping in mind as we go about our own lives I think.
Remember how Hal promised to "redeem time" in Part I? The editor of the Cambridge Edition, Giorgio Melchior, claims that "The redemption of time promised by the prince is the actual subject of the whole play." Will he succeed? Or will this prove to be another example of a "smooth comfort false" that we should have anticipated from the start?
Adelle wrote: "I didn't intend to participate in this play. But it's like Godfather...."They keep pulling you back in.""
And we're delighted they do.
But I hope you didn't mean to equate ME with the Godfather! [g]
I found this passage to be interesting:4.3.339-345
I cut them off, and had a purpose now
To lead out many to the Holy Land,
Lest rest and lying still might make them look
Too near unto my state. Therefore, my Harry,
Be it thy course to busy giddy minds
With foreign quarrels, that action hence borne out
May waste the memory of the former days.
The dying king is telling his son that he intended to war in the Holy Land to pull attention away from the issues people had in their own land. Those with idle hands will find ways to make trouble so give them a purpose in foreign campaigns. After some time they may forget the complaints they once had.
To me this paints Bolingbroke in a much worse light. His purpose for the crusade in Jerusalem was not to cleanse the blood of Richard from his hands, it was to prevent the fomentation of rebellion amongst the people. They would have a higher calling than to wage a civil war.
John wrote: "I found this passage to be interesting:...To me this paints Bolingbroke in a much worse light.
...."
He thinks like a politician, doesn't he?
Zeke wrote: "
I wonder why Shakespeare would begin the play by having the rebels believe they were victorious? Was this a significant historical incident? If not, it must be for some dramatic purpose...."
I would think there would be many rumors in the air... Might Shakespeare be suggesting that we listen to and put more stock in those we are inclined to believe.
the posts come tiring on,
And not a man of them brings other news
Than they have learn'd of me: from Rumour's tongues
They bring smooth comforts false, wor se than true wrongs. Introduction.
I think there may have been positive news rumors and bad news rumors.. but those reporting rumors to N are rushing to tell him only good news.
Or... in wanting to tell N good news... they rush to judgment... they don't wait for all the facts...
As is the case with Falstaff. He's looking at events as he as interpreted them to be forth-coming... Hal hasn't explicitly promised Falstaff wealth and position and power of appointment.
And now the smooth comforts false that Falstaff believes in will be more hurtful than had he seen with clear eyes a truth he didn't wish to see.
But Falstaff is SO GRASPING. We see more of the real Falstaff in this play... and I think so much the less of him.
Before Act I. So it must be of significance.
Northumberland would so want to believe that his son was alive.
Also, as you had pointed out the "disease" theme... I could not help but notice that throughout the play.
There is still much mention of "honor," but many, many mentions of disease.
I wonder why Shakespeare would begin the play by having the rebels believe they were victorious? Was this a significant historical incident? If not, it must be for some dramatic purpose...."
I would think there would be many rumors in the air... Might Shakespeare be suggesting that we listen to and put more stock in those we are inclined to believe.
the posts come tiring on,
And not a man of them brings other news
Than they have learn'd of me: from Rumour's tongues
They bring smooth comforts false, wor se than true wrongs. Introduction.
I think there may have been positive news rumors and bad news rumors.. but those reporting rumors to N are rushing to tell him only good news.
Or... in wanting to tell N good news... they rush to judgment... they don't wait for all the facts...
As is the case with Falstaff. He's looking at events as he as interpreted them to be forth-coming... Hal hasn't explicitly promised Falstaff wealth and position and power of appointment.
And now the smooth comforts false that Falstaff believes in will be more hurtful than had he seen with clear eyes a truth he didn't wish to see.
But Falstaff is SO GRASPING. We see more of the real Falstaff in this play... and I think so much the less of him.
Before Act I. So it must be of significance.
Northumberland would so want to believe that his son was alive.
Also, as you had pointed out the "disease" theme... I could not help but notice that throughout the play.
There is still much mention of "honor," but many, many mentions of disease.
Everyman wrote: "But I hope you didn't mean to equate ME..."
LOL. Shakespeare's play. "Oh... I will just read a little bit." And can't. Gots to read it to the end!
LOL. Shakespeare's play. "Oh... I will just read a little bit." And can't. Gots to read it to the end!
Those with idle hands will find ways to make trouble so give them a purpose in foreign campaigns. After some time they may forget the complaints they once had.
He thinks like a politician, doesn't he?"
Putin?
He thinks like a politician, doesn't he?"
Putin?
John wrote: "I found this passage to be interesting:
Regarding 4.3.339-34 5
To me this paints Bolingbroke in a much worse light. His purpose for the crusade in Jerusalem was not to cleanse the blood of Richard from his hands, it was to prevent the fomentation of rebellion amongst the people. They would have a higher calling than to wage a civil war.
Excellent quote.
Mmmm. Yes and no. From my perspective.
Yes... Although I still think there is some sincerity in Henry IV/Bolingbroke and his vow to journey to Jerusalem ...I no longer "believe." I don't "disbelieve," but I don't quite "believe" either.
