Shakespeare Fans discussion

We can discuss Act 1 here…..

I'll be there/here Feb 15

So shaken as we are, so wan with care...

Ok, so it’s closer to March 15th. Is the discussion still on? I’m prefacing my Henry IV foray with a few films (no live productions are being produced in my immediate vicinity); Simon Curtis’ 1991 BBC version in both parts on Prime Video, David Giles’ 1979 BBC version with John Finch as King Henry, Orson Welles’ ‘Chimes at Midnight’ on the Criterion Channel and a DVD copy of ‘My Own Private Idaho’ - a contemporary take on the play. I also picked a cheap old Kittredge paperback edition of both parts (for liberal note scribbling).

Hi Marlin,

I didn't want to interrupt or overlap with the incredible discussion of Henry 6...so I tweaked the dates.

Should we make it March 16 or April 16...anyone have thoughts?

Great idea of "front loading" films before the reading. I love that. I hope I can find some streaming....

Oh yes Prime video...I can get those. And what a smart idea of "my own private Idaho"!!!

The sooner the better for me. I vote for March 15.

I’m fine with either date.

I would like to participate in this discussion also. My university staged this play many years ago, and we have both the BBC version and the 2014 RSC version available online through my library, and a 2012 Globe Theatre version on DVD.

I will probably read from the Folger Shakespeare Library online version unless I have time to get an annotated copy from the library: https://www.folger.edu/explore/shakes...

And I'll be following along in my copy of Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare, which explains the historical, geographical, and cultural background to the plays. It's available online at the Internet Archive if you have a (free) subscription: https://archive.org/search?query=asim...

I'm okay with starting on March 15 or April 15.

The Internet Archive is indeed a great online resouce, Bobby; thanks for the reminder. Tanner’s ‘Prefaces to Shakespeare’ is there as well.

Oh my god… this production of Henry IV in prime is fantastic!!!

I’ll try to write down the cast here when I get to it. The lighting and costumes make every scene look like Rembrandt it’s lovely.

Quite, Candy. The scenes with Falstaff are especially painterly, though I have to say that Orson Welles is my favorite jocund rotundity of a Falstaff and John Gielgud’s King Henry is definitely a tough act to follow. If you haven’t seen it already don’t miss ‘Chimes at Midnight’.

As this will the first time that I really attempt to engage with the play I will simply read the play, act by act, week by week.

I’m enjoying the ‘79 BBC version on BritBox (though there’s a serviceable free version on ok.ru: http://ok.ru/video/3643290880530). This Falstaff, played by Anthony Quayle, has an edge I don’t usually see and David Gwillim’s Hal shows early ambivalence for his “adopted father”. Also, Tim Pigott-Smith is razor sharp as Hotspur and John Finch is suitably cranky as King Henry. I rather like the women in this production as well; they’re not the cute, throw-away performances I often see in productions, but challenging cohorts to their male counterparts.

BBC production from 1960.
Henry IV - Part I - Tom Fleming - Robert Hardy - Sean Connery - An Age of Kings 3 & 4 - 1960
Tom Fleming, not a name I know, is an enjoyable Falstaff. A tuba is played as a sort of comic fanfare each time he appears.
Sean Connery very good as Hotspur and Robert Hardy excellent as Prince Hal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsPQM...

Tim wrote: "BBC production from 1960.
Henry IV - Part I - Tom Fleming - Robert Hardy - Sean Connery - An Age of Kings 3 & 4 - 1960 "

I’m embarrassed to say that I own the ‘Age of Kings’ set on DVD but have never watched these episodes. Thanks, Tim.

So, shall we strike while the iron is hot? Friday or April 15? I’ve starting watching the Hollow Crown version of Henry IV, which mercifully, is vastly superior to their Henry VI. It’s streaming free on Roku and boasts Jeremy Irons at the king, Tom Hiddleston as Hal and Simon Russell Beale as the fat knight. Looks great.

Anyone still around? I’ve started reading a First Folio facsimile edition of Henry IV out of curiosity. I’m assuming everyone is waiting until April 15th to comment. Or has the discussion been abandoned? We should probably just start in on it now. Although it will probably take me until April to get through the Folio edition of the play!

