Shakespeare Fans discussion
Group Readings
>
HENRY IV, Part 1 and 2
date
newest »
newest »
Will someone else please be the next discussion leader?My eyes cannot handle the recent design changes on this site. I get severe headaches if I try to read more than a couple of comments.
I've just been checking every day or so to see if it's any better. So far, the glare is just too much for me.
Mod
Thanks for starting off the next play, Candy. I don't seem to have the glare problem. Can I help in some way? Never done this before.
I am ready to read this - just not ready to be discussion leader again right now. I'm happy to nominate Gabriel!
Mod
Lets not be too hard on ourselves...read when we can share when we can....this is a huge topic but we can do it!!!
LOL
What a way to start the new year...and I sent Gabriel and Stephanie a request for discussions leader....and so I see Gariel has offered...
Why not start with the first play here Gabriel.
Discussion leader isn't too demanding...check in every other day, post thoughts, articles, essay links if you find something inspiring...just keep conversation going if needed...
It's pretty low maintenance ...we are a vocal group...do you think that is a thing with people who like Shaepeare? LOL
Okay, here we go. Following your previously suggested schedule, we're look at Act 1 for the coming week. Here are a few questions that might start us off, that strike me from a quick first read of this act:1. We're confronted with two courtly high-politics scenes sandwiching a low-life tavern scene. What's the effect of this - do the two settings modify each other somehow?
2. The politics seems to be complicated and refers back to things that have happened before the play starts. Is it important for us to understand what's going on historically - would Shakespeare's audience necessarily have known all that - or can we just take it as it comes? By the end of the act there's a revolt brewing. What's causing it - does that matter?
3. Are we already getting intrigued by the characters in this Act, or is it mainly scene-setting? (Unlike All's Well, it's all very male).
(Of course, bypass those questions if other things strike you as more interesting. - Looking forward to your reactions.)
I haven't read the first act yet, but you're comment - "it's all very male" - struck me. I have not read this play before; I always sort of avoided it because it seemed very male to me and a boys will be boys sort of story line. So I dread it for that reason. At the same time, I look forward to reading it for that reason! I'm more ready to immerse myself in male issues (living in a house full of men only now), and indeed, I'm looking forward to parsing some of these issues - on fathers and sons, on bros and their friendships, on honor, rivalry, and many things traditionally male.
This should be interesting! Can't wait to start reading...
Grab me a beer and situate me in a mancave.
I thought the contrast of the scenes was necessary - it mirrors Hal's speech about how his acting badly now will make his time as King seem even brighter. What I found interesting was that I could see two ways to interpret that. My first impression was that he was being manipulative and canny. My second was that he could also be justifying his own dissipation and actually be the gadabout.I had a hard time with Scene 3. I read it a couple times and then gave up and went looking for a family tree and some history lessons. Then it all made a lot more sense. Everything I needed to know was within the play, but I wasn't catching it buried in the older English.
I do think it's important to know why the rebellion is brewing, because it lends tension and depth. Mortimer is the heir declared by the previous king, who Worcester and Northumberland helped depose on behalf of Henry IV. And now he wants to kill them instead of reward them. There's a great few lines about about the debt felt that are very relevant. The whole scene also paints Hotspur's character as an honorable warrior with a temper.
Mod
and I noticed right away a celestial reference...and to compare it with Henry Vi opening...
Opening lines by King Henry IV
"So shaken as we are, so wan with care,
Find we a time for frighted peace to pant,
And breathe short-winded accents of new broils
To be commenced in strands afar remote.
No more the thirsty entrance of this soil
Shall daub her lips with her own children's blood;
Nor more shall trenching war channel her fields,
Nor bruise her flowerets with the armed hoofs
Of hostile paces: those opposed eyes,
Which, like the meteors of a troubled heaven,
All of one nature, of one substance bred,
Did lately meet in the intestine shock
And furious close of civil butchery"
Bedford in opening lines from Henry VI
"Hung be the heavens with black, yield day to night!
