What do you think?
Rate this book
Wars of the Roses #3
The Second Part of King Henry IV
A new approach to critical analysis is offered by this interpretation of the play as an exploitative sequel issued in response to the popularity of the
260 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1598
About the author
William Shakespeare
19.7k books44.4k followersWilliam Shakespeare was an English playwright, poet, and actor. He is 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 extant works, including collaborations, consist of some 39 plays, 154 sonnets, three long narrative poems, and a few other verses, some of uncertain authorship. His plays have been translated into every major living language and are performed more often than those of any other playwright. Shakespeare remains arguably the most influential writer in the English language, and his works continue to be studied and reinterpreted.
Shakespeare was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire. At the age of 18, he married Anne Hathaway, with whom he had three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith. Sometime between 1585 and 1592, he began a successful career in London as an actor, writer, and part-owner ("sharer") of a playing company called the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later known as the King's Men after the ascension of King James VI and I of Scotland to the English throne. At age 49 (around 1613), he appears to have retired to Stratford, where he died three years later. Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive; this has stimulated considerable speculation about such matters as his physical appearance, his sexuality, his religious beliefs, and even certain fringe theories as to whether the works attributed to him were written by others.
Shakespeare produced most of his known works between 1589 and 1613. His early plays were primarily comedies and histories and are regarded as some of the best works produced in these genres. He then wrote mainly tragedies until 1608, among them Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth, all considered to be among the finest works in the English language. In the last phase of his life, he wrote tragicomedies (also known as romances) and collaborated with other playwrights.
Many of Shakespeare's plays were published in editions of varying quality and accuracy during his lifetime. However, in 1623, John Heminge and Henry Condell, two fellow actors and friends of Shakespeare's, published a more definitive text known as the First Folio, a posthumous collected edition of Shakespeare's dramatic works that includes 36 of his plays. Its Preface was a prescient poem by Ben Jonson, a former rival of Shakespeare, that hailed Shakespeare with the now famous epithet: "not of an age, but for all time".
Shakespeare was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire. At the age of 18, he married Anne Hathaway, with whom he had three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith. Sometime between 1585 and 1592, he began a successful career in London as an actor, writer, and part-owner ("sharer") of a playing company called the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later known as the King's Men after the ascension of King James VI and I of Scotland to the English throne. At age 49 (around 1613), he appears to have retired to Stratford, where he died three years later. Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive; this has stimulated considerable speculation about such matters as his physical appearance, his sexuality, his religious beliefs, and even certain fringe theories as to whether the works attributed to him were written by others.
Shakespeare produced most of his known works between 1589 and 1613. His early plays were primarily comedies and histories and are regarded as some of the best works produced in these genres. He then wrote mainly tragedies until 1608, among them Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth, all considered to be among the finest works in the English language. In the last phase of his life, he wrote tragicomedies (also known as romances) and collaborated with other playwrights.
Many of Shakespeare's plays were published in editions of varying quality and accuracy during his lifetime. However, in 1623, John Heminge and Henry Condell, two fellow actors and friends of Shakespeare's, published a more definitive text known as the First Folio, a posthumous collected edition of Shakespeare's dramatic works that includes 36 of his plays. Its Preface was a prescient poem by Ben Jonson, a former rival of Shakespeare, that hailed Shakespeare with the now famous epithet: "not of an age, but for all time".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 820 reviews
December 1, 2021
Henry IV, Part 2 (Wars of the Roses, #3), William Shakespeare
Henry IV, Part 2 is a history play by William Shakespeare, believed written between 1596 and 1599.
It is the third part of a tetralogy, preceded by Richard II and Henry IV, Part 1 and succeeded by Henry V.
The play is often seen as an extension of aspects of Henry IV, Part 1, rather than a straightforward continuation of the historical narrative, placing more emphasis on the highly popular character of Falstaff and introducing other comic figures as part of his entourage, including Ancient Pistol, Doll Tearsheet and Justice Robert Shallow. Several scenes specifically parallel episodes in Part 1.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز دهم ماه ژانویه سال1989میلادی
عنوان: بخش دوم شاه هنری چهارم؛ عنوان قراردادی: هنری چهارم - بخش دوم؛ نویسنده: ویلیام شکسپیر؛ مترجم: احمد خزاعی؛ تهران، اسفار، سال1367، در229ص، عکس، عنوان روی جلد هنری چهارم؛ موضوع: نمایشنامه هنری چهارم شاه انگلستان از سال1367میلادی تا سال1413میلادی سده16م
دومین بخش «هنری چهارم»، سومین نمایشنامه از یک مجموعه ی چهار نمایشنامه ای است، که «شکسپیر» در آنها، دوران حکومت «ریچارد دوم»، «هنری چهارم»، و «هنری پنجم»، سه تن از پادشاهان «انگلستان» را، بازگویی میکنند؛ اما مهمترین نکته ای که باید دریافت، اینست که بخش دوم «هنری چهارم»، نمایشنامه ای یگانه است، و با بخش نخست «هنری چهارم»، کاملا متفاوت است؛ این نمایشنامه اگرچه همانند سه نمایشنامه دیگر این سری، به رخدادهای تاریخی میپردازد، اما از نظر سبک و لحن با آنها تفاوت دارد
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 20/11/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 09/09/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
Henry IV, Part 2 is a history play by William Shakespeare, believed written between 1596 and 1599.
It is the third part of a tetralogy, preceded by Richard II and Henry IV, Part 1 and succeeded by Henry V.
The play is often seen as an extension of aspects of Henry IV, Part 1, rather than a straightforward continuation of the historical narrative, placing more emphasis on the highly popular character of Falstaff and introducing other comic figures as part of his entourage, including Ancient Pistol, Doll Tearsheet and Justice Robert Shallow. Several scenes specifically parallel episodes in Part 1.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز دهم ماه ژانویه سال1989میلادی
عنوان: بخش دوم شاه هنری چهارم؛ عنوان قراردادی: هنری چهارم - بخش دوم؛ نویسنده: ویلیام شکسپیر؛ مترجم: احمد خزاعی؛ تهران، اسفار، سال1367، در229ص، عکس، عنوان روی جلد هنری چهارم؛ موضوع: نمایشنامه هنری چهارم شاه انگلستان از سال1367میلادی تا سال1413میلادی سده16م
دومین بخش «هنری چهارم»، سومین نمایشنامه از یک مجموعه ی چهار نمایشنامه ای است، که «شکسپیر» در آنها، دوران حکومت «ریچارد دوم»، «هنری چهارم»، و «هنری پنجم»، سه تن از پادشاهان «انگلستان» را، بازگویی میکنند؛ اما مهمترین نکته ای که باید دریافت، اینست که بخش دوم «هنری چهارم»، نمایشنامه ای یگانه است، و با بخش نخست «هنری چهارم»، کاملا متفاوت است؛ این نمایشنامه اگرچه همانند سه نمایشنامه دیگر این سری، به رخدادهای تاریخی میپردازد، اما از نظر سبک و لحن با آنها تفاوت دارد
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 20/11/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 09/09/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
March 6, 2020
This is chillier world than the first part of Henry IV, lacking in both its good humor and its generosity. Falstaff is not nearly so funny apart from Hal, Prince John is a much icier foil than the mercurial Hotspur, and Hal himself--whom we wish to like--makes himself disagreeable by stealing his dying father's crown and snubbing the fat knight we love.
Yet Shakespeare, by subtle degrees, leads us to the point where we come to admire Hal and believe in his moral transformation. Images of gestation and generation abound in this very masculine play, demonstrating how many unlooked-for things may grow within the womb of time, how even the most dissolute of princes may mature into a great warrior king.
May 22, 2021
In Henry IV, Part 1, Prince Hal was for the most part in a rebellion against his father and his noble calling, and spent his time in the cesspools of London with his friends, the beer-bellied Falstaff and the rest of the prostitutes and hoodies. Here, in Part 2, the rebellions against the ever-sickly King are gradually petering out, both on the battlefields of England and inside the head of the prodigal son, Prince Hal. The old debauched and heart-warming friendship between the Prince and Falstaff seems to have cooled off quite a bit, and the larger-than-life knight of Eastcheap is fading into the enormous and slightly unpalatable gyp that he is. By the end of this “coming-of-age” play, Prince Hal sheds his skin and, without much soul-searching, symbolically kills his father figures: both King Henry IV and Sir John Falstaff.