When I read that passage you quoted I, too, took another, harder, look at Henry.
I have to consider that perhaps this past year of troubles in England has led Henry IV to have become less idealistic... perhaps he is no longer clinging to smooth comforts false... i.e., that once he became king the people and nobles would accept him and there would be peace... He's learned that he could not rule peacefully with Richard alive. He's learned that he cannot rule peacefully with Richard dead.
Even if God was on his side in making him king... he's learned that that is not enough.
He had hoped that he could lead the troublemakers out of England. And yes.....yes..... maybe a little for the sake of his conscience... and maybe a lot as a political move to get the troublemakers out of England.
And it hasn't worked. A sadder, wiser father advices his son:
Therefore, my Harry,
Be it thy course to busy giddy minds
With foreign quarrels, that action hence borne out
May waste the memory of the former days.
Henry IV...it seems... wanted a crusade in part for peace. And that might have been better, maybe? Deaths... but in a righteous cause???
Here on his deathbed, civil wars rage in England. Hal is to be the next king. HOW can Hal/Henry V bring peace to England like a good king should do???
Henry IV gives his advice: Start a foreign war. That will unite the people.
The nobles and people have NOT accepted Henry's branch peacefully. There are rebellions. There are financial problems. There is nothing I can see that will in and of itself smooth the roiled waters of England.
When Hal becomes king there will STILL be financial problems and the people and nobles WILL eventually begin to question the right of Hal to be king as they did Bolingbroke--- who the people had initially backed.
England weak and divided... How long until France takes advantage? Perhaps not invaded directly, but backing any who will cause disruptions in England... If France is not already doing so.
Maybe??? foreign wars to united the English IS the best advice Henry can give his son??? Both for Hal/Henry V AND for England.
???
Regarding 4.3.339-34 5
To me this paints Bolingbroke in a much worse light. His purpose for the crusade in Jerusalem was not to cleanse the blood of Richard from his hands, it was to prevent the fomentation of rebellion amongst the people. They would have a higher calling than to wage a civil war.
Excellent quote.
Mmmm. Yes and no. From my perspective.
Yes... Although I still think there is some sincerity in Henry IV/Bolingbroke and his vow to journey to Jerusalem ...I no longer "believe." I don't "disbelieve," but I don't quite "believe" either.
When I read that passage you quoted I, too, took another, harder, look at Henry.
I have to consider that perhaps this past year of troubles in England has led Henry IV to have become less idealistic... perhaps he is no longer clinging to smooth comforts false... i.e., that once he became king the people and nobles would accept him and there would be peace... He's learned that he could not rule peacefully with Richard alive. He's learned that he cannot rule peacefully with Richard dead.
Even if God was on his side in making him king... he's learned that that is not enough.
He had hoped that he could lead the troublemakers out of England. And yes.....yes..... maybe a little for the sake of his conscience... and maybe a lot as a political move to get the troublemakers out of England.
And it hasn't worked. A sadder, wiser father advices his son:
Therefore, my Harry,
Be it thy course to busy giddy minds
With foreign quarrels, that action hence borne out
May waste the memory of the former days.
Henry IV...it seems... wanted a crusade in part for peace. And that might have been better, maybe? Deaths... but in a righteous cause???
Here on his deathbed, civil wars rage in England. Hal is to be the next king. HOW can Hal/Henry V bring peace to England like a good king should do???
Henry IV gives his advice: Start a foreign war. That will unite the people.
The nobles and people have NOT accepted Henry's branch peacefully. There are rebellions. There are financial problems. There is nothing I can see that will in and of itself smooth the roiled waters of England.
When Hal becomes king there will STILL be financial problems and the people and nobles WILL eventually begin to question the right of Hal to be king as they did Bolingbroke--- who the people had initially backed.
England weak and divided... How long until France takes advantage? Perhaps not invaded directly, but backing any who will cause disruptions in England... If France is not already doing so.
Maybe??? foreign wars to united the English IS the best advice Henry can give his son??? Both for Hal/Henry V AND for England.
???
Adelle wrote: "Even if God was on his side in making him king... he's learned that that is not enough. "Musing: I do wonder a bit whether those kings who claimed divine sanction and unction really believed that. Did Richard believe it? And if so, why did he then give up so easily (wouldn't that constitute blasphemy?). Does Henry believe that God ordained him to take the crown from Richard?
Not that I think necessarily we can ever answer the question, but it did occur to me to wonder about.
Patrice wrote: "When Henry said that he would wash Richard's blood from his hands by leading a Crusade I thought it was ironic. I know this is the Middle Ages and Crusading was supposed to be a "good" but what could be more bloody?"Ah, yes, but it wasn't all blood he was washing, just Richard's. Killing Richard was, arguably, if you believe that kings are sanctioned by God, an act contrary to God's will. So you can only expiate it with some very powerful act in support of God's will, which in his day and age meant recapturing the birthplace of Jesus from the blasphemers, as they were seen at the time to be. Yes, a lot of blood would be shed in the process, but if they were successful it would have been an act of penance to atone for the killing of an anointed king and washing this tainted blood off Henry's hands at last.
