Henry IV, Part II

by
William Shakespeare

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

read book* *Different edition

Henry IV, Part II (Wars of the Roses)

by William Shakespeare

3.75 of 5 stars 3.75 · rating details · 5,490 ratings · 144 reviews

This new edition of one of Shakespeare's greatest history plays offers a helpful Introduction to the play's structure, language, and performance history, and notes that provide an illuminating commentary on details of the text.

Paperback, 112 pages

Published October 28th 1998 by NTC/Contemporary Publishing Company (first published 1599)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Add this book to your favorite list »

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 3,000)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Feb 16, 2013 Bettie rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: re-read, winter-20122013, willsphernalia, re-visit-2013

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

Jeremy Irons as King Henry IV
Tom Hiddleston as Prince Hal
Simon Russell Beale as Falstaff
Julie Walters as Mistress Quickly
Alun Armstrong as Northumberland

3/4 Rebels continue to plot against Henry IV. Falstaff hopes for high office.

Cry God For Harry - An adaptation from Henry IV, Parts 1 and 2 and Henry V

First broadcast 1977 (R7 repeat 2004, 2005)

Cast:
Robert Lang, Alan Howard, Brewster Mason, Peter Egen,
Donald Huston, David Buck, Susan Thomas, Maurice
Denham, Michael Godfrey, John Hollis, John Bu...more

3 likes · like · see review

Jul 31, 2009 M. D. Hudson rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Again, Shakespeare's histories are sort of new to me, I am embarrassed to say. I won't try to add my feeble little voice to 300 years of Shakespearian lit crit, but I must say Falstaff on the actual page is considerably crueler, pettier and meaner than his popular image would lead one to think. He is damned funny though.

Incidentally, my recent Shakespeare jag has been via a set of 1888 Plays edited by the Rev. Hudson (no relation, so far as I know). I didn't feel like screwing around finding th...more

2 likes · like · see review

May 07, 2013 Ben rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: english-lit, historical-fiction, plays

King Henry IV Part Two ends in transition, both for the English political atmosphere and for the central characters. Part of this transition takes place in the audiences' perspective. We witness the rise of a young prince and the deterioration of an illegitimate king amidst the fog of civil war. And yet Shakespeare twists the end. The truly naive patron cannot predict precisely how these events will resolve. I did not imagine King Henry IV repenting the means of his ascension, nor did I imagine...more King Henry IV Part Two ends in transition, both for the English political atmosphere and for the central characters. Part of this transition takes place in the audiences' perspective. We witness the rise of a young prince and the deterioration of an illegitimate king amidst the fog of civil war. And yet Shakespeare twists the end. The truly naive patron cannot predict precisely how these events will resolve. I did not imagine King Henry IV repenting the means of his ascension, nor did I imagine King Henry V severing his friends, nor did I imagine John Falstaff capable of so much sorrow. However, despite these twists, the resolution holds firm to the true nature of each character and one might argue that any other resolution would seem forced.

Through the first three acts, I labored through what seemed a time-abiding story. The rebellion continues with Northumberland and the Archbishop of York. As the story follows the same plot outlined in the first part, with leaders of the rebellion meeting under a banner of peace with the king's spokesmen, the first twist pricked my ear. The rebels accept the same offer made previously to Percy from their royal opponent only to suffer a stab in the back as Prince John arrests them and sentences them to death for high treason. As opposed to Hotspur, York maintains a reasonable disposition and wisely condemns these rebellious actions as results of the time, not necessarily of Henry IV's malice. It seems that York views these events through a transcendent mind, as a clergyman and not a soldier, and willfully plays his part in the cascading political revolution. As Shakespeare would instruct us through these two plays, Bolingbroke's ascension revolutionized England's political landscape and reformed the minds of nobility and royalty alike by presenting fallibility and cracking the invincibility of the throne. Henry IV's party quells the rebels, not with honorable arms or merciful heart, but with trickery and by manipulating the integrity of an honest clergyman.

The play moves into the king's counsel and finally his chamber where we meet him for the last time. And what a time! The audience witnesses both the sickening effect of paranoia within a king and the resurrection of a man, desperate for love and a connection with his boy as father and son rather than king and prince. As the king and Prince Henry counter over the crown, we hear the king repent the road which brought him to it, but also warn of its overwhelming power. The crown displaced his virtue with fear - fear of losing it despite its debilitating quality, like his "Precious". The crown consumed his spirit and left him empty, caring only for its safety, like a vessel to an alien symbiont. Yet Prince Henry proves wise enough to respect the crown's agency:

Thus, my most royal leige,
Accusing it, I put it on my head,
To try with it, as with an enemy
That had before my face murder'd my father, -
The quarrel of a true inheritor.
But if it did infect my blood with joy,
Or swell my thoughts to any strain of pride;
If any rebel or vain spirit of mine
Did with the least affection of a welcome
Give entertainment to the might of it,
Let God for ever keep it from my head,
And make me as a vassal is,
That doth with awe and terror kneel to it!