This Part 2 is darker and drier than Part 1. If Shakespeare is an ocean, this play is indeed a low tide, especially Act III and the dull, slightly condescending and rather insubstantial conscription scene with Shallow and Silence. However, some parts are still memorable, like the apology of wine at the end of IV,2, or the long dialogue between the King and the Prince in IV,3. An interesting aspect in this scene is the image of the dying king, sleeping with his crown on his pillow, when it is quite clear that the crown — like the deep well of Richard II, or like the magic rings of Sauron or Alberich if you will — is an ever-staring eye that robs sleep from those who wear it, drives them mad, makes them abjure their old friends and slaughter their kin: case in point, Harry himself who, at his coronation, suddenly rejects the anarchic Falstaff (the shocking “I know thee not, old man” in V,5) and embraces the authoritarian Chief Justice instead. However, more to come on that topic, as the Histories progress and we move on towards the heroic masterpiece, Henry V…
> Previous play in the Henriad: Henry IV, Part 1
> Next play: Henry V
This Part 2 is darker and drier than Part 1. If Shakespeare is an ocean, this play is indeed a low tide, especially Act III and the dull, slightly condescending and rather insubstantial conscription scene with Shallow and Silence. However, some parts are still memorable, like the apology of wine at the end of IV,2, or the long dialogue between the King and the Prince in IV,3. An interesting aspect in this scene is the image of the dying king, sleeping with his crown on his pillow, when it is quite clear that the crown — like the deep well of Richard II, or like the magic rings of Sauron or Alberich if you will — is an ever-staring eye that robs sleep from those who wear it, drives them mad, makes them abjure their old friends and slaughter their kin: case in point, Harry himself who, at his coronation, suddenly rejects the anarchic Falstaff (the shocking “I know thee not, old man” in V,5) and embraces the authoritarian Chief Justice instead. However, more to come on that topic, as the Histories progress and we move on towards the heroic masterpiece, Henry V…
> Previous play in the Henriad: Henry IV, Part 1
> Next play: Henry V
July 27, 2018
The threat of social disorder swirls around William Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 2 (War of the Roses #3). The threat comes in many forms. Most outwardly, it’s a rebellion led by nobles who have never really accepted the legitimacy of King Henry IV’s monarchy. As a further representation of a disruption of that order, King Henry is dying. Legitimacy of any succession must be conferred along with a recognition of the natural order, but is Prince Hal up to the job?
Northumberland poignantly draws attention to this drama at the beginning of the play:
Let heaven kiss earth! Now let not Nature's hand
Keep the wild flood confined! Let order die!
And let this world no longer be a stage
To feed contention in a ling’ring act.
But let one spirit of the first-born Cain
Reign in all bosoms, that each heart being set
On bloody courses, the rude scene may end,
And darkness be the burier of the dead!
(Northumberland, Act 1 Scene 1).
I love how evocative Shakespeare’s language is!
Once again, even though he is older and possibly more debauched than he was in Part 1, Falstaff is a central figure in this conflict. He is a friend of Prince Hal and a symbol of Hal’s youth. When Hal takes up the mantle of the monarchy after his father dies (and thus becomes King Henry V), he rejects Falstaff as something antithetical to this order. His condemnation is also a rejection of the freedom he once had when he was a youth. He tells a praising Falstaff, “Presume not that I am the thing I was” (King Henry V, Act 5 Scene 5). Does the newly crowned King Henry no longer have any affection for his former friend? As always, there is no simple answer to such questions.
Northumberland poignantly draws attention to this drama at the beginning of the play:
Let heaven kiss earth! Now let not Nature's hand
Keep the wild flood confined! Let order die!
And let this world no longer be a stage
To feed contention in a ling’ring act.
But let one spirit of the first-born Cain
Reign in all bosoms, that each heart being set
On bloody courses, the rude scene may end,
And darkness be the burier of the dead!
(Northumberland, Act 1 Scene 1).
I love how evocative Shakespeare’s language is!
Once again, even though he is older and possibly more debauched than he was in Part 1, Falstaff is a central figure in this conflict. He is a friend of Prince Hal and a symbol of Hal’s youth. When Hal takes up the mantle of the monarchy after his father dies (and thus becomes King Henry V), he rejects Falstaff as something antithetical to this order. His condemnation is also a rejection of the freedom he once had when he was a youth. He tells a praising Falstaff, “Presume not that I am the thing I was” (King Henry V, Act 5 Scene 5). Does the newly crowned King Henry no longer have any affection for his former friend? As always, there is no simple answer to such questions.
July 23, 2021
“Don’t rattle on about my favourite character, don’t rattle on about my favourite character, don’t rattle on about my favourite character, don’t rattle on about my favourite character.”
Okay. Note to self: Don’t mention him Mark!!.
Having said that – Sir John Falstaff elevated himself to even greater heights of absurdity and descending to deeper depths of skulduggery, in Henry IV, part 2 – by William Shakespeare compared to his dodgy dealings in Henry IV part 1. Unbelievable, but he did.
Okay, back to Falstaff - He was at his brilliant best, on top of his game – one moment I found myself cringing at his conniving, lying, cheating and general dirty deeds. The next moment I found myself laughing (out loud) at some ridiculous scene involving something like a ridiculous slap stick fight, where the minds-eye visuals were hilarious then all of a sudden I felt dreadfully sorry for him due to the predicament he found himself in, all due to his self-inflicted misdemeanours. How can one character engender such opposite emotions. This guy is so well written, he’s also wonderfully acted in the BBC’s The Hollow Crown. Yep – I watched that brilliant production concurrently with the play and the study notes. This is proving to be a worthwhile modus operandi for me to really enjoy The Bard’s plays, and it’s working!!
This play is my favourite so far, by far. A great mix of political intrigue and farcical hilarity. We are introduced to new characters of course, my favourites being the hopelessly sycophantic, lightweight, and quite silly Justices, Shallow and Silence. Then there’s the stuffy but immensely capable old Chief Justice who, quite rightly takes an extreme dislike on Falstaff.
I particularly remembered the dishonourable actions of Prince John when dealing with the rebels, how he went against his word with catastrophic consequences for the said rebels, and then was weaselly enough to try and explain “on a technicality” why he didn’t keep his word. I had liked him up until that point. That bothered me.
Dolly Tearsheet, Falstaff’s ‘go-to’ prostitute is a potty mouthed, rough woman – qualities she has obviously needed to survive in the squalor of Eastcheap. Mistress Quickly, who runs the Boar’s Head Tavern in Eastcheap is a sociable, friendly enough old woman – she would have her hands full running the Boar’s Head that’s for sure.
It also bothered me that Prince Hal (Harry, or the future King Henry V) changed so drastically once his father died (c. 1413) when he was crowned King. Even though this change was expected from various scenes in Henry IV, part 1 – I didn’t think he’d be so callous to do it in such a way as he did. It was appalling.
That’s enough from me on this one, I loved it. Now bring on Henry V and I hope he lifts his game as in real-life history he was a decent King. He invaded France a couple of times including the legendary Battle of Agincourt. This Warrior King spent a great deal of his time at war – I would expect this will be covered in Shakespeare’s next instalment, fun times ahead.
Well played Sir John Falstaff, Sir!
5-stars
Okay. Note to self: Don’t mention him Mark!!.
Having said that – Sir John Falstaff elevated himself to even greater heights of absurdity and descending to deeper depths of skulduggery, in Henry IV, part 2 – by William Shakespeare compared to his dodgy dealings in Henry IV part 1. Unbelievable, but he did.
Okay, back to Falstaff - He was at his brilliant best, on top of his game – one moment I found myself cringing at his conniving, lying, cheating and general dirty deeds. The next moment I found myself laughing (out loud) at some ridiculous scene involving something like a ridiculous slap stick fight, where the minds-eye visuals were hilarious then all of a sudden I felt dreadfully sorry for him due to the predicament he found himself in, all due to his self-inflicted misdemeanours. How can one character engender such opposite emotions. This guy is so well written, he’s also wonderfully acted in the BBC’s The Hollow Crown. Yep – I watched that brilliant production concurrently with the play and the study notes. This is proving to be a worthwhile modus operandi for me to really enjoy The Bard’s plays, and it’s working!!
This play is my favourite so far, by far. A great mix of political intrigue and farcical hilarity. We are introduced to new characters of course, my favourites being the hopelessly sycophantic, lightweight, and quite silly Justices, Shallow and Silence. Then there’s the stuffy but immensely capable old Chief Justice who, quite rightly takes an extreme dislike on Falstaff.
I particularly remembered the dishonourable actions of Prince John when dealing with the rebels, how he went against his word with catastrophic consequences for the said rebels, and then was weaselly enough to try and explain “on a technicality” why he didn’t keep his word. I had liked him up until that point. That bothered me.
Dolly Tearsheet, Falstaff’s ‘go-to’ prostitute is a potty mouthed, rough woman – qualities she has obviously needed to survive in the squalor of Eastcheap. Mistress Quickly, who runs the Boar’s Head Tavern in Eastcheap is a sociable, friendly enough old woman – she would have her hands full running the Boar’s Head that’s for sure.
It also bothered me that Prince Hal (Harry, or the future King Henry V) changed so drastically once his father died (c. 1413) when he was crowned King. Even though this change was expected from various scenes in Henry IV, part 1 – I didn’t think he’d be so callous to do it in such a way as he did. It was appalling.
That’s enough from me on this one, I loved it. Now bring on Henry V and I hope he lifts his game as in real-life history he was a decent King. He invaded France a couple of times including the legendary Battle of Agincourt. This Warrior King spent a great deal of his time at war – I would expect this will be covered in Shakespeare’s next instalment, fun times ahead.
Well played Sir John Falstaff, Sir!
5-stars
February 9, 2017
I can't consider these plays as solitary occasions. I'm all teary-eyed.
Who knew I could shed tears for poor old Falstaff, even now? I mean, sure, he's a fool and a rascal and incorrigible, but at the core of it, he and Hal were friends, weren't they?
And yet, even while I hate Hal a little for his decision, I love him all the more for it and everything else. Truly, he was the best king. Not only very aware of his audience, but always playing to every side, learning the craft of people and of hard decisions.
Then again, he's always known about hard decisions and all of this couldn't have been more studied and careful. Even his jests boast of tactical genius.
Fanboy? Yeah. I am. Of a character. lol
Still, it was a rather heart-wrenching scene with the prince and his father at the end. *sniffle*
Sorry. I just love these plays so much.
Who knew I could shed tears for poor old Falstaff, even now? I mean, sure, he's a fool and a rascal and incorrigible, but at the core of it, he and Hal were friends, weren't they?
