King Henry IV Part I - Act 1

[Scheherazade]

Please post your comments on Act 1 in this thread.

Scene I (http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/henryIV1/2/)

Scene II (http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/henryIV1/3/)

Scene III (http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/henryIV1/4/)

[mayneverhave]

This first act immediately establishes the juxtaposition of the two major poles in the two Henry IV plays - the Court and the Tavern. The Court, which features characters of great nobility and rank, where such things as inheritance, name, and honor are important, is the world of verse, and is epitomized by the King, i.e. Pole 1.

Scene 1 picks up where Richard II left off. The people who assisted Henry IV's (Bolingbroke) ascension to the crown by deposing Richard, the Percys are the major threat to Henry IV's precarious power in this play, and the obvious implication by this is that since Henry achieved power by usurping the de jure, ordained king (Rich. II), and therefore achieved power by being more practical and powerful than the metaphysical and aloof Richard, his position is one that can be overthrown by just the same logic. Because Henry has not achieved the crown by ordained means, he is liable to be overthrown by the same rebellion as he employed.

Henry's goal, then, is to go on a Crusade - a war in a far distant land, for a cause all Englishmen can agree on. This will draw attention away from the surreptitious means that he employed to gain the throne, and focus all the attentions of all his would-be-usurpers on a war against a far off enemy. Obviously, Henry never reaches this goal, though rebellion is put down in both Henry IV plays, and it is only till Henry V that his son is able to unite all of England against the French at Agincourt.

These Henry plays trace the development of Prince Hal, who is introduced, along with Falstaff and the rest of the Tavern crew, in Scene II, who develops from the youth who wavers between two poles (Pole 1 - Henry IV, Pole 2 - Falstaff), into Henry V, who is basically undefeatable.

The Tavern of Scene 2 introduces Falstaff (my favorite of Shakespeare's characters), who dismantles and critiques all of the high pomp of the Court, and whose wit knows no bounds. Falstaff, an old, fat knight lives entirely for the moment, cares nothing for honor, and manages to get away with some very scathing critiques of the Prince, owing to his jovial nature, the Prince's equally competative wit, and ultimately, what I believe to be Falstaff's deep-down sincerity in his caring for Hal.

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.

All of this has dealt with very little of the actual text, but I just wanted to lay down some growndwork for a discussion of the play, and then get into an actual close reading after.
Layout-

I - Court - Henry IV - establishment of precarious English peace
II - Tavern - Falstaff and Hal - establishment of Falstaff's band of thieves, Hal's mean streak, the Falstaff robbery storyline, and Hal's assurance that he will "break through the foul and ugly mists", aka the low, degenerate (but entertaining) lower class.
III - Court - main antagonist, Hotspur introduced - his fantastic story of why he did not bring the hostages to Henry, and his establishment as the action-oriented, manly, upholder of honor.

[Quark]

Thanks for getting the conversation going, mayneverhave. I was starting to think this play would pass by unnoticed. I'm glad someone picked it up, though, because I think it could be a good discussion.


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.

That's a good observation. Falstaff is always gesturing toward the moon--verbally, that is. I wonder whether he's trying to draw a connection between himself and the sublunary. He is very much "of the world" with his enjoyment of everything selfishness and his skepticism toward anything honorable. Earlier I was in a discussion on "The Man with the Blue Guitar" where the moon was pale, abstract, and idealized, but here in Henry IV it comes across as quite the opposite. Falstaff's moon is one that presides over theft and greed. It belongs to a selfish reality covered up by the sun and polite, civilized society. Interestingly, Falstaff argues that this second world is just as ordered as that represented by the sun. He says "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/ govern'd, as the sea is, by our novle and chaste mistress/ the moon, under whose countenance we steal." Just as in civilized society, the selfish sublunary world has its own government and subordination. One might be tempted to look at Falstaff's practice as simply chaotic, but he seems to believe there is as much order in the night as there is during the day--only it's a different order. He sees himself as one part of that order, and hopes that the moon will indulge him. Meanwhile, he only wants to be permitted by the sun. This is dramatized in his conversations with Hal. He needs to get Hal to acknowledge this second, lunar reality. In fact, one of his first lines tries for exactly that: "Let not us that are squire's of the night's body be call's/ thieves of the day's beauty." As you said above, this puts Hal in between two extremes. He can listen to either Falstaff or the king, can spend his time in either the court or the tavern, and can look to either the sun or the moon.

I'll say something more about Hal and his byplay with Falstaff tomorrow, but it's getting a little late tonight. Thanks again for starting us off, mayneverhave.

[Quark]

I posted something last night that was a partial response, but I didn't get to everything. Mayneverhave mentioned just about everything there is to mention in his first post, so it's a bit of work to catch up.


since Henry achieved power by usurping the de jure, ordained king (Rich. II), and therefore achieved power by being more practical and powerful than the metaphysical and aloof Richard, his position is one that can be overthrown by just the same logic. Because Henry has not achieved the crown by ordained means, he is liable to be overthrown by the same rebellion as he employed.

Henry's goal, then, is to go on a Crusade - a war in a far distant land, for a cause all Englishmen can agree on. This will draw attention away from the surreptitious means that he employed to gain the throne,

Yeah, Henry IV recognizes his weak position--that if one king can be overthrown through force, then surely another could be, too. And Henry doesn't even know the half of it. When you read the plays set after Richard II, you start to think that kingship, far from being a lengthy appointment, is more like a temp job. In Richard III alone, three more kings are de-kinged. Clearly, Henry IV suspicions turn out to be well-founded, and one could read the opening lines of the play in front of us as rather anxious. "The edge of war," he says hopefully "like an ill-sheathes knife,/ no more shall cut his master." Before that sentence Henry talked about the English people and its lands--all plurals--but here he switches to the singular "master," and I sense that he has the interest of just one person in mind now: himself.

I wouldn't write it off as just a politically savvy move by the king, though. Remember that back in Richard II he gives a different reason for his trip to Arabia "I'll make a voyage to the Holy Land,/ To wash this blood off from my guilty hands." Henry's venture in the middle-east may have as much to do with his soul as it does with his safety. Of course, I don't know how much we can take from Richard II and apply it to Henry IV. Shakespeare does change some details in between the plays. In this instance, he changes Henry's voyage from what sounds like a pilgrimage in Richard II to a crusade in Henry IV. The play Richard II just mentions that he's going to visit the holy land. I don't remember anything about chasing pagans from the field. Yet I still think that Henry's guilt is present in the later play, as well. We see it in his paranoid characterization of his son as the "hot vengeance, and rod of heaven" punishing him for usurping the throne. I think it motivates the speech at the start of this play, as well. The crusade is a rather complex move on Henry's part. It's partly motivated by political concerns, but it's also a personal quest for absolution.

What do you think about him breaking it off so quickly, though? We brought that up in the Richard II discussion, but I don't remember coming to any conclusions.


These Henry plays trace the development of Prince Hal, who is introduced, along with Falstaff and the rest of the Tavern crew, in Scene II, who develops from the youth who wavers between two poles (Pole 1 - Henry IV, Pole 2 - Falstaff), into Henry V, who is basically undefeatable.

I think you're right to look at these plays together. Henry IV and Henry V--and also Richard II--have so much interlocking that they make a rather convincing whole. I know I mentioned before that some of the details change from one work to another, but the characters and themes do not. Not only do they continue from play to play, but they progress. Henry V is good example. In Henry IV, Hal and Falstaff establish the two poles you mentioned and quip back and forth about how each deals with the other. Their conversation in this play is a running commentary about the strengths and weakness of the realities represented by court and tavern, sun and moon. Falstaff will point out how insubstantial honor and valor are--that they're just words--and Hal shows how foolish self-interest can be. At the very introduction of these characters, they're already commenting on each other's position. Falstaff says he belongs to the moon, and Hal replies that "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"


http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd300/Quark3/illustration2.jpg
Sorry, couldn't think of one

Hal is showing that those who steal under the moon are not in control of their fortune. Anything you gain while the moon is out can be lost just as easily. This little observation starts off what becomes a long conversation on whether it's better to live under the sun or the moon. In Henry V, though, the clever back-and-forth is replaced by a synthesis. The character Henry V combines both the court's respectability and Falstaff's worldly awareness. Not only does he unite England, but he combines the two poles you mentioned. Henry V, the play (the italics are hardly noticeable), takes up the discussion in the previous play and moves beyond it--just as Henry IV continues the story of Richard II. It was a good decision to move onto this play after reading Richard II. Maybe we'll do Henry V after this. I know some people would like that. Janine mentioned Henry V as a favorite.


