Classics and the Western Canon discussion

On first reading (well, first after many years) this seems primarily a bridge play to get Hal from Part 1 to the ascension to the crown. Oh, and, of course, a vehicle for Falstaff to take over the stage. He seems more the title character of the play than Henry does.

But I need to read it again, because I'm sure there's a lot in it that didn't come out on a first reading. Or perhaps I don't need to read it again, but just wait for the rest of you to point out all the things I should have noticed first time through.

The Hollow Crown switches scenes around, which they do frequently and often, in my opinion to good dramatic effect. They choose to begin Henry IV Part 2 not with Rumour or with the scene among the rebels. Instead it begins with Falstaff and a line in which he is seeking information about a doctor's diagnosis of his urine. It is a strong indication that we are going to find a different Falstaff in this play from the one preceding it.

Scholar Marjorie Garber goes so far as to say that Falstaff becomes an emblem for the problem of disintegration brought on by the society's disease. I wouldn't go that far. But I do think the parallel health problems of both of Hal's father figures is an interesting theme in the play. And I also agree that everywhere we look in this play we find the passing of power from an older generation with its assumptions to a younger one represented by Hal.

Patrice. Could be his source was Virgil ' s Aeneid. Would explain Troy, Priam, AND Allecta. Remember how her snake of anger took away Turnus's reason...enflamed him... I think....I will have to go back and check.

(No time today.)

Patrice wrote: "Well, I may have been impressed by his skepticism but then his grief turns to rage. "Let order die!" That must have been the last thing an Elizabethan audience, or Queen, would want to hear. Seems Hotspur's father is a hothead. "

But also a coward. Twice he funks it when he has committed to go into battle.

Guys, I'd love to take part, but I despise Falstaff and can't imagine forcing myself to submit myself to another reading of Henry IV. :)

I saw the Merry Wives of Windsor a couple months ago and was immensely displeased that he was the main character. It's like I can't freaking escape the guy...

Everyman wrote: "Twice he funks it when he has committed to go into battle. ."

Could it be that Northumberland's rage is all the more intense because he himself didn't show up for his son? This play has N being accused of having faking his illness.

Have finished 1st read-through.

Mike wrote: "Guys, I'd love to take part, but I despise Falstaff and can't imagine forcing myself to submit myself to another reading of Henry IV. :)."

But that last Act is the saving grace, as his grace, Prince Henry, is saved.

The Falstaff of Merrry Wives is a pale imposter compared to the character we find fascinating in the Henry plays. In fact, it took Verdi to improve him in an opera that, imho, is better than the play. And for a Shakespeare lover like me to say that is saying quite a bit.

BTW, thanks to Everyman's mention, I just got a used copy of The Fortunes of Falstaff and look forward to exploring it over the coming days.

Patrice wrote: "Mike wrote: "Guys, I'd love to take part, but I despise Falstaff and can't imagine forcing myself to submit myself to another reading of Henry IV. :)

I saw the Merry Wives of Windsor a couple mont..."

Obnoxious guy who nearly brought down a prince with his insatiably poor decisions and cowardice. He's the Jar Jar of Shakespeare.

"the Jar Jar of Shakespeare"

I love that -- thank you, Mike! That's been my feeling too. I enjoyed Henry IV Pt 1 and 2 very much Except when Falstaff was on. Actually, that isn't quite true. I Can enjoy Falstaff. When he said his piece about "what is honor?" in Part 1, he was at least being honest, and his discussion of the merits of sherry in Part 2 (Act 4 Scene 2) was quite funny! Where I Really can't stand him is in his interactions with Prince Hal -- they really do bring out the Awful in each other -- and the scenes with Mistress Quickly and Doll Tearsheet were excruciating.

I greatly enjoyed the “what is honour” part as well. Other than that, Falstaff mattered quite little to me. Some funny parts definitely, but otherwise there was just too much of him in two plays (and I also read Merry Wives some time ago). In a weird way I also enjoyed him at the end of Pt2 when finally something bad happens to him and for once he can’t figure his way out of it by merely relying on his wit. At that moment he is more like a real human being.

