Printable View
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mayneverhave
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mayneverhave
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.
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"Quote:
Originally Posted by mayneverhave
http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/d...ustration2.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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mayneverhave
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
Read Hal's lines here just a bit closer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by mayneverhave
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.Quote:
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
http://www.nigraphic.com/files/image...maranjab_1.jpg
Thread Desertification
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?
I wonder if you can get that on YouTube? I'd be interested to see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
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.Quote:
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 found it here:Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zxtyGpzWco
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
It is more difficult I think; history is never simply either or drama of Shakespeare's plays.Quote:
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.
Ok, I will do that....:nod:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
http://felixgilman.com/wordpress/wp-.../04/kitten.jpg
Kittens will be harmed if this discussion doesn't happen!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Great!