Yes, it's a bit ironic that it would take the shedding of a lot of blood, much of it probably innocent, but that's how they saw the world.
Speaking of POV in these plays, I mentioned in another thread that I am reading John Dover Wilson's The Fortunes of Falstaff. One of the major themes of the book is that critics superimpose their own perspectives and needs onto Shakespeare and create interpretations that would be unrecognizable to him or to his audiences. (I happen to think this is fine and can be fascinating as long as they don't take it to absurd levels.)
In any case, he makes a specific point I think we have touched on around the edges without addressing thoroughly. He argues that the plays in the Henriad are a continuation of the tradition of morality play prominent in the Middle Ages. He sees Richard II as a "miracle play" with Richard "celebrated [as] the traditional royal martyr." Similarly, Henry IV features Hal as the "traditional royal prodigal."
He made the myth his own, much as musicians adopt and absorb a folk tune as the theme for a symphony. He glorified it, elaborated it, translated it into what were for the Elizabethans modern terms, and exalted it into a heaven of delirious fun and frolic; yet never, for a moment, did he twist it from its original purpose, which was serious, moral, didactic."
Of course, as he goes on to argue in the rest of the short book, this has implications for the interpretation of Falstaff's character. He is variously Vice and Riot and, in Part 2 has a turn as Plautus' miles gloriosus or comic, swaggering soldier.
Wilson contends that "Shakespeare plays no tricks with his public." If the audience saw the play this way it definitely would influence their reaction to the relationship between Hal and Falstaff and their expectations of its resolution.
For our purposes it is fun and valuable to view the characters through more modern lens. Personally, I find the scene of Hal's rejection of Falstaff very moving because I have been influenced by the human relationship they have developed and the pressures that lead Hal to act as he does. However, it is useful to understand that had I been standing in the Globe around the year 1600 I would have seen it differently.
In any case, he makes a specific point I think we have touched on around the edges without addressing thoroughly. He argues that the plays in the Henriad are a continuation of the tradition of morality play prominent in the Middle Ages. He sees Richard II as a "miracle play" with Richard "celebrated [as] the traditional royal martyr." Similarly, Henry IV features Hal as the "traditional royal prodigal."
He made the myth his own, much as musicians adopt and absorb a folk tune as the theme for a symphony. He glorified it, elaborated it, translated it into what were for the Elizabethans modern terms, and exalted it into a heaven of delirious fun and frolic; yet never, for a moment, did he twist it from its original purpose, which was serious, moral, didactic."
Of course, as he goes on to argue in the rest of the short book, this has implications for the interpretation of Falstaff's character. He is variously Vice and Riot and, in Part 2 has a turn as Plautus' miles gloriosus or comic, swaggering soldier.
Wilson contends that "Shakespeare plays no tricks with his public." If the audience saw the play this way it definitely would influence their reaction to the relationship between Hal and Falstaff and their expectations of its resolution.
For our purposes it is fun and valuable to view the characters through more modern lens. Personally, I find the scene of Hal's rejection of Falstaff very moving because I have been influenced by the human relationship they have developed and the pressures that lead Hal to act as he does. However, it is useful to understand that had I been standing in the Globe around the year 1600 I would have seen it differently.
Zeke wrote: "Personally, I find the scene of Hal's rejection of Falstaff very moving because I have been influenced by the human relationship they have developed and the pressures that lead Hal to act as he does...."
Is it Falstaff you feel for (for being cut-off so thoroughly, unexpectedly, publicly)?
Is it Henry you feel sorry for(because he always knew on some level that he was being used by Falstaff --- and was being used on a major level when Falstaff makes personal contact with him during the public ceremony... and yet... Falstaff had brought some laughter into Hal's life, had included Hal in a group which embraced him as "one of them" and with non-critical acceptance)?
Or did you feel for both of them?
IF you want to answer that.
Is it Falstaff you feel for (for being cut-off so thoroughly, unexpectedly, publicly)?
Is it Henry you feel sorry for(because he always knew on some level that he was being used by Falstaff --- and was being used on a major level when Falstaff makes personal contact with him during the public ceremony... and yet... Falstaff had brought some laughter into Hal's life, had included Hal in a group which embraced him as "one of them" and with non-critical acceptance)?
Or did you feel for both of them?
IF you want to answer that.
@ 21 Everyman wrote: "Musing: I do wonder a bit whether those kings who claimed divine sanction and unction really believed that. Did Richard believe it?
I do think Richard believed it. It was culture he was immersed in. It was the catechism he had been taught... It was what he grown up with. Moreover... as he himself was the prime beneficiary... the divine right of kings would have held additional appeal.
This sub-conscious personal reason would have resonated strongly, reinforcing the belief. I think he believed whole-heartedly.