If anyone is interested I have just found this: http://nfs.sparknotes.com/henry4pt2.

I've been wanting something handy for the interpretation of some of the banter and I've checked over it for a bit and it seems good for a bit of light hearted reading.

Isn't it disheartening that the final victory over the rebels comes about via base treachery on the part of Prince John? I would have expected better.

Something about the apple not falling far from the tree comes to mind! But yes, it certainly would have been more promising if they'd won honestly. I think I remember from my notes that historically it wasn't Prince John who acted there, but I can't remember Why the editor thought Shakespeare put him in that role.

@Nicola I was a bit disappointed as well though more so when they decided to chase down those who were leaving peacefully.

The comments above about the nature of the victory over the rebels brings to mind a quotation I found in my reading. I think, but am not certain, that it refers to Henry IV, but it is applicable to him--and beyond.

Treason doth never prosper: What's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.


John Harrington (1618)

Even as we move along into Henry V I find myself still thinking about King Henry IV as a character. He doesn't even appear until the third act of Part 2. And he departs in death (in a room called Jerusalem!) at the end of Act IV, leaving the stage clear for Hal to assert himself as king in Act V.

Still, I don't feel comfortable thinking of him as a "minor" character. While the plays may be poorly titled, without him none of the events would have occurred. But is he a villain or a hero? On the one hand, his crime is the "original sin" that unleashes what become the Wars of the Roses. On the other, his "tough love" seems to have shaped Hal up and turned him from a wastrel to a king. However, on the third hand, from his own words early in Part I, perhaps Hal has known all along what he needed to do and was just biding his time hanging out with Falstaff and the others.

One thing we know for sure: As did Richard, he came to lament the burden of kingship. Not so much the duties. It is a deeper existential misery he expresses in his speech at 3.1. I found myself thinking that this goes beyond the crime of usurpation, but I cannot identify what the guilt is. Will Hal come to feel the same? Or will he prove a different kind of king?

Zeke wrote: "One thing we know for sure: As did Richard, he came to lament the burden of kingship. Not so much the duties. It is a deeper existential misery he expresses in his speech at 3.1. I found myself thinking that this goes beyond the crime of usurpation, but I cannot identify what the guilt is. Will Hal come to feel the same? Or will he prove a different kind of king? "

Perhaps it depends on whether there are people constantly seeking to overthrow him. I think that was a lot of Henry IV's problem -- he never really had a chance to even try to just rule a happy kingdom -- he was forever and constantly having to stave off this rebellion and that insurrection, with never a chance really to show what sort of king he could be for the benefit of the people.

We should not forget however that those rebelling were the same, aggrieved nobles who had been instrumental in putting Henry into power. It seems that he did not have a very good grasp of power politics.

I think Shakespeare had a lot of truth in a speech he had one of his characters give in Richard II. Maybe it was RII. That once the nobles discovered that they could dislodge the king... they realized they could dislodge another king. And they wanted now more power for themselves. And thought they knew a way to obtain it.

I couldn't find the strings for Henry IV pt 1 in my catching up to review comments about Falstaff. I do believe someone had mentioned that Falstaff was a beloved character. I can't say that I had that feeling about him but I thought he was an important character in the two plays. A comedic foil, a Father/Son or Mentor/mentee relationship with Hal developed as a contrast to the relationship between Hal & his father, the companion to which Hal can escape his hereditary destiny and of course that sets up the journey that Hal makes from reprobate to King. And even though Falstaff was not the company one wanted future kings or the King to hang out with, I found his public humiliation difficult. Did he bring it upon himself with his greed & ambition, perhaps so.
on another note, the treachery that Roger @ 19 refers to was disgusting to me also. Historically correct??? It certainly kept the flame of hate & distrust between the two houses going didn't it?

I'm now most of the way through my reading of Shakespeare's famous play "Lads at the Pub, Pt. II." I'm finding it annoying, sophomoric, tedious at times, and I wish Falstaff and Prince Henry would go drown in a lake.