I’m Dee, I’ve been a non-participating member of this group for some time. I received a notification telling me about your forthcoming read and I’d like to join in, if it’s still going ahead. I’ve just finished a reread of Richard ll and was about to embark on a reread of Henry IV, so the timing seemed fortunate.

Welcome, Dee. Not sure what's happened to everyone else but I'm ready to commence with Part 1 of Henry IV. If you have any initial impressions don't hesitate to voice them and we can pivot our discussion from there.

I see that this thread is dated for 15th April, so I imagine people will turn up then. Or is there usually some discussion in advance? For a first read, I often whizz through with the play in front of me whilst listening to an Arkangel performance (and without reading any notes) just to get the general idea. It seems that the play could easily have been called ‘Prince Hal’ instead.

…I’m also looking forward to watching some of the performances that you and others mentioned earlier on in the thread, and to revisit the Hollow Crown, which I found really absorbing the first time round, quite a few years ago.

Thanks for pointing out the date change, though the discussion, in effect, has already begun! I do recommend a rewatch of the Hollow Crown version of Henry IV as well as the Welles’ Chimes at Midnight film. As for the play’s title perhaps you’ll appreciate Giuseppe Verdi’s operatic take on the Shakespearean character which boasts a title that is precisely what you suggest, Falstaff: https://youtu.be/kFDYgvZWKtg?si=dwUqM...
In truth, Verdi takes more from the exploits of Merry Wives of Windsor than Henry IV, but the central figure is the same jolly, hapless knight.

The Ricardo Muti/Busseto 2001 Falstaff production linked above is one of the best performances you’ll find on the web but it’s without English subtitles. For another production with English subs but not as well sung but more fun to watch (more like “a movie”) try this Solti/Vienna Philharmonic version: https://youtu.be/We0heyFkqXU?si=U7YGE....

Thanks for the recommendations and links, I’ll be working my way through them in due course, plus anything else I can lay my hands on!

You’re quite welcome. If I was in London right now I’d definitely catch the new Ian McKellan production of both parts of Henry IV titled, Player Kings. Apparently it’s currently in previews and plays through the spring: https://mckellen.com/stage/24-player-...

Notably, on the American east coast there’s a New York Classical production of the plays in May-June at a few outdoor venues in and around Manhattan: https://nyclassical.org/henryiv

The Guthrie Thester in Minneapolis is staging it beginning next weekend: https://www.guthrietheater.org/shows-...

Ooh Player Kings looks good, the title itself is insightful. London is my home town but unfortunately I don’t live there, house prices having gone up a lot since Shakespeare’s day haha. So it’ll be recorded performances only for me. My biggest gripe is about the way Amazon Prime hoards up recordings and only allows them to be watched via subscriptions.

I'm here!!! Let's do this...now or the 15th. The great thing about the acts separated is we can pop in when we can. I'll fix the topic headers.
w
Welcome to Dee and Bobby this should be fun! And thanks for sharing your story and backgrounds.

Also thanks to everyone for sharing which version you are reading from. I am using internet archive...not quite as interesting as printed matter though.

Here is another case of one of the plays...opening with a celestial reference.

"Which, like the meteors of a troubled heaven,"

I just got two interesting books delivered..."Time's Purpled Masquers: Stars and the Afterlife in Renaissance English Literature" " by Alistair Fowler. (I love this writer and researcher)

And..."Alchemical Writings of Edward Kelly" by Arthur Edward Waite

I'm curious how they might inform this reading for me...

I am reading Shakespeare's Kings by John Julius Norwich.
Henry IV was born in 1367 at Bolingbroke, Lincolnshire.
He was well travelled going on a crusade with the Teutonic knights in Lithuania. A devout Christian he went on pilgrimage to Jerusalem. He was married to Mary Bohun but she died in 1394.
Henry seized the throne from Richard II. Richard died while in Pontefract Castle, Yorkshire.

I have that book Tim, and am about to read the Henry IV section. I read the Richard II chapters recently and enjoyed them.

Thanks for the Fowler tip, Candy. I’m reading a copy on The Archive.

Candy wrote: "Here is another case of one of the plays...opening with a celestial reference.