The prince, aware of the crown's poisonous power, but unavoidably destined to wear it, may yet prove a worthy and just king, by understanding the true nature of it and prizing humanity above power.

When John Falstaff hears of Prince Henry's coronation, he leaps from his chair, promises high positions to his friends and thanks God for presenting him with a winning lottery ticket! How like Falstaff - eeking through these plays as a rusting anchor on honor, nobility, integrity and all other virtues which righteous upbringing instills in us. But love. Falstaff never cheated love nor shamed loyalty. When King Henry V banishes him, I hear his spirit seep from his often lively mouth and envision all his putrid breath of charm flow from his nostrils. I feel the heat of his tears boiling in his eyes and his blood pause within his heart. Falstaff does not care for his lost position nor do I imagine he laments the suddenly collapsing thrill of his imagined future. But to lose Harry - to the crown - to him King Henry V's royal procession appears as a funeral march.

But we cannot abhor the new king for this! On the contrary, we would likely do so if he abused his position and turned the court into a lavish party with Poins helping him roast Falstaff and Doll bouncing from one sack to the next. The new king enjoys the ability and privilege of washing away his past and renewing himself as a dedicated king while Falstaff must suffer alone the bed he has made for himself. As York said, these things result from the times, from the conditions of our lives and the longings of our vanity, our virtue and our hearts. All must play their role and suffer their fate.

You wave to his administrative assistant from within the elevator. The doors slide shut. You stand motionless for a time before finally pressing the button which will bring you to the lobby. When the bell rings and the doors open, you step out and the boy before you leaps out of your path just before you collide. The flicker of downtown bustle shimmers on the window panes. You tell yourself, with a grin no one can see, "Shakespeare made me sympathize with a fool before kings."(less)

1 like · like · see review

Feb 27, 2013 Ken Moten rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: shakespeare-stuff, history-stuff, plays

"Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown." - King Henry IV (Act III scene 1)

"It is certain that either wise bearing or ignorant carriage is
caught, as men take diseases, one of another: therefore let men take
heed of their company." Sir John Falstaff (Act V scene 1)

Following from part 1 I can say that I liked the play. But, I only like this play because it brings resolution to the story. That is really what this play is for wrapping up the saga of Henry Bolingbroke, Sr and setting up the back-...more

like · see review

Jan 08, 2013 Dave marked it as to-read · review of another edition

Shelves: calibre, fiction

SUMMARY: After defeat at the Battle of Shrewsbury the rebels regroup. But Prince Hal's reluctance to inherit the crown threatens to destroy the ailing Henry IV's dream of a lasting dynasty. Shakespeare's portrait of the prodigal son's journey from youth to maturity embraces the full panorama of society. Under the editorial supervision of Jonathan Bate and Eric Rasmussen, two of today's most accomplished Shakespearean scholars, this Modern Library series incorporates definitive texts and authorit...more

like · see review

Dec 24, 2012 Justin Evans rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: poetry-and-drama

Overall, I thought this was less interesting than Henry V, but that might just be because I paid more attention to HV (I have to teach it; I read this for kicks). There's not a whole lot of beautiful Shakespeare moments, the humor didn't hit me (possibly my fault, of course), and the best bit was probably the Induction, in which Rumour discourses on herself. On the upside, I learned the word 'fustilarian' and the phrase 'I'll tickle your catastrophe!', and I'm pretty sure I now understand the ti...more

1 like · like · see review

Sep 15, 2012 Catherine Mustread rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: plays, non-fiction, england, classics, 1400s, historical

I love the history plays — my interest in British history has been piqued!

Reading Shakespeare’s plays in the chronological order in which he is presumed to have written them I find his growth as playwright is in direct correlation to my appreciation of his plays; and to the blog, The Play's The Thing: Reading Shakespeare with Dennis Abrams, for making that possible.

Though Hotspur was important in the transition of Hal to Henry V, I found him to be a character for whom I had little sympathy. He...more