Comets, importing change of times and states,
Brandish your crystal tresses in the sky,
And with them scourge the bad revolting stars
That have consented unto Henry's death!
King Henry the Fifth, too famous to live long!
England ne'er lost a king of so much worth."
Mod
Let's let this sit and see if we can find out if Goodreads is going to do something about the stie...or maybe we could move to FB to discuss?
I don't know...
I did try to respond with an email to the group, like Gabriel did, but it just kept bouncing back to me. Maybe FB?? I don't know...
Hi all, this site seems to be a problem, though for some reason it doesn't affect me. If we switch to something else for a while I'd rather it was just straight emails. We could exchange email addresses and have a list, assuming it wouldn't be huge. Mine is gabriel.chanan@talktalk.net . Meanwhile shall we move on to Act II of Henry IV? It starts with a very atmospheric night scene in an inn yard, though it's quite difficult to tell what's going on, seemingly preparation for the robbery to come. Then the robbery. Again it's a bit confusing because there's a character called Gadshill and also a place called Gadshill. Then there's a brief contrasting scene with Hotspur gearing up for his rebellion. Then back to the Boar's Head tavern, and Prince Hal's pranks. Personally I don't find them very funny or Hal very attractive. He's very much an upper-class lad conscious of slumming it. I'm not sure if that's Shakespeare's intention. In performance you would have quite a bit of latitude.
My email is: lea@learachel.comI am finally done with Act I. Will start Act II next week....
Did anyone else get to see "Shakespeare Uncovered" on PBS this weekend (I live in the NYC area)? Jeremy Irons discussed Henry IV & V. Here's a link to the series website: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/shakespeare-u...
I love that series! I saw that episode a few years ago...I'll have to look at it again now that we're reading it here. Thanks for the reminder Kathy
I have a question about Act 3. Should I post? Are we doing this at all, or have we been defeated by the screen, color, an font?
yes let's move on to act three and see if we can get some momentum back into this. what's the question?
In the first part of Act 3 there are a million references to speaking Welsh:"no man speaks better Welsh."
"My wife can speak no English, I no Welsh."
"That pretty Welsh"
"Now I perceive the devil understands Welsh"
and even one to Irish
"I had rather hear Lady, my brach, howl in Irish."
What innuendo am I missing? Was Welsh back in Shakespeare's day like speaking with a Southern accent, and all its connotations? Was Irish considered more refined? I am completely guessing, but I'm pretty sure something is going on here that I am not automatically getting. Anyone, either with a bit of historical or linguistic knowledge, have an idea?
Thanks.
Hi, Lea- according to "No fear Shakespeare" (I'm a total cheater, I know!) - "To the English, Welsh often sounded like a barbaric Language..." Also, before the events of this play, Mortimer was sent to put down Glendower's rebellion by Henry. Mortimer was captured and ended up turning his sympathies to the Welsh to the point that he married Glendower's daughter.
Mod
I'm so happy to see some activity...I will keep reading....I'll be back with some posts too...I promise!
So Welsh is considered the "stupid" language. Thanks Kathy.What about Irish? Anyone know of any connotations there?
