King Henry IV Part I - Act 1

[Janine]

I think it might've been the other way around, that he needed a fat-suit in order to look heavier. Either way, Welles was a big fellow throughout his whole life and despite surpassing the limits of the imagination in obesity, he lived to be 70 (which still is relatively young, I suppose), dying of. . . . .a heart-attack.

Gee, I'm a good guesser. I guess he got rounder as the years went by. Maybe he did have to wear a suit to look heavier. I can't imagine he would have to lose weight to play Falstaff. I favor Robby Coltrane, who makes a brief appearance as Falstaff in Kenneth Branagh's Henry V. In reality, he does not appeart in Henry V; but Branagh cleverly intersperses some flashback scenes and a visual to account for his death scene, which gives the film more scope and depth. A shame Henry IV - both parts - was not also made; Coltrane could have played Falstaff. I am sure he would have given a great performance. I am not that thrilled over the performance on the BBC set of Falstaff by Anthony Quayle. He seems to visually fit the part, but oftimes I could not quite catch what he was saying; he sometimes mumbled. I just couldn't take to him, as much as I tried. I thought his performance a bit tiresome at times and I didn't find him that likable, even though, he is such a roughish and obsurdly humorous character. I didn't realise just how huge a part it was for Falstaff until now.

My Own Private Idaho is the one starring River Phoenix and Keanu Reeves. It is directed by Gus van Sant and is very loosely based on the first part of Henry IV and contains none of Shakespeare's language. But it is a very good film and certainly worth watching anytime.

I have heard of that film; however, I never knew their was any connection. Someday, I will have to check it out. Interesting to know.

[Janine]

I found these online and thought they were interesting...a few visuals to pep up this thread:
Title Page, First Folio


First Folio


Falstaff and Prince Hal

[Quark]

I was actually just watching Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing today (not the first time I've seen it), and I enjoyed most of the cast, most surprisingly Denzel Washington as Don Pedro, but every line Keanu Reeves delivered was stripped of all of Shakespeare's exuberance.

Despite Keanu, it was a good version. Denzel Washington was excellent as Don Pedro, and it was pretty well directed. They also added some funny gags.

From what I've read, Orson Welles actually had to lose weight to play Falstaff, if you can believe it.

That must have hurt. Being told you're too fat to play Falstaff is quite an insult.

When will be start discussing and how will we discuss, scene by scene or act by act?

I'm ready to start whenever. The threads are devoted to Acts so I guess we'll discuss Act by Act. I'd like to start at the beginning of each Act and work toward the end, if that's possible, though. That make it a little easier for me to keep track of where we are in the play.

Did you read Henry IV Part I yet, Quark?

Yeah, I read it about a month ago when mayneverhave and I started discussing the play, so I'm more than ready to join in now.

Here's some interesting information, much of it background on the play:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_IV,_Part_1

Good find Janine. This part is particularly helpful:

Henry Bolingbroke – now King Henry IV – is having an unquiet reign. His personal disquiet at the means whereby he gained the crown – by deposing Richard II – would be solved by a journey or crusade to the Holy Land to fight Muslims, but broils on his borders with Scotland and Wales prevent that. Moreover, his guilt causes him to mistreat the Earls Northumberland and Worcester, heads of the Percy family, and Edmund Mortimer, the Earl of March. The first two helped him to his throne, and the third was proclaimed by Richard, the former king, as his rightful heir.

Adding to King Henry's troubles is the behaviour of his son and heir, the Prince of Wales. Hal (the future Henry V) has forsaken the Royal Court to waste his time in taverns with low companions. This makes him an object of scorn to the nobles and calls into question his royal worthiness. Hal's chief friend and foil in living the low life is Sir John Falstaff. Fat, old, drunk, and corrupt as he is, he has a charisma and a zest for life that captivates the Prince, born into a world of hypocritical pieties and mortal seriousness.