Falstaff, an old, fat knight lives entirely for the moment, cares nothing for honor, and manages to get away with some very scathing critiques of the Prince, owing to his jovial nature, the Prince's equally competative wit, and ultimately, what I believe to be Falstaff's deep-down sincerity in his caring for Hal.

Just about everyone in this play gets in a scathing critique. It's a very probing, critical play. Hal and the Falstaff mock each other, but there's also Hotspur mocking Glendower, the king attacking his son. Everyone apparently has something to say about each other. I think my favorite of them is when Hotspur is trying to deflate Glendower's ego. I feel like I've had that conversation so many times. I won't say whether I was Glendower or Hotspur.

[mayneverhave]

Yeah, Henry IV recognizes his weak position--that if one king can be overthrown through force, then surely another could be, too. And Henry doesn't even know the half of it. When you read the plays set after Richard II, you start to think that kingship, far from being a lengthy appointment, is more like a temp job. In Richard III alone, three more kings are de-kinged.

Not only do these plays imply that the kingship is just a, as you put it, "temp job" - which it, of course, in all reality is - but this play, along with the rest of this tetralogy (and in this we could include all the plays that address royalty, i.e. Macbeth, Hamlet, King Lear, The Tempest, etc.) lead us to question the very right of kings, the temporality of earthly achievments, and the hypocrisy that is present in almost every level of society. Take Henry V (both the man and the play). Henry V ruled for a total 9 years, was arguably the greatest militaristic king in England's history, won the battle of Agincourt over the French (as depicted in the play), and then died, at which point his heirs were never able to duplicate his success, lost the claim to the French throne, and lost the throne of England to the House of York.


Hal is showing that those who steal under the moon are not in control of their fortune. Anything you gain while the moon is out can be lost just as easily. This little observation starts off what becomes a long conversation on whether it's better to live under the sun or the moon. In Henry V, though, the clever back-and-forth is replaced by a synthesis. The character Henry V combines both the court's respectability and Falstaff's worldly awareness. Not only does he unite England, but he combines the two poles you mentioned. Henry V, the play (the italics are hardly noticeable), takes up the discussion in the previous play and moves beyond it--just as Henry IV continues the story of Richard II. It was a good decision to move onto this play after reading Richard II. Maybe we'll do Henry V after this. I know some people would like that. Janine mentioned Henry V as a favorite.

Read Hal's lines here just a bit closer.


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.

Not only are those that steal by night subject to the ever changing fortunes of the tide, but their fortunes can lead them to nowhere but the gallows. The "low ebb" is the foot of the ladder leading to the gallows, and the "high" is the ridge. Falstaff quickly changes the subject.

Hal synthesis in Henry V, as you pointed out, occurs because of his great understanding of politics - the need to play a multitude of roles all at the same time, and thereby never lose at anything. The fact that Falstaff dies before Henry V, and is by degrees repudiated in Henry IV, Part Two eliminates any character that has the wits enough to criticize Hal.

[Quark]

Read Hal's lines here just a bit closer.

Well lets look at the entire Act closer. I know we've said quite a lot about the play in general, but we haven't really gotten down to the text as of yet. Maybe we should start with this part of scene ii since it seems like there's plenty to say about it. Here's some of the text:


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.

FALSTAFF
By the Lord, thou sayest true, lad. And is not my
hostess of the tavern a most sweet wench?

PRINCE HENRY
As the honey of Hybla, my old lad of the castle. And
is not a buff jerkin a most sweet robe of durance?

FALSTAFF
How now, how now, mad wag! what, in thy quips and
thy quiddities? what a plague have I to do with a
buff jerkin?

PRINCE HENRY
Why, what a pox have I to do with my hostess of the tavern?

FALSTAFF
Well, thou hast called her to a reckoning many a
time and oft.

PRINCE HENRY
Did I ever call for thee to pay thy part?

FALSTAFF
No; I'll give thee thy due, thou hast paid all there.

PRINCE HENRY
Yea, and elsewhere, so far as my coin would stretch;
and where it would not, I have used my credit.

FALSTAFF
Yea, and so used it that were it not here apparent
that thou art heir apparent

I completely agree that Hal's gallows humor foreshadows Falstaff's repudiation and death. It's also Hal's way of fixing distance in between himself and Falstaff. There's an interesting movement between moments of closeness and distance in this scene, and I think you can see it in even this small part. The joking about punishment and death clearly puts Falstaff and Hal in different positions, but the mention later of Hal's money puts them back in the same position. Hal is using his money and even his credit--derived from future kingship--to finance both his own and Falstaff's revels. This makes them appear much more in league with each other than the morbid jokes earlier in the scene. We know where this will ultimately go, but right now Hal seems pretty undecided about what his relation to Falstaff is.

[Quark]

http://www.nigraphic.com/files/images/iran_desert_maranjab_1.jpg
Thread Desertification

[Janine]

Holy smokes! I didn't know you started this one yet. I will have to cheat and watch the BBC movie. I read the play years ago.

"Thread Desertification"
what's this?...Quark, you never cease to amaze me! Cool photo.....:lol:

Wait, is there no hope for this thread?

[Quark]

Holy smokes! I didn't know you started this one yet. I will have to cheat and watch the BBC movie. I read the play years ago.

I wonder if you can get that on YouTube? I'd be interested to see it.


"Thread Desertification"
what's this?...

It's a visual reminder of the chance we're missing. If we don't discuss this play soon the next one will replace it.

[Janine]

I wonder if you can get that on YouTube? I'd be interested to see it.

You probably can; not much you can't find on there. Just look it up in seach; BBC production. I have a channel page on there and tons of playlists stored by now. If I find it, I can mark it in one of the files. I love Youtube!


It's a visual reminder of the chance we're missing. If we don't discuss this play soon the next one will replace it.

Yeah, I know it. I hope she does not post the next one, when we didn't start this one or hardly got it off the ground. I knew we bit off more than we all could chew. It's always that way. Doing all of the history plays is pretty challenging.

[Quark]

You probably can; not much you can't find on there. Just look it up in seach; BBC production. I have a channel page on there and tons of playlists stored by now. If I find it, I can mark it in one of the files. I love Youtube!

Yeah, I found it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zxtyGpzWco


I knew we bit off more than we all could chew. It's always that way. Doing all of the history plays is pretty challenging.

That's probably true. Doing these plays is a lot more challenging than the five to twenty page short stories we usually attempt. If you do make you way through Henry IV, though, let me know. I'd be more than willing to post on the play.

[Janine]

Yeah, I found it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zxtyGpzWco

Oh good; glad you found it. I started to look last night and guess what? I got side-tracked with other videos - happens to me all the time.:rolleyes: It did look like it was listed though. Enjoy watching it. Maybe I will watch that tonight. Last night, I watched the 1937 film "Lost Horizons" and loved it; recall seeing it years ago, but not in 1937 :lol:! Ever see it, Quark? Wow, I kept thinking of Lawrence's ideas of a peaceful utopian society. It was quite interesting. I recall loving the book, too. Maybe I will write something up in 'Movie' thread later tonight.


That's probably true. Doing these plays is a lot more challenging than the five to twenty page short stories we usually attempt. If you do make you way through Henry IV, though, let me know. I'd be more than willing to post on the play.

It is more difficult I think; history is never simply either or drama of Shakespeare's plays.

Ok, I will do that....:nod:

[Virgil]

You know. I'm in need of a good lit discussion. Though I've currently got two novels running at the same time, perhaps I'll try to read this play and join you guys. But I'll need at least this weekend.

[Quark]

Last night, I watched the 1937 film "Lost Horizons" and loved it; recall seeing it years ago, but not in 1937 :lol:! Ever see it, Quark?

No, I haven't seen that one, but classic movies are great. I actually just finished watching "Lawrence of Arabia" for the first time--another great classic.


It is more difficult I think; history is never simply either or drama of Shakespeare's plays.