Everyman wrote: "And if so, why did he then give up so easily (wouldn't that constitute blasphemy?)".
Ah, Everyman. My pov may not have been the truth... but I thought what I had put forward was a very plausible explanation explaining WHY Richard gave up so easily. Ah, well. Worked for me.
Everyman wrote: "Does Henry believe that God ordained him to take the crown from Richard?
I think he's plagued by doubts about that for the rest of his life. I think he thought/believed/KNEW that he had to return to England to challenge his extended exile and to reclaim his lands for himself and his sons... He HAD to reclaim his rightful inheritance...accepting Richard's altered term of exile and Richard's illegitimate ... usurping... of Henry's rightful inheritance without a whimper... laying there as a dog kicked to the curb... would have been unthinkable.
I think that he believed that his success on the battlefield, the relative ease with which he deposed Richard, showed that God WAS backing him. That God WAS showing that he, Henry, held the real right to the throne. (And before bloodlines became the be-all-end-all, the crown would have gone to the noble best able wield power. And that would in likelihood have been Thomas of Gloucester or John of Gaunt... and after they were dead... that would have been Bolingbroke. He had an impeccable bloodline and determination and credentials as a proven-leader.)
I think Henry was OK with his conscience until after Richard was murdered.
As a religious, God-fearing man... (and the background reading says that was the very character of Bolingbroke)... he always, I think, had doubts... after leaving Richard imprisoned, but alive, was no longer an option. THAT ... I think... is really what hounded him (and, to his mind... would have been the cause of the rebellions against him... Northumberland and others were WITH him... at first)...(and the cankers, I think he would have thought, were a sign of God's displeasure.)
Everyman wrote: Not that I think necessarily we can ever answer the question, but it did occur to me to wonder about. ..."
LOL, me, too... that's why I wrote that long explanation/screed on why Richard just collapsed. :-)
I do think Richard believed it. It was culture he was immersed in. It was the catechism he had been taught... It was what he grown up with. Moreover... as he himself was the prime beneficiary... the divine right of kings would have held additional appeal.
This sub-conscious personal reason would have resonated strongly, reinforcing the belief. I think he believed whole-heartedly.
Everyman wrote: "And if so, why did he then give up so easily (wouldn't that constitute blasphemy?)".
Ah, Everyman. My pov may not have been the truth... but I thought what I had put forward was a very plausible explanation explaining WHY Richard gave up so easily. Ah, well. Worked for me.
Everyman wrote: "Does Henry believe that God ordained him to take the crown from Richard?
I think he's plagued by doubts about that for the rest of his life. I think he thought/believed/KNEW that he had to return to England to challenge his extended exile and to reclaim his lands for himself and his sons... He HAD to reclaim his rightful inheritance...accepting Richard's altered term of exile and Richard's illegitimate ... usurping... of Henry's rightful inheritance without a whimper... laying there as a dog kicked to the curb... would have been unthinkable.
I think that he believed that his success on the battlefield, the relative ease with which he deposed Richard, showed that God WAS backing him. That God WAS showing that he, Henry, held the real right to the throne. (And before bloodlines became the be-all-end-all, the crown would have gone to the noble best able wield power. And that would in likelihood have been Thomas of Gloucester or John of Gaunt... and after they were dead... that would have been Bolingbroke. He had an impeccable bloodline and determination and credentials as a proven-leader.)
I think Henry was OK with his conscience until after Richard was murdered.
As a religious, God-fearing man... (and the background reading says that was the very character of Bolingbroke)... he always, I think, had doubts... after leaving Richard imprisoned, but alive, was no longer an option. THAT ... I think... is really what hounded him (and, to his mind... would have been the cause of the rebellions against him... Northumberland and others were WITH him... at first)...(and the cankers, I think he would have thought, were a sign of God's displeasure.)
Everyman wrote: Not that I think necessarily we can ever answer the question, but it did occur to me to wonder about. ..."
LOL, me, too... that's why I wrote that long explanation/screed on why Richard just collapsed. :-)
I tell you what. I think the reason I enjoyed Richard II is because I could construct a plausible explanation of the characters' motivations.
Henry IV, Part 1 held up, to a degree, for the same reason... even though I knew that Shakespeare had used his artistic license to change some historical facts --- he made Henry older than he was, and he made Hotspur much, much, much younger than Hotspur really was so that for dramatic effect H&H could go mano a mano. (spelling). OK. I can live with that.
And in Henry IV, 1 he rewrites Northumberland, et al. Whereas N had been a strong supporter of Bolingbroke in Richard II, here in Henry IV, 1 ... Shakespeare suddenly changes the story line... N: I didn't know nuttin about nuttin... and despite my years and years of cunning experience in political leverage and how the world works... why... I thought B was only going to be Lancaster and I thought Richard would of course accept that and everyone would live happily ever after and rainbows would fill the sky.
Mmmm... Too far. But I leave it there anyway.
But by Henry IV, Part 2... Shakespeare goes and changes motivations and ages and characterizations AGAIN.
