You stiffly force the turn of the revolving door flanked by glass panels flashing the buzz of the downtown street. You traverse the shimmering lobby floor and sway with your shifting weight as you await the arrival of the elevator. When it arrives, you leap from the doors as a rush of people flood from the car. Then you enter, alone, light the button for the wrong floor, then the correct floor, and dance your hyper finger on the "Door Close" button. You relax, stare at the glowing numbers count closer to your goal. The doors open. Close. You shouldn't have pushed that wrong button.After subduing the receptionist with your charms and forged press badge, you enter his office and find him lying on a sofa tossing a ball in the air to himself. Papers laze about his desk like beastly cats on a hot day in the Savanah and you look for his absent computer, then quickly to the point at hand. He looks to you, your lips quiver and you hold out the bottle of wine which dried up your last paycheck.You just want to ask one question. You will have no other opportunity to question Shakespeare. He bends his brow, sits up impatiently...What will you ask him?"Why John Falstaff?"Amidst more civil strife, spawned by an uncomfortable seat which provides only the opportunity to fight for its keeping, we witness two sides of a politically epic tale. One side, starring Henry Bolingbroke as King Henry IV, portrays the warring factions of Lords Northumberland, Worcester and Percy, the very men who aided Bolingbroke's apprehension of King Richard II's throne, against the new King, their one-time friend. Henry Percy, nicknamed Hotspur for his reckless and cavalier temprament, counters a paranoid King obsessed with protecting, washing and wringing his hands, as Jon Finch plays him, in order to parley the guilt of King Richard II's deposition and murder. If only Richard could witness the accuracy of his prophecy when he said to Northumberland,The love of wicked friends converts to fear;That fear to hate, and hate turns one or bothTo worthy danger and deserved death.True to his form, Shakespeare urges sympathy to both sides of this historical conflict, since all angles bear the kink of humanity. I sympathize with Percy's faction because the new King returns the courtesy of their previous aid with scorn and mistrust. Although, to a small degree, I blame Percy's reckless thirst for action which likely exaggerates his intentions against the King. But I do not find his complaint against Bolingbroke without merit. In this, the new king learns how he opened the gate for equality amongst nobility and royalty by usurping a throne designed for the security of perfect succession. How can he assert his dominance when he owes so much to others? How can he expect others to live submissively when he whom they serve sits on the throne by their actions? Humanity has now tainted the divine sanctity of the English monarchy and bears conflict with her.Shakespeare might have better entitled King Henry IV - The First Part as The Rise of Prince Henry. Beyond the perilous drought of political conflict, we meet Henry, Prince of Wales, who galavants through inns and taverns with baseborn commoners and insignificant, cowardly villains. Presumabely, he abandons the royal court for the court of paupers where he still maintains his title but enjoys a life a bit outside of the law, like a youth above it. But Shakespeare begs his audience to remember the prince's own words:I know you all, and will awhile upholdThe unyok'd humour of your idleness:Yet herein will I imitate the sun,Who doth permit the base contagious cloudsTo smother up his beauty from the world,That, when he please again to be himself,Being wanted, he may be more wonder'd atBy breaking through the foul and ugly mistsOf vapours that did seem to strangle him.If all the year were playing holidays,To sport would be as tedious as to work;But when they seldom come, they wish'd-for come,And nothing pleaseth but rare accidents,So, when this loose behaviour I throw off,And pay the debt I never promised,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, glittering o'er my fault,Shall show more goodly and attract more eyesThan that which hath no foil to set it off.I'll so offend to make offence a skill;Reckoning time when men think least I will.He plays this part so successfully that the King, his father, preaches to him about his holiday behaviour, comparing it to that of King Richard II, and beckons him to behave as he did, humbly presenting himself to gain favour and support as king. Perhaps I prematurely sympathized with Bolingbroke during King Richard II's time, imagining he only wanted his birthright from Richard. But it would seem, according to his advice, he had his eye on the throne all along, deposing Richard when his birthright would have done. Now in this conflict with Percy he knows his enemies have just grievance against him. So this meeting between father and son, King and Prince, full of advice, with a hint of regret and nostalgia in comparing the prince to King Richard II, and both indicative of the prince's successful ploy and the King's apparaent guilt, marks the prince's return to the royal fold after a very different upbringing than Bolingbroke. After all, Bolingbroke came from Gaunt and nobility while Prince Henry, though of the same blood, wallowed with