The play has three groups of characters that interact slightly at first, and then come together in the Battle of Shrewsbury, where the success of the rebellion will be decided. First there is King Henry himself and his immediate council. He is the engine of the play, but usually in the background. Next there is the group of rebels, energetically embodied in Harry Percy – Hotspur – and including his father (Northumberland) and lead by his uncle Thomas Percy (Worcester). The Scottish Earl of Douglas, Edmund Mortimer and the Welshman Owen Glendower also join. Finally, at the center of the play are the young Prince Hal and his companions Falstaff, Poins, Bardolph, and Peto. Streetwise and pound-foolish, these rogues manage to paint over this grim history in the colours of comedy.

As the play opens, the king is angry with Hotspur for refusing him most of the prisoners taken in a recent action against the Scots at Holmedon

The only thing that might be a little too interpretative to be called background is the reason Wikipedia gives for Henry IV slighting the Percy family. I think guilt has something to do with it, but one could argue that Henry IV just used that family as a stepping stone. Now that they're no longer useful he doesn't see any reason to favor them.

I've written an essay, half of it concerned the very subject of of Falstaff's outlook on life and his relationship with Hal. The other half being a comparison of Falstaff with an analysis of Hamlet. I won't post it here since it's too long for this thread.

Good essay, DanielBenoit. It will be interesting to see what gets said when we get to scene ii, though, as I think you and mayneverhave see Falstaff in very different ways.


Oh, and check out the images Janine just posted--some cool textual stuff.

[Janine]

Despite Keanu, it was a good version. Denzel Washington was excellent as Don Pedro, and it was pretty well directed. They also added some funny gags.

Did you like Michael Keaton then? I thought he went a little 'over-the-top'; but he was quite funny at times. Best line was insisting they all refer to him as an a--! It was a good film and very entertaining, plus beautifully staged and filmed.

That must have hurt. Being told you're too fat to play Falstaff is quite an insult.

Really...

I'm ready to start whenever. The threads are devoted to Acts so I guess we'll discuss Act by Act. I'd like to start at the beginning of each Act and work toward the end, if that's possible, though. That make it a little easier for me to keep track of where we are in the play.

Good plan; that way I or anyone else won't get too confused. I re-watched Act I again and only a little of Act II. I now have Act I pretty much in my mind and am ready to disguss it. Today I have to go out for most of the day and evening. Start if you wish and I will catch up; or wait till tomorrow, when I will hopefully be at home.

I also admit that last night, I sneaked a peek into the Henry V BBC play, just to see how the actor, who played Hal, had changed between the plays. I have to say they chomped his hair off, gave him a queer short bob/bowl cut and now he doesn't look quite as cute. Oh well, I guess he is made to look more kingly looking. Also, why BBC insists on putting these kings into sissy clothes is beyond me. He looked great in street clothes of the period and in the wooing scene with Katherine he looked a little efeminine in that silly heavy brocade...eek.

One comment; this Henry V version can't compare with the amazing one by Branagh, even if some of the text is slightly cut; these parts can be tetious anyway. The Branagh version portrays much more emotional impact. The scenes are lighted better and impart more drama. Lastly, who can beat a cast that included Judy Dench, Derek Jacobi, Christian Bale and Ken Branagh himself, not to mention many other fine actors from stage and screen?

Yeah, I read it about a month ago when mayneverhave and I started discussing the play, so I'm more than ready to join in now.

Great! So you both are ready to go.

Good find Janine. This part is particularly helpful:

I thought they were of interest. I may have more photos of those paintings of Falstaff. I will check my offline files.

The only thing that might be a little too interpretative to be called background is the reason Wikipedia gives for Henry IV slighting the Percy family. I think guilt has something to do with it, but one could argue that Henry IV just used that family as a stepping stone. Now that they're no longer useful he doesn't see any reason to favor them.

On second viewing last night, I could see your point about this. Glad I read what you wrote first. I think Richard did act a bit paranoid about losing his crown to the other family. We can discuss that when we get to it. It has a lot to do with his insecurity about his own son as compared to Henry Percy. He is definitely at a time of declining health and he is feeling very insecure in his own power.

Good essay, DanielBenoit. It will be interesting to see what gets said when we get to scene ii, though, as I think you and mayneverhave see Falstaff in very different ways.