1 like · like · see review

Apr 01, 2012 Andrew added it · review of another edition

(Henry IV, Parts I and II) I could not help but notice the way in which the two worlds of the play – the politics of court and country, the debauchery of hostel and highway – never quite seem to come together as a whole. Prince Hal presumably carries this disparity in his heart, yet the audience also yearns for some dramatic mending that the rejection of Falstaff, although entirely plausible, never delivers. Of course, some of this allows for the cliffhanger ending, which forecasts the new king’...more (Henry IV, Parts I and II) I could not help but notice the way in which the two worlds of the play – the politics of court and country, the debauchery of hostel and highway – never quite seem to come together as a whole. Prince Hal presumably carries this disparity in his heart, yet the audience also yearns for some dramatic mending that the rejection of Falstaff, although entirely plausible, never delivers. Of course, some of this allows for the cliffhanger ending, which forecasts the new king’s adventure in France. Some of this also surely reflects the disjointed times of England’s civil wars. Yet despite those explanations, there still remains a strange disconnect for me between these two worlds: the long and eloquent speeches of the king, the prince, and other nobles grow more and more estranged from Falstaff’s own ramblings. Where once the two worlds served as equal antagonists to one another, by the end of the second play, they seem to have grown entirely apart. Perhaps this mimics Hal’s own drift and reformation, yet it still makes for an unfulfilling conclusion, not unlike the way Malvolio’s torture and subsequent bitterness unbalances the general unity of resolution at end of “Twelfth Night.” In the latter, our sympathy lingers with the victim of cruel prank despite the pretty pairing of lovers that ends the play; in the former, we realize that even though the center of the play’s world might be the king and his justice, there is undoubtedly a great lack in that world, even if Falstaff is literally too soiled to fill it himself. One is left wondering why we’ve been given such fascinating partial characters as Henry IV, Prince Hal, and Falstaff yet no true protagonist to bestow our loyalty upon. Perhaps this makes for a lesser play; perhaps it also makes for a telling enactment of the playwright’s frustration with the human factors that create historical unevenness, which itself echoes England’s own anxiety about Hal’s ascension.(less)

like · see review

Mar 11, 2012 Matt rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

After Hotspur’s defeat at Shrewsbury, other defiant rebel bands pose a continued threat to English peace. However, the play lacks the same drama as in Part One. The rebellion dissipates through Northumberland’s inconstancy and John of Lancaster’s ruse on the Archbishop of York and allied lords.

The rebellion once again turns into backstory as the plot follows the further development of Prince Hal and Falstaff. This time, their paths rarely cross as Hal obtains his kingly bearing and, ultimately,...more

like · see review

Nov 16, 2011 David Grimaud rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

THIS IS THE THIRD play of a tetralogy (four sequential plays) that fictionalizes the rising of the English royal House of Lancaster. As Henry IV, Part 1, ended, the first conflict of a major rebellion has been successfully won by the crown, with Prince Harry (or "Hal') rising to the occasion. The prince who began Part 1 as a young scoundrel given to raucous behavior, continues his character development in Part 2, such that when his father, Henry IV, dies at the end of the play, Harry seems truly...more THIS IS THE THIRD play of a tetralogy (four sequential plays) that fictionalizes the rising of the English royal House of Lancaster. As Henry IV, Part 1, ended, the first conflict of a major rebellion has been successfully won by the crown, with Prince Harry (or "Hal') rising to the occasion. The prince who began Part 1 as a young scoundrel given to raucous behavior, continues his character development in Part 2, such that when his father, Henry IV, dies at the end of the play, Harry seems truly worthy of his new title.

The play contrasts the tribulations of the crown against the background of common life. Shakespeare makes great use of Sir John Falstaff and his friends for this purpose. The escapades of Falstaff are entertaining, and though he represents a vile character given to debauchery, deceit, and drink, we come to love him for his charm, wit, optimism, and love of life. Falstaff's dialogue expresses Shakespeare's incredible wit, and the repartee between Falstaff and the Lord Chief Justice is one of the great dialogues of all of Shakespeare. ( "FALSTAFF: He that buckles him in my belt cannot live in less. LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE: Your means are very slender, and your waste is great. FALSTAFF: I would it were otherwise; I would my means were greater, and my waist slenderer." Act I, Scene ii)

The rebellion that began in Part 1 is completely put down in Part 2. The play begins with a brilliant monologue by a character called "Rumors" that sets the stage for "rumors of rebellion." ("From Rumor's tongues They [the messengers] bring smooth comforts false, worse than true wrongs.") The play ends when the rebellion is successfully put down, Henry IV dies of stress and illness, and Prince Harry is crowned as Henry V. There is a remarkable soliloquy delivered by Harry as his father lies on his deathbed and Harry considers his crown setting on a pillow: "Why doth the crown lie there upon his pillow, Being so troublesome a bedfellow? O polish'd perturbation! golden care! That keep'st the ports of slumber open wide To many a watchful night...Lo, here it sits, Which God shall guard: and put the world's whole strength Into one giant arm, it shall not force This lineal honour from me: this from thee Will I to mine leave, as 'tis left to me.: Act IV, Scene v)

As new king, Harry completes his character growth by rejecting his former mentor Falstaff (and the anarchy he represents), and choosing instead to adopt the Lord Chief Justice (and the rule of law he represents) as his new father. Shakespeare is thus prepared to offer his next play of the series, Henry V.(less)

like · see review

Aug 21, 2011 Jimyanni rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: literature

The Folger library edition is a very fine edition; if I were rating strictly according to the quality of the scholarship shown here, I'd cheerfully rate the book at five stars. The play itself, however, is one of the weakest of Shakespeare's plays.