And I find I care not a whit for HIV2 because there is nothing there except for Shakespeare cashing in on Falstaff (and making him more despicable... if that is possible... although maybe he played well to late 16th- century English audiences). Maybe S needed to pay for that house he was having built/repaired. Maybe he wanted a bit more hype. Whatever.
Shakespeare may have characterized Richard as eloquently giving his cares to Henry in Richard II... but by HIV2 I no longer care about any of the characters.
Henry IV, Part 1 held up, to a degree, for the same reason... even though I knew that Shakespeare had used his artistic license to change some historical facts --- he made Henry older than he was, and he made Hotspur much, much, much younger than Hotspur really was so that for dramatic effect H&H could go mano a mano. (spelling). OK. I can live with that.
And in Henry IV, 1 he rewrites Northumberland, et al. Whereas N had been a strong supporter of Bolingbroke in Richard II, here in Henry IV, 1 ... Shakespeare suddenly changes the story line... N: I didn't know nuttin about nuttin... and despite my years and years of cunning experience in political leverage and how the world works... why... I thought B was only going to be Lancaster and I thought Richard would of course accept that and everyone would live happily ever after and rainbows would fill the sky.
Mmmm... Too far. But I leave it there anyway.
But by Henry IV, Part 2... Shakespeare goes and changes motivations and ages and characterizations AGAIN.
And I find I care not a whit for HIV2 because there is nothing there except for Shakespeare cashing in on Falstaff (and making him more despicable... if that is possible... although maybe he played well to late 16th- century English audiences). Maybe S needed to pay for that house he was having built/repaired. Maybe he wanted a bit more hype. Whatever.
Shakespeare may have characterized Richard as eloquently giving his cares to Henry in Richard II... but by HIV2 I no longer care about any of the characters.
:-)Thank you, Patrice. I did want to make that last sentence nice... or at least noticeable.
"Well said," though, is somewhat ironic. I'm one of those people who is much more comfortable saying something in print than verbally.
"Well said," though, is somewhat ironic. I'm one of those people who is much more comfortable saying something in print than verbally.
Adelle wrote: "And I find I care not a whit for HIV2 because there is nothing there except for Shakespeare cashing in on Falstaff (and making him more despicable... if that is possible... although maybe he played well to late 16th- century English audiences)."I also don't find it as compelling as R2 or 1H6, but I think it has a bit more than that in the interactions between Hal and his father.
I couldn't.
I might have if I had still been able to think of them as real---I don't mean " historically real," I mean "character real."
For me...it was nothing but Shakespeare appropriating the names of real people--famous people---for his characters and then manipulating them for his own ends. I couldn't believe in either one by the end. And I resented it.
The one thing I liked was that line. "Heavy is the head that wears the crown." I'll look that up later and make it right.
I might have if I had still been able to think of them as real---I don't mean " historically real," I mean "character real."
For me...it was nothing but Shakespeare appropriating the names of real people--famous people---for his characters and then manipulating them for his own ends. I couldn't believe in either one by the end. And I resented it.
The one thing I liked was that line. "Heavy is the head that wears the crown." I'll look that up later and make it right.
It is actually "uneasy." "Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown." (III.1.31)
I point that out not to say "gotcha." Both words work in different ways when describing Shakespeare's monarchs. In fact, when I looked up the word "heavy" in Henry IV 2 I was surprised to discover it is used eight times in various contexts. On reflection, heaviness could be considered a motif in this play: Falstaff, of course, but also the tired old rebels, the waning King, the outdated chivalry of Hotspur, etc.
I point that out not to say "gotcha." Both words work in different ways when describing Shakespeare's monarchs. In fact, when I looked up the word "heavy" in Henry IV 2 I was surprised to discover it is used eight times in various contexts. On reflection, heaviness could be considered a motif in this play: Falstaff, of course, but also the tired old rebels, the waning King, the outdated chivalry of Hotspur, etc.
Shakespeare has a habit of sneaking the moral or theme of plays into short, unobtrusive epigrammatic statements by minor characters that could easily pass unnoticed in the theater or even in casual reading. I think there are (at least two) in this play that I would like to point out.
At II.4.213 Poins says: "Is it not strange that desire should so many years outlive performance?" Marjorie Garber comments about this line that, with the exception of Hal, this applies to every character, every value, every energy, as well as every desire.
Falstaff himself, at V.1.59, incongruously says, "It is certain that either wise bearing or ignorant carriage is caught, as men take diseases, of one another. Therefore let men take heed of their company." A lesson Hal has learned well--and at Falstaff's expense!
At II.4.213 Poins says: "Is it not strange that desire should so many years outlive performance?" Marjorie Garber comments about this line that, with the exception of Hal, this applies to every character, every value, every energy, as well as every desire.
Falstaff himself, at V.1.59, incongruously says, "It is certain that either wise bearing or ignorant carriage is caught, as men take diseases, of one another. Therefore let men take heed of their company." A lesson Hal has learned well--and at Falstaff's expense!