Oh, I must read that. It sound entirely interesting to me because I love Hamlet.

Oh, and check out the images Janine just posted--some cool textual stuff.

Thanks for pointing that out to the rest of the gang, Quark. You know me. I like illustrations!

[DanielBenoit]

Thanks Quark! From what I've read at the begining of the thread, I do think that mayneverhave and I do have some differences in opinion concerning Falstaff. But I think we both recognize that he is one of the most well written characters in all of Shakespeare.

Amazing find Janine! I escpecially liked the old illustration of Falstaff and Hal, that's from the First Folio as well?

I'm ready to start the discussion when everybody else is, what's funny is that almost this entire thread has been in preparation for discussing Act I. I'm currently reading another novel so I might not be here all the time, but I'll try my best to contribute. By the way, is there a moderator here or something? who starts the discussion? Or is it just a free for all, and we just start whenever we want?

[Janine]

Thanks Quark! From what I've read at the begining of the thread, I do think that mayneverhave and I do have some differences in opinion concerning Falstaff. But I think we both recognize that he is one of the most well written characters in all of Shakespeare.

haha...We might all have differences of opinion on Falstaff in the end. Wait until we get started; it should be fun.

Amazing find Janine! I escpecially liked the old illustration of Falstaff and Hal, that's from the First Folio as well?

I don't think that picture was from the same source so it probably was not from the first folio. I found the picture long ago and it was in my file with other Shakespeare play illustrations. I started a thread way back dedicated just to that subject but no one has posted for awhile. I need to post and revive it. I have some other neat illustrations from Shakespeare's plays; I am sure you would find them equally interesting. I found the photos of the folios on Wikipedia the other day. I thought they were neat.

I'm ready to start the discussion when everybody else is, what's funny is that almost this entire thread has been in preparation for discussing Act I. I'm currently reading another novel so I might not be here all the time, but I'll try my best to contribute. By the way, is there a moderator here or something? who starts the discussion? Or is it just a free for all, and we just start whenever we want?

No mod to direct us; basically, we are on our own, but if we elect Quark to lead us I am sure he would love the title. It does help for someone to sort of keep the discussion on track and flowing along at a good pace. Hey, Quark, what do you say? Will you be the Shakespeare play leader?

Edit: actually it's next day now...but using my same post...

Last night, I got this book out of my library; one side of each page is the original text and the other is the translated modern text. I thought it might be helpful, enlightening.



Another illustration, this one of Hotspur and his wife


This may be the book I got those out of originally; looks like an interesting book, doesn't it?

[Quark]

Did you like Michael Keaton then? I thought he went a little 'over-the-top';

Well he was playing a pretty over-the-top character.

Good plan; that way I or anyone else won't get too confused. I re-watched Act I again and only a little of Act II. I now have Act I pretty much in my mind and am ready to disguss it.

Lets start then:

Henry IV Part I Discussion Begins Now!

What did everyone think of the first scene? Three things stick out about it to me. Henry IV's beginning speech is one of them. This is his view of what just happened in the last play. In Henry's mind there was a general fight between two sides which just happened to end up with him as King. He divorces himself from the conflict entirely, and instead tells a story about two unnamed sides senselessly doing damage to the land and one another. Even though he was directly responsible for the war, he believes that only now does he really have a role to play in this--and that role oddly enough is peacekeeper. Henry plans to go to the "holy fields" and divert sectarian animosities away from rebellion and toward an outside foe. Another interesting part of the opening scene is the characterization of Glendower. Just as in Richard II or Macbeth, the resistance to the king is pictured as coming from some obscure part of the country. The rebels are rarely tied to an urban center or castle, rather they come from the woods or the fringe of the nation. Henry IV's rebels hid in the wilds of Gloucester, Macduff moved in on Macbeth's castle from the forest, and this time Glendower is found in Wales. The difference between these cases is that while Macduff and particularly Henry IV are portrayed as the retribution of the country for the crimes of the court, Glendower is portrayed as only barbaric and violent. Glendower and Mortimer's alliance could easily be cast in the same light as other Shakespearean rebels like Henry IV in the previous play, as the order of the court has been upset and now the rebels are trying to reset things. In the first scene, though, everything that could implicate Henry IV is suppressed.