The plot isn't as vile as I find the plot in the Taming of the Shrew; the misogyny displayed here is of the common, garden variety of the misogyny found throughout Shakespeare, rather than the exceptional, "beyond the call of cultural duty" variety fo...more

1 like · like · see review

Jun 25, 2011 Trevor rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: literature

I really did expect to like this play much more than I did. I read somewhere that both plays had originally been one play, but that the Falstaff character proved so popular that Shakespeare split the play in two and added more Falstaff. This play doesn’t quite hang together as well as part one. I’m tempted to say something about sequels always being crap. In many ways this is the same story over again – but bizarrely Falstaff and Hal hardly meet in the play – they only meet as ‘friends’ once and...more I really did expect to like this play much more than I did. I read somewhere that both plays had originally been one play, but that the Falstaff character proved so popular that Shakespeare split the play in two and added more Falstaff. This play doesn’t quite hang together as well as part one. I’m tempted to say something about sequels always being crap. In many ways this is the same story over again – but bizarrely Falstaff and Hal hardly meet in the play – they only meet as ‘friends’ once and then once again near the end.

Hal has done some backsliding since we last met him. Not so much with Falstaff, whom he only thinks of now when he feels like torturing someone for his own amusement, but with Poins – who is another wayward youth wanting the young prince to marry his sister. This play has a cast of thousands and that is also part of the problem here – it already feels a bit like a soap opera and it having so many incidental characters makes the whole thing more confusing than anything else. This time it is Hal’s younger brother that is making him look bad – off sorting out rebellions, but by cheating and lying. This is hardly ‘heroic’.

Hal’s dad – the person the play was named after, after all – again hardly has a role in the play. Needless to say he is not terribly impressed with the idea that he is handing over power to a whoring, drinking, goodtime boy. He has spent his life feeling guilty about having stolen the crown from its rightful head and just when it looks possible that by his own death that particular stain can be removed it seems his son is the last person anyone would want to pass a crown onto.

In its broadest outline this play sounds like a coming-of-age story – young guy, out and about on the town, having a good time, but who gives up his wild ways (wild oats sowed to within an inch of their lives) as soon as responsibility knocks, turning his back on those who had previously lead him astray.

The problem is that while all this is well and good in broad outline, it is in the details of this play where the story feels much less wholesome. It is in how Hal treats his previous ‘friends’ once he becomes king that leaves a particularly bad taste in the mouth. The scene where the new king refuses to acknowledge Falstaff and then, when forced to, banishes him from coming within ten miles of his person is almost too painful to watch. Don’t get me wrong, Falstaff is self-centred, nasty coward – but he has been bitterly misused by Hal in this play (and the last one too, truth be told) and deserves to have been treated better than he is. I think it would be impossible to come away from the play respecting Hal for his behaviour towards Falstaff. It is despicable.

Now, this makes the whole question of Falstaff perhaps the most interesting part of the play. And this is in keeping with what we see too, as he takes up a very large part of this play with his various ways of cheating people and in trying to convince a prostitute to sleep with him. It is not all that clear just what Falstaff is really doing in this play. I tried to imagine what poor old Henry IV would think if he was brought back from the dead and told that two plays had been written about him by perhaps the greatest ever writer in the language – I should think his delight would be a little tarnished by seeing himself so small a role in his own life story when in fact so much of the play is about not only his layabout, good for nothing son, but his layabout son’s ex-friend. It is somewhat bizarre, I think.

The scene where father and son finally are on stage together at the same time does seem to be time for the ‘real’ play to get underway. We have the father dying and Hal walking off with his crown (couldn’t you even wait until I was actually dead before you could get your greedy hands on the damn thing?) really did seem to be the makings of a great scene – but like everything else in this play even this rather more than just a little awkward scene resolved itself far too easily. And that really is the problem with this play, it is all just a little too pat. I’ve a feeling that Shakespeare needed to not offend anybody with these plays and so things needed to be resolved ‘nicely’. I’d have had Henry IV dying thinking his son was an arse and I’d have had Hal tormented by this – and this being the motivation for how badly he treats his old friends. This might have even made Hal seem a bit more likeable – let’s face it, he is anything but likeable in this play.

Hal’s off to give the French a good kicking in the next play – our journey up the ladder of English kings continues.
(less)

4 likes · like · see review

Mar 23, 2011 Marty rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: bedroom-bookshelf

I find it comforting to know that sequels were not just products of the 20 and 21st Century's shameless quest for capitalizing off of previous successes. This, apparently, has been around as long as literature, and Shakespeare is no exception--as King Henry IV, Part 2 so readily attests.

Of course, it is less comforting to know that sequels are generally not as dynamic or impacting as their predecessors--with notable exceptions to this rule, but KHIVP2 is not one of them.