Zeke wrote: "On reflection, heaviness could be considered a motif in this play: Falstaff, of course, but also the tired old rebels, the waning King, the outdated chivalry of Hotspur, etc. "I agree. Weakness, heaviness, all kinds of things signaling mortality appear in the play constantly, I think, and that’s what made it even better than part 1 for me.
Zeke, I appreciate your having looked that quote up ... or having it memorized.
If I might ask, how do you search to find out how many times a word is used? You say you found 8 heavies.
If I might ask, how do you search to find out how many times a word is used? You say you found 8 heavies.
@25 Adelle asked me to elaborate on my feelings about the renunciation scene and why I find it moving. Her question, and the comments of others regarding their dislike of Falstaff, challenged me to think more about this. Reading Dover Wilson's book, The Fortunes of Falstaff, recommended by Everyman, helped me think about the structure of the two plays and how it slowly builds to this as an inevitable climax.
All of these together lead me to view the scene with less sentimentality. Whether I view the play as a morality play, a contest between Vanity and Order, or as the story of Hal's development into the ideal ruler for England (demanded by the Tudor myth), it is hard to feel as sorry for Falstaff as I used to.
Further, as Dover Wilson points out, while shocking, the renunciation is not as harsh as it may at first appear. Fleet Prison, to which Falstaff is remanded, was a kind of cushy holding cell for nobles and others until their--often minor--transgressions could be sorted out by the Star Chamber. It was not like being sent to the Tower. Shakespeare's audience would have known this of course.
While I am totally respectful of the opinions of those who do not "like" Falstaff, I think it is misguided to dismiss his importance to the plays as a whole. Without him as a foil, Hal cannot develop into a king. It reminded me of Les Miserables another morality tale: we may not like Javert, but without him how could Jean Valjean develop as he does. In that morality tale, unlike Henry IV, political Order is overcome by Christian Virtue. In our play order must be maintained; this is crucial to the Elizabethan understanding of the world. The Chief Justice is acknowledged by Hal as his source of authority: "My voice shall sound as you do prompt mine ear." Falstaff is now just someone, "...I have long dreamt of..."
(An interesting side note: this is the first time Hal, now Henry V, speaks to Falstaff in verse.)
As I reflected on this, I think I made two mistakes in my previous reading of the play that influenced my sentiments about the scene.
1. I underestimated the significance of the scene where Falstaff claims to have killed Hotspur. When Hal played along I mistook it for one of his jibes and assumed the truth would soon be revealed. However, this is not what happens. It actually represents a case of Hal demonstrating a new generosity of spirit he has not showed before in his torments of Falstaff. He says, "For my part, if a lie may do thee grace/I'll gild it with the happiest terms I have." This sets Falstaff on a course to become a petty-nobleman. Although he seems to take it seriously ("If I do grow great I'll grow less, for I'll purge and leave sack, and live as a nobleman should.") he cannot pass future opportunities to capitalize on his new found status. Incidents like his confrontation with the Chief Justice and the way he takes advantage of Shallow are increasingly distasteful. This is key to understanding the difference between the Falstaff the rogue of Part I and the less endearing grifter of Part II.
2. Because of 1. Falstaff really believes that his "sweet boy" is going to reward him. The death of Henry IV is what he has been waiting for. However, he is the only one who is so deluded. Even an acknowledgement from the new King is an impossibility. I fear I believed there might be a shred of nostalgia for the good times at the Boars Head. I even read the lines, "Leave gormandizing, know the grave doth gape/For thee thrice wider than for other men" as an invitation towards the old banter. I imagine Falstaff brightening at this moment. But then, like him, I was crushed at what follows: "Presume not I am the thing I was..."
Now I better understand that this scene is not merely another episode. The whole play --indeed, both plays-- has led to this moment. It is the inevitable resolution. The sentimentalist may not like this; I don't particularly like it either. Auden wrote: "At the end Falstaff may be physically destroyed, but Hal is morally destroyed--he has no self left." This may be true, but it is irrelevant. Recall how Richard lost his kingship but found himself as a man. Over the course of two plays, like a caterpillar Hal has shed his old self and become something new--a King. The King has no self. He is the State.
A.D. Nutall sums it up: "We hate Henry as we watch, but then we have to think, if we are English, 'He is doing this for us.'"
Whether or not we "like" Falstaff is irrelevant. He is a magnificent character whose downfall is essential to Hal's rise. It could be no other way. The play tells us a lot about the way the world works: there is no place in it for Falstaff.
All of these together lead me to view the scene with less sentimentality. Whether I view the play as a morality play, a contest between Vanity and Order, or as the story of Hal's development into the ideal ruler for England (demanded by the Tudor myth), it is hard to feel as sorry for Falstaff as I used to.
Further, as Dover Wilson points out, while shocking, the renunciation is not as harsh as it may at first appear. Fleet Prison, to which Falstaff is remanded, was a kind of cushy holding cell for nobles and others until their--often minor--transgressions could be sorted out by the Star Chamber. It was not like being sent to the Tower. Shakespeare's audience would have known this of course.
