Henry IV, Part 2
by
William Shakespeare,
Jonathan Bate , Eric Rasmussen (Goodreads Author)
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 to...more
Under the editorial supervision of Jonathan Bate and Eric Rasmussen, two of to...more
Paperback, 256 pages
Published
August 25th 2009
by Modern Library
(first published 1599)
There is a good chance some of your friends read this book. Sign in to see!
sign in »
Friend Reviews
To see what your friends thought of this book,
please sign up.
This book is currently not featured on any Listopia lists.
Add this book to your favorite list »
Community Reviews
(showing
1-30
of
4,443)
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 ...more
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...more
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...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...more
view all 4 comments
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.
T...more
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.
T...more
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it,
click here.
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 als...more
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
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
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 ...more
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 ...more
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
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 ...more
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 ...more
Elegiac, frustrating, and moving in just the same way a late installment of serial fiction can be today. For me the tavern scenes, especially Falstaff's bittersweet tete-a-tete with Doll Tearsheet, were particularly unsettling, as they labor to make the end of the road funny - and often succeed! Falstaff is of course more emphatically a tragic figure here, but he's also more surprisingly a crueler one, his charm now inadequate to conceal his darker - and as always ginormous - underbelly. He trie...more
http://nhw.livejournal.com/1124586.html[return][return]It's a curious play, with a lot of good scenes (and some very famous quotes) which are not tied together particularly well. The plot is essentially the hubris and fall of Falstaff, against a background of high politics where King Henry IV dies and passes on not just the office but the role of kingship to his son Henry V. Falstaff's story is much more interesting than the warring aristocrats, and the young prince Henry seems much less in the ...more
a
marked it as to-read
·
review of another edition
Recommends it for:
Anyone who's just invested in tickets to see a performance of th play
I need to read this play having just seen a performance and been totally confused. I've seen a few Shakespeare performances before and usually found the plot not too difficult to follow. This was completely different though, it's one of his history plays and the plot is very complex. The performance irritated me, the acting was terrific and I enjoyed the costumes and the spectacle, but the director had assumed that the audience had a full knowledge of the plot and the characters and there was no...more
Being the third in the series that will culminate in Henry V, this play shows promise but is at times brought down a bit by scenes that deal with the shady characters of young Henry V's past. When the play sticks to the issues of the rebellion at hand it shines, but I found the Falstaff parts growing ever more wearisome--though that is perhaps what Shakespeare wanted as Henry himself must also confront his past associations with wayward knight and his minions.
Superb audio performance of a great play. Jamie Glover is a cruel Prince Hal, Timothy West is a dangerous Falstaff, the rest of the cast is terrific, and director Gordon House, whose work I have not liked in the past pulls together the rest of the production well. It does trowel on the sound patterns a bit thick, and that reduces the experience, but gladly the cast does not drown under them. This performance is very much worth your time.
This play feels oddly balanced, which makes it a bit odd. The first two acts are very Falstaff heavy, whereas the majority of the main plot--the rebellion against Henry IV--occurs in the latter half of the play, and Falstaff gets relegated back to a low plot character. Act II is particularly odd, because it has two scenes, one focusing on the main plot and one focusing on Falstaff's plot, and the Falstaff scene as significantly longer than the other.
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it,
click here.
Didn't actually need to read this for my course, but since it comes between Henry IV Part One and Henry V, I thought I'd read it to make sure I have all the details.
I didn't like it as much as Part One -- it doesn't seem to tie together as well, and anyway I'm not fond of the character of Falstaff. Perhaps on stage it'd be funny and worth watching, but I didn't enjoy those scenes just reading it.
I didn't like it as much as Part One -- it doesn't seem to tie together as well, and anyway I'm not fond of the character of Falstaff. Perhaps on stage it'd be funny and worth watching, but I didn't enjoy those scenes just reading it.
It was really good, but it wasn't as good as the first book, because it was slower and didn't have as much action. The prince was a very interesting and believable character because he was so real and interesting to think about. He went through a very interesting journey as a character because he went from a rebellious youth to having to accept the crown and get rid of his former friends.
Eric
rated it
·
review of another edition
·
review of another edition
Recommends it for:
Fans of the history plays.
Shelves:
for-class
The second part of Shakespeare's "Henry IV" history plays is less enjoyable than the first part, or "Richard II" that precedes them and "Henry V" that follows. The lack of likable characters really makes it a challenge to a reader's sympathy - Falstaff's uglier side shows itself, while Hotspur is, of course, absent after Part 1. There are some fine passages, but the play is also less memorable than Part 1 or R2/H5. Still, as a piece of a multi-part history play seri...more
Erik Graff
rated it
·
review of another edition
·
review of another edition
Recommends it for:
Shakespeare fans
Recommended to Erik by:
Harriet J. Naden
Shelves:
drama
I've not made much of a study of Shakespeare beyond what was required for classes. Presumably our high school's curricular committee picked this so as to represent his histories, hoping that the farcical character of Falstaff would entertain us. It did, being much more interesting than regnal displays and pursuits.
This is one of my favorites of Shakespeare's works for the simple fact that we get to see Hal come to the cross roads of his life. Henry V does a great job showing us what kind of man he becomes once he makes the decision to abandon his wild ways and accept his role in the Monarchy of England.
Some good speeches. Not well written. Shakespeare phoning it in a lot. Rumor personified? Even Shakespeare made fun of that device in A Midsummer Night's Dream, as an example of bad playwriting. Characters pretty meh. Hal not that likable. Falstaff not that likable. King Henry not that likable. Eh.
Although not as good as Part One, this play has some highlights. The scene with Hal and the crown is the highlight. Again, I recommend the New Cambridge Shakespeare version. This one, edited by Giorgio Melchiori, is outstanding. The extensive notes add much depth to the play.
In some ways even better than Part 1, if only for the devastating scene at the end where Henry V--now king--disowns Falstaff. It's a situation we all find ourselves confronting (although we may not come to the same conclusion or handle it the same way) as we enter adulthood.
Saw rather than read--watching Shakespearean plays at the new Globe is something like having a meal where Tolkien and the Inklings used to hang out. (Did that, too, and yes, I am aware that it falls under the heading of shameless self-aggrandizement).
The further adventures of Prince Hal, wherein he degrades himself by lying to his enemies to induce them to surrender, and to his dying father. Becoming King, he spurns his old drinking buddy Falstaff. Are we supposed to like this guy?
Lame! This is the Back to the Future II of Shakespeare: lots of random, scattered events that no one really cares about and then! The ending! Hey, sorry this play was lame, but the next sequel looks better...
Also, kind of like the Office, Season 2 (British). Falstaff's/ David Brent's lies and bluffs get called and he starts to get pathetic and mean.
Anyway, maybe I'll think differently when I see it on stage.
Also, kind of like the Office, Season 2 (British). Falstaff's/ David Brent's lies and bluffs get called and he starts to get pathetic and mean.
Anyway, maybe I'll think differently when I see it on stage.
even more fun than part 1! no, really. includes quite a large number of ridiculous similes. also, the unforgettable line: "I'll tickle your catastrophe." if we ever read this again, i'm sure that alex and i will play the "whoreson" drinking game.
There are no discussion topics on this book yet.
Be the first to start one »
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. Hi...more
More about William Shakespeare...
Share This Book
6 trivia questions
1 quiz
More quizzes & trivia...
1 quiz
“Thou art a very ragged Wart.”
—
94 people liked it
“I am not only witty in myself, but the cause that wit is in other men.”
—
11 people liked it
More quotes…