Okay, I'm overstating my case a bit.

But, anyway, the crowds must have eaten up the comedy of Henry pt. I, and thus Shakespeare delivers more of what they asked for, a couple of hours of insult humor about fat people, old people, skinny people, lecherous people, all with improbable names. At least now I know where the writers of the TV series Good Times got their inspiration. But I found the character of J.J. far more appealing than Falstaff.

Dyn-o-mite!!!

Roger wrote: "Isn't it disheartening that the final victory over the rebels comes about via base treachery on the part of Prince John? I would have expected better."

Thought I would see if I could find an answer to that. According to Asimov, "In actual history, this vile betrayal was carried out by Westmoreland rand than Lancaster, who was only sixteen at the time. The rebels were handed over to the King when he arrived, taken to York, and there beheaded" (406).

Westmoreland, according to my notes from HIV,1 is
Ralph Neville. He had been made 1st Earl of Westmoreland in 1397 due to his support for the court party [Richard].

His 2nd wife was Joan Beaufort, who was the half-sister of Henry of Bolingbroke.

Westmoreland abandoned Richard and joined Bolingbroke when Bolingbroke landed in England.

He strikes me as knowing which side of the toast the butter is likely to be on. Sigh....but probably it was a complicated situation in a complicated time.

Wiki has a longish paragraph on the battle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Ne...

I had intended to mention that, though I was put off by much of the humorous digressive elements that are a digression from nothing... I did come around to liking some of the final parts of the play. There's a bit of pre-freudian freudianism... though I was aware Freud was fascinated with Hamlet, I don't know what he thought of Prince Henry's presumption of his father's death as evidence of his subconscious desire.

Worth further discussion: what does it really suggest when King Henry becomes apoplectic immediately upon learning of victory? Is this merely an ironic reversal of expectation... a continuation of the theme that good news presages a bad turn... a reflection of medieval attitudes towards Fortuna... or does it have psychological implications such as the realization of a fantasy is tragic?

Zadignose wrote: ".. though I was aware Freud was fascinated with Hamlet, I don't know what he thought of Prince Henry

I was just thinking this morning that I would like to read a psychological study of Hal/Henry.

The issues his mother would have had...his issues with his father... the early exposure to great violence... his forcing himself to renounce the people with whom he felt most at ease and with whom he could relax and laugh.

Adelle wrote: "Roger wrote: "Isn't it disheartening that the final victory over the rebels comes about via base treachery on the part of Prince John? I would have expected better."

Thought I would see if I coul..."

Thanks Adelle for sharing who really was the architect of the treacherous actions.

Chris, somehow I find myself wanting to believe both versions (Shakespeare's and the...sometimes questionable...historical) at the same time!

Adelle wrote: "I was just thinking this morning that I would like to read a psychological study of Hal/Henry.
"

Wouldn't it be neat if you and Zeke collaborated on it?

Lol

Patrice wrote: "..."

Interesting thought. F was simply worse in II from the getgo. ?So the audience can better accept H's rejecting F?

Patrice wrote: "Well, I did it. I finished Part II and I got that kick in the stomach that I knew was coming, Falstaff's rejection.....King Henry V has inherited the kingdom. He no longer has any need of Falstaff. So he rejects him. I know it would be easy to create an argument for why this is good and necessary. But I can't feel anything like that right now.
What I feel is something closer to what I felt with King Lear. A Machiavellian coldness. He has the kingdom, what does he need with Falstaff?.


Mmmm...yes...if you're leaning towards the cold-hearted Henry, yes.


But me, I don't think it was so much that Henry didn't need Falstaff anymore, but that, as king, he simply couldn't afford to associate with him. F was F. And... throughout... F has been speaking of "when you are king" and.... What was that line? mmm. I can't find it, but it was spoken either by F or by one of F's cronies, something like, "It's better to have a friend at court than a penny in one's pocket."

Falstaff would have been a political embarrassment, his actions would have needed no end covering up... and he would have had debts all over London Henry would have need to have paid.