The same, intriguing char...more

1 like · like · see review

Aug 28, 2012 Jocelyn rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: classics, drama, historical-fiction

If you look at my review of Henry IV, Part 1, then I'm sure you realise that I'm not a big fan of Falstaff. Well, at least in Part 1 he had a purpose; in Part 2 it's like, "Hey! People loved Falstaff in Part 1! Let's cash in on that and put him in a lot more than before!" Except, no: Falstaff's scenes were so tedious and just continued to show me why he's a worthless sack of fat old man. Like, how did he even get knighted when he's a) such a coward and b) is only able to subdue an enemy when the...more If you look at my review of Henry IV, Part 1, then I'm sure you realise that I'm not a big fan of Falstaff. Well, at least in Part 1 he had a purpose; in Part 2 it's like, "Hey! People loved Falstaff in Part 1! Let's cash in on that and put him in a lot more than before!" Except, no: Falstaff's scenes were so tedious and just continued to show me why he's a worthless sack of fat old man. Like, how did he even get knighted when he's a) such a coward and b) is only able to subdue an enemy when they are too polite to bring arms against him? Mind-boggling.

(view spoiler)

As a second part to Henry IV, it is more passive tragedy than active. (That is, the rebellions are squashed with much of the action happening off stage -- like Richard II.) But don't let that dissuade you if you're all gung-ho about the battle scenes and the sword fights: this play may not have much of that, but it does greatly complement Part 1 and you will have missed out if you skip right on to Henry V. Part 1 and Part 2 really are two halves of a whole. If you skip one, it's like watching half of a really fantastic movie and never finding out the end.(less)

like · see review

Oct 20, 2012 Klytia rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Come Star Wars insegna il secondo episodio è sempre un po' interlocutorio. Gli strascichi della ribellione vengono sedati dal principe John of Lancaster, il quale si trova appioppato tra le truppe John Falstaff. A differenza di Henry, il principe John è il classico bravo ragazzo, non beve non si concede a bagordi, sorride poco; impossibile la stima tra i due uomini. Le notizie della vittoria tuttavia non sono di buon auspicio per il re ormai stanco e malato il quale cede la corona a Henry, non d...more

like · see review

Oct 21, 2011 Arcadius rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: a-classics, i-hf-c300-to-1659

We left Part 1 with the battle won, but not the war, so justifying the sequel. What we discover in Part 2, however, is that the rebels have actually had the stuffing knocked out of them at Shrewsbury. Deprived of Hotspur’s drive and Worcester’s brains, this sorry lot never really look like getting their act together - and in the end, they just fold before the efficient ruthlessness of Westmorland and Prince John. So much for the central action of the play.

Of course, 2H4 was also intended as a sh...more

like · see review

May 04, 2011 Brian rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: british-lit, shakespeare

A necessary bridge between part one and Henry V, but lacks, in my opinion, a centrality of action. The play demonstrates the physically enfeebled Henry IV transferring power onto Henry V, as well as what happens to a remainder of dissidents, and seeks to create humorous scenes with Falstaff, but each of these are done moderately, in my opinion, not to an optimal degree, as we are used to with dear ole Shakey. The play nonetheless houses two of the most famous lines in literature, certainly among...more

like · see review

Jan 26, 2013 Ben rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I enjoyed the second part of Henry IV better than the first, again with my interest laying mostly in the comic relief and discourse between John Falstaff, Justice Shallow (both characters who reappear in "The Merry Wives of Windsor") and the other misfits in the play, and the strenuous relationship between father and son, Henry IV and Prince Hal, later King Henry V. Most memorable were the King's speech at the beginning of Act III, Scene I -- "O sleep, O gentle sleep,/Nature's soft nurse, how ha...more

like · see review

Dec 05, 2010 Stuart rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

This play continues the story of Hal, Falstaff, King Henry, Mistress Quickly, Ned Poins, Bardolph and many other characters from HENRY IV PART ONE but it lacks the prior play's tight structure and cohesive plot line. Some scenes are amazing- like Hal's attendance of his father's death, and the hilarious dinner scene between Falstaff, Quickly and the prostitute Doll- but many other scenes drag, particularly those regarding the political uprisings of the time, where the various angry aristocrats a...more

like · see review

Oct 28, 2009 Julie added it · review of another edition

Shelves: shakespeare

Not quite as tight as Part I, it feels like a patchwork of scenes all over England that don't ultimately sew together as nicely as in other works. That said, this play has everything - tragedy, comedy, history, pastoral - a tragi-comic pastoral history, if you will - and it is great in every one of those veins.