And yet, even while I hate Hal a little for his decision, I love him all the more for it and everything else. Truly, he was the best king. Not only very aware of his audience, but always playing to every side, learning the craft of people and of hard decisions.
Then again, he's always known about hard decisions and all of this couldn't have been more studied and careful. Even his jests boast of tactical genius.
Fanboy? Yeah. I am. Of a character. lol
Still, it was a rather heart-wrenching scene with the prince and his father at the end. *sniffle*
Sorry. I just love these plays so much.
July 6, 2017
“Virtue is chok'd with foul ambition”
- William Shakespeare, Henry IV, Part 2, Act 3, Scene 1
I was recently at a book signing for Don Winslow's new book The Force and he brought up his life-long fascination with Shakespeare and how the Godfather books/movies (at least the first two) are basically a retelling of Shakespeare's Henry IV with the moral poles flipped (with Al Pacino playing Hal and Diane Keaton as a gender-bent Falstaff). I can run with that.
Anyway, Henry IV, Part 2 is fantastic. It is less playful than Henry IV, Part 1 and the comic role of Falstaff drops an octave into tragicomedy. Falstaff still possesses a comedic greatness to him, but he has suddenly seen his relationship with Hal changed at the end as Hal puts away childish things and takes up the mantle (and crown) of his father. One of my favorite of Shakespeare's Histories (right there with Richard III). It is a mature and serious play. Youth's sandbox has been replaced with the battlefield and folly has been replaced with responsibility.
Favorite lines:
“Rumour is a pipe
Blown by surmises, jealousies, conjectures
And of so easy and so plain a stop
That the blunt monster with uncounted heads,
The still-discordant wavering multitude,
Can play upon it.” (Prologue, Scene 1)
"I am not only witty in myself, but the cause that wit is in other men." (Act I, Scene 2)
"I were better to be eaten to death with a rust, than to be scoured to nothing with perpetual motion." (Act I, Scene 2)
"A good wit will make use of anything; I will turn diseases to commodity." (Act I, Scene 2)
“By my troth, I care not; a man can die but once; we owe God a death and let it go which way it will he that dies this year is quit for the next” (Act 3, Scene 2)
"Commit
The oldest sins the newest kind of ways." (Act 4, Scene 4)
- William Shakespeare, Henry IV, Part 2, Act 3, Scene 1
I was recently at a book signing for Don Winslow's new book The Force and he brought up his life-long fascination with Shakespeare and how the Godfather books/movies (at least the first two) are basically a retelling of Shakespeare's Henry IV with the moral poles flipped (with Al Pacino playing Hal and Diane Keaton as a gender-bent Falstaff). I can run with that.
Anyway, Henry IV, Part 2 is fantastic. It is less playful than Henry IV, Part 1 and the comic role of Falstaff drops an octave into tragicomedy. Falstaff still possesses a comedic greatness to him, but he has suddenly seen his relationship with Hal changed at the end as Hal puts away childish things and takes up the mantle (and crown) of his father. One of my favorite of Shakespeare's Histories (right there with Richard III). It is a mature and serious play. Youth's sandbox has been replaced with the battlefield and folly has been replaced with responsibility.
Favorite lines:
“Rumour is a pipe
Blown by surmises, jealousies, conjectures
And of so easy and so plain a stop
That the blunt monster with uncounted heads,
The still-discordant wavering multitude,
Can play upon it.” (Prologue, Scene 1)
"I am not only witty in myself, but the cause that wit is in other men." (Act I, Scene 2)
"I were better to be eaten to death with a rust, than to be scoured to nothing with perpetual motion." (Act I, Scene 2)
"A good wit will make use of anything; I will turn diseases to commodity." (Act I, Scene 2)
“By my troth, I care not; a man can die but once; we owe God a death and let it go which way it will he that dies this year is quit for the next” (Act 3, Scene 2)
"Commit
The oldest sins the newest kind of ways." (Act 4, Scene 4)
April 7, 2022
Henry IV Part 2 had some excellent moments, particularly the discussion between father and son in Act 4, but I had a hard time appreciating the machinations of Falstaff and found Hal a bit abrupt in his rejection of Falstaff at the end.
My favorite scene occurs as the dying King Henry IV is sleeping and rests his crown on a pillow beside the bad. Hal, his son, thinking the king dead, quietly takes the crown, thoughtful and overwhelmed by the weight of responsibility the crown represents:
Why doth the crown lie there upon his pillow
Being so troublesome a bedfellow?
O polished perturbation, golden care,
That keep'st the ports of slumber open wide
To many a watchful night!
Henry IV Part 2, Act 4 scene iii
After he leaves the room wearing the crown, the king awakens, notes the absence of the crown, summons Hal and sees him wearing it:
Dost thou so hunger for mine empty chair
That thou wilt needs invest thee with my honors
Before thy hour be ripe? O foolish youth,
Thou seek'st the greatness that will overwhelm thee.
Henry IV Part 2, Act 4 scene iii
Further, the King reminds himself of the trouble he fomented in gaining the crown, hoping that it will be easier for Hal:
God knows, my son,
By what bypaths and indirect crook'd ways
I met this crown, and I myself know well
How troublesome it sat upon my head.
To thee it shall descend with better quiet,
Better opinion, better confirmation
Henry IV Part 2, Act 4 scene iii
The reconciliation occurs as Hal accepts the responsibility and promises his father to be a worthy successor:
You won it, wore it, kept it, gave it me.
Then plain and right must my possession be,
Which I with more than with a common pain
'Gainst all the world will rightfully maintain
Henry IV Part 2, Act 4 scene iii
On to Henry V now that Hal has been crowned. But, before, he has to reject the sorrowful Falstaff, somewhat like Peter to the Roman guard:
I know thee not, old man.
Henry IV Part 2, Act 5 scene v
Of note, the BBC series The Hollow Crown S01E03 from 2013 featuring Jeremy Irons as Henry IV and Tom Hiddleston as Hal/Henry V is excellent. I feel like the Falstaff subplot was just as confusing as in the play, but the strained father-son relationship between Henry IV/Hal and that off Falstaff and Hal are beautifully and thoughtfully rendered.
Fino's Reviews of Shakespeare and Shakespearean Criticism
Comedies
The Comedy of Errors (1592-1593
The Taming of the Shrew (1593-1594)
The Two Gentlemen of Verona (1594-1595)
Love's Labour's Lost (1594-1595)
A Midsummer Night's Dream (1595-1596)
The Merchant of Venice (1596-1597)
Much Ado About Nothing (1598-1599)
As You Like It (1599-1600)
Twelfth Night (1599-1600)
The Merry Wives of Windsor (1600-1601)
All's Well That Ends Well (1602-1603)
Measure for Measure (1604-1605)
Cymbeline (1609-1610)
A Winter's Tale (1610-1611)
The Tempest (1611-1612)
Two Noble Kinsmen (1612-1613)
Histories
Henry VI Part I (1589-1590)
Henry VI Part II (1590-1591)
Henry VI Part III (1590-1591)
Richard III (1593-1594)
Richard II (1595-1596)
King John (1596-1597)
Edward III (1596-1597)
Henry IV Part I (1597-1598)
Henry IV Part II (1597-1598)
Henry V (1598-1599)
Henry VIII (1612-1612)
Tragedies
Titus Andronicus (1592-1593)
Romeo and Juliet (1594-1595)
Julius Caesar (1599-1600)
Hamlet (1600-1601)
Troilus and Cressida (1601-1602)
Othello (1604-1605)
King Lear (1605-1606)
Macbeth (1605-1606)
Anthony and Cleopatra (1606-1607)
Coriolanus (1607-1608)
Timon of Athens (1607-1608)
Pericles (1608-1609)
Shakespearean Criticism
The Wheel of Fire by Wilson Knight
A Natural Perspective by Northrop Frye
Shakespeare After All by Marjorie Garber
Shakespeare's Roman Plays and Their Background by M W MacCallum
Shakespearean Criticism 1919-1935 compiled by Anne Ridler
Shakespearean Tragedy by A.C. Bradley
Shakespeare's Sexual Comedy by Hugh M. Richmond
Shakespeare: The Comedies by R.P. Draper
Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics by Stephen Greenblatt
1599: A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare by James Shapiro
Collections of Shakespeare
Venus and Adonis, the Rape of Lucrece and Other Poems
Shakespeare's Sonnets and a Lover's Complaint
The Complete Oxford Shakespeare
My favorite scene occurs as the dying King Henry IV is sleeping and rests his crown on a pillow beside the bad. Hal, his son, thinking the king dead, quietly takes the crown, thoughtful and overwhelmed by the weight of responsibility the crown represents:
Why doth the crown lie there upon his pillow
Being so troublesome a bedfellow?
O polished perturbation, golden care,
That keep'st the ports of slumber open wide
To many a watchful night!
Henry IV Part 2, Act 4 scene iii
After he leaves the room wearing the crown, the king awakens, notes the absence of the crown, summons Hal and sees him wearing it:
Dost thou so hunger for mine empty chair
That thou wilt needs invest thee with my honors
Before thy hour be ripe? O foolish youth,
Thou seek'st the greatness that will overwhelm thee.
Henry IV Part 2, Act 4 scene iii
Further, the King reminds himself of the trouble he fomented in gaining the crown, hoping that it will be easier for Hal:
God knows, my son,
By what bypaths and indirect crook'd ways
I met this crown, and I myself know well
How troublesome it sat upon my head.