While I am totally respectful of the opinions of those who do not "like" Falstaff, I think it is misguided to dismiss his importance to the plays as a whole. Without him as a foil, Hal cannot develop into a king. It reminded me of Les Miserables another morality tale: we may not like Javert, but without him how could Jean Valjean develop as he does. In that morality tale, unlike Henry IV, political Order is overcome by Christian Virtue. In our play order must be maintained; this is crucial to the Elizabethan understanding of the world. The Chief Justice is acknowledged by Hal as his source of authority: "My voice shall sound as you do prompt mine ear." Falstaff is now just someone, "...I have long dreamt of..."
(An interesting side note: this is the first time Hal, now Henry V, speaks to Falstaff in verse.)
As I reflected on this, I think I made two mistakes in my previous reading of the play that influenced my sentiments about the scene.
1. I underestimated the significance of the scene where Falstaff claims to have killed Hotspur. When Hal played along I mistook it for one of his jibes and assumed the truth would soon be revealed. However, this is not what happens. It actually represents a case of Hal demonstrating a new generosity of spirit he has not showed before in his torments of Falstaff. He says, "For my part, if a lie may do thee grace/I'll gild it with the happiest terms I have." This sets Falstaff on a course to become a petty-nobleman. Although he seems to take it seriously ("If I do grow great I'll grow less, for I'll purge and leave sack, and live as a nobleman should.") he cannot pass future opportunities to capitalize on his new found status. Incidents like his confrontation with the Chief Justice and the way he takes advantage of Shallow are increasingly distasteful. This is key to understanding the difference between the Falstaff the rogue of Part I and the less endearing grifter of Part II.
2. Because of 1. Falstaff really believes that his "sweet boy" is going to reward him. The death of Henry IV is what he has been waiting for. However, he is the only one who is so deluded. Even an acknowledgement from the new King is an impossibility. I fear I believed there might be a shred of nostalgia for the good times at the Boars Head. I even read the lines, "Leave gormandizing, know the grave doth gape/For thee thrice wider than for other men" as an invitation towards the old banter. I imagine Falstaff brightening at this moment. But then, like him, I was crushed at what follows: "Presume not I am the thing I was..."
Now I better understand that this scene is not merely another episode. The whole play --indeed, both plays-- has led to this moment. It is the inevitable resolution. The sentimentalist may not like this; I don't particularly like it either. Auden wrote: "At the end Falstaff may be physically destroyed, but Hal is morally destroyed--he has no self left." This may be true, but it is irrelevant. Recall how Richard lost his kingship but found himself as a man. Over the course of two plays, like a caterpillar Hal has shed his old self and become something new--a King. The King has no self. He is the State.
A.D. Nutall sums it up: "We hate Henry as we watch, but then we have to think, if we are English, 'He is doing this for us.'"
Whether or not we "like" Falstaff is irrelevant. He is a magnificent character whose downfall is essential to Hal's rise. It could be no other way. The play tells us a lot about the way the world works: there is no place in it for Falstaff.
Zeke wrote: "Now I better understand that this scene is not merely another episode. The whole play --indeed, both plays-- has led to this moment....Recall how Richard lost his kingship but found himself as a man. Over the course of two plays, like a caterpillar Hal has shed his old self and become something new--a King. The King has no self. He is the State."Fascinating insight. It does make 2H4 a lot more interesting as a play than I had been contemplating. The whole thing leading up to Hal casting off with the old (Falstaff) and on with the new (crown).
Zeke wrote: "@25 Adelle asked me to elaborate on my feelings about the renunciation scene and why I find it moving. Her question, an d the comments of others regarding their dislike of Falstaff, challenged me to..."
Thanks for doing that, Zeke. That was a very thoughtful answer. ( Smile. Zadignose kept pushing me to do re-reading in Richard II and HIV,1; now you've pushed me to re-read the end of HIV,2.)
You do build a strong interpretation. You know the change in characters had put me off and made the plays strike me as dis-jointed.
After reading your post, and specifically your call to read the three as leading to the final scene... I can indeed see it that way.
I absolutely LOVED your "Recall how Richard lost his kingship but found himself as a man. Over the course of two plays, like a caterpillar Hal has shed his old self and become something new--a King".
And after I could see THAT aspect... I could see how Shakespeare had woven the theme of "crown=care(s)." Once pointed out, the thread is there in all three plays, yes? (OR... so it seems to me.)
From the beautifully worked passage in RII:
B: Part of your cares you give me with your crown.
K. Rich:...My care is loss of care, by old care done;
Your care is gain of care, by new care won;
The cares I give I have, though given away;
They tend the crown...
To the opening of HIV,1:
Henry... who now wears the crown: So shaken we are, so wan with care
To HIV,2
Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown. [Due to kingly cares.]
Act V, moving towards denouement, suddenly "care" is prevalent:
CH JUST: How doth the king?