My only other qualm was that there is a lot less Henry (either IV or V) time than the title might suggest, but Shakes does give some of the play's most poignant passages to these royals....more

like · see review

Apr 30, 2013 Malvina Yock rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I needed to finish this one, to follow up on Henry IV, Part I. And so the king dies, long live King Henry V. The father-son relationship here is poignant and riddled with regrets and guilt. The humour provided by Falstaff and other characters such as Shallow are welcome, played out against the distant ongoing battles (in the battlefield and as regards the crown). And even as Falstaff proves himself fickle and faithless yet again, we laugh at his folly. Shakespeare writes with such universal them...more

like · see review

Jan 20, 2013 Sara rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: shakespeare-project, theater

I will admit that I was not so in love with this play. It just isn't as good as part one, and though the final scene is definitely one of the most devastating not just in Shakespeare but in theater, it felt like a lot of the Hal/Falstaff relationship got ignored in the rest of the play to make room for drunk slapstick. And not that there's not a lot of good to be had in drunk slapstick, but with Hal not even showing up until Act 2 scene 2, it felt unfocused. After part 1, I think there was enoug...more

like · see review

Nov 21, 2011 Trendhater73: S. Bledsoe rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Wow, I really liked the parts with Doll and Mistress Quickly. They were a lot of fun in this play. Still, I cannot say that I like Falstaff. I felt sorry for him, but only a little bit. The way Prince Hal handles his relationship with him, toward the end, was not right. However, it was necessary. This play is still not one of my favorites from Shakespeare. His histories, I have found, are my least favorites. They do offer up several great quotes and memorable scenes, but they lack to full magic...more

like · see review

Feb 28, 2013 Tom Hammer rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

In my humble opinion, this is the pivotal volume in Shakespeares' historical tetralogy of Richard II, Henry IV (part 1), Henry IV (party 2) and Henry V, it is a rich and vibrant "coming of age" tale. Picking up from Shakespeare's chronicle of "Richard Crookback", making good Henry Bolingbroke's usurpation of the crown from(thanks to Harry) the last of the Plantagenet kings of England, Henry IV explores the importance of the coming of age of the young Harry (the future Henry V) and his graduation...more

like · see review

Nov 19, 2012 Bethany Duemler rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

The insight this play gives into Henry IV's mind provides some clarity and context for his actions since "Richard II". I appreciated that Shakespeare was willing to let the dying Bolingbroke speak, who up until now in the Henriad had remained largely silent. The comedic moments are much darker in this play and the lines between villain and hero almost impossible to draw which could make this an uncomfortable play to watch unfold on stage, but it is worth a read if for nothing other than Henry's...more

like · see review

Sep 01, 2012 Ben rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: drama

Obviously the final part of the trilogy of prequels setting up Henry V. More Falstaff, more irritation. And again we have the title character dying before the end of the play. I can’t emphasize enough how this play feels like a set up to Henry V, and not capable of standing on its own. The rebellion lacks Hotspur and any real threat. Without the threat, there is no real conflict/interest. Other than Henry V’s ultimate rejection of Falstaff signifying that all he was was a means to an end, there...more

like · see review

Sep 25, 2011 Marjorie added it · review of another edition

I think this is my favorite essay prompt that I've written for my Berkeley students (so far):

A Double-Edged Sword: Sex and Death
What is the relationship between women and violence in 2 Henry IV? Do women advocate for peace or employ a different kind of violent rhetoric? Is the realm of women creative and the male sphere destructive? Does participation in the female sphere keep men from war (male-male violence)? Do women wield power through their sexuality? Or does their sexuality keep them away...more

like · see review

May 15, 2013 David Sarkies rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: Those who have read Henry IV Part 1

Recommended to David by: Nobody, it's Shakespeare and it has Falstaff so I was bound to read it sometime