"Which, like the meteors of a troubled heaven,""

Ah yes, Candy; but unlike the actual phenomena of the three suns as seen and made into an analogy by the elder Plantagenet son in Henry VI, this purely imaginary vision of Henry IV seems to me more of a reflector than indicator of civil strife in England. As opposed to a sign of the future for which the young Edward strives, Henry's wayward meteors represent the past for the king which he seeks to make "March all one way", e.g., to his authority under Christ:

King Henry
So shaken as we are, so wan with care,
Find we a time for frighted peace to pant
And breathe short-winded accents of new broils
To be commenced in strands afar remote.
No more the thirsty entrance of this soil
Shall daub her lips with her own children’s blood.
No more shall trenching war channel her fields,
Nor bruise her flow’rets with the armèd hoofs
Of hostile paces. Those opposèd eyes,
Which, like the meteors of a troubled heaven,
All of one nature, of one substance bred,
Did lately meet in the intestine shock
And furious close of civil butchery,
Shall now, in mutual well-beseeming ranks,
March all one way and be no more opposed
Against acquaintance, kindred, and allies.
The edge of war, like an ill-sheathèd knife,
No more shall cut his master. Therefore, friends,
As far as to the sepulcher of Christ—
Whose soldier now, under whose blessèd cross
We are impressèd and engaged to fight—
Forthwith a power of English shall we levy,
Whose arms were molded in their mothers’ womb
To chase these pagans in those holy fields
Over whose acres walked those blessèd feet
Which fourteen hundred years ago were nailed
For our advantage on the bitter cross.
But this our purpose now is twelve month old,
And bootless ’tis to tell you we will go.
I.i. 1-29

Now, exactly who and where are these pagans against which the king envisions a unified force? Those who were then living in and/or around Jerusalem? Or is this just a metaphor for any enemy of the state (chiefly, his state)?

I remember that almost right at the end of Richard II, after Richard has been murdered on King Henry’s behalf, that Henry vows to go on a crusade to wash off his guilt:

Lords, I protest my soul is full of woe
That blood should sprinkle me to make me grow.
Come mourn with me for what I do lament,
And put on sullen black incontinent.
I’ll make a voyage to the Holy Land
To wash this blood off from my guilty hand.

Dee wrote: "I have that book Tim, and am about to read the Henry IV section. I read the Richard II chapters recently and enjoyed them."
I have read the Henry VI chapters and found them very useful.

I find it hard to reconcile 'devout Christian' with going on a crusade. Saying you will go on a crusade to atone for a murder is like saying that to atone for one murder you will commit a thousand.

Do people know that Harold Bloom’s book ‘Falstaff: Give Me Life’ is currently free to listen to for Audible members? I’m trying to understand the whole Falstaff phenomenon. He's never appealed to me but is often cited as Shakespeare’s most popular character (admittedly it is also said to be much easier to feel affection for him when you see him played on stage, which I never have).

I can’t work out how to refer back to an earlier post (the italics thing?) but, in answer to Gabriel’s comment about going on crusade, I totally agree. However, that made me reflect on the fact that I wouldn’t align myself with the ethical worldview of most of the people in Shakespeare’s plays. I’m pondering now who would be a good candidate for ‘most moral Shakespeare character’.

Dee wrote: "I can’t work out how to refer back to an earlier post (the italics thing?) but, in answer to Gabriel’s comment about going on crusade, I totally agree. However, that made me reflect on the fact tha..."
Login to website of Shakespeare Fans. Find Henry IV, April 15, 2024, Act 1 thread. Find the message then click on reply and the italics should appear in the comment box.

Tim wrote: "Dee wrote: "I can’t work out how to refer back to an earlier post (the italics thing?)..." Thank you Tim. I found the ‘reply’ option on the website, like you said. I wonder why it doesn’t exist on the app.

Marlin, I think you are on to something about this kind of illusion of weight...that the idea of stultification is treated cynically by the character. It's almost as if he is deconstruction his "heroism"...something many of us would consider a contemporary approach to the hero...Examples..."Unforgiven", "Twin Peaks", "Dune". (film noir 'heroes') Which is somewhat showing us...that this King, this speaker is self-aware, has thought about themselves in a way we think of ourselves, very modern..ala Baudrillard...the idea is destroyed by it's own realization.

Another celestial metaphor...or jest...

