King Henry IV Part I - Act 1

[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.

[Janine]

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

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.

[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.