One last thing about this scene: why are scene i. and iii. split up. One could have easily combined them since they have roughly the same subject and characters. Why put scene ii. in the middle of this discussion on the Welsh conflict?

By the way, is there a moderator here or something? who starts the discussion? Or is it just a free for all, and we just start whenever we want?

No mod to direct us; basically, we are on our own, but if we elect Quark to lead us I am sure he would love the title. It does help for someone to sort of keep the discussion on track and flowing along at a good pace. Hey, Quark, what do you say? Will you be the Shakespeare play leader?

I don't think I'll have time to lead the discussion, but I will be around a lot between Thursday and Sunday. With no more than five posters, though, do we really need a moderator?

[DanielBenoit]

Henry IV Part I Discussion Begins Now!

[DanielBenoit]

One last thing about this scene: why are scene i. and iii. split up. One could have easily combined them since they have roughly the same subject and characters. Why put scene ii. in the middle of this discussion on the Welsh conflict?

Maybe because Shakespeare wanted to from the start create a polarization of the two worlds contained within the play. To not have the first tavern scene interupt the serious political scenes would remove the play of its important contrast.

[Janine]

Maybe because Shakespeare wanted to from the start create a polarization of the two worlds contained within the play. To not have the first tavern scene interupt the serious political scenes would remove the play of its important contrast.

Yes, we finally have started. I am happy, too. Been anxious to get discussing while all is fresh in my mind. I just placed two things on my desktop. The full text for Act I and the synopsis, also on this site; for easy reference.
Hey, Quark,haha... did we need 5 inch letters again? haha...do you think we are losing our eyesight? You always crack me up with your mega large type announcement!

Ok, time to get serious. First off, I agree with DanielB. If Shakespeare hadn't split the scenes up, it would not really have paced the play or added any suspense on how it would progress; also he not have engaged his audience so quickly. The scene would be longer and the introduction of Falstaff and Hal really spice up the play. I find the way Shakespeare interspersed the humor with the serious works very well, as it usually does with his plays. I also think, even though Scene II is humorous and a frolic at times, it also has some very serious and meaningful moments in it. The first, is when Henry ruminates about his being the sun obscured by the clouds. Let me quote this part which actually fall towardes the very end of that scene; this scene clearly demonstrates how Prince Hal is now considering his true place in history and how he will then appear when accepting his true calling in life, responsibilty in taking over the thrown. He compares himself to the sun being obscured by clouds, which will appear more the brighter when revealed at last. Interesting that in Hamlet the word 'sun' is used similarly, in the fact it is takes on two meanings - the 'son' and the 'sun'. In Richard III, the word sun crops up again, only this time, to mean the opposite of what Richard is revealing or expressing directly to the audience.

Here is Hal's quiet singular ruminating, asside from the others:

PRINCE HENRY
I know you all, and will awhile uphold
The unyoked humour of your idleness:
Yet herein will I imitate the sun,
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
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.
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,
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.

Later on in Act II, I find the part where Falstaff plays Henry IV and Hal plays himself, a very telling moment, as well. This scene has humor, but also much seriousness about it. If you notice when the two actors change roles, things become a little more grave by the end. We can discuss that part when we get to it. Didn't mean to jump ahead - just trying to demonstrate a point - how Shakepeare mixes up the humor with the serious.

In Scene II of Act I, you will also notice this interesting exchange between Falstaff and Prince Hal, this time using the moon in contrast to the sun, which I earlier mentioned:

FALSTAFF
Indeed, you come near me now, Hal; for we that take
purses go by the moon and the seven stars, and not
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,--

PRINCE HENRY
What, none?

FALSTAFF
No, by my troth, not so much as will serve to
prologue to an egg and butter.

PRINCE HENRY
Well, how then? come, roundly, roundly.