Falstaff. Now, Hal, what time of day is it, lad?

Henry V. Thou art so fat-witted, with drinking of old sack
and unbuttoning thee after supper and sleeping upon
benches after noon, that thou hast forgotten to 115
demand that truly which thou wouldst truly know.
What a devil hast thou to do with the time of the
day? Unless hours were cups of sack and minutes
capons and clocks the tongues of bawds and dials the
signs of leaping-houses and the blessed sun himself 120
a fair hot wench in flame-coloured taffeta, I see no
reason why thou shouldst be so superfluous to demand
the time of the day.
Falstaff. Indeed, you come near me now, Hal; for we that take
purses go by the moon and the seven stars, and not 125
by Phoebus, he,'that wandering knight so fair.' And,
I prithee, sweet wag, when thou art king, as, God
save thy grace,—majesty I should say, for grace
thou wilt have none,—

Henry V. What, none?

This is sort of interesting Henry suggests a trickery in the stultification using the sun as himself...


Henry V. I know you all, and will awhile uphold
The unyoked humour of your idleness:
Yet herein will I imitate the sun, 300
Who doth permit the base contagious clouds
To smother up his beauty from the world,
That, when he please again to be himself,
Being wanted, he may be more wonder'd at,
By breaking through the foul and ugly mists 305
Of vapours that did seem to strangle him.
If all the year were playing holidays,
To sport would be as tedious as to work;
But when they seldom come, they wish'd for come,
And nothing pleaseth but rare accidents. 310
So, when this loose behavior I throw off
And pay the debt I never promised,
By how much better than my word I am,
By so much shall I falsify men's hopes;
And like bright metal on a sullen ground, 315
My reformation, glittering o'er my fault,
Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes
Than that which hath no foil to set it off.
I'll so offend, to make offence a skill;
Redeeming time when men think least I will. 320

Gabriel. I agree with you about going on a crusade. Is the idea of the ethics we believe for a christian practice...compared to the unethical actions of measuring a christians practice...is the person having a blindside? Are they unable to see themselves? Why can we see someone else do something at odds with what we experience spiritually....? And what blindspots do we have in our own practice...and living in the world? I wonder...all of which is part of the pleasure of watching a play.

And speaking of...I would love to see Player King!!! Wow I'm assuming that is at the Globe?

Dee..I'm glad you mentioned the feelings about Falstaff. I have always cared about him and in fact...I did not enjoy his portrayal in "Merry Wives" I thought he seemed like a joke and a different character...but when I watched the BBC version last week. I realized he fit perfectly with the Falstaff in MMofW. I had always considered them different or inconsistent.

It seems to me now...they are the same man.

I feel something happens in this play where his reasons for being a pirate type...make him wise...but I may not feel the same anymore...hmmm....

This passage… is an interesting relationship between changes in theories of astronomy…and roles of monarchy versus the rise of merchant class and aristocrats.

“Why did the 'new philosophy', with all its far-reaching impli-cations, occasion so little distress? We have glimpsed one reason in the slow pace of its introduction. Another may have been its surprising acceptability to the ruling aristocra-cies. Surprising, because the mythology of kingship depended on astronomical space quite as much as on historical time.
The Ptolemaic position of Sol as the fourth of seven planetary deities— centre, moderator, 'heart of the universe', declarator temporis had offered a powerfully validating cosmic image of the medieval sovereign's status. Each was primus inter pares among his nobles, so that Sol was often represented as a ruler accompanied by six planet-counsellors.26 Surely reordering the planetary system must subvert this natural validation of sovereignty? On the contrary. Heliocentrism made Sol more powerful than ever, in fact; the sun was the universal centre that earth and the other planets oribited round. Con-sequently, the Copernican hypothesis well suited the new style of centralized monarchy. Louis XIV, absolutist sovereign par excellence, was 'the Sun King'? As if aspiring to stellar apotheosis, he encouraged an elaborate solar cult whereby his cosmic role was enacted in such ceremonies as the level, when as declarator temporis he rose to illuminate the courtiers assembled in his bedroom at the exact centre of the Cour de Marbre at Versailles. Facing his macrocosmic equivalent he shone, from amidst the intricately symmetrical architecture, directly eastward upon his country's capital. Louis was not alone in his fondness for such symbolism. Throughout Eur-ope, princes showed a keen interest in the new astronomy. On his way to meet Anne of Denmark in 1590, for example, James VI found time to visit Tycho at Hven. It is worth recalling,