To thee it shall descend with better quiet,
Better opinion, better confirmation
Henry IV Part 2, Act 4 scene iii
The reconciliation occurs as Hal accepts the responsibility and promises his father to be a worthy successor:
You won it, wore it, kept it, gave it me.
Then plain and right must my possession be,
Which I with more than with a common pain
'Gainst all the world will rightfully maintain
Henry IV Part 2, Act 4 scene iii
On to Henry V now that Hal has been crowned. But, before, he has to reject the sorrowful Falstaff, somewhat like Peter to the Roman guard:
I know thee not, old man.
Henry IV Part 2, Act 5 scene v
Of note, the BBC series The Hollow Crown S01E03 from 2013 featuring Jeremy Irons as Henry IV and Tom Hiddleston as Hal/Henry V is excellent. I feel like the Falstaff subplot was just as confusing as in the play, but the strained father-son relationship between Henry IV/Hal and that off Falstaff and Hal are beautifully and thoughtfully rendered.
Fino's Reviews of Shakespeare and Shakespearean Criticism
Comedies
The Comedy of Errors (1592-1593
The Taming of the Shrew (1593-1594)
The Two Gentlemen of Verona (1594-1595)
Love's Labour's Lost (1594-1595)
A Midsummer Night's Dream (1595-1596)
The Merchant of Venice (1596-1597)
Much Ado About Nothing (1598-1599)
As You Like It (1599-1600)
Twelfth Night (1599-1600)
The Merry Wives of Windsor (1600-1601)
All's Well That Ends Well (1602-1603)
Measure for Measure (1604-1605)
Cymbeline (1609-1610)
A Winter's Tale (1610-1611)
The Tempest (1611-1612)
Two Noble Kinsmen (1612-1613)
Histories
Henry VI Part I (1589-1590)
Henry VI Part II (1590-1591)
Henry VI Part III (1590-1591)
Richard III (1593-1594)
Richard II (1595-1596)
King John (1596-1597)
Edward III (1596-1597)
Henry IV Part I (1597-1598)
Henry IV Part II (1597-1598)
Henry V (1598-1599)
Henry VIII (1612-1612)
Tragedies
Titus Andronicus (1592-1593)
Romeo and Juliet (1594-1595)
Julius Caesar (1599-1600)
Hamlet (1600-1601)
Troilus and Cressida (1601-1602)
Othello (1604-1605)
King Lear (1605-1606)
Macbeth (1605-1606)
Anthony and Cleopatra (1606-1607)
Coriolanus (1607-1608)
Timon of Athens (1607-1608)
Pericles (1608-1609)
Shakespearean Criticism
The Wheel of Fire by Wilson Knight
A Natural Perspective by Northrop Frye
Shakespeare After All by Marjorie Garber
Shakespeare's Roman Plays and Their Background by M W MacCallum
Shakespearean Criticism 1919-1935 compiled by Anne Ridler
Shakespearean Tragedy by A.C. Bradley
Shakespeare's Sexual Comedy by Hugh M. Richmond
Shakespeare: The Comedies by R.P. Draper
Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics by Stephen Greenblatt
1599: A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare by James Shapiro
Collections of Shakespeare
Venus and Adonis, the Rape of Lucrece and Other Poems
Shakespeare's Sonnets and a Lover's Complaint
The Complete Oxford Shakespeare
June 20, 2015
The prodigal prince returns
15 May 2013
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 of my time. 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, each can stand on their own as individual plays.
I 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 scenes 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 done as if it were in a modern Australian pub. Falstaff himself did change his style in this play going 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 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. 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 it 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 is inconsistent with the first part where he goes from being a tavern rat to being an honourable battlefield commander. Firstly, Hal is quite 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 thieves' 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 journey 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 from Eastcheap do and form a part of the irregular army. Once again, Hal, in the next play, puts on a disguise and goes and mingles with them, but this time he does not reveal himself, he just listens. In Henry V we learn of Falstaff's fate: in Act 2, Scene 1, when Falstaff's page enters and tells 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 go and fight a real war).
15 May 2013
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 of my time. 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, each can stand on their own as individual plays.
I 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 scenes 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 done as if it were in a modern Australian pub. Falstaff himself did change his style in this play going 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 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. 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 it 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 is inconsistent with the first part where he goes from being a tavern rat to being an honourable battlefield commander. Firstly, Hal is quite 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 thieves' 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 journey 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 from Eastcheap do and form a part of the irregular army. Once again, Hal, in the next play, puts on a disguise and goes and mingles with them, but this time he does not reveal himself, he just listens. In Henry V we learn of Falstaff's fate: in Act 2, Scene 1, when Falstaff's page enters and tells 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 go and fight a real war).
May 1, 2019
Presume not that I am the thing I was.
Compared with Part 1, this sequel is significantly weaker as a stand-alone play. There is no antagonist to compare with Hotspur. Falstaff wanders about in pointless merrymaking, mostly separated from Hal; and unfortunately his wit is not nearly so sharp outside of his young companion’s company. The same can be said for Hal, whose youthful liveliness fades into a chilling uprightness. And the plot can be frustratingly meandering and abrupt.
The main drama of this play is the progression of Hal from prodigal son to the ideal young king. This transformation is apt to cause some misgivings. On the one hand, I found it genuinely admirable when Hal commends the Justice and bids him to do his work. And even if one loves Falstaff, it is difficult to wish that the King of England would keep such a lawless fellow around, much less lend him influence. On the other hand, the newly-ascended king’s rejection of his former friend and mentor is deeply sad. Perhaps he should have turned Falstaff away, but it need not have been with such cold scorn.
Again, there is a moral conflict here. Falstaff may best be described as amoral: uninhibited, pleasure-loving, devoid of both cruelty and rectitude. He feels no scruples whatsoever at dishonesty and robbery, and acknowledges no ideal as worth pursuing or even respecting. Hal, by contrast, is a moral creature: he wishes to uphold the moral order, but for him this may mean murder or bloody conquest. So one must ask: Which is better, to be a drunken pickpocket or to lead your country on an invasion? Neither the socially subversive nor the socially upstanding can be fully embraced, which is why Hal’s rejection of Falstaff causes such complex reactions.
September 13, 2022
YouTube kanalımda Shakespeare'in hayatı, mutlaka okunması gereken kitapları ve kronolojik okuma sırası hakkında bilgi edinebilirsiniz: https://youtu.be/rGxh2RVjmNU
Shakespeare'in Güller Savaşı'nı anlattığı serinin en iyi kitaplarından biri bence bu Kral IV. Henry. Dünya çapında onbinlerce değerlendirmeye ve binlerce incelemeye sahip bu kitapların Türkiye'de o kadar da ilgi görmemiş olması bana biraz garip geliyor. Çünkü bu tarihi oyun serisinin içindeki Falstaff karakteri, bugüne kadar okuduğum diğer 15 Shakespeare kitabı içindeki karakterlerden çok daha baskın ve karakter özellikleri ilmek ilmek işlenmiş bir karakterdi. Shakespeare'in popülerleşmiş kitaplarında bile bu kadar komik, itici, uzun tiradları olan ve hatta kendi düşünceleriyle başbaşa kalıp onları seyirciye kusan bir karakter görülmüş olması nadirdir. Zeki Demirkubuz'un Masumiyet filmindeki Bekir'in o ünlü monologu gibi Falstaff karakteri de benim unutulmazlarım arasına girdi.
Shakespeare'in Güller Savaşı'nı anlattığı serinin en iyi kitaplarından biri bence bu Kral IV. Henry. Dünya çapında onbinlerce değerlendirmeye ve binlerce incelemeye sahip bu kitapların Türkiye'de o kadar da ilgi görmemiş olması bana biraz garip geliyor. Çünkü bu tarihi oyun serisinin içindeki Falstaff karakteri, bugüne kadar okuduğum diğer 15 Shakespeare kitabı içindeki karakterlerden çok daha baskın ve karakter özellikleri ilmek ilmek işlenmiş bir karakterdi. Shakespeare'in popülerleşmiş kitaplarında bile bu kadar komik, itici, uzun tiradları olan ve hatta kendi düşünceleriyle başbaşa kalıp onları seyirciye kusan bir karakter görülmüş olması nadirdir. Zeki Demirkubuz'un Masumiyet filmindeki Bekir'in o ünlü monologu gibi Falstaff karakteri de benim unutulmazlarım arasına girdi.
September 3, 2016
The groundwork for this play that is full of morale and still some comic relief was given in the first part. As I said, there was a lot of history to tell so Shakespeare divided it up.
In this 2nd part, the battle of Shrewsbury is over, Hotspur is dead, Hal (King Henry IV's son) returns victorious. This part definitely focuses on Hal and his further passage from scandalous young bloke to a man of honour - and it is about Falstaff and how he falls from grace. This last bit can be seen most clearly because Hal and Falstaff have almost no time together. Instead, the play is divided into the part showing Falstaff who is still a petty criminal despite his vow in the previous play and the part of the prince.
Falstaff's age is shown time and time again together with an ominous illness that somehow mirrors the nearing death of Henry IV himself (Falstaff mentions it once). Falstaff is behaving worse and worse (or maybe just as bad as before but it is in stark contrast of the new Hal?) but when he speaks ill of the prince (who hears him) he tries to make amends by helping against a new rebellion.
The other part shows Hal still being a disappointment to his father and it is Hal's brother John who takes care of the new rebellion mentioned above (not by battle).
Then, the king falls ill and seems to die, there is quite some father-son-drama but before Henry IV actually dies, they make up.