That might be the case. The history plays have so much backstory, but I think after doing so many of these we're starting to get the chronology down. Richard II and Henry IV almost overlap so one doesn't need too much outside information to appreciate what's going on here.


Ok, I will do that....:nod:

Excellent. I was starting to doubt we were going to get this discussion in before the next play is announced. I tried to guilt people into posting with my passive-agressive picture and caption above, but I figured it would just get ignored. If it works, though, I just going to keep doing it.


http://felixgilman.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/kitten.jpg
Kittens will be harmed if this discussion doesn't happen!


You know. I'm in need of a good lit discussion. Though I've currently got two novels running at the same time, perhaps I'll try to read this play and join you guys. But I'll need at least this weekend.

Sounds good. Nothing will probably materialize until next week anyway. We decided to do this only yesterday so I'm not even ready to start discussing yet.

[Virgil]

Great!

[Janine]

No, I haven't seen that one, but classic movies are great. I actually just finished watching "Lawrence of Arabia" for the first time--another great classic.

I invested in the movie, because I was at B&N the other night looking through their bargain shelves and spied it...only $9.99. I knew it was great because I loved it as a kid. I didn't go wrong one bit...well worth the money; I will definitely be viewing this film more than once.

"Lawrence of Arabian" is one of my alltime favorite films! I love films by David Lean. He was a genius and an artist. I love these and own them, too, along with LOA - "A Passage to India", "Ryan's Daughter"; my library has "Bridge Over the River Kwai"; and the library just got in "Dr. Zhivago".


That might be the case. The history plays have so much backstory, but I think after doing so many of these we're starting to get the chronology down. Richard II and Henry IV almost overlap so one doesn't need too much outside information to appreciate what's going on here.

That is so true. That's right. Those plays do overlap - sort of a part one and a part 2. I read all the plays a few years back. I loved them all.


Excellent. I was starting to doubt we were going to get this discussion in before the next play is announced. I tried to guilt people into posting with my passive-agressive picture and caption above, but I figured it would just get ignored. If it works, though, I just going to keep doing it.


http://felixgilman.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/kitten.jpg
Kittens will be harmed if this discussion doesn't happen!

Ahhh.. I want that kitten! She/he is so cute.....


Sounds good. Nothing will probably materialize until next week anyway. We decided to do this only yesterday so I'm not even ready to start discussing yet.

It will nice - the three of us again. We are the die-hards in Shakespeare. :lol:

[mayneverhave]

Yes, sorry for being away from this thread for so long.

I honestly want to do a more thorough job on this play, as it is one of my favorites. No one else posting, however, made it feel like less of a discussion than Quark and I lecturing.

[Janine]

Yes, sorry for being away from this thread for so long.

I honestly want to do a more thorough job on this play, as it is one of my favorites. No one else posting, however, made it feel like less of a discussion than Quark and I lecturing.

That is good to hear!
hahha....mayneverhave, I like your last line. I hope that Virgil and I will join in with the two of you lecturers! Virgil said he needed the weekend to read the play and I was going to watch the film on the weekend since I read the play already. I hope if we start about Monday to discuss that will work out for everyone. It should be such an interesting play to discuss. I am partial to the 'Henry' History plays myself.

[Quark]

Yes, sorry for being away from this thread for so long.

I honestly want to do a more thorough job on this play, as it is one of my favorites.

I've been wanting to get back into this play, too. It really is one of the better ones, and, while I like Richard II and Winter's Tale, Henry IV is much closer to being a favorite.


Virgil said he needed the weekend to read the play and I was going to watch the film on the weekend since I read the play already. I hope if we start about Monday to discuss that will work out for everyone.

I may have to wait until Tuesday to post. On Monday I have three classes and probably won't have time to post anything too long.

[mayneverhave]

That is good to hear!
hahha....mayneverhave, I like your last line. I hope that Virgil and I will join in with the two of you lecturers! Virgil said he needed the weekend to read the play and I was going to watch the film on the weekend since I read the play already. I hope if we start about Monday to discuss that will work out for everyone. It should be such an interesting play to discuss. I am partial to the 'Henry' History plays myself.

Might I also recommend Gus Van Sant's film, My Own Private Idaho, which is a loose adaptation of this play, with, unfortunately, Keanu Reeves in the Hal role.

[Janine]

I've been wanting to get back into this play, too. It really is one of the better ones, and, while I like Richard II and Winter's Tale, Henry IV is much closer to being a favorite.

I may have to wait until Tuesday to post. On Monday I have three classes and probably won't have time to post anything too long.

Yeah, :banana:, I watched the BBC production last night and I really liked it. It's hard to fully understand all the political stuff; but maybe, you guys can all enlighten me on that score, when we start discussing it. I like this play, also because Prince Hal finally makes his appearance and I am sort of fond of Prince Hal; Falstaff also is so interesting. I love Henry V best, but these plays leading up to Henry V have to be read first to really appreciate Henry V.

[DanielBenoit]

To see a great film adaption of Henry IV, see Chimes at Midnight directed by Orson Welles, who also plays Falstaff. Best Falstaff I've seen! It's available for free on google video.

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.

Find it here on my blog:

http://danielbenoit.blog.com/falstaff-and-hamlet-the-existential-philosophers-of-life-and-death/

[Quark]

unfortunately, Keanu Reeves in the Hal role.

He's rather unfortunately starred in a few Shakespeare plays, hasn't he? He was in a version of Much Ado About Nothing, and I thought he was in something else too. His blank facial expression and monotone didn't do much for either if I remember.


Yeah, :banana:, I watched the BBC production last night and I really liked it. It's hard to fully understand all the political stuff; but maybe, you guys can all enlighten me on that score, when we start discussing it.

Really all you need to know for the first Act is that Hal has been fighting elsewhere. Meanwhile, Northumberland and Worcester feel that the King is slighting them--even though they helped him to the throne. They're all part of the Percy family which is becoming increasingly alienated from Henry IV. Mortimer was the next in line to be king under Richard II, but lost his place when Henry IV took over.


To see a great film adaption of Henry IV, see Chimes at Midnight directed by Orson Welles, who also plays Falstaff. Best Falstaff I've seen! It's available for free on google video.

That sounds interesting. I'm guessing it's the later, more rotund Orson Welles playing Falstaff.

[Janine]

To see a great film adaption of Henry IV, see Chimes at Midnight directed by Orson Welles, who also plays Falstaff. Best Falstaff I've seen! It's available for free on google video.

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.

Find it here on my blog:

http://danielbenoit.blog.com/falstaff-and-hamlet-the-existential-philosophers-of-life-and-death/

Daniel, that is my favorite moment in Hamlet - your post quote.....We defy augury....

Your essay sounds interesting; I will have to check it out. Hamlet is my favorite play and fascination. Comparing Falstaff to Hamlet should prove interesting.

Quark, yes, Keanu Reeves played the villanous brother of Don Pedro in Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing. I so agree; he was totally flat, his performance was lacking greatly. I can't even fathom him playing Prince Hal eeek. I could not bear to see it; sorry mayneverhave. I just think he is not the actor to play Hal. He can't do Shakespeare, period!

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

To see a great film adaption of Henry IV, see Chimes at Midnight directed by Orson Welles, who also plays Falstaff. Best Falstaff I've seen! It's available for free on google video.

Daniel, that is interesting; I never knew he played Falstaff. I liked Orson Welles' version of Macbeth; although, it's a very dark film. I thought it was entirely interesting and intense though. Ever see it? The set design was quite impressive for the day. The acting was quite good.

I watched the second half of Henry IV tonight; even though, I know that we are not doing that part yet. I couldn't help myself. I had to see Prince Hal become king and get crowned. I found both plays a little difficult to totally grasp with all the wit and peasant language. I may have to read them both again. They both were quite good, but long; both were the BBC productions, part of the History series. Same actor for Hal in each; he was very good; cute looking, too. haha...That's a woman's perspective for you! ;)

Quark, thanks for your quick synopsis on the political factions. I should have read my synopsis in my book. I think I will do so tonight and for the other play/half, too.

[DanielBenoit]

Daniel, that is interesting; I never knew he played Falstaff. I liked Orson Welles' version of Macbeth; although, it's a very dark film. I thought it was entirely interesting and intense though. Ever see it? The set design was quite impressive for the day. The acting was quite good.