Shelves: historical

In the particular edition of this play that I read the editors included and essay by Harold Jenkins (not that that name means anything to me) about whether Henry IV is two five act plays or one ten act play. Personally I don't care either way and would really not want to write a major thesis on that particular point, but that is probably because there is so much more with regards to Shakespearian plays, such as the nature of the human condition, and also the nature of political revolt, that I c...more In the particular edition of this play that I read the editors included and essay by Harold Jenkins (not that that name means anything to me) about whether Henry IV is two five act plays or one ten act play. Personally I don't care either way and would really not want to write a major thesis on that particular point, but that is probably because there is so much more with regards to Shakespearian plays, such as the nature of the human condition, and also the nature of political revolt, that I consider that an essay on whether two plays are one or one play is two is probably just a waste. Then again, each to his own, and if this is what interests Jenkins then who am I to criticise him. Anyhow, my position with regards to that question is that it is neither because I actually see it as one forty act play (beginning with Richard II and ending with Richard III) that has been split into eight parts that, in a sense, can each stand on their own as individual plays.
I actually recently saw this play performed in Sydney by the Bell Shakespeare Company (which is probably the leading Shakespearian theatre group in Australia) and they had performed the two plays as an amalgamation, however since the entire performance was a little under three hours (excluding the twenty minute interlude) there was a number of parts that had been dropped, and I suspect most of them were from the second play (the rebellion of Northumberland and the Archbishop Scroop was not included, despite the scene where Falstaff examining troops with Justices Swallow and Silence being included). The play itself, as with most Shakespearian performances these days, had been brought into the modern setting, with the nobility dressed in suits and the scenes in Eastcheap as if it were in a modern Sydney pub. Falstaff himself did change style, from being little more than a bum to being a well dressed bum, however that had something to do with his elevation from being a simply trouble maker to a knight in the second play.
What I didn't notice in the first play but did notice this time was that Falstaff actually claims the credit for killing Hotspur off of Hal. We know that Hal kills Hotspur, but leaves the scene before anybody can confirm the kill, and Falstaff, who had been playing dead for most of the battle (which is not surprising) then gets up and puts a knife in Hotspur's body and claims the kill. As such, when the King enters the scene, he immediately strips Hal of the kill, and awards the kill to Falstaff.
Now this is actually an important event, especially for those who claim that Hal's return to his wild ways in the second part are inconsistent with the first part where he goes from being a tavern rat to being an honourable battlefield commander. Firstly, Hal is actually bitter at the award for killing Hotspur going to Falstaff on the grounds that he knows that Falstaff is a liar, a cheat, and incredibly lazy (as well as being a coward). In fact, in the second play Falstaff and Hal only encounter each other twice, and where the only change in Falstaff is his title, Hal's attitude has changed dramatically. In fact of both times that Hal and Falstaff meet, the former is rebuking the latter (the first time is where Hal masquarades as a servant boy to listen to what Falstaff says about him when he is not around, and the second is during the coronation parade when Falstaff foolishly expects that Hal will turn England into a theives' paradise).
In a way the play of Henry IV (in two parts) is not so much about the redemption of a wayward child (though in some aspects it is) but rather about a boy's march into adulthood. By the second part, Hal has already been redeemed: the prodigal son has returned, and he is not going out again. The only reason he returns to Eastcheap is to see if Falstaff himself has changed, but that is not going to happen. Shakespeare is too realistic with his characters, and it is clear that Falstaff is simply too old to be able to break away from a lifetime of bad habits. It is interesting too that even though Falstaff does not appear in Henry V, many of the other companions of Eastcheap do appear, and form a part of the irregular army. Once again, Hal, in the next play, puts on a disguise and goes an mingles with them, but this time he does not reveal himself, he just listens. In Henry V we actually learn of Falstaff's fate, in Act 2, Scene 1, when Falstaff's page enters and called his companions advising that he is sick as the king has broken his heart. However, we never actually hear of his fate (and since the fleet was setting sail to France, and since we know that Falstaff is, well, basically a coward, it is not surprising that he would be hiding under his sheets and not wanting to actually go and fight a real war).(less)

like · see review

Sep 11, 2012 Jogle rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: drama, shakespeare, fiction

“Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown”

The second part of Henry IV and the third in the tetralogy starts with a prologue in the guise of ‘Rumour’ serving to outline the final action of the previous play. This Greek style introduction is used at the outset of the act before a final epilogue connects to the final play, Henry V. The ailing king( speculated as everything form leprosy to epilepsy) is again troubled by insurrection despite victory at Shrewsbury, whilst Hal is distanced but not separ...more “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown”

The second part of Henry IV and the third in the tetralogy starts with a prologue in the guise of ‘Rumour’ serving to outline the final action of the previous play. This Greek style introduction is used at the outset of the act before a final epilogue connects to the final play, Henry V. The ailing king( speculated as everything form leprosy to epilepsy) is again troubled by insurrection despite victory at Shrewsbury, whilst Hal is distanced but not separated from the questionable acquaintance of Falstaff and his Eastcheap gang.

Having in the first play cleverly shone a light on the questions of divine ordination, monarchy, family, maturity, bravery and honour using the relationships and comparisons of the characters Henry, Hal, Hotspur and Falstaff, something seems sadly missing from this play. Shrewsbury, at the end of the first part, with its mix of history and fiction was a stirring and complete culmination of the scene that had been set, but did not arrive at the redemption of the Lancaster line needed after the seizure of the crown in the first play. This is reserved for Henry V at Agincourt. This play therefore seems a filler using the increasing separation of Hal and Falstaff and concentrating on small comical vignettes illustrating the structure of English society and its growing identity as ‘English’, separate from the continental kingdoms, in particular the court of France. They sometimes seem to serve little to the drama other than to act as foils to illustrate Falstaff’s lumbering march into old age and his misplaced ideas as to Hal’s intentions.

The hapless yeomanry of Mouldy, Bullcalf, Feeble, Shadow and Wart and the local administrators of Shallow and Silence never quite lift the play to the dramatic level needed for a historical play. The Hal/Falstaff denouement is filled with pathos and Henry’s final collapse in the Jerusalem Chamber built and decorated with his emblem by the usurped Richard II, somewhat redeem the play. It still always seems a halfway house desperately waiting to move things to the action of the French arena.