Good point Kathy. The first part of act 3 is about the potential for either unification or break up of the British isles. The rebellion has strong regional elements, and the underlying viewpoint (but it's sotto voce in scene 1), is of the dominance of London and southern England. Scotland is a different country which tries to invade England now and then (described in 'Edward III'). Ireland is an occupied colony. Wales is part of the kingdom (hence Hal is the prince of Wales) but regarded as a bit weird and possibly unreliable. The rebellion is a fragile alliance of northern England, Scotland and Wales, but the rebels are shown as distrustful of each other (though they have married into each others' families). Their intention is to divide the country into three when they have won (compare the threat of Britain divided into three by Lear) but they argue over the boundaries and would very likely fight each other afterwards. Blunt 'realistic' Hotspur, representing northern England, is shown as particularly mistrustful of the poetic and quasi-mystical culture of Wales, and sees the separateness of its language - hence identity - as threatening. Later, Glendower, its champion, will prove untrustworthy, failing to turn up to the battle because of omens. The Irish are quite beyond the pale, barely characterised by Shakespeare at all except as enemies (suppressed by Richard II and again in Shakespeare's time, mentioned in Henry V). But Shakespeare shows Mortimer deeply attracted by the poetic Welsh culture that he doesn't understand, and perhaps Shakespeare was too (he doesn't attempt to render any words in Welsh, as he does elsewhere in French and Latin). Glendower's mysticism pre-echoes Prospero's magic powers in The Tempest. I think the overall effect of the way the plotters are depicted is meant to be to reinforce the necessity for Henry to impose unity. Reverberations of the regional tensions are still perceptible today! - the north often accuses the London government of neglecting it, half of Scotland wants independence, and Ireland is divided. The Welsh language has retreated somewhat but is still spoken in some parts, and there are sporadic assertions of identity. Ironically, the half suppressed celtic cultures of Scotland, Wales and especially Ireland would prove to be amongst the greatest contributors to 'English' literature over the next few hundred years.
Ok--so sorry to come in late, but I could stand this no more. The Henry IV plays are on one level about the "Bromance" between the lovely, witty, slovenly and decadent Falstaff (every Ren. Englander's favorite b'loved character, including Liz, who asked for a comic reprise with MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR ) and the curious, intelligent, but reticent Prince Hal. Hal wishes to push off his inheritance+duty and live the life of a drunken knight errant, like his favorite man Falstaff. Falstaff, when he is not being a fighting noble knight of the realm, is too energetic to rein in his energies in peacetime, and so falls to whoring, gambling, and making up absurd entertainments including convincing the crowned prince of England to partake (albeit in the shadows) in highway robbery--just for kicks, you see.
Hal is a passive aggressive indulger of the absurdity of his mentor/paramour/ partner in crime--and we are encouraged to love this relationship. It's like the gang at Cheers, or Dr. Who and his latest partner, one of those completely organic soul matches.
However, reality steps in, Hal after much shilly-shallying, feels guilty, heeds his father's voice, and decides it is his duty to embody England's greatness, superiority, and integrity. Particularly over the French and their perverted Salic laws. In a word, he gets religion. Onto Henry V, and "We happy few, we band of brothers..."
Ok Tracy but once we've got that picture of what's going to happen (and the Elizabethan audience would know that Hal was going to turn out 'good' in the end) it's interesting to ask again what is really the relationship between Hal and Falstaff. Hal actually insults Falstaff all the way through, but in a male banter sort of way. Falstaff also insults Hal, but more affectionately. In 'Henry V' Hal will become the 'righteous' king who pointlessly kills thousands of French, and also has one of Falstaff's cronies, Bardolph, hung for a very minor theft. In 'Henry IV' we can see Hal, as you say, gradually accepting his 'duty' - his true destiny emerges - but that seems to entail a decline in his humanity. I think we can see that in H IV already, for example in the very unfunny way in which he taunts the server, Francis. Falstaff is witty. Hal is just snobbish, with a nasty undercurrent.
Gabriel wrote: "Ok Tracy but once we've got that picture of what's going to happen (and the Elizabethan audience would know that Hal was going to turn out 'good' in the end) it's interesting to ask again what is r..."I agree, but for generations Henry V was THE iconic symbolism of English patriotism. He represented English calm, stalwartness, a can do attitude defying the odds. It's why that Happy Few speech is so famous, so popular (even American authors borrow it for soldierly bonding). It helps to feel how much the English hate the French in those days--their biggest threat to their way of life, as a modern person might feel about terrorists.
I also think there are quite a lot of parallels between Hal and Hamlet--they are sort of yin/yang characters. Hal is Hamlet in an alternate universe where his father didn't die --both have the initial instinct and intelligence to see the show behind the curtain, and rebel against it. Hal doesn't have as much reason as Hamlet to overthrow the system. The both are consummate "actors" aware of their audiences, and the effects of their actions. I think that partially explains Hal's speeches, tendency to hold back and people-watch, and some of his more controversial decisions as King.