No, but I've been meaning too, it's so hard to find. Too bad Orson Welles and Laurence Oliver never collaborated. . . . .

By the way, I wasn't aware that the set design was that good. From what I've heard, the set design was made on a very low budget with props that revealingly looked like papier-maches.

[mayneverhave]

He's rather unfortunately starred in a few Shakespeare plays, hasn't he? He was in a version of Much Ado About Nothing, and I thought he was in something else too. His blank facial expression and monotone didn't do much for either if I remember.

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.


Really all you need to know for the first Act is that Hal has been fighting elsewhere. Meanwhile, Northumberland and Worcester feel that the King is slighting them--even though they helped him to the throne. They're all part of the Percy family which is becoming increasingly alienated from Henry IV. Mortimer was the next in line to be king under Richard II, but lost his place when Henry IV took over.

Actually, Hal is not off fighting elsewhere, but is already a dissolute tavern-goer. From RII, Act 5, Scene 3:

HENRY BOLINGBROKE

Can no man tell me of my unthrifty son?
'Tis full three months since I did see him last;
If any plague hang over us, 'tis he.
I would to God, my lords, he might be found:
Inquire at London, 'mongst the taverns there,
For there, they say, he daily doth frequent,
With unrestrained loose companions,
Even such, they say, as stand in narrow lanes,
And beat our watch, and rob our passengers;
Which he, young wanton and effeminate boy,
Takes on the point of honour to support
So dissolute a crew.

This is important because it prepares us for the Hal we find in Henry IV. Not the robust son Henry can be proud of (at which the King remarks that Hotspur is more his son than Hal), but a thief and degenerate, and (in Hal's own words): "a devil haunts thee in the likeness of an old fat man; a tun of man is thy companion."


That sounds interesting. I'm guessing it's the later, more rotund Orson Welles playing Falstaff.

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


sorry mayneverhave. I just think he is not the actor to play Hal. He can't do Shakespeare, period!

The movie's worth watching simply for the performance of River Phoenix. It's not a straight adaptation anyway.

[Quark]

Actually, Hal is not off fighting elsewhere

I meant Hotspur. I wrote that post a little too quickly.

[Janine]

No, but I've been meaning too, it's so hard to find. Too bad Orson Welles and Laurence Oliver never collaborated. . . . .

By the way, I wasn't aware that the set design was that good. From what I've heard, the set design was made on a very low budget with props that revealingly looked like papier-maches.

Daniel, most likely it was low-budge. I maybe should not have made that statement. If you like old films then you overlook the fact they are not very realistic. Today's films have the advantage of computer graphics and manipulation, even restoration. I only saw Welle's Macbeth from an old VHS copy from my local library. It was so dark a film, to be honest with you, I couldn't make out what anything was made from. Perhaps it was paper-mache! That is pretty funny. I do however like the admosphere that was achieved. I think one is diverted from inspecting the set design too closely by the intensity of the story and acting. I just recall a scene looking off a cliff that was rather awesome, even though one knew realistically it was not realistic. The set feels more like a stage design. In that respect I found it intersting for an old film. Now when I see the film again, I know I will be looking for the paper-mache! haha...

Well, the set for Olivier's Hamlet is quite bare and articical, as well, obviously done in the studio. I must now prefer the set design presented in later productions, such as Branagh's full length Hamlet film, in which the set design is very rich and full and feels more realistic.

[Janine]

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.

I own the movie and everytime I watch it, which is often, I want to blur him out of my memory. I keep trying to find some merit in that performance, but I am afraid even with repeat viewings, I only cringe more. It is good his part is not too long. Otherwise he would have ruined the film.
Just curious, mayneverhave, did you like the performance of Michael Keaton? I was ambivalent and still am about his portrayal of Dogberry. Otherwise, I find the film a great lot of fun. I am a big Branagh fan; so if there are any 'Ken bashers' here, please :bawling: refrain....hahaha...I agree that Denzel Washington was wonderful in this role. I love his work, too. I very much liked the rest of the cast, many are Branagh regulars or later became so, so that they all worked very well together.


Actually, Hal is not off fighting elsewhere, but is already a dissolute tavern-goer. From RII, Act 5, Scene 3:

HENRY BOLINGBROKE

Can no man tell me of my unthrifty son?
'Tis full three months since I did see him last;
If any plague hang over us, 'tis he.
I would to God, my lords, he might be found:
Inquire at London, 'mongst the taverns there,
For there, they say, he daily doth frequent,
With unrestrained loose companions,
Even such, they say, as stand in narrow lanes,
And beat our watch, and rob our passengers;
Which he, young wanton and effeminate boy,
Takes on the point of honour to support
So dissolute a crew.

This is important because it prepares us for the Hal we find in Henry IV. Not the robust son Henry can be proud of (at which the King remarks that Hotspur is more his son than Hal), but a thief and degenerate, and (in Hal's own words): "a devil haunts thee in the likeness of an old fat man; a tun of man is thy companion."

I thought the same thing. I didn't see where the play once mentioned Hal having fought any true battles. In reality, I think I did once read part of the true history and Harry did go and fight abroad a number of times; or at least, working up to Henry V's reign and the battle of Agincourt....perhaps that is what I am thinking of. That would make more sense. In Henry IV Part I, he did fight and kill Henry Percy.


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

Wow, seriously? He must have weighted a great deal. How did Welles die? Was it heartattack?


The movie's worth watching simply for the performance of River Phoenix. It's not a straight adaptation anyway.

Which movie features River Phoenix? The newer version Daniel mentioned of this play...Chimes at Midnight?

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

Quark, I can see how you mixed up the two Henry's; easy to do. I was thinking of looking up some commentary online, to fill in the background story on the political stuff going on from the start; I find that a little confusing and it continues on in the next play. Did you read Henry IV Part I yet, Quark?

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

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

[DanielBenoit]

Wow, seriously? He must have weighted a great deal. How did Welles die? Was it heartattack?

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.



Which movie features River Phoenix? The newer version Daniel mentioned of this play...Chimes at Midnight?

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.

[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
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/Shakespeare/398px-Henry_IV_1_title_page.jpg

First Folio
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/Shakespeare/450px-FirstFolioHenryIV1FromFirstFo.jpg

Falstaff and Prince Hal
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/Shakespeare/10005494Henry-IV-Falstaff-and-Princ.jpg

[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.:D


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.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/ShakespeareIllusPhoto/JacketHenryIVPart1.jpg

Another illustration, this one of Hotspur and his wife
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/ShakespeareIllusPhoto/10005502Henry-IV-Hotspur-and-His-Wi.jpg

This may be the book I got those out of originally; looks like an interesting book, doesn't it?
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/ShakespeareIllusPhoto/shekspireIllustrated.jpg

[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!



:banana::banana::banana:http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/huepfen/jumping-smiley-017.gifhttp://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/huepfen/jumping-smiley-017.gif:banana::banana::banana:

[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? :lol: You always crack me up with your mega large type announcement! :lol:

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???....

[Quark]

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

Work has been a little busy--it happens from time to time. Don't wait for me if I lag behind, though, because there's no telling how long it will be before I can post. I know I pushed the thread a lot at the beginning, but I'm not so much its leader as I am its advocate. I'd like to help out here and there, but we need more than one person leading the conversation.


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.

That's a good point. The sun and moon imagery shows the different allegiances that each character has. Falstaff belongs to the moon and the sublunary. His world revolves around theft, self-indulgence, and the tavern, while Hal's centers on honor, self-image, and the court. Hal sees himself at the end of scene ii as an obscured sun which implies that he doesn't take any of Falstaff's moon/tavern life seriously. I don't know how much the audience is supposed to believe that exactly. Clearly, Hal's future takes him to the court and kingship, but something about Hal completely disregarding Falstaff is unsatisfying. It would make this scene just comic relief--it wouldn't have any of those serious moments you were talking about earlier. On top of that, the scenes wouldn't have any substance. We wouldn't be learning anything in scene ii other than that Falstaff is a dissolute slob who Hal is using for political reasons, but Falstaff seems like more than that. I don't know, then, how we're supposed to take that final speech by Hal about the sun. Maybe the ostensible reason why these characters are together is that each is using the other, but that doesn't completely cover what's going on in these scenes so that last speech seems to be covering up more than it's revealing.