WAR: Exceedingly well; his cares are now all ended. He wears the crown no longer.
Henry V now wears the crown. "Presume not I am the thing I was..."
Hal had been "care-free."
KING Henry V: I'll bear your cares
Off Subject. But, I think it has bearing. Two hints of what the future holds, I noticed in re-reading:
Act IV, S1, Line 140+
Westminster is bringing an offer to Mowbray. Westminster comes to Mowbray from our princely general [Hal]
To know your griefs; to tell you from his grace
That he will give you audience; and wherein
It shall appear that your demands are just,
You shall enjoy them, every thing set off
That might so much as think you enemies.
Mowbray responds: But he hath forced us to compel this offer;
And it proceeds from policy, not love.
Isn't that a foreshadowing of how Henry will rule? That he will rule by policy, by reason, by what is best for the kingdom; he will not rule from love... He will not favors to favorites simply on "love."
Or am I misreading that?
Act V:
Falstaff has just said to Shallow: "You must excuse me..."
Ominous foreshadowing of Falstaff vis-à-vis his future standing with the king:
Shallow speaks; But it is Hal/now King Henry V whom I hear:
I will not excuse you; you shall not be excused; excuses shall not be admitted; there is no excuse shall serve; you shall not be excused. [4-8]
Sir John, you shall not be excused. [12-13]
Sir John, you shall not be excused. [21-22]
Thanks for doing that, Zeke. That was a very thoughtful answer. ( Smile. Zadignose kept pushing me to do re-reading in Richard II and HIV,1; now you've pushed me to re-read the end of HIV,2.)
You do build a strong interpretation. You know the change in characters had put me off and made the plays strike me as dis-jointed.
After reading your post, and specifically your call to read the three as leading to the final scene... I can indeed see it that way.
I absolutely LOVED your "Recall how Richard lost his kingship but found himself as a man. Over the course of two plays, like a caterpillar Hal has shed his old self and become something new--a King".
And after I could see THAT aspect... I could see how Shakespeare had woven the theme of "crown=care(s)." Once pointed out, the thread is there in all three plays, yes? (OR... so it seems to me.)
From the beautifully worked passage in RII:
B: Part of your cares you give me with your crown.
K. Rich:...My care is loss of care, by old care done;
Your care is gain of care, by new care won;
The cares I give I have, though given away;
They tend the crown...
To the opening of HIV,1:
Henry... who now wears the crown: So shaken we are, so wan with care
To HIV,2
Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown. [Due to kingly cares.]
Act V, moving towards denouement, suddenly "care" is prevalent:
CH JUST: How doth the king?
WAR: Exceedingly well; his cares are now all ended. He wears the crown no longer.
Henry V now wears the crown. "Presume not I am the thing I was..."
Hal had been "care-free."
KING Henry V: I'll bear your cares
Off Subject. But, I think it has bearing. Two hints of what the future holds, I noticed in re-reading:
Act IV, S1, Line 140+
Westminster is bringing an offer to Mowbray. Westminster comes to Mowbray from our princely general [Hal]
To know your griefs; to tell you from his grace
That he will give you audience; and wherein
It shall appear that your demands are just,
You shall enjoy them, every thing set off
That might so much as think you enemies.
Mowbray responds: But he hath forced us to compel this offer;
And it proceeds from policy, not love.
Isn't that a foreshadowing of how Henry will rule? That he will rule by policy, by reason, by what is best for the kingdom; he will not rule from love... He will not favors to favorites simply on "love."
Or am I misreading that?
Act V:
Falstaff has just said to Shallow: "You must excuse me..."
Ominous foreshadowing of Falstaff vis-à-vis his future standing with the king:
Shallow speaks; But it is Hal/now King Henry V whom I hear:
I will not excuse you; you shall not be excused; excuses shall not be admitted; there is no excuse shall serve; you shall not be excused. [4-8]
Sir John, you shall not be excused. [12-13]
Sir John, you shall not be excused. [21-22]
Adelle wrote: "Zeke wrote: "@25 Adelle asked me to elaborate on my feelings about the renunciation scene and why I find it moving. Her question, an d the comments of others regarding their dislike of Falstaff, ch..."Nice extension of Zeke's comment. I especially like your exegesis on crown and care. Nicely done.
Act III Scene 1 Line 91. King Henry:
Are these things then necessities? [inexcapable]
Let us then meet them like necessities.
It reminds me of a quote from former Yale President Kingman Brewster. Unfortunately, I can't recall the quote precisely. The gist of it, however, was: If you cannot change it, it is no longer a problem; it is a condition.
It seems that confusion between problems and conditions leads to a lot of misplaced energy and anxiety.
Are these things then necessities? [inexcapable]
Let us then meet them like necessities.
It reminds me of a quote from former Yale President Kingman Brewster. Unfortunately, I can't recall the quote precisely. The gist of it, however, was: If you cannot change it, it is no longer a problem; it is a condition.
It seems that confusion between problems and conditions leads to a lot of misplaced energy and anxiety.