Comparing Hal and Hamlet is a great idea. I agree about both being consummate actors. But I don't think Hal is really rebelling at all - just avoiding, for a while. He's got everything to gain from the system. Yes, Henry V has been the great British patriotic image, and that came in useful and was reinforced in World War Two. But I think Shakespeare got fed up with futile patriotism. Henry V wasn't fighting a deadly threat, he was trying to expand his kingdom and consolidate his image. After H V Shakespeare left off English history and French-hating, and set most of the rest of his plays on the continent or in ancient times, including being nice to the French in All's Well. I think the terrorist comparison is over the top. After all, the English ruling class were French in origin, which is why they kept hankering to get France back again. The amazing, and in some ways horrifying, thing about those medieval wars, as Shakespeare portrays them, is that they can be relentless when they're fighting yet they expect to unite everyone by arranging a marriage treaty. Getting back to H IV, even if we admire Hal as a leader, we're being shown the corruption beneath the surface in the way Falstaff recruits his quota of troops. We're sort of being asked to accept that reality doesn't really add up morally,and perhaps we have to accept flawed rulers.
Wow, I go to work for a few hours and miss a slew of entertaining posts!Gabriel, thanks for your historical points. It's always fun to learn things in-depth contextually. Of course I know about Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and the relationship of all the lands, but I hadn't quite put it together in how that history can affect how languages are perceived (and colloquially denigrated) culturally.
Tracy, comparing Hal and Hamlet is interesting. I will say that putting up posts that just summarize the plot is not very interesting. I think we all know the plot - if not, there is always spark notes. But your post investigating a possible Hal/Hamlet relationship is more thought provoking. They are both young princes. At the same time, I do find them very different. Hal just seems like your college fraternity prankster to me (I realize he changes later, but at first). Hamlet I find much more the bookish, pensive sort. They are both princes, sure, but other than that I don't find them all that similar.
I'll contemplate this more as I continue reading the play...
Gabriel wrote: "Comparing Hal and Hamlet is a great idea. I agree about both being consummate actors. But I don't think Hal is really rebelling at all - just avoiding, for a while. He's got everything to gain from..."Gabriel wrote: "Comparing Hal and Hamlet is a great idea. I agree about both being consummate actors. But I don't think Hal is really rebelling at all - just avoiding, for a while. He's got everything to gain from..."
You misunderstood me. I don't think Shakespeare himself hated the French, but he knew his audience, and played on the popular idea. Not all the English audience would have French ancestors. One difference between Hal and Hamlet: you can feel that Shakespeare liked the character he made in Hamlet, but I don't think he likes Hal too much. He's interesting, but hardly sympathetic, and becomes less so as we know him. He's got a bit of Iago, perhaps: he's quite manipulative, and even does the same audience bad boy confessions that Iago does.
Hi. I'm new to the group, as well as Goodreads, but I've read both H IV plays (and taught them both in college Shakespeare courses), so I've enjoyed reading the discussions above on them. I do have a differing opinion on one portion of the discussion though: As much appreciation as I have for the play Hamlet itself (I think it may well be one of the most influential and important plays ever written), I can't stand the character of Hamlet. I think he's the Elizabethan equivalent of an over-aged emo spoiled princelet. He talks himself in and out of things so often it's a wonder anything gets done at all. He hesitates so long and often about killing the man who killed his father, and then when he accidentally kills Polonius, he's like "oh, well, wrong place, wrong time." Sorry, I know this discussion is about Henry IV, and I'll get back to it now.