FALSTAFF
Marry, then, sweet wag, when thou art king, let not
us that are squires of the night's body be called
thieves of the day's beauty: let us be Diana's
foresters, gentlemen of the shade, minions of the

moon; and let men say we be men of good government,
being governed, as the sea is, by our noble and
chaste mistress the moon, under whose countenance we steal.

PRINCE HENRY
Thou sayest well, and it holds well too; for the
fortune of us that are the moon's men doth ebb and
flow like the sea, being governed, as the sea is,
by the moon. As, for proof, now: a purse of gold
most resolutely snatched on Monday night and most
dissolutely spent on Tuesday morning; got with
swearing 'Lay by' and spent with crying 'Bring in;'
now in as low an ebb as the foot of the ladder
and by and by in as high a flow as the ridge of the gallows.

Then a little later on in the same conversation, again the mention of the 'gallows'; throughout the play there is a number of times when the threat of the gallows is mentioned; obviously, this fortells a number of events to come in later plays:

FALSTAFF
Yea, and so used it that were it not here apparent
that thou art heir apparent--But, I prithee, sweet
wag, shall there be gallows standing in England when
thou art king? and resolution thus fobbed as it is
with the rusty curb of old father antic the law? Do
not thou, when thou art king, hang a thief.

PRINCE HENRY
No; thou shalt.

FALSTAFF
Shall I? O rare! By the Lord, I'll be a brave judge.

PRINCE HENRY
Thou judgest false already: I mean, thou shalt have
the hanging of the thieves and so become a rare hangman.

I find a subtext here which forsees the coming events.

Another thing stands out to me. In each scene the last line or paragraph is very much a 'cliff-hanger'. Was this intentional in order to build suspense and keep the viewer watching the play? I believe it was. I know it works for me.

Scene I

KING HENRY IV
But I have sent for him to answer this;
And for this cause awhile we must neglect
Our holy purpose to Jerusalem.
Cousin, on Wednesday next our council we
Will hold at Windsor; so inform the lords:
But come yourself with speed to us again;
For more is to be said and to be done
Than out of anger can be uttered.

WESTMORELAND
I will, my liege.

Scene II

PRINCE HENRY
Well, I'll go with thee: provide us all things
necessary and meet me to-morrow night in Eastcheap;
there I'll sup. Farewell.

POINS
Farewell, my lord.

Scene III

NORTHUMBERLAND
Farewell, good brother: we shall thrive, I trust.

HOTSPUR
Uncle, Adieu: O, let the hours be short
Till fields and blows and groans applaud our sport!

Each scene is 'to be continued' in the next Act, adding that much needed break and bit of suspense.

[DanielBenoit]

Nice illustrations Janine . Do you know what scene that Hotspur one is from?

Oooo this is so cool! I did get to write an essay on this play, but I never got to analyize it scene by scene.

Though one downside is that the last time I've read the play was about three months ago, so it's not too fresh in my mind, put I still have the passages that I underlined to go to.

Also as another quick sidenote; I have not read Richard II, though I do have knowledge of what happened.

Okay, here we go.

I have always viewed the king as burnt out political ruler, weary with guilt from the murder of Richard II. He is obviously discontent with Hal's behavior.

Yea, there thou makest me sad, and makest me sin
In envy that my Lord Northumberland
Should be the father to so blest a son,—
A son who is the theme of honour's tongue;
Amongst a grove, the very straightest plant;
Who is sweet Fortune's minion and her pride:
Whilst I, by looking on the praise of him,
See riot and dishonour stain the brow
Of my young Harry. O, that it could be proved
That some night-tripping fairy had exchanged
In cradle-clothes our children where they lay,
And call'd mine Percy, his Plantagenet!
Then would I have his Harry, and he mine:

It is interesting that the King refers to Hotspur as a plant, for plants cannot survive without the sun. As we know, Hal has been symbolically linked to the sun, him being the son of royalty. It seems what Shakespeare is saying in this analogy, is that despite Hotspurs chivalry and bravery, he survives off of royalty, thus foreshadowing the rebels impending defeat.

(the following is taken from my essay)

This kind of open veracity seems quite a cruel wish coming from a father. It makes us hesitate to scoff when Hotspur later says of Hal, “I think his father loves him not.”