I tend to think of their relationship less in terms of each other use of the other (which seems like just the playwright's way of getting them in the same room), and more as what I called earlier a "running commentary" on what it's like to live by either the sun or the moon, in the tavern or in the court:

"Their conversation in this play is a running commentary about the strengths and weakness of the realities represented by court and tavern, sun and moon. Falstaff will point out how insubstantial honor and valor are--that they're just words--and Hal shows how foolish self-interest can be. At the very introduction of these characters, they're already commenting on each other's position. Falstaff says he belongs to the moon, and Hal replies that "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

Hal is showing that those who steal under the moon are not in control of their fortune. Anything you gain while the moon is out can be lost just as easily. This little observation starts off what becomes a long conversation on whether it's better to live under the sun or the moon. In Henry V, though, the clever back-and-forth is replaced by a synthesis. The character Henry V combines both the court's respectability and Falstaff's worldly awareness. Not only does he unite England, but he combines the two poles you mentioned. Henry V, the play (the italics are hardly noticeable), takes up the discussion in the previous play and moves beyond it--just as Henry IV continues the story of Richard II."


For that matter the question of 'sleep' is key to many of the Shakespeare plays.

Do you think the plays use sleep differently, though? Do you think Hamlet's idea of sleep is different from Hal's?


I have always viewed the king as burnt out political ruler, weary with guilt from the murder of Richard II.

There is something weary about Henry IV in these first scenes. He comes off as a little impotent since he doesn't really do anything but bluster at his subordinates. Even when he goes to war we don't see him doing particularly much. Everything we see of the war is from Hal's perspective which downplays the king.


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).

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:

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.

That's an interesting connection. I think it does show the difference between the king's occupation and Falstaff's. It might also point to the different state of mind that the king and Falstaff have. The king feels that his position is unstable and that he constantly has to act to avoid disaster. Hence, he feels hurried. Meanwhile, Falstaff is relaxed and unconcerned. He has plenty of time because he doesn't have the enemies closing around him that Henry IV does. His only concern is that the new king will impose a tighter grip than the current one--a fate which is rather distant.

[Virgil]

I'm sure you guys are having a great discussion, and I'm envious that I can't join you. But I've gotten preoccupied with other reading and I'm afraid will not join you guys. So don't wait for me in the unlikely event you were . ;)

[Janine]

Quark, I was out today and now I'm pretty tired. I am not sure if tomorrow I will be around too much either; but I do appreciate your latest post. Our town sent us this notice that they are starting some construction up the street from my house and we may not have much or any water pressure tomorrow or the next day. I went into a tailspin worrying about it. If need be, I might be going out most of the day. I don't happen to have an outhouse in my backyard. :( eeek...

Tues night, I am babysitting for my grand-daughter. I may be too tired out to post, when I get home, after chasing a walking toddler around for a couple of hours. Should be fun though.

Anyway, when I can, I will be back to answer your post, Quark. I did read everything you wrote and it all makes a lot of sense. Glad you were in agreement with me about the 'moon' and 'sun' references; I liked how you have expanded on those. More comments from me later to come...

Virgil, that's ok. We probably will pace this discussion pretty slowly, so if you can post some comments from time to time, that would ok too, or just forgo this one...whatever works for you. I understand.

[DanielBenoit]

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

Yeah sorry. I've been having an awful cold and can't think about anything. I'll probably be back tommorrow. Sorry. :redface:

[Janine]

Yeah sorry. I've been having an awful cold and can't think about anything. I'll probably be back tommorrow. Sorry. :redface:

No problem, Daniel. Fully understandable. Rest up and feel better. Come back and post when you can. I am probably going out today anyway. NO water like I predicted; although a few times it has gone on again, which is luckier. Not sure if we will full water service later after 3 but it's possible. Being a spoiled American, I go into 'panics', when simple things like water are unavailable, even for a day or part of a day. I know, pretty silly when you think of it. I did luckily prepare filling containers last night, and I have plenty of bottled drinking water. Things like this just throw me off and I can't think. All this is ironic, because I contacted Quark a day before I knew the city planned this. I am sorry, Quark, to bug you....I will try to answer your post today sometime.

Just a side note: This week and last, I have been viewing all the Shakespeare BBC History series; since, I was loaned the set...5 plays. I am on the last one now, Richard III. I have to return them soon; so decided to take them all in now. If anyone here has a chance to see all five, I highly recommend them. They are very good productions. I know the plays well by now, especially Richard III. I just wish to re-watch Henry IV, both parts and then I can return them.

[Janine]

Work has been a little busy--it happens from time to time. Don't wait for me if I lag behind, though, because there's no telling how long it will be before I can post. I know I pushed the thread a lot at the beginning, but I'm not so much its leader as I am its advocate. I'd like to help out here and there, but we need more than one person leading the conversation.

No problem. I stated my reasons in other posts. I have to weather through today and tomorrow; I may go out for a time, today to shop and eat out. Tomorrow night (yeah!) I am babysitting my darling little grand-daughter. It should be great fun. I can help out leading this discussion starting on Wednesday; how does that sound. It seems I keep inheriting things. I was asked to take over the social group "On Broadway" this week.

Then you are will be appointed it's advocate, Quark - that sounds good to me. I will post away, even if others don't; since I have such a clear vision in my mind now of the play, having watched it twice and read it once; also reading along again pressently. I do love the Henry plays!


That's a good point. The sun and moon imagery shows the different allegiances that each character has. Falstaff belongs to the moon and the sublunary. His world revolves around theft, self-indulgence, and the tavern, while Hal's centers on honor, self-image, and the court.

Excellent point. There is a distinct division evident between day and night, light and day, sun and moon; also the stars and the heavens are mentioned often in the plays, not just this one; they obviously present to us the symbolism of the fates and predictions, even witchcraft of paganism...look at the scene with Hotspur chiding Glendower, concerning his claim to the occult or divinity in a pagan sense. When Hal hangs out with the 'night underground' types/characters such as Poins, Barstoff and Falstaff, he lurks in shadows and shadows are not true beings; they embody fantasy, illusion and even deception. Hal is smart enough to know this right away. I think, in his speech asside from the others, in the tavern scene, he reveals his true knowledge of reality; the reality that will someday soon be his and he is well aware he cannot avoid this reality. He cannot continue to live amongst theives of the night and the bawdy; he has to choose between the noble life of the court and his friends, his 'salt of the earth friends', however base to in morality. I am not saying they aren't true friends. Truly they are; but they also are not consistent or loyal themselves; being changable like the moon and tides, they could just as easily turn on Hal. I thought at first that Hal was 'using' them, too, but I don't like the word 'use' here. I think in the speech he is ruminating on their role in his life and how he must recognise them now for what they truly are; they are not good influences, nor are they consistent. He was simply exploring his options in hanging out with them and he was young...tasting of his youth. I don't think this is much different, than youths of today in late teens and early 20's. I believe this is what makes me feel more drawn to the Henry plays when we see Hal comes into being. Unlike the Richard II play, with only court players, and elaborate poetry, in Henry IV we touch on the common, simplistic man, as well as the crafty/plotting court players. Hal, in some sense, at times becomes 'Everyman' as well. He touches the earth/earthiness of life and he experiences the common peasant, as well as later, accepting the court and the heavy responsibilities of being a king/royalty; in which state, he also accepts refinement and ceremony and nobility and all else that goes with the title.


Hal sees himself at the end of scene ii as an obscured sun which implies that he doesn't take any of Falstaff's moon/tavern life seriously. I don't know how much the audience is supposed to believe that exactly. Clearly, Hal's future takes him to the court and kingship, but something about Hal completely disregarding Falstaff is unsatisfying.

I think I basically, answered this above; but let me add this. I do think Hal feels being in Falstaff's and the others company is pure folly, fun & games. He most likely indulges himself for his own amusement. Remember he was brought up in the court and viewed much deception and even the facts, of how his father attained his crown; all of this is, no doubt something a youth would be inclined to reject. I am sure associating himself with the low-life, is part of his own rebelling against his father and the court. He is avoiding his own fate by emersing himself in games and Tom-foolery with the others. Knowing all; then seeing his struggle between the two worlds, further endears the young prince to the audience. I think, even though these two plays are entitled Henry IV, the main focus is on Hal and his transformation into accepting his true responsibilty and place in history.