commoners and miscriants. He has a deeper potential for character and may avoid the shallowness of envy and animalistic paranoia of possession. I wonder if the prince's humble actions with the likes of John Falstaff, conspiring to rob robber friends, mirrors the pompous political circumstances of the state. The king, then, shares this reunion with a purified and strengthened son who can better lead England.After the battle, the prince describes the nobility of his heart with mournful praises of fallen Percy and mercy for Douglas in return for his valor. But his true grace lies in his love for men like John Falstaff, jolly cowards who provide good company and unshakeable loyalty despite distastes for war, rebukes of honor and shameful behavior.Yet who is John Falstaff? Like many other characters in your plays, he beckons so many different interpretations. Why did you write him? What purpose does he serve? You spend so much time on this obvious fiction juxtaposed to the historical plot...why? What sort of past does Falstaff carry with him? Who is he?While away from court, perhaps the prince embraced Falstaff as a kind of father figure. Falstaff brought him up in all his vulgar practices and they enjoyed an intimate familiarity of loving speech and knee-buckling slurs. Falstaff outweighs the prince in years and pounds and they even perform the part of father and son opposite one another, taking turns imitating the prince and the king. Perhaps Falstaff willingly accepts the prince's projections of feelings for his father, perhaps he foreshadows the prince's fate should he choose to hide himself behind the base contagious clouds too long. If Falstaff does serve as a father figure, it would indicate a dual parentage for the prince which serves to strengthen his character for the commons and the nobility - and needless to say, in love, for I do not doubt that Falstaff loves the prince. And all these things combine to create a character that Vernon described:He made a blushing cital of himself;And chid his truant youth with such a grace,As if he master'd there a double spirit,Of teaching and of learning instantly.There did he pause: but let me tell the world, -If he outlive the envy of this day,England did never owe so sweet a hope,So much misconstru'd in his wantonness.
I have read this play many times, and--although Shakespeare always shows me something new--this reading gave me little insight and few surprises. I was struck with two parallels, however--one within the play itself, and one within Shakespeare's body of work. First of all, I appreciated the subtle parallels between the Hotspur-Glendower and the Hal-Falstaff scenes. Each young man spends much of his time needling a self-important, older man who is such a windbag that the audience is almost automatically on the young man's side. Hotspur, whom we are inclined to respect because of his high spirits and his achievements as a warrior, is so easily irritated, and carries his own self-regard so close to the surface, that his needling of Glendower--although deserved--seem pointless, rash and injudicious. (It may, in fact, prove fatal, since Glendower fails to come to Hotspur's aid when most needed--a dereliction perhaps precipitated by the younger man's abrasive heckling.) Consequently, although we like Hotspur at the end of the scene as much as we liked him at the beginning, we respect him a good deal less. Contrast with this the Hal-Falstaff exchanges. Hal, already characterized as a wastrel, punctures Falstaff's pomposity with such a controlled attack of pointed wit that we begin to admire him for his discipline (at least in conversation), and sense that there may be more to him than appears on the surface. In addition, Falstaff--unlike the humorless Glendower--is a worthy opponent, filled with wit and self-awareness, and the fact that Hal can more than hold his own--and keep his temper too--suggests a self-awareness, a deliberately cultivated distance from his degraded surroundings, that prepares us for his eventual transformation just as much as his soliloquy about the sun.The other parallel--between plays--is closer, but certainly less important. Lady Percy, in her attempts to gain information about the coming rebellion, delivers a speech that is very much like Portia's speech to Brutus in similar circumstances. Their conduct afterwards, though, is different. Portia--the stoic Roman--cuts herself in the thigh to prove her ability to keep a secret, but Lady Percy--a hardy warrior's bride--tries to break her husband's little finger and force him to talk. (Like I said, this isn't that important, but it is interesting how a great dramatist can use similar materials in support of very different effects.)Speaking overall, I am once again astonished by the great command of voices that Shakespeare demonstrates in this play. Hotspur, Falstaff, Glendower, Hal and Mistress Quickly all use language in very distinctive ways, and even the casual conversation of the servants in the stable yard is vivid and characteristic. I am also impressed with the expert and seamless blending of poetry with prose, history with comedy, rhetoric with wit.By the time he wrote Henry IV, Shakespeare could not only do it all, but he knew exactly how--and when--to mix it up. This is the work of a master.
Do You like book King Henry IV, Part 1 (2002)?