But Hal seems to be partly aware of his father’s disapproval and amends to both his hesitant father and himself to “be more myself”:



I know you all, and will awhile uphold
The unyok’d humour of your idleness:
Yet herein will I imitate the Sun,
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
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.
So, when this loose behaviour 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,
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.

[I, Henry IV, Act I, Scene III, 220-241]

One of the great contrasts (besides that of culture) established at the begining of the play, is that of time. The main thesis of part one of my essay is Falstaff's transcendence of life's vainities (as we progress furthur in the play, this will be discussed more).

As we can see at the beginning of the play, the figures of the political world barely have any time, as the King complains in the first lines of the play:



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.

[I, Henry IV, Act I, Scene I, 1-4]



By contrast, Falstaff does have time to pant, as here when Hal takes a jab at Falstaff when he has to catch his breath from breathing playful insults at the prince:



Well, breathe awhile, and then to it again: and, when thou hast tired thyself in base comparisons, hear me speak but this[. . . . .]

[I, Henry IV, Act II, Scene IV, 76-78]

By contrast, the first lines spoken by Falstaff in the play, "Now, Hal, what time of day is it lad?" Ironically, Falstaff asks this while we is awaking, which contrasts to the Kings tired and weary speech. Hal's answer extends this motiff:

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 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 the blessed Sun himself 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, rightly according to Hal, measures time not by battles or pages, but by cups of sack and capons. What Shakespeare is saying is that a man measures his time by the objects of vocation in his life. The King's and Falstaff's vocations being clearly different.


Well, I'm tired. More to come.

[Quark]

I see Daniel posted right before me. Sorry to cover your post. Like I said to Janine, I'm running out of time tonight, but I'll get to your points tomorrow.

Hey, Quark,haha... did we need 5 inch letters again? haha...do you think we are losing our eyesight?

It seemed like people were a little dubious about the status of the thread so I wanted to make it clear that, indeed, we were starting. If I could have made the text flashing, I would have.

Maybe because Shakespeare wanted to from the start create a polarization of the two worlds contained within the play. To not have the first tavern scene interupt the serious political scenes would remove the play of its important contrast.

Yeah, this idea of contrast came up earlier. Mayneverhave said earlier that

Falstaff and the Tavern is the world of the moon (owing to all the moon imagery in Scene II's back-and-forth), a world of the night, and the world of prose (which is all Falstaff speaks), which puts it in sharp distinction with the Court's world, in which the King is the sun. Hal's superb soliloquy at the end of Act 1, Scene II, establishes his ambivalent, complex character, forshadows his eventual repudiation of Falstaff, because, after all, Hal is the son/sun, and therefore cannot remain in the shadowy world of the Tavern. Hal is never drawn to either pole completely in this play - a careful equilibrium is maintained - Hal speaks in both verse and prose, but these things can not remain this way, as Part Two will show.

Perhaps dividing the court scenes with a something from the tavern draws attention to the difference between these two worlds, and it establishes each early in the play before things really get under way. The first two scenes are almost introductions. Nothing of much plot importance happens until scene iii when Hotspur refuses to offer up his prisoners. Then the action starts to move. Before, though, we're getting acquainted with these two worlds.

The scene would be longer and the introduction of Falstaff and Hal really spice up the play. I find the way Shakespeare interspersed the humor with the serious works very well, as it usually does with his plays.

No one can argue with that. I know you had some problems with the unrelenting courtly language in Richard II. It's just one stuffy speech after another in that play, and a comic relief break would have been welcome. I suppose if scene i and iii were combined, it would make a somewhat tiresome block.

I also think that there's a change in Henry IV's attitude between scenes. He's more contemplative and detached in scene i. The Henry we see later is much more immersed in the everyday running of the kingdom. In scene i Henry is taking a survey of the situation: we learn about how view the past, what he thinks the state of the kingdom is, and what he hopes for the future. Yet in the next court scene he starts taking action, and attends to what needs to be done to stay in power. One can see scene ii in this light, too. Falstaff and Hal are not really doing anything here, but describing how they see themselves, the world, and their future.