It would make this scene just comic relief--it wouldn't have any of those serious moments you were talking about earlier. On top of that, the scenes wouldn't have any substance. We wouldn't be learning anything in scene ii other than that Falstaff is a dissolute slob who Hal is using for political reasons, but Falstaff seems like more than that. I don't know, then, how we're supposed to take that final speech by Hal about the sun. Maybe the ostensible reason why these characters are together is that each is using the other, but that doesn't completely cover what's going on in these scenes so that last speech seems to be covering up more than it's revealing.

If you notice, Barstoff and Nim are at odds with each other, too. I think that Shakespeare has it this way, in order to show us that side of the coin. These characters do not always stay true to themselves or others - thus the wanning of the moon and tides. They'd as much cut a throat, out of jealousy, as to steal a purse. The whole lot are a shaky crew; inconsistent in their loyalties. Falstaff plots behind others backs as well as Shadow/Shallow (?) and the other devious rogues. Check out the scene when he is picking his army. This might be in Part II; if so, please forgive my forging ahead. I just used it as an example.


I tend to think of their relationship less in terms of each other use of the other (which seems like just the playwright's way of getting them in the same room), and more as what I called earlier a "running commentary" on what it's like to live by either the sun or the moon, in the tavern or in the court:

"Their conversation in this play is a running commentary about the strengths and weakness of the realities represented by court and tavern, sun and moon. Falstaff will point out how insubstantial honor and valor are--that they're just words--and Hal shows how foolish self-interest can be. At the very introduction of these characters, they're already commenting on each other's position. Falstaff says he belongs to the moon, and Hal replies that "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.

Hal is showing that those who steal under the moon are not in control of their fortune. Anything you gain while the moon is out can be lost just as easily. This little observation starts off what becomes a long conversation on whether it's better to live under the sun or the moon. In Henry V, though, the clever back-and-forth is replaced by a synthesis. The character Henry V combines both the court's respectability and Falstaff's worldly awareness. Not only does he unite England, but he combines the two poles you mentioned. Henry V, the play (the italics are hardly noticeable), takes up the discussion in the previous play and moves beyond it--just as Henry IV continues the story of Richard II."

Excellent points, Quark; and basically how I am thinking of the relationship of the Henry plays. In Henry V so much is realised and there certainly is a back-and-forth ruminating on Henry's part - just take a close look at the speech in the night camp when he speaks of "what exactly is this thing called ceremony?" He contrasts the sleep of the begger and the peasant to the lost sleep of the nobleman/king. The contrast and idea of perfect repose begins as early as the sound sleep of Falstaff (he is snoring away) in Henry IV Part I, and continues to be a persistent theme throughout the three plays; culminating, I believe, in that famous night camp speech by King Harry, with it's emotional conclusion. Shakespeare's genius again working so well to a conclusion of this idea by the third play.


Do you think the plays use sleep differently, though? Do you think Hamlet's idea of sleep is different from Hal's?

I do and I don't. I think sleep is still indicative of both, in all the plays. In Hamlet's key speech of "to be and not to be", he is definitely speaking of suicide. However, he also mentions dreams, comparing it to normal night-time sleeping...."what dreams my come". It is hard to answer whether throughout the play, sleep is used differently. Hamlet's father is sleeping in his garden when he is murdered. I do think the idea of sleep here is not one of peaceful repose, but mostly does indicate the state of death. In the case of Hamlet's father's ghost, he is restless and therefore in his present state of death finds not sleep. He experiences the horrors of which Hamlet speaks when he says..."what dreams may come". Sleep is treated much direr in Hamlet and not something to be easily wished for. I hope that makes sense.


There is something weary about Henry IV in these first scenes. He comes off as a little impotent since he doesn't really do anything but bluster at his subordinates. Even when he goes to war we don't see him doing particularly much. Everything we see of the war is from Hal's perspective which downplays the king.

Definitely. Also keep in mind that Henry V, does not live long after this. He is weary and feeling guilt over Richard's death and the predictions that have haunted his reign. In the BBC play they show his hands sickly or painful. I wondered where they got that information. They show his face haggard and with some sores; his hands are always concealed in gloves. He looks tired and spent with little patience.

When he does go to war, there are many of his soldiers dressed exactly like him so that they get killed first. I found that rather cowardly myself. I think by now he can't really function in a warring capacity. Mostly Hal shines in that final scene of war, although Falstaff takes the credit for Percy's death. That moment shows how untrue Falstaff can be, even to Prince Hal. So the table turned both ways.


That's an interesting connection. I think it does show the difference between the king's occupation and Falstaff's. It might also point to the different state of mind that the king and Falstaff have. The king feels that his position is unstable and that he constantly has to act to avoid disaster. Hence, he feels hurried. Meanwhile, Falstaff is relaxed and unconcerned. He has plenty of time because he doesn't have the enemies closing around him that Henry IV does. His only concern is that the new king will impose a tighter grip than the current one--a fate which is rather distant.

Good observation and contrast. Besides this he feels he will have an 'in' with the new king - Hal. He is direly mistaken. Hal must chose between the two worlds in the end. It is totally necessary he must cut himself entirely off from the world of the night theives and rogues to live the other life intended for him. Even thought the scene is one of cold rejection and mades for a sad ending to Hal and Falstaff's relationship; I now can see how it could not be any other way.

[DanielBenoit]

Very interesting points everyone.

But I feel as if Falstaff's perspective has been neglected. Why is life all fun and games to him? Why is it that everyone, such as the King, live a weary unfurfilling life and kill for the most pointless reasons. The problem is, is that everyone in the play takes life too seriously and thus miss it in wasting it on illusions and vanities. Paradoxically, Falstaff takes it seriously enough that he lets everything go (as he once did in leaving the world of chivalry) and surrenders himself to the world of play. What Falstaff means to do is live life to the fullest (and to the fullest stomach).

Falstaff of course isn't a moral character, and nor does Shakespeare intend him to be, for Henry IV is not a morality play, but rather, an observation on life and how to live it. This is expressed most brilliantly in Falstaff's speech on honor in Act V, which we will get to soon. . . . . .

None of Falstaffs great rhetorical speeches are in Act I, so I'll meet you guys in the next thread. :wave:

[Quark]

I may go out for a time, today to shop and eat out. Tomorrow night (yeah!) I am babysitting my darling little grand-daughter. It should be great fun.

Sounds like a good time. Don't worry about the thread. We'll be here for a while yet. We haven't even gotten past the first Act yet. At this rate, it will be some time until we reach the end.


I can help out leading this discussion starting on Wednesday; how does that sound. It seems I keep inheriting things. I was asked to take over the social group "On Broadway" this week.

And I don't mind leading at times if you have something else to do. I just can't do it the whole time--particularly between Monday and Wednesday when my schedule is so busy.


look at the scene with Hotspur chiding Glendower, concerning his claim to the occult or divinity in a pagan sense. When Hal hangs out with the 'night underground' types/characters such as Poins, Barstoff and Falstaff, he lurks in shadows and shadows are not true beings; they embody fantasy, illusion and even deception. Hal is smart enough to know this right away. I think, in his speech asside from the others, in the tavern scene, he reveals his true knowledge of reality; the reality that will someday soon be his and he is well aware he cannot avoid this reality. He cannot continue to live amongst theives of the night and the bawdy; he has to choose between the noble life of the court and his friends, his 'salt of the earth friends', however base to in morality. I am not saying they aren't true friends. Truly they are; but they also are not consistent or loyal themselves; being changable like the moon and tides, they could just as easily turn on Hal.