Pardon me… I’m in my phone app right now and it isn’t as easy to navigate as my laptop… the quote in my last comment is from Fowler Times Purpled Masquers”

Scene 1 Act 1.
Skipping on past 'wan with care' to Henry 4's musings on what he thinks is the end of strife at home, the island of Britain, opening the possibility to join together, those Christians who have been fighting each other, and travel to Palestine to push the Moslems there out by force.

Henry:
"Those opposed eyes
Which, like the meteors of a troubled heaven,
all of one nature, of one substance bred,
Did lately meet in the intestine shock
And furious close of civil butchery,
Shall now in mutual beseeming ranks
March all one way, and be no more opposed
Against acquaintance, kindred and allies"

Henry's hopes are immediately dashed when Westmoreland reports that not only is Wales up in arms but also Northumberland threatens. To add salt to the wound Westmoreland speaks of the heroics and successes of Lord Northumberland's son Percy Hotspur.

Henry's observation:
"O, that it could be proved
That some night tripping fairy had exchanged
In cradle clothes our children where they lay
And called mine Percy, his Plantagenet!
Then would I have his Harry, and he mine."

This is an old story - fathers that envy the sons and daughters of other men (and sons and daughters fed up with their own parents). And this more or less introduces us to Scene 2 where we get to know the how and who of Harry and Falstaff as they banter and banter and banter.

Shakespeare’s plays often start with conversation between minor characters, but not this one (perhaps because it’s continuing on from Richard II?). What an opening speech we have from the king: very serious, full of majesty, written in verse, BUT undercut just a few lines later. I can’t quite work out how well informed Henry IV already is of the trouble brewing, even as giving this speech.

Is anyone else reading ‘A Bright Ray of Darkness’ by Ethan Hawke? It’s about a young actor playing Hotspur on Broadway. I’m listening to the audiobook, read by the author, who is perfect for the job. I recommend it, but it’s not for the prudish, definitely adult only.

Hi Dee hi yes one can suspect that he's not completely in the dark but is hoping for the best. He mentions "meteors of a troubled heaven". Meteors in those days were portents to be wary of.
And of his dear wish to lead a unified group on a pilgrimmage and crusade to 'the holy land' he notes that "This our purpose is a twelvemonth old, and bootless 'tis to tell you we will go".

Great observations James and Dee...thank you for sorting out some details I was not entirely following James. And Dee...yes that is so true this begins heavy and with gravity.

Dee, I am not reading Ethan Hawkes book...but I would like to. I'll see if I can fit it in...

Meanwhile...I thought some of the writing in Scene 3 of this Act was fantastic...I read out Hotspur Henry's dialogues...

"To be so pester'd with a popinjay, 375
Out of my grief and my impatience,
Answer'd neglectingly I know not what,
He should or he should not; for he made me mad
To see him shine so brisk and smell so sweet
And talk so like a waiting-gentlewoman 380
Of guns and drums and wounds,—God save the mark!—
And telling me the sovereign'st thing on earth
Was parmaceti for an inward bruise;
And that it was great pity, so it was,
This villanous salt-petre should be digg'd 385
Out of the bowels of the harmless earth,
Which many a good tall fellow had destroy'd
So cowardly; and but for these vile guns,
He would himself have been a soldier.
This bald unjointed chat of his, my lord, 390
I answer'd indirectly, as I said;
And I beseech you, let not his report
Come current for an accusation
Betwixt my love and your high majesty."

What is "the secret book" that Earl of Worcester means? Is this like saying "its an unwritten law"?

"Peace, cousin, say no more:
And now I will unclasp a secret book,
And to your quick-conceiving discontents
I'll read you matter deep and dangerous,
As full of peril and adventurous spirit
As to o'er-walk a current roaring loud
On the unsteadfast footing of a spear."

What scene is that in Candy?

Oh I see it in act 1 scene 3.
I think it means that he has a cunning plan that will topple Henry if Northumbrrland, Hotspur and Mortimer do as he Worchester says.