I think that Hal is much smarter than Hamlet, certainly more ambitious and determined, and I think that the clowning around in the bars early on with Fallstaff and the boys is also well-thought-out and planned. I think he knows it's about time he's going to be forced into acting like a real prince, and he's taking a last fling. I also think he is fully conscious of sacrificing Fallstaff, who represents the father-figure of his carefree days, to the role he needs to be the heroic king he fully believes he can be. There's this end of a monologue that Hal has:
So, when this loose behaviour I throw off
And pay the debt I never promisèd,
By how much better than my word I am,
By so much shall I falsify men’s hopes;
And like bright metal on a sullen ground,
My reformation, glitt’ring o’er my fault,
Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes
Than that which hath no foil to set it off.
I’ll so offend to make offence a skill,
Redeeming time when men think least I will.
(Henry IV, Pt. 1 - I. ii, 186-195)
Manipulative, absolutely, but I still think he's much more hero than villain, much more the regal Henry V he turns into than Iago. Selfish, but important goals for England's future. Just my 2 cents (2.5 Canadian).
Interesting thoughts Larry.I don't mind Hamlet, but I do understand what you are saying. Maybe if he were someone I knew and he prevaricated that much it'd drive me up the wall, but as a literary character I like hearing his internal monologues.
It sounds like we may be moving onto another play soon... so I'll stop commenting on this for now.
Ok, I'm going for King John, and here's a few starting thoughts. 1. Let's focus on each act in turn, perhaps a week or two per act, but we can also look across the whole play if we've read it.
2. Let's be aware of where it comes in relation to the other plays - a few years before Henry IV and Hamlet - a bit clunky compared to them but I think of it as a breakthrough in bringing humour and a major fictional character into history, making rude comments about kings (anticipating Falstaff).
3. Act 1 is mainly about introducing Faulconbridge, 'The Bastard'. I love the way his earthy irreverent language puts the courtly characters in the shade.What do you make of him? Is he a hero or a clown?
4. We can also make comparisons with Hamlet and Hal if you want to keep that stream of thought going. All three challenge the status quo but in some ways Faulconbridge is the pleasantest: cheerful, where Hamlet is morose; spontaneous, where Hal is calculating. Thoughts, please!
Larry wrote: "Hi. I'm new to the group, as well as Goodreads, but I've read both H IV plays (and taught them both in college Shakespeare courses), so I've enjoyed reading the discussions above on them. I do ha..."
I love Hamlet. The character. Maybe this is what's wrong with my life.
Hal doesn't move me. And I'm not sure "smarter" is the way to compare them--Hamlet is one of the most intelligent characters in literature--his way with language certainly surpasses Hal's. I'd say, in modern parlance? Hal may appear to be more "emotionally intelligent" , that is, more in control of his feelings an behaviors, and that maybe gives him focus and drive beyond Hamlet's but I will contend that's not necessarily smarter--all you gotta do is look at the US presidential race to see that's true...
Larry wrote: "Hi. I'm new to the group, as well as Goodreads, but I've read both H IV plays (and taught them both in college Shakespeare courses), so I've enjoyed reading the discussions above on them. "Greetings, fellow teacher! I taught pt. 1 (and some of pt. 2) two years ago. I work at a middle school for students with learning disabilities, so my students are about 13/14 years old with a high incidence of dyslexia and attentional problems. They absolutely loved this play and joyfully watched a 3 hour+ live performance of it.
When I teach Shakespeare in my setting, I tell the students to focus on one or two characters and one or two key ideas. In this case, it was simply: Focus on Hal. Can he become a king? What does it take to become a king? Do you have to choose between your friends and your future?
As far as the manliness of this play- yes, it is quite manly. However, there was also enough nasty sex to keep my female students interested.
I agree with your interpretation of Hal. It's important to remember that he was a huge hero to Elizabethan England, so the audience would have seen this as him gradually embracing his own greatness and the greatness of the British crown.
Mod
Scherzo is discussion leader.
Here is Part 1 reading discussion guide...
December 29 Act 1
January 5 Act 2
January 12 Act 3
January 19 Act 4
January 26 Act 5
Henry IV Part 2
February 2 Act 1
February 9 Act 2
February 16 Act 3
February 23 Act 4
March 1 Act 5