I love this play, and this edition. It's captivating and insightful, and I'm reading right after finishing "The Plantagenets," which I also recommend, and which teed it up nicely. (That book ends with Henry IV deposing Richard II, leading directly to the situation this play depicts.) One problem with reading the history of the English kings is their stories tend to blur together after while. I've always been able to keep Henry II straight, because I watched "The Lion in Winter" 20 years ago, and still picture Peter O'Toole as Henry, Katherine Hepburn as Eleanor of Aquitaine, etc. I think I have this set of Henry's etched in my brain for another 20, too.I tried two other editions of Henry IV, before settling on this one (Arden):- The Applause edition: I loved the thorough explanations and insights into how actors have played scenes over time FOR OTHER PLAYS (several of the well-known tragedies), so I was expecting the same. Nope. Nothing but lots of footnotes indicating technical decisions on which folio/quarto was used on a particular line.- Oxford School Series. The explanatory notes were very helpful, and I would have been very happy with this edition. But I compared this with Arden (reviewed here) line by and Arden had far more historical information and insightful notes on the wordplay (eg, biblical sources he was playing off). Also, the Oxford actually overdid it explaining some phrases I found obvious. I went to B&N and worked through more than a dozen versions of this play, and found this most superior, by far. (Also, get historical info on all the major characters.) This appears to be the best out there. It costs a bit more: about $8 more than the others, but I'll be spending 40-60 hours with it, so that's less than 20 cents per hour of my time for something much more effective. A bargain.(If money is really tight, I highly recommend the "Oxford School Series," (and note that's different than just "Oxford," which is also out there. UPDATE: I started act 5 today, and still loving it. Racing through it, on my scale. I could do without Falstaff, but loving Hal and Hotspur and the other rebels and even the king sometimes.UPDATE 2:Wrapped up in a frenzy. Sooooo good.
—Dave Cullen
Henry Bolingbroke became Henry VI by stealing the crown with force when Richard's attentions were elsewhere in Ireland, but as Shakespeare opens up his two-part history, Henry wants to forswear conflict in England:'No more the thirsty entrance of this soilShall daub her lips from her own children's blood;No more shall trenching war channel her fields,Nor bruise her flowrets with the armed hoofsOf hostile paces.'Oh, if only it were that easy! Immediately Henry finds himself a monarch at war as a result of his own insults, as the fiery Earl of Northumberland takes issue with him for failing to ransom his sister's husband after a skirmish in Scotland. Henry Percy has distinguished himself in arms, but now he will raise them against the king, prompted by many of those same nobles who supported him against Richard.He is the perfect catalyst for the aggrieved lords; even his own uncle and ally the Earl of Worcester describes him as a witless touch-paper: 'A hare-brain'd Hotspur, govern'd by a spleen.'But enough about all these weighty shenanigans at the court: what about Falstaff at the Boar's Head Tavern? For this is the fat Falstaff's play really, all else is merely highflown folly.Drunkard, coward, thief, lier, 'huge hill of flesh', Falstaff puts everyone else in the shade(sic) whenever he is on stage, a hapless, oversized rogue and the subject of some fine insults from his friend, the young Prince Harry, my favorite of which is:'Fat Falstaff sweats to death,and lards the lean earth as he walks along' His shameless antics are the highlight of a hugely entertaining play, though they have little to do with the action by and large, a little like Bill Murray's scenes in Ghostbusters II. With war proclaimed, Falstaff does eventually help out, enlisting an army of prisoners and pensioners without uniforms to save money ('they'll find linen enough on every hedge'), which he pockets himself, then defends his crew when Prince Henry calls them 'pitiful rascals':'Tut, tut; good enough to toss; food for powder, food for powder; they'll fill a pit as well as better. Tush, man, mortal men, mortal men.'He may be a gross jester, but in time of war he has a point.
—Perry Whitford
What a fascinating play. Hal and Falstaff, a young man and a mentor -- of sorts -- as the young man approaches the inevitability of maturing into responsibility. The two plots, of a band of thieves and wastrels juxtaposed against the band of lords and warriors, were familiar and yet so well done. Hal is tricky, as he must be, I guess, living the life of a prince while well aware that life is short and that terms may change at any moment. Falstaff is witty and caring, while Hal cannot afford more than wit many times. Garber pointed out that Falstaff told Hal, after pretending to be dead on the battlefield, that he was not "a double man," and that is true. Falstaff is Falstaff, but Hal cannot be Hal his entire life. He is destined to be Henry V. I love Hotspur as a foil to Hal, as well, and that earning his father's respect means vanquishing Hotspur, as well. "I am the Prince of Wales; and think not, Percy,/ To share with me in glory any more:/ Two stars keep not their motion in one sphere." Just as there cannot be two boys vying for the king's favor, Hal cannot be two men with such a large sphere of influence.
—Amanda