I was thinking about that comparison today, as well. The Hostpur, Glendower quibble in Act III (I think it's Act III) is very similar to the witty criticisms that Hal and Falstaff share in Act I here. Their relationship is even quite similar, too. I think we read their relationships a little differently, though. It sounds like you're saying that Falstaff are Glendower use tricks and magic to lure Hal/Hotspur from their true calling. That seems a little harsh. While there is definitely some of that going on--Glendower is trying to manipulate Hotspur, just as Falstaff is hoping to gain something from Hal--but I don't think we can write their characters off as tempters. There is at least a hint of wisdom in what they say, and the success of Hotspur and Hal seems to rest on whether they learn the little bit of wisdom concealed in these older characters' folly. Glendower, for example, correct diagnoses the problems of both Douglas and Hotspur in Act III well before these problems become deadly: "Lord Mortimer, you are as slow/ as hot Lord Percy is on fire to go." Glendower recognizes that Hotspur's over-aggressiveness is a liability, and his words are a warning. Similarly, Falstaff has moments of insight into the problems of the courtly life. He helps steer Hal away from the kind of destruction that Hotspur meets with.


I thought at first that Hal was 'using' them, too, but I don't like the word 'use' here. I think in the speech he is ruminating on their role in his life and how he must recognise them now for what they truly are; they are not good influences, nor are they consistent.

Oh, maybe we do agree. This sounds a lot closer to what I was thinking. Yeah, the effect that Falstaff has is both helpful and hurtful at times, and Falstaff represents both a danger to Hal and a mentor. Hal has to avoid certain things that Falstaff suggests and learn from others.


I believe this is what makes me feel more drawn to the Henry plays when we see Hal comes into being. Unlike the Richard II play, with only court players, and elaborate poetry, in Henry IV we touch on the common, simplistic man, as well as the crafty/plotting court players.

I can certainly agree with this. I think this play balances gravity with light-heartedness better than any other Shakespeare play.


If you notice, Barstoff and Nim are at odds with each other, too. I think that Shakespeare has it this way, in order to show us that side of the coin. These characters do not always stay true to themselves or others - thus the wanning of the moon and tides. They'd as much cut a throat, out of jealousy, as to steal a purse. The whole lot are a shaky crew; inconsistent in their loyalties. Falstaff plots behind others backs as well as Shadow/Shallow (?) and the other devious rogues. Check out the scene when he is picking his army. This might be in Part II; if so, please forgive my forging ahead. I just used it as an example.

That is in Part II which I'm less familiar with. I read it a few years ago, but haven't looked at it since. When it's come up, people have said that the play shows Hal finally repudiating Falstaff--which makes the play come to bear directly with what we're talking about now. I might have to go back and look at it.


Sleep is treated much direr in Hamlet and not something to be easily wished for. I hope that makes sense.

I know what you mean. Of course, everything is more dire in Hamlet. It's a morbid play. Although, in an odd way, Hamlet's attitude toward night and death lines up with this play's. As you've pointed out above, the same connections between night and superstition, night and disorder, sleep and psychological states established in one play get reused in the later play.


The problem is, is that everyone in the play takes life too seriously and thus miss it in wasting it on illusions and vanities. Paradoxically, Falstaff takes it seriously enough that he lets everything go (as he once did in leaving the world of chivalry) and surrenders himself to the world of play. What Falstaff means to do is live life to the fullest (and to the fullest stomach).

That's a good point. Falstaff doesn't just deflate the play's seriousness. He also points out the flaws in seriousness.

I know you said that his best speeches are later on in the play, but do you think he has anything to say about seriousness in Act I? What do you think he's trying to do in this first scene we see him in?

[Janine]

Can't answer today; really busy offline; will answer tomorrow, Quark. I am quite interested in what you wrote, so hold up, till I have the time to write in response.

[DanielBenoit]

Hey I'm back! Sorry for being gone, I've just started my courses for school and have been busy.

Quark, though Falstaff's greatest moments aren't in Act I, but here's a good one:





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

PRINCE.
No; thou shalt.

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

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



Though the prince's slip up is a confusing one, I think it illustrates his ambivalence towards the world of Falstaff and the world of politics.




FAL.
Well, Hal, well; and in some sort it jumps with my humour; as well as waiting in the Court, I can tell you.



This is an important quote. It says so much in so little words.

First, there is the concept of the dread of waiting in court and Falstaff's ironic reaction "it jumps with my humour."

This is a very ambiguous statement, but I think it contributes to the conception of Falstaff's philosophy of life.




PRINCE.
For obtaining of suits?

FAL.
Yea, for obtaining of suits, whereof the hangman hath no lean wardrobe. 'Sblood, I am as melancholy as a gib-cat or a lugg'd bear.

PRINCE.
Or an old lion, or a lover's lute.

FAL.
Yea, or the drone of a Lincolnshire bagpipe.

PRINCE.
What say'st thou to a hare, or the melancholy of Moor-ditch?

FAL.
Thou hast the most unsavoury similes, and art, indeed, the most comparative, rascalliest, sweet young prince,—But, Hal, I pr'ythee trouble me no more with vanity. I would to God thou and I knew where a commodity of good names were to be bought. An old lord of the Council rated me the other day in the street about you, sir,—but I mark'd him not; and yet he talk'd very wisely,—but I regarded him not; and yet he talk'd wisely, and in the street too.

PRINCE.
Thou didst well; for wisdom cries out in the streets, and no man regards it.

So far, there has just been drunken humor thrown around between the two characters, though I am sure the second to last speech by Falstaff has some double-meaning, but it is quite confusing to figure out. Maybe I’ll come back to it.




FAL.
O, thou hast damnable iteration, and art, indeed, able to corrupt a saint. Thou hast done much harm upon me, Hal; God forgive thee for it! Before I knew thee, Hal, I knew nothing; and now am I, if a man should speak truly, little better than one of the wicked. I must give over this life, and I will give it over; by the Lord, an I do not, I am a villain: I'll be damn'd for never a king's son in Christendom.

PRINCE.
Where shall we take a purse to-morrow, Jack?

FAL.
Zounds, where thou wilt, lad; I'll make one: an I do not, call me villain, and baffle me.

PRINCE.
I see a good amendment of life in thee,—from praying to purse-taking.

FAL.
Why, Hal, 'tis my vocation, Hal; 'tis no sin for a man to labour in his vocation.


Here, though it may not be obvious is a hilarious set-up by Falstaff. In his short speech before Hal suggests stealing a purse, Falstaff speaks briefly in a condescending tone towards the prince, but Hal misinterprets it as repentance. (Read it very closely and see how Hal misinterprets the meaning.) Hal then rhetorically swings back at Falstaff, pointing out the self-contradiction in what Hal sees as “praying to purse-taking”, Falstaff then answers back in a delivering pun which acts like a concluding punch-line where he uses the religious term vocation (God’s plan for your life) and twists it into his favor by using the double meaning of the religious term and the formal one (your purpose or goal in life). In other words, Falstaff’s witty comeback is simply him sarcastically saying to Hal, “since this is what God seems to want of me, then it is no sin.

Falstaff, who never speaks in absolutes, does not mean this as some kind of moral justification to purse-taking, but rather something he sees as more relevant; good humor.

[Janine]

Sounds like a good time. Don't worry about the thread. We'll be here for a while yet. We haven't even gotten past the first Act yet. At this rate, it will be some time until we reach the end.

It was a great fun time. She tricked her grannie into feeding her again. She loves cheerios! Snacking already at 16 months old.


And I don't mind leading at times if you have something else to do. I just can't do it the whole time--particularly between Monday and Wednesday when my schedule is so busy.

Oh no problem at all. I can wait. Look how long it took me to answer this thread of yours.


I was thinking about that comparison today, as well. The Hostpur, Glendower quibble in Act III (I think it's Act III) is very similar to the witty criticisms that Hal and Falstaff share in Act I here. Their relationship is even quite similar, too. I think we read their relationships a little differently, though. It sounds like you're saying that Falstaff are Glendower use tricks and magic to lure Hal/Hotspur from their true calling. That seems a little harsh. While there is definitely some of that going on--Glendower is trying to manipulate Hotspur, just as Falstaff is hoping to gain something from Hal--but I don't think we can write their characters off as tempters. There is at least a hint of wisdom in what they say, and the success of Hotspur and Hal seems to rest on whether they learn the little bit of wisdom concealed in these older characters' folly. Glendower, for example, correct diagnoses the problems of both Douglas and Hotspur in Act III well before these problems become deadly: "Lord Mortimer, you are as slow/ as hot Lord Percy is on fire to go." Glendower recognizes that Hotspur's over-aggressiveness is a liability, and his words are a warning. Similarly, Falstaff has moments of insight into the problems of the courtly life. He helps steer Hal away from the kind of destruction that Hotspur meets with.