He compares himself to the sun being obscured by clouds, which will appear more the brighter when revealed at last. Interesting that in Hamlet the word 'sun' is used similarly, in the fact it is takes on two meanings - the 'son' and the 'sun'. In Richard III, the word sun crops up again, only this time, to mean the opposite of what Richard is revealing or expressing directly to the audience.

Of course, Richard uses that language sarcastically. The sun breaking through the clouds is not a brilliant event for him, but only a further irritation that shows how miserable his own fate is. Richard picks up Hal's sun/cloud language, but he inverts it. The clouds are the reality for Richard, and the sun is the illusion. In a lot of ways Richard inverts what Hal does, and they are almost opposite characters.


You mentioned some other things Janine which I can't get to now, but I'll post something on them later.

[Janine]

I read all, but I will hold back till you answer all DanielBenoit's and my posts. When did mayneverhave write that, Quark? I am afraid I wasn't here when you first started discussing this play and I missed that; I thought I was being original. I am surprised he wrote about the the same son/sun idea, but did he compare it to Hamlet..or later to the Richard III play? Besides this, there are other dualities in the play - such as the two Henry's.

DanielB, it would greatly aid you to read through Richard II; but if you don't have the time right now, reading a brief synopsis of the play would help. I find it's gravely important to know what happened historically, prior to this play. I like your ideas on time and contrasts. I will write more about that later on after Quark is finished addressing our two posts.

Daniel, you have made some good points. Have you noticed how often Shakespeare uses plants, gardens, weeds, sun, moon, tides, stars, etc? They are definitely recurring thematic images/symbolism throughout the history plays especially; although, I recall them in other plays as well, such as Hamlet.

[DanielBenoit]

Daniel, you have made some good points. Have you noticed how often Shakespeare uses plants, gardens, weeds, sun, moon, tides, stars, etc? They are definitely recurring thematic images/symbolism throughout the history plays especially; although, I recall them in other plays as well, such as Hamlet.

Yeah, throughout his works, Shakespeare uses weather and nature as representatioins of his characters psychological states. Macbeth is a prime example.

[Janine]

Yeah, throughout his works, Shakespeare uses weather and nature as representatioins of his characters psychological states. Macbeth is a prime example.

True, and in other plays such as The Tempest, A Winter's Tale, and many more come to mind. I bet if we could run a search through all of Shakespeare's works we could come up with a zillion count on just the word 'moon' or 'sun', for that matter. In this play, it came to me during the central scene in his act. The 'sleep' idea and the moon and changing tides is characteristic of Falstaff and his band of rebels and the fact, that Hal is hanging out with them. Nearly from the begining of this scene, Hal catches Falstaff fast asleep and makes a comment, about how rogues as him can find sleep so easily acessable. Then towards the end of that scene we know, from Hal's solitary speech, that he sees himself in reality as the 'sun', who will shine brilliantly and 'constant', in contrast to these other changing moods ruled by the moon obscured by clouds of change. I also noticed when the guards are leaving they said 'goodnight' to Hal and he corrects them, saying "isn't it good morrow?"..not exact words and I think it may now be a later scene, perhaps in Act II. Obviously, our Hal doesn't find sleep an easy thing to come by. He stays up with the rogues well into the daylight hours. It's an interesting contrast/comparison, because the idea of 'sleep' and the waning 'moon' and the 'sun' runs through all the Henry plays, all the way up to Richard III when it is then again mentioned, in the very first speech by Richard, which opens the play. For that matter the question of 'sleep' is key to many of the Shakespeare plays. In Hamlet, of course, the 'to be and not to be' speech mentions 'sleep' continually in conjuction to 'death'. A key scene in Henry V is Hal's roaming the night camp and his final soliloquy with the main focus on sleep. In Macbeth, the idea of sleep and repose is key to the fact, that Lady Macbeth is plagued with insonmia, which I believe actually drags her down into madness, if I recall correctly.

Saturday edit: Where is everyone, taking a weekend break???....