In the final scene, the two story lines meet because Falstaff, hearing Hal is king, travels to London in hopes of money. In fact, it appears that all lowlives thought they'd thrive under Hal's reign but quickly learn that they were very wrong.
At the end, there is even an epilogue, a 4th wall breach, that informs us of a soon-to-come new play in which Falstaff shall die and (which I think is funny) that his character was not based on a rebel called Sir John Oldcastle (apparently an anti-Catholic who nevertheless died a martyr so his descendents were outraged at the possible connection).
Shakespeare again managed to bring a lot to the page/stage with this play. I think this was less humorous than the first part (except for the epilogue but I might be the only one finding that funny) but still very good. It being less humorous might have been because Shakespeare wanted to drive home the morale a bit more strongly this time (after all, a king dies)! I was somewhat disappointed about Hal still being a disappointment to his father but an immediate change might have been less realistic and might have prevented the great climax when Henry IV dies.
In this 2nd part, the battle of Shrewsbury is over, Hotspur is dead, Hal (King Henry IV's son) returns victorious. This part definitely focuses on Hal and his further passage from scandalous young bloke to a man of honour - and it is about Falstaff and how he falls from grace. This last bit can be seen most clearly because Hal and Falstaff have almost no time together. Instead, the play is divided into the part showing Falstaff who is still a petty criminal despite his vow in the previous play and the part of the prince.
Falstaff's age is shown time and time again together with an ominous illness that somehow mirrors the nearing death of Henry IV himself (Falstaff mentions it once). Falstaff is behaving worse and worse (or maybe just as bad as before but it is in stark contrast of the new Hal?) but when he speaks ill of the prince (who hears him) he tries to make amends by helping against a new rebellion.
The other part shows Hal still being a disappointment to his father and it is Hal's brother John who takes care of the new rebellion mentioned above (not by battle).
Then, the king falls ill and seems to die, there is quite some father-son-drama but before Henry IV actually dies, they make up.
In the final scene, the two story lines meet because Falstaff, hearing Hal is king, travels to London in hopes of money. In fact, it appears that all lowlives thought they'd thrive under Hal's reign but quickly learn that they were very wrong.
At the end, there is even an epilogue, a 4th wall breach, that informs us of a soon-to-come new play in which Falstaff shall die and (which I think is funny) that his character was not based on a rebel called Sir John Oldcastle (apparently an anti-Catholic who nevertheless died a martyr so his descendents were outraged at the possible connection).
Shakespeare again managed to bring a lot to the page/stage with this play. I think this was less humorous than the first part (except for the epilogue but I might be the only one finding that funny) but still very good. It being less humorous might have been because Shakespeare wanted to drive home the morale a bit more strongly this time (after all, a king dies)! I was somewhat disappointed about Hal still being a disappointment to his father but an immediate change might have been less realistic and might have prevented the great climax when Henry IV dies.
December 13, 2019
"Presume not that I am the thing I was..."
-Hal/Henry V, act 5, scene 5
Looks like I spoke too soon.
The first part of Henry IV shows Shakespeare really hitting his stride with the historical genre, judiciously blending comic and tragic elements to create an effective tonal ambiguity. The sequel also does a lot of blending, but this time the result is less like a master artist mixing paints and more like you or me dumping produce into a Magic Bullet and hoping it comes out a smoothie. There are a lot of elements here, some of them pretty interesting on their own (I loved, in a useless trivia sort of way, the weird and totally un-Shakespearean intro and epilogue), but they never cohere into anything more than a mess.
Individual scenes are memorable: the titular king's deathbed exchange with his son is moving, as is Hal's famous final rejection of his old friend and mentor Falstaff, and there's some good comic material too. But way too much of the play is given over to long, rambling Falstaff scenes with no clear narrative throughline, intercut by the occasional weightless-feeling sequence of less-than-intriguing political intrigue. Shakespeare scholars are always trying to find ways to let Will off the hook for his weaker works*, and it's been proposed that 2 Henry IV was written mainly to capitalize on the runaway popularity of the Falstaff character (see also The Merry Wives of Windsor), or else that the two parts started as a single play that got out of hand. Whatever the reason, though, there's really not enough substance here to justify a separate work, and it's not difficult to imagine a still-good version of the first play with the salient bits of this one added in.
Ah well. I've got two plays still left in the Falstaff & Hal Theatrical Universe ( Merry Wives and Henry V , respectively), so I guess I'd better buckle in. Here's hoping part two is the outlier instead of the tone-setter.
Edit:
I kept thinking about this pair of plays after posting my initial review of this one, and thought maybe I should say a little more about the content itself.
For me, the most fascinating theme of the Henry IV duology is the question of Hal's growth as a character and a human being. It's popular nowadays to read his arc as a coming-of-age tale, and interpreted in that light the plays have a certain existentialist appeal: the characters who succeed are the ones who can adapt and reforge their identities (Hal, and to an extent his father), while the ones who stay rooted in old habits (most notably Falstaff) are ultimately overcome or left in the past.
But that's not the only way it can be read, and in fact Hal gives a speech towards the beginning of part one which suggests the whole thing is an act—he's only playing the part of a prodigal son so that when the time comes for him to take up the mantle of kingship his subjects will be impressed by his apparent transformation. From a contemporary perspective this is a less satisfying arc: we want our protagonist to develop into something different, preferably something better, over time. But that's a fairly modern expectation, and for every Hamlet or Macbeth Shakespeare wrote, defined and tortured by the burden of choice, there's an Iago or a Richard III who pretty much stays one thing (though not without assuming other roles when it's beneficial) till the end.
Ultimately it’s up to the reader to decide what to make of it all, and, as in so much of life, it’s remarkable how different things look depending on where you’re standing.
---
* Personally I think it's silly to act surprised that not everything the man wrote was an untouchable work of genius, seeing as he churned out something like 40 plays in two and a half decades, a third or so of them among the greatest of all time, all while being an actor and a businessman and a landowner and a husband and a father and God knows what else... Surely even Shakespeare was only human.
-Hal/Henry V, act 5, scene 5
Looks like I spoke too soon.
The first part of Henry IV shows Shakespeare really hitting his stride with the historical genre, judiciously blending comic and tragic elements to create an effective tonal ambiguity. The sequel also does a lot of blending, but this time the result is less like a master artist mixing paints and more like you or me dumping produce into a Magic Bullet and hoping it comes out a smoothie. There are a lot of elements here, some of them pretty interesting on their own (I loved, in a useless trivia sort of way, the weird and totally un-Shakespearean intro and epilogue), but they never cohere into anything more than a mess.
Individual scenes are memorable: the titular king's deathbed exchange with his son is moving, as is Hal's famous final rejection of his old friend and mentor Falstaff, and there's some good comic material too. But way too much of the play is given over to long, rambling Falstaff scenes with no clear narrative throughline, intercut by the occasional weightless-feeling sequence of less-than-intriguing political intrigue. Shakespeare scholars are always trying to find ways to let Will off the hook for his weaker works*, and it's been proposed that 2 Henry IV was written mainly to capitalize on the runaway popularity of the Falstaff character (see also The Merry Wives of Windsor), or else that the two parts started as a single play that got out of hand. Whatever the reason, though, there's really not enough substance here to justify a separate work, and it's not difficult to imagine a still-good version of the first play with the salient bits of this one added in.
Ah well. I've got two plays still left in the Falstaff & Hal Theatrical Universe ( Merry Wives and Henry V , respectively), so I guess I'd better buckle in. Here's hoping part two is the outlier instead of the tone-setter.
Edit:
I kept thinking about this pair of plays after posting my initial review of this one, and thought maybe I should say a little more about the content itself.
For me, the most fascinating theme of the Henry IV duology is the question of Hal's growth as a character and a human being. It's popular nowadays to read his arc as a coming-of-age tale, and interpreted in that light the plays have a certain existentialist appeal: the characters who succeed are the ones who can adapt and reforge their identities (Hal, and to an extent his father), while the ones who stay rooted in old habits (most notably Falstaff) are ultimately overcome or left in the past.
But that's not the only way it can be read, and in fact Hal gives a speech towards the beginning of part one which suggests the whole thing is an act—he's only playing the part of a prodigal son so that when the time comes for him to take up the mantle of kingship his subjects will be impressed by his apparent transformation. From a contemporary perspective this is a less satisfying arc: we want our protagonist to develop into something different, preferably something better, over time. But that's a fairly modern expectation, and for every Hamlet or Macbeth Shakespeare wrote, defined and tortured by the burden of choice, there's an Iago or a Richard III who pretty much stays one thing (though not without assuming other roles when it's beneficial) till the end.
Ultimately it’s up to the reader to decide what to make of it all, and, as in so much of life, it’s remarkable how different things look depending on where you’re standing.
---
* Personally I think it's silly to act surprised that not everything the man wrote was an untouchable work of genius, seeing as he churned out something like 40 plays in two and a half decades, a third or so of them among the greatest of all time, all while being an actor and a businessman and a landowner and a husband and a father and God knows what else... Surely even Shakespeare was only human.
August 20, 2018
Oh boy, this is what I feared all of Shakespeare's histories would be like: boring, incredibly dull and just overall lacking in exciting characters and plot. Luckily, not all of his histories are like that, take the first part of Henry IV for example which was excellent, but the second part annoyed the shit outta me.
But let's start off by talking about the enjoyable moments of this play, believe me, they were far and few between.