But you know... my thinking is that it was so hard for Henry to ban him. (And he offered F a chance to build a life for himself, remember.)

I kinda think that F had it right when he said to H, something along the lines of "Banish x, banish, y, But if you banish F, you banish the world."

I kinda think H knew that. In banishing F --- because he had to... I mean look at how F behaved at the ceremony when H was crowned. Unacceptable to speak that way to the king.

But... much of the joy in the world, I think WAS banished for H. That carefree part of his life was over and done forever. He had to wear the crown.

Enjoyed the exchange above between Patrice and Adele. Shakespeare really does challenge us to be adults doesn't he? No sentimentality indulged.

I love F's speech that ends, "...banish plump Jack and banish the world." In any performance the actor playing Hal has a myriad of choices for how to deliver his response line at the end of what started as a comic scene..."I do. I will."

Reading the plays with this group has convinced me that Falstaff is crucial to Shakespeare's design: he will neither allow us to view Falstaff as a clown nor will he allow us to sentimentalize him. He forces us to acknowledge the world as it is. To be a king Hal must banish plump Jack and all he represents. There is no other choice.

Patrice: Falstaff never really hurt anyone did he?

One of the things I learned in this reading was how Falstaff's behavior in the second play is more disturbing than the first. He acts with a sense of entitlement that was missing earlier. I think this is one reason people sour on him and is part of Shakespeare preparing the audience for the inevitable rejection by Hal.

Patrice, I don't disagree with you. But this is part of the reason why you and I are not powerful people. (I am making an assumption about you, of course. Perhaps you are one!)

I think those in power tend to have little appreciation for the fact that the peel is part of the orange.

Adelle wrote: "But me, I don't think it was so much that Henry didn't need Falstaff anymore, but that, as king, he simply couldn't afford to associate with him."

I tend to agree with you. F was fun to play with during playtime, but when it got time to get serious, F was a liability which had to be cast off. Sort of like the playboy who has to cast off his other girlfriends when he finally decides to marry.

Patrice wrote: "But me, I don't think it was so much that Henry didn't need Falstaff anymore, but that, as king, he simply couldn't afford to associate with him."

The eternal frat boy?

E-man, I know we are discouraged from getting into politics in our discussions. But I am so, so, so tempted to draw a recent analogy. :)

More seriously, for those who have Peter Sacio's lectures from The Teaching Company, I highly recommend the one with his explication of Falstaff's death. He goes through Mistress Quickly's description line by line. It is marvelous close reading and quite moving.

Patrice wrote: "Something must have happened in Shakespeare's life. As with Lear, he understands this too well. It has to be from the inside out. "

He DOES seem to have such an understanding of humans.

Henry V had to leave Falstaff behind in order to be a king, but Falstaff did not understand that. Instead he rushed to the new king, hoping to find preference. Henry had to stiff-arm him.

Roger wrote: "Henry V had to leave Falstaff behind in order to be a king, but Falstaff did not understand that. Instead he rushed to the new king, hoping to find preference. Henry had to stiff-arm him."

You summed that up nicely; concisely.

Patrice wrote: "Socrates was also a moocher. He was also rejected by the powers that be.
..."
Socretes remained very much 'alive' in two thousand years of western literature, didn't he?

I felt something like pity for Henry at the hour of his being crowned. It made me think of the film footage of the coronation Queen Elizabeth II. She seemed so small and frail and young.

I find that even the slightest bit of worldly recognition has a strange way of eclipsing a person's soul or sense of self. It is a bit unreal when somebody is lauding your praises. There is a sense of dissociation that accompanies it and sometimes even a sense of being a fraud, of not deserving this recognition. How much more extreme that feeling must be in Kings! What would it have been like for Henry V (or Elizabeth II) in his hour of grief, moments after the loss of his father, when most of us would want to retreat from the world to be alone with out grief....to have to make that walk in front of parliament etc, with all eyes on him. How could he not feel a sense of dissociation? His sense of self must have completely collapsed in that moment. It was very true what he said to Falstaff that the person Falstaff knew no longer exists (or words to that effect).