Sorry it took me so long to get back here. I would agree with all you wrote here, Quark. You bring out some very good points. I like the way you parallel the two sets of relationships.


Oh, maybe we do agree. This sounds a lot closer to what I was thinking. Yeah, the effect that Falstaff has is both helpful and hurtful at times, and Falstaff represents both a danger to Hal and a mentor. Hal has to avoid certain things that Falstaff suggests and learn from others.

Yes, that is what I was saying. Falstaff and Glendower, as well, are mixed bags. They both have their secret agendas and their sly ways as well as their shreds of wisdom at times.


I can certainly agree with this. I think this play balances gravity with light-heartedness better than any other Shakespeare play.

I agree entirely. I like the way that Shakespeare has balanced this play so effectively.


That is in Part II which I'm less familiar with. I read it a few years ago, but haven't looked at it since. When it's come up, people have said that the play shows Hal finally repudiating Falstaff--which makes the play come to bear directly with what we're talking about now. I might have to go back and look at it.

Well, I have thought about this part a great deal, as to whether Hal (newly crowned Henry V) is justified in his rejection, even to the point of denial of ever having known Falstaff. A few things leading up to this rejection I think are significant. First off, Falstaff took the credit for Hotspur's death and Hal let it go at that. Let me review the text and see what other things I had figured into this equation. Of course this is jumping ahead of ourselves. We have to finish Henry IV part I first; so delay this discussion on 'the rejection of Falstaff' till then, ok?


I know what you mean. Of course, everything is more dire in Hamlet. It's a morbid play. Although, in an odd way, Hamlet's attitude toward night and death lines up with this play's. As you've pointed out above, the same connections between night and superstition, night and disorder, sleep and psychological states established in one play get reused in the later play.
Yes, and I guess really those themes run through many of Shakespeare's plays; but it seemed more evident and prominent to me in Hamlet. I could clearly see the parallels between Hamlet and Henry V (Hal), within their soliliquoies .


That's a good point. Falstaff doesn't just deflate the play's seriousness. He also points out the flaws in seriousness.

That is a good point, Daniel. I agree...smart thinking.

[mayneverhave]

Well, I have thought about this part a great deal, as to whether Hal (newly crowned Henry V) is justified in his rejection, even to the point of denial of ever having known Falstaff. A few things leading up to this rejection I think are significant. First off, Falstaff took the credit for Hotspur's death and Hal let it go at that. Let me review the text and see what other things I had figured into this equation. Of course this is jumping ahead of ourselves. We have to finish Henry IV part I first; so delay this discussion on 'the rejection of Falstaff' till then, ok?

Henry IV, Part Two compliments the first part the way The Godfather Part II compliments The Godfather. The Second part narrows its vision to the themes presented in the first, and develops the character's relationships to their logical conclusion, i.e. Hal's repudiating Falstaff at the end of the second part.

The simple fact is: it is not yet necessary for Hal to reject Falstaff as early as Part One (although when he becomes King in Part Two such an decision is made for him by necessity), so this allows Shakespeare to end Part One with a rather precarious bringing together of all parts at the battle of Shrewsbury. It is clear that Falstaff's cynical analysis of war and the vanity of honour can have place in Henry V's England. Notice how by the Henry V play, Hal has essentially eradicated any critical threat of Falstaff's calibre.

Aside from the actual repudiation - which, admittedly, lies outside of the spectrum of the play we're talking about - the groundwork for Hal's distancing from Falstaff is laid as early as Hal's first soliloquy, and certainly in the brilliant scene in which Falstaff and Hal take turns acting out the parts of King and wayward son.

In fact, a primary theme of this play is the function of acting in society, and indeed, it is apparent not only in this play, but throughout Shakespeare's work. But more on that later.

[Janine]

Henry IV, Part Two compliments the first part the way The Godfather Part II compliments The Godfather. The Second part narrows its vision to the themes presented in the first, and develops the character's relationships to their logical conclusion, i.e. Hal's repudiating Falstaff at the end of the second part.

The simple fact is: it is not yet necessary for Hal to reject Falstaff as early as Part One (although when he becomes King in Part Two such an decision is made for him by necessity), so this allows Shakespeare to end Part One with a rather precarious bringing together of all parts at the battle of Shrewsbury. It is clear that Falstaff's cynical analysis of war and the vanity of honour can have place in Henry V's England. Notice how by the Henry V play, Hal has essentially eradicated any critical threat of Falstaff's calibre.

Aside from the actual repudiation - which, admittedly, lies outside of the spectrum of the play we're talking about - the groundwork for Hal's distancing from Falstaff is laid as early as Hal's first soliloquy, and certainly in the brilliant scene in which Falstaff and Hal take turns acting out the parts of King and wayward son.

In fact, a primary theme of this play is the function of acting in society, and indeed, it is apparent not only in this play, but throughout Shakespeare's work. But more on that later.

mayneverhave, I thoroughly agree with you are saying here. I think basically, this is what I was attempting to point out. Yes, as early as Hal's soliloquy, the groundwork is layed out for us - a brilliant moment of forshadowning as to what will eventually be the fate of the two friend's relationship.

Only one thing, I might not totally agree with is that Hal, as the king in Henry V, finally does distance himself from the low life factions, that kept him from his greatness; however, let me add, he still questions the role of the peasant as compared to that of the responsibility of a king. His night walk through the camp and contact with the common man, puts him back in touch with his 'everyman' image. To me this is one of the best and most beautifully written scenes in all of Shakespeare. I find it very touching; first in speaking with Pistol and claiming kinship as a Welshman; then his touching on morality and mortality with the three soldiers; and finally with his own heartfelt soliloquy about sleep, touching on peace of mind and mortality. All, this brings us full circle to see Hal as a man again, a human being beyond his kingly garb. Therefore, it is very true, that Hal's contact with the tavern gang, in Henry IV Part I is vital to the full understanding and meaning of all three of these history plays.

[Albion]

It may be interesting in this discussion to set a few facts against the play/s.
Henry (IV) was the son of John of Gaunt (named after his birthplace, Ghent) and consequently the grandson of Edward III. He usurped the throne held by Richard II (also the grandson of Edward III being the son of the Black Prince). Since the latter predeceased Edward, the crown would, in modern days, pass through the surviving male line, viz to Henry, but Richard had been designated by Edward as his successor.
Richard was weak both physically and psychologically where Henry was valiant and a warrior renowned throughout Europe. Richard sought to isolate Henry largely through jealousy banishing him to France. Richard was also unpopular because he levied high taxes to little purpose and became capricious in his use of power unjustly punishing anybody to whom he took a dislike.
Henry returned to England in 1399 and most nobles and people rallied to him. He is thought to have issued the command to kill the imprisoned Richard who died (probably by starvation) in 1401. Henry was pressed on all sides by perpetual wars in Ireland, France, Scotland (then a foreign power), Welsh renegades under Glendower and rebels in England under the Percy family, commanded by Hotspur. Hotspur had financial grievances against Henry who lacked funds to pay him.
Henry's victory in the battle of Shrewsbury, which took place in 1403, removed Hotspur but he remained pressed by all the others.
In Shakespeares plays, Henry appears as an elder, but active, statesman but, at the time of the battle, Henry was only 36 years old and prince Hal only 17. People grew up fast in the middle ages because they had to: Henry was already jousting at age 14. They generally also died early, if not in battle then by disease. Henry died at age 45, cause unspecified but possibly stress and old age. His effigy in Canterbury cathedral shows a man looking 20 years older.

[Janine]

Albion, welcome to this forum and to this thread. We have been absent recently and need to keep discussing this play. I am not sure what has happened to the others involved; but hope they all return soon. I have been busy with real life myself but do intend to continue this discussion. We haven't even finished Act One yet! Thanks for laying out that information. It does help in analysising the situation and the characters. Hope you stick around and further enter into our discussion. If need be I will go around and round up the other, reminding them of this thread.

Keep in mind that Shakespeare often did take liberties with the actual history of the nobiltiy and he altered some of the facts. It still helps to know the true history and to understand the background of the play.

I think that people did look older back then, stress had to be a factor and the constant involvement in wars and conflicts.

[jptal]

Hello to all.