I adore the fact that Prince Hal, after his coronation, cut all of his ties to Falstaff and his old friends. Falstaff basically came into the court being like "what's up buddy, have ya missed me and all of my prostitutes?" and Hal was like "new phone, who dis" — it was wonderful! The London lowlifes, expecting a paradise of thieves under Hal's governance, are instead purged and imprisoned by the authorities. Hum hallelujah! We love a good happy ending! But for real, that's totally what Falstaff deserved; if you've read my review for The Merry Wives of Windsor you know how much I hate him.
In general, I was kind of proud of my precious Prince Hal and that he finally came thru and that his masterplan of setting the bar so low that he would exceed all expectations actually worked out in the end:
Oh, and there's also this wonderful part in which the old King Henry bemoans the fact that "health, alack, with youthful wings is flown from this bare withered trunk." And I'm like: same, Harry, same, I'm also rusty as fuck.
And another awesome quote: Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.
Apart from these little tidbits, the play was just insufferable. For real, I would not recommend it at all. I'm fairly used to Shakespeare now but for some reason (let's be real the reason was fucking BOREDOM!) I couldn't keep track of what was happening. I needed to revisit scenes and read up on the former acts that I had already read to understand what was going on.
There was nothing that held my attention and that resulted in me needing four weeks to finish this play. This is unheard of, even in my lowliest days I was able to wrap up a Shakespeare play within three days. Whatever, I just wouldn't recommend this play, unless you desperately want to read all of Shakespeare's work (like I do) or are extremely interested in the Wars of the Roses.
But let's start off by talking about the enjoyable moments of this play, believe me, they were far and few between.
I adore the fact that Prince Hal, after his coronation, cut all of his ties to Falstaff and his old friends. Falstaff basically came into the court being like "what's up buddy, have ya missed me and all of my prostitutes?" and Hal was like "new phone, who dis" — it was wonderful! The London lowlifes, expecting a paradise of thieves under Hal's governance, are instead purged and imprisoned by the authorities. Hum hallelujah! We love a good happy ending! But for real, that's totally what Falstaff deserved; if you've read my review for The Merry Wives of Windsor you know how much I hate him.
In general, I was kind of proud of my precious Prince Hal and that he finally came thru and that his masterplan of setting the bar so low that he would exceed all expectations actually worked out in the end:
And with his spirits sadly I surviveAnd you know what else is super funny? In the epilogue Shakespeare teases the follow-up play, Henry V, which hadn't been written at this point and he claims that the audience will learn more about Falstaff and his adventures in it... when in reality, as all of those who read Henry V know, Falstaff doesn't even show up in that play. Merely, his death is announced. What a mess! I love it. (I'm just picturing the audience at the time leaving the theatre enraged because they were lured in by false advertisement. Is that why they burned down the Globe? ...Okay, too soon? I apologise.)
To mock the expectations of the world,
To frustrate prophecies, and to raze out
Rotten opinion, who hath writ me down
After my seeming.
Oh, and there's also this wonderful part in which the old King Henry bemoans the fact that "health, alack, with youthful wings is flown from this bare withered trunk." And I'm like: same, Harry, same, I'm also rusty as fuck.
And another awesome quote: Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.
Apart from these little tidbits, the play was just insufferable. For real, I would not recommend it at all. I'm fairly used to Shakespeare now but for some reason (let's be real the reason was fucking BOREDOM!) I couldn't keep track of what was happening. I needed to revisit scenes and read up on the former acts that I had already read to understand what was going on.
There was nothing that held my attention and that resulted in me needing four weeks to finish this play. This is unheard of, even in my lowliest days I was able to wrap up a Shakespeare play within three days. Whatever, I just wouldn't recommend this play, unless you desperately want to read all of Shakespeare's work (like I do) or are extremely interested in the Wars of the Roses.
January 23, 2024
After the death of his father Henry V covets honour above all else but, ironically, he has to perform a dishonourable act to distance himself from the nihilistic world he previously inhabited.
Henry IV is famously pivoted on one scene in which Henry V publicly humiliates Falstaff, his former sidekick in his revelries. It's probably Shakespeare's most complex ethical investigation of the nature of relationships at this stage in his career. He compels us to think deeply about the conflict that can arise between friendship and the sense of destiny. The moral outcome of this betrayal is ambivalent. In terms of the bigger picture it is an act of liberation; on a personal level though it is a fatal act of cruelty.
Henry IV is famously pivoted on one scene in which Henry V publicly humiliates Falstaff, his former sidekick in his revelries. It's probably Shakespeare's most complex ethical investigation of the nature of relationships at this stage in his career. He compels us to think deeply about the conflict that can arise between friendship and the sense of destiny. The moral outcome of this betrayal is ambivalent. In terms of the bigger picture it is an act of liberation; on a personal level though it is a fatal act of cruelty.
June 26, 2011
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.
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.
September 7, 2024
First read for Shaketember 2024 and a buddy read with Melissa! Act IV is my favorite. There are some complex and interesting themes in this. I really dislike Falstaff but the progression of his relationship to and with Prince Hal is fascinating.
May 6, 2019
The play where Henry IV dies and Henry V must show he's not the drinking wayward lout he's been in his life up to this point. I read this with a group on Litsy and I think we had fun giving it a hard time. It's an awkward play, with some seriousness in the opening and some really beautiful language in the later acts, but in between is a whole lot of second rate humor around Falstaff. Maybe it does work on stage. But reading it, it just felt incomplete. As one person put it, it was like whenever Shakespeare ran out of material, he wheeled out Falstaff for diversion. Others felt there must be multiple authors. Or perhaps the bard ran out of time to complete it. Regardless, this felt like the cobbled Shakespeare, an unpolished script. It's now my least favorite of his plays...but it's still Shakespeare.
-----------------------------------------------
21. Henry IV, Part 2 by William Shakespeare
editor: Claire McEachern, for The Pelican Shakespeare series
published: originally performed 1591. Introduction for The Pelican Shakespeare 2000.
format: 167 page paperback
acquired: Library
read: Mar 30 – Apr 28
time reading: 7 hr 29 min, 2.7 min/page
rating: 3
September 6, 2020
Henry the Fourth of England was a monarch with a lot of problems, and William Shakespeare faced problems and challenges of his own in writing Henry IV, Part 2 - a sequel to a popular original, and a play that was no doubt written in response to audience demand. And yet what makes Henry IV, Part 2 a worthy follow-up to its illustrious predecessor is Shakespeare’s portrayal of Henry IV himself. The title character, an aging king who is plagued by a guilty conscience, and is doubtful regarding the future of his realm, is the key factor that ensures that this second part of the story expands upon the first in a meaningful and moving way - a continuation, not a retread.
In the cinematic era, we are all accustomed to sequels, some of which repeat plot elements from the original in a way that is slapdash and frankly rather silly. If Home Alone (1990) is a hit, then there must be a Home Alone 2 (1992). If Taken (2009) reaps box office gold, then someone has to film Taken 2 (2012). The same child must be left alone by his family again, and must be targeted by the same bungling burglars again. The same CIA agent must have a beloved family member kidnapped by a new group of sleazy conspirators again, so he can track said conspirators down and carry out a bunch of action-packed revenge killings again. It’s enough to give sequels the bad name they often so richly deserve.
And yet there are movie follow-ups that take elements of an original story and reach out in authentically new directions - The Bride of Frankenstein (1935), The Empire Strikes Back (1980), Aliens (1986), Blade Runner 2049 (2017) – and I am pleased to be able to report that Henry IV, Part 2 is, similarly, the kind of sequel that offers something new.
Some context may help here – first with regard to the actual King Henry IV, and then with regard to the first part of the two-part play that bears his name. The historical Henry Bolingbroke, a nobleman from Lancashire, seems to have been as ambitious and power-hungry as was usual for nobles in that game-of-thrones era. He successfully led a coup d’état, removed King Richard II from power, and ruled for fourteen years (1399-1413) as King Henry IV.
But his reign was never a tranquil one. He faced repeated rebellions by nobles who wanted to take power from him as he had taken power from Richard; his health was gradually ruined by a mysterious and slow-wasting disease; and (if Shakespeare’s sources for this play are reliable) he may have had grave doubts regarding the suitability as a future ruler of his son and heir – Prince Hal, the future King Henry V.
It is understandable that such a dramatic story would have appealed to Shakespeare; just as U.S. audiences continue to be fascinated by the history-based stories of prominent Americans like John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., so the playgoers of Shakespeare’s time had a seemingly inexhaustible appetite for plays that dramatized the often turbulent history of the English throne. Indeed, at the dawn of Elizabethan England’s “Golden Age,” with the defeat of the Spanish Armada just a decade in the past, it is understandable that English audiences wanted to see how their country had progressed to the pre-eminence it then enjoyed.
Henry IV, Part 1, which was first staged around 1597, was an immediate success. Its main plot, which dealt with the 1403 Battle of Shrewsbury in which Henry’s royal army defeated an insurgent rebel army in Shropshire, would certainly have been of interest to Shakespeare’s audience.
But the particular success of Henry IV, Part 1 may have had more to do with two crucial factors. One is the comic relief provided by Hal’s friend Sir John Falstaff, a knight whose impressive girth bespeaks his status as a pleasure-loving man who wants nothing more than to enjoy the pleasures of the table, the tavern, and the flesh. The other is the way it shows Prince Hal, the future King Henry V, maturing from a callow, pleasure-loving youth into a prince willing to embrace adult responsibilities and do his royal duty. It is a narrative arc that will be familiar to anyone who has ever seen a Tom Cruise movie.