Shakespeare himself seems to have been in two minds. The epilogue recommends the audience to tune in for the next episode "with Sir John in it, and make you merry with fair Katharine of France; where, for all I know, Falstaff shall die of a sweat" Falstaff was instead written out, presumably for contractual demands but was resurrected (literally) for those Merry wives in Windsor. (One I have yet to read).

As I read the sections with Falstaff among the commoners, I couldn’t help feeling a germ of influence for Dickens, with the elaborate and comical names including the prostitute Doll Tearsheet (written out in the puritanical bowdlerised versions). Alternating light and dark with only a little history to fill the drama, the play ultimately fails to live up to its prequels, but sets the scene for Hal and England’s redemption.
(less)

like · see review

Jul 05, 2012 Benny rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Henry IV pt. 2 picks up where the last play left off, and while great, it never quite measures up to the first installment. The (presumably) resolved dilemma of the first play returns, but there is less enthusiasm since the first play has already given us what we're looking for. Nevertheless, there are some great lines from Falstaff, and the scene where Hal shuns his old friend is touching. I don't want to deter the curious, but if you've read the first Henry IV, this play is supplemental rather...more

like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 99 100 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

topics	posts	views	last activity
Happy or sad ending?	2	12	Jul 14, 2012 11:03am

combine
Other Editions (169)

More editions...

Genres

Classics

254 users

Plays

244 users

Drama

173 users

Historical Fiction

35 users

Literature

28 users

Plays > Theatre

20 users

Literary Fiction

18 users

European Literature > British Literature

17 users

European Literature > Irish Literature

17 users

Criticism

17 users

See top shelves...

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About William Shakespeare

William Shakespeare (baptised 26 April 1564) was an English poet and playwright, widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist. He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon" (or simply "The Bard"). His surviving works consist of 38 plays, 154 sonnets, two long narrative poems, and several other poems. His plays have been tr...more William Shakespeare (baptised 26 April 1564) was an English poet and playwright, widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist. He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon" (or simply "The Bard"). His surviving works consist of 38 plays, 154 sonnets, two long narrative poems, and several other poems. His plays have been translated into every major living language, and are performed more often than those of any other playwright.

Shakespeare was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon. Scholars believe that he died on his fifty-second birthday, coinciding with St George’s Day. It is an interesting idea that English writer is so closely identified with the Patron Saint of England!

At the age of 18 he married Anne Hathaway, who bore him three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith. Between 1585 and 1592 he began a successful career in London as an actor, writer, and part owner of the playing company the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later known as the King's Men. He appears to have retired to Stratford around 1613, where he died three years later. Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive, and there has been considerable speculation about such matters as his sexuality, religious beliefs, and whether the works attributed to him were written by others.

Shakespeare produced most of his known work between 1590 and 1613. His early plays were mainly comedies and histories, genres he raised to the peak of sophistication and artistry by the end of the sixteenth century. Next he wrote mainly tragedies until about 1608, including Hamlet, King Lear, and Macbeth, considered some of the finest examples in the English language. In his last phase, he wrote tragicomedies, also known as romances, and collaborated with other playwrights. Many of his plays were published in editions of varying quality and accuracy during his lifetime, and in 1623, two of his former theatrical colleagues published the First Folio, a collected edition of his dramatic works that included all but two of the plays now recognised as Shakespeare's.

Shakespeare was a respected poet and playwright in his own day, but his reputation did not rise to its present heights until the nineteenth century. The Romantics, in particular, acclaimed Shakespeare's genius, and the Victorians hero-worshipped Shakespeare with a reverence that George Bernard Shaw called "bardolatry". In the twentieth century, his work was repeatedly adopted and rediscovered by new movements in scholarship and performance. His plays remain highly popular today and are consistently performed and reinterpreted in diverse cultural and political contexts throughout the world.

According to historians, Shakespeare write 37 plays and 154 sonnets throughout the span of his life. Shakespeare's writing average was 1.5 plays a year since he first started writing in 1589. There have been plays and sonnets contributed to Shakespeare that were not authentically written by the great master of language and literature.
(less)

More about William Shakespeare...

Books by William Shakespeare

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About Henry IV, Part 2

5 trivia questions
1 quiz

More quizzes & trivia...

Quotes from The Second Part of Kin...

“O sleep, O gentle sleep, Nature's soft nurse, how have I frightened thee, 1710. That thou no more will weigh my eyelids down, And steep my senses in forgetfulness?” — 104 people liked it

“Thou art a very ragged Wart.” — 103 people liked it

More quotes…

title link	preview: Henry IV, Part II
avg rating	preview: Henry IV, Part II Goodreads rating: 3.75 (5490 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5883467-henry-iv-part-ii?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]/assets/nocover/111x148.png[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5883467-henry-iv-part-ii?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Henry IV, Part II by William Shakespeare[/url]

Henry IV, Part II (Wars of the Roses)

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website