As Henry IV, Part 1 ended at a high point of drama, with Prince Hal defeating the arch-rebel Hotspur in single combat at the Battle of Shrewsbury, Henry IV, Part 2 takes up the drama at that point, with other rebel conspirators unhappily learning of their side’s defeat, and in response hatching new plans for rebellion. This is not one of the stronger features of the play; these conspirators simply don't have the compelling personal dynamism of Hotspur, the main antagonist from Henry IV, Part 1. It may be a function of the history with which Shakespeare was working - something like the reasons why many Americans would rather read about the American Civil War than about the Reconstruction period that followed it.
As with the prior play, these great and weighty matters of loyalty vs. treason are counterpointed with the base behaviour of Sir John Falstaff. And, of course, part of the reason for Falstaff’s appeal lies in his absolute unwillingness to do anything to reform his behaviour; when the issue of his financial improvidence comes up (he has unsuccessfully tried to borrow £1000 for an upcoming military expedition against the rebels, and has just been reminded that he has only seven groats and twopence in his purse), he remarks philosophically that “I can get no remedy against this consumption of the purse. Borrowing only lingers and lingers it out, but the disease is incurable.” He speaks as if the problem is that his purse has an illness like tuberculosis, when the real issue is that he tends to spend all his money on wine, women, and song.
Emblematic of Falstaff’s roguish charm is the fact that the Mistress Quickly, the hostess of a tavern where Falstaff has run up vast and unpaid bills, complains that “He hath eaten me out of house and home” and sets the law on Falstaff – but before long is offering to loan Falstaff money for his expedition. Falstaff, by the time of Henry IV, Part 2, is not as young as he used to be, but he can look back on the revels of old, boasting of himself and his minions that “We have heard the chimes at midnight”.
Meanwhile, King Henry IV is haunted by the deeds of his former life; he knows that he deposed a God-anointed king, and he wonders if the rebellions perpetually troubling his realm are part of his punishment for removing Richard II from power. Moreover, he knows that his time is short.
He made his Caesar-like declaration of Alea iacta est ("The die is cast"); he led a rebellion; he seized the throne. And yet now, with his life ebbing, what does it all mean? What was it all worth? It is moving to hear this sick and aging king engage in some very Ecclesiastes-style philosophical reflections on the vanity of human wishes, including those wishes that helped make him king.
Unable to sleep, like the title character in Shakespeare’s Macbeth, King Henry asks, “O sleep, O gentle sleep,/Nature’s soft nurse, how have I frighted thee./That thou no more wilt weigh my eyelids down/And steep my senses in forgetfulness?” And, in what may be the best-known line from the play, the unhappy king reflects that “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.”
And what of the future King Henry V? Sadly, Prince Hal has had a bit of a relapse; it is hard for him fully to forswear the once-beloved company of Falstaff and the other miscreants. Part of what makes King Henry IV’s life so bitter is the belief that Prince Hal is a fundamentally selfish, hopelessly feckless individual, who wants to be king but is not equal to the job - just as, centuries later, King George III is said to have considered his son, the future King George IV, a prince unworthy to be a king. When Prince Hal, who had earlier seen his father immobilized and thought him dead, says to his revived father, “I never thought to hear you speak again,” the King bitterly replies, “Thy wish was father, Harry, to that thought.”
Indeed, a highlight of Henry IV, Part 2 comes in Act IV, scene v, when the unhappy king upbraids his unruly son. King Henry accuses Prince Hal of wanting his father dead: “What! Canst thou not forbear me half an hour?/Then get thee gone and dig my grave thyself”. King Henry admits that the crown he wears is a crown he stole, and that wearing the crown and bearing its authority has brought him nothing but misery:
God knows, my son,
By what bypaths and indirect crooked ways
I met this crown, and I myself know well
How troublesome it sat upon my head….
How I came by the crown, O God forgive,
And grant it may with thee in true peace live!
In response, Prince Hal reaffirms his loyalty to his father. He is not impatient for the crown; he loves his father, and wants his father to live on: “God witness with me, when I here came in,/And found no course of breath within your Majesty,/How cold it struck my heart.” It is a moving scene of reconciliation – like the moment when Hamlet says to his estranged mother Gertrude, “When you are desirous to be blessed, I’ll blessing beg of you.”
By play’s end, when the conspirators have all been defeated, King Henry IV has died, and Prince Hal assumes the throne as King Henry V, Shakespeare indicates that the onetime petty-crime accomplice of Sir John Falstaff has learned what he needs to know so that he may become the warrior king whose outnumbered English soldiers will defeat the French at Agincourt and occupy all France. Henry V says that he intends not only to wear the robes of a king, but also to fulfill in all ways the duties of a king: “I will deeply put the fashion on/And wear it in my heart.”
Falstaff, for his part, anticipates that Prince Hal’s accession to the throne will secure him preferment. But Falstaff’s accomplice Pistol accurately anticipates “an ill wind which blows no man to good”; and when Falstaff attempts a hail-fellow-well-met greeting of Prince Hal, he is firmly rejected by King Henry V:
I know thee not, old man. Fall to thy prayers.
How ill white hairs become a fool and jester!...
Reply not to me with a fool-born jest.
Presume not that I am the thing I was,
For God doth know, so shall the world perceive,
That I have turned away my former self.
So will I those that kept me company.
It may seem cold, but Shakespeare seems to be indicating that a political leader often needs to make decisions that may seem harsh, in order to maintain both his or her own rulership and the stability of the state. Or, as members of the ruling political class in Washington, D.C., supposedly like to say, “If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.”
Henry IV, Part 2 is not often staged – though Orson Welles skillfully brought together the Falstaff scenes from both parts of Henry IV for his film Chimes at Midnight (1965). Like its predecessor, this play works both as a character study and as a reflection on the challenges of political leadership. Indeed, the best way to experience these two history plays is to read them together, as one epic drama of history and kingship.
In the cinematic era, we are all accustomed to sequels, some of which repeat plot elements from the original in a way that is slapdash and frankly rather silly. If Home Alone (1990) is a hit, then there must be a Home Alone 2 (1992). If Taken (2009) reaps box office gold, then someone has to film Taken 2 (2012). The same child must be left alone by his family again, and must be targeted by the same bungling burglars again. The same CIA agent must have a beloved family member kidnapped by a new group of sleazy conspirators again, so he can track said conspirators down and carry out a bunch of action-packed revenge killings again. It’s enough to give sequels the bad name they often so richly deserve.
And yet there are movie follow-ups that take elements of an original story and reach out in authentically new directions - The Bride of Frankenstein (1935), The Empire Strikes Back (1980), Aliens (1986), Blade Runner 2049 (2017) – and I am pleased to be able to report that Henry IV, Part 2 is, similarly, the kind of sequel that offers something new.
Some context may help here – first with regard to the actual King Henry IV, and then with regard to the first part of the two-part play that bears his name. The historical Henry Bolingbroke, a nobleman from Lancashire, seems to have been as ambitious and power-hungry as was usual for nobles in that game-of-thrones era. He successfully led a coup d’état, removed King Richard II from power, and ruled for fourteen years (1399-1413) as King Henry IV.
But his reign was never a tranquil one. He faced repeated rebellions by nobles who wanted to take power from him as he had taken power from Richard; his health was gradually ruined by a mysterious and slow-wasting disease; and (if Shakespeare’s sources for this play are reliable) he may have had grave doubts regarding the suitability as a future ruler of his son and heir – Prince Hal, the future King Henry V.
It is understandable that such a dramatic story would have appealed to Shakespeare; just as U.S. audiences continue to be fascinated by the history-based stories of prominent Americans like John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., so the playgoers of Shakespeare’s time had a seemingly inexhaustible appetite for plays that dramatized the often turbulent history of the English throne. Indeed, at the dawn of Elizabethan England’s “Golden Age,” with the defeat of the Spanish Armada just a decade in the past, it is understandable that English audiences wanted to see how their country had progressed to the pre-eminence it then enjoyed.
Henry IV, Part 1, which was first staged around 1597, was an immediate success. Its main plot, which dealt with the 1403 Battle of Shrewsbury in which Henry’s royal army defeated an insurgent rebel army in Shropshire, would certainly have been of interest to Shakespeare’s audience.
But the particular success of Henry IV, Part 1 may have had more to do with two crucial factors. One is the comic relief provided by Hal’s friend Sir John Falstaff, a knight whose impressive girth bespeaks his status as a pleasure-loving man who wants nothing more than to enjoy the pleasures of the table, the tavern, and the flesh. The other is the way it shows Prince Hal, the future King Henry V, maturing from a callow, pleasure-loving youth into a prince willing to embrace adult responsibilities and do his royal duty. It is a narrative arc that will be familiar to anyone who has ever seen a Tom Cruise movie.
As Henry IV, Part 1 ended at a high point of drama, with Prince Hal defeating the arch-rebel Hotspur in single combat at the Battle of Shrewsbury, Henry IV, Part 2 takes up the drama at that point, with other rebel conspirators unhappily learning of their side’s defeat, and in response hatching new plans for rebellion. This is not one of the stronger features of the play; these conspirators simply don't have the compelling personal dynamism of Hotspur, the main antagonist from Henry IV, Part 1. It may be a function of the history with which Shakespeare was working - something like the reasons why many Americans would rather read about the American Civil War than about the Reconstruction period that followed it.
As with the prior play, these great and weighty matters of loyalty vs. treason are counterpointed with the base behaviour of Sir John Falstaff. And, of course, part of the reason for Falstaff’s appeal lies in his absolute unwillingness to do anything to reform his behaviour; when the issue of his financial improvidence comes up (he has unsuccessfully tried to borrow £1000 for an upcoming military expedition against the rebels, and has just been reminded that he has only seven groats and twopence in his purse), he remarks philosophically that “I can get no remedy against this consumption of the purse. Borrowing only lingers and lingers it out, but the disease is incurable.” He speaks as if the problem is that his purse has an illness like tuberculosis, when the real issue is that he tends to spend all his money on wine, women, and song.
Emblematic of Falstaff’s roguish charm is the fact that the Mistress Quickly, the hostess of a tavern where Falstaff has run up vast and unpaid bills, complains that “He hath eaten me out of house and home” and sets the law on Falstaff – but before long is offering to loan Falstaff money for his expedition. Falstaff, by the time of Henry IV, Part 2, is not as young as he used to be, but he can look back on the revels of old, boasting of himself and his minions that “We have heard the chimes at midnight”.
Meanwhile, King Henry IV is haunted by the deeds of his former life; he knows that he deposed a God-anointed king, and he wonders if the rebellions perpetually troubling his realm are part of his punishment for removing Richard II from power. Moreover, he knows that his time is short.
He made his Caesar-like declaration of Alea iacta est ("The die is cast"); he led a rebellion; he seized the throne. And yet now, with his life ebbing, what does it all mean? What was it all worth? It is moving to hear this sick and aging king engage in some very Ecclesiastes-style philosophical reflections on the vanity of human wishes, including those wishes that helped make him king.
Unable to sleep, like the title character in Shakespeare’s Macbeth, King Henry asks, “O sleep, O gentle sleep,/Nature’s soft nurse, how have I frighted thee./That thou no more wilt weigh my eyelids down/And steep my senses in forgetfulness?” And, in what may be the best-known line from the play, the unhappy king reflects that “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.”
And what of the future King Henry V? Sadly, Prince Hal has had a bit of a relapse; it is hard for him fully to forswear the once-beloved company of Falstaff and the other miscreants. Part of what makes King Henry IV’s life so bitter is the belief that Prince Hal is a fundamentally selfish, hopelessly feckless individual, who wants to be king but is not equal to the job - just as, centuries later, King George III is said to have considered his son, the future King George IV, a prince unworthy to be a king. When Prince Hal, who had earlier seen his father immobilized and thought him dead, says to his revived father, “I never thought to hear you speak again,” the King bitterly replies, “Thy wish was father, Harry, to that thought.”
Indeed, a highlight of Henry IV, Part 2 comes in Act IV, scene v, when the unhappy king upbraids his unruly son. King Henry accuses Prince Hal of wanting his father dead: “What! Canst thou not forbear me half an hour?/Then get thee gone and dig my grave thyself”. King Henry admits that the crown he wears is a crown he stole, and that wearing the crown and bearing its authority has brought him nothing but misery:
God knows, my son,
By what bypaths and indirect crooked ways
I met this crown, and I myself know well
How troublesome it sat upon my head….
How I came by the crown, O God forgive,
And grant it may with thee in true peace live!
In response, Prince Hal reaffirms his loyalty to his father. He is not impatient for the crown; he loves his father, and wants his father to live on: “God witness with me, when I here came in,/And found no course of breath within your Majesty,/How cold it struck my heart.” It is a moving scene of reconciliation – like the moment when Hamlet says to his estranged mother Gertrude, “When you are desirous to be blessed, I’ll blessing beg of you.”
By play’s end, when the conspirators have all been defeated, King Henry IV has died, and Prince Hal assumes the throne as King Henry V, Shakespeare indicates that the onetime petty-crime accomplice of Sir John Falstaff has learned what he needs to know so that he may become the warrior king whose outnumbered English soldiers will defeat the French at Agincourt and occupy all France. Henry V says that he intends not only to wear the robes of a king, but also to fulfill in all ways the duties of a king: “I will deeply put the fashion on/And wear it in my heart.”
Falstaff, for his part, anticipates that Prince Hal’s accession to the throne will secure him preferment. But Falstaff’s accomplice Pistol accurately anticipates “an ill wind which blows no man to good”; and when Falstaff attempts a hail-fellow-well-met greeting of Prince Hal, he is firmly rejected by King Henry V:
I know thee not, old man. Fall to thy prayers.
How ill white hairs become a fool and jester!...
Reply not to me with a fool-born jest.
Presume not that I am the thing I was,
For God doth know, so shall the world perceive,
That I have turned away my former self.
So will I those that kept me company.
It may seem cold, but Shakespeare seems to be indicating that a political leader often needs to make decisions that may seem harsh, in order to maintain both his or her own rulership and the stability of the state. Or, as members of the ruling political class in Washington, D.C., supposedly like to say, “If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.”
Henry IV, Part 2 is not often staged – though Orson Welles skillfully brought together the Falstaff scenes from both parts of Henry IV for his film Chimes at Midnight (1965). Like its predecessor, this play works both as a character study and as a reflection on the challenges of political leadership. Indeed, the best way to experience these two history plays is to read them together, as one epic drama of history and kingship.
April 9, 2016
“Henry IV Part II” should be read right after reading “Henry IV Part I” as the two plays together give the reader a great portrait of humanity and its ever changing adjustments to the wheels of fate and circumstance. They flow together seamlessly. This play continues the journey of Prince Hal as he becomes Henry V, and I think is a more satisfying play than its predecessor. The giant figure in these two plays, Sir John Falstaff, was much more pleasing and intriguing to me here then he was in “Henry IV Part I”. His humanity was all encompassing and richer, a much more interesting character arc in “Henry IV Part II”.
Act 2:4 gives us a good time in the Eastcheap tavern, and I found it especially enjoyable as Shakespeare gives many characters some nice moments in this scene. Another highlight is Act 3:1 where Henry IV has a soliloquy about his longing for sleep and peace. It is a beautiful moment that anyone who has had a troubled mind (everyone) can find truth in. Another joy to be had in Act 3 is the introduction of one of my favorite characters, the wonderful Justice Shallow. He is a great cameo role, where Shakespeare’s genius for creating very real people with little stage time is on full display. He would be a treat for any actor to play.
The final act of this play is one of many conflicting emotions, and the dramatic irony of Act 5:3 is discomforting for the reader as you watch Falstaff (who I came to love through this piece) celebrate a joy that you know is already dashed. In Act 5:5 we get one of the saddest scenes in all of Shakespeare. Falstaff is cruelly rejected by the newly crowned Henry V in a scene that is terrifying to read. Terrifying because Henry seems to (internally) want to reconcile his relationship with his old friend, but also knows his duties to the crown. It really is a scene about the end of a relationship with all the hurt, heartbreak, etc. those entail. When a great love (platonic, romantic, or otherwise) comes to an end it is a sobering sight.
As for the Pelican Shakespeare series, they are my favorite editions since the scholarly research is usually top notch and the editions themselves look good as an aesthetic unit. It looks and feels like a play and this compliments the text's contents admirably. The Pelican series was recently reedited and has the latest scholarship on Shakespeare and his time period. Well priced and well worth it.
Act 2:4 gives us a good time in the Eastcheap tavern, and I found it especially enjoyable as Shakespeare gives many characters some nice moments in this scene. Another highlight is Act 3:1 where Henry IV has a soliloquy about his longing for sleep and peace. It is a beautiful moment that anyone who has had a troubled mind (everyone) can find truth in. Another joy to be had in Act 3 is the introduction of one of my favorite characters, the wonderful Justice Shallow. He is a great cameo role, where Shakespeare’s genius for creating very real people with little stage time is on full display. He would be a treat for any actor to play.
The final act of this play is one of many conflicting emotions, and the dramatic irony of Act 5:3 is discomforting for the reader as you watch Falstaff (who I came to love through this piece) celebrate a joy that you know is already dashed. In Act 5:5 we get one of the saddest scenes in all of Shakespeare. Falstaff is cruelly rejected by the newly crowned Henry V in a scene that is terrifying to read. Terrifying because Henry seems to (internally) want to reconcile his relationship with his old friend, but also knows his duties to the crown. It really is a scene about the end of a relationship with all the hurt, heartbreak, etc. those entail. When a great love (platonic, romantic, or otherwise) comes to an end it is a sobering sight.
As for the Pelican Shakespeare series, they are my favorite editions since the scholarly research is usually top notch and the editions themselves look good as an aesthetic unit. It looks and feels like a play and this compliments the text's contents admirably. The Pelican series was recently reedited and has the latest scholarship on Shakespeare and his time period. Well priced and well worth it.
May 10, 2020
"Why does the prince love him so, then?"
do NOT @ me for being contrarian, i actually enjoyed part 2 more than part 1???
tho this is obviously meant to be seen in full anyway, so fuck that, lets just say henry iv is amazing and i love william BUT WE KNEW THAT!
as ever, i enjoyed prince harry most of all, idk what it is about him (hes bi, thats what it is) but he was so good... oof! we love an obsession on my part (esp since i dont feel that connection to the REAL historical henry v (who, for some reasons, comes across as a jerk to me? dont ask?)) and his relationship with pointz... (have i a whole book PLANNED TO BE EXECUTED BASED ON THOSE TWO??? FOR SURE!) kids...
wasnt so unimpressed by falstaff this time around, too, he wasnt nearly as annoying as in part 1, and i continue to be amused at the fact that bill had to split the play into two parts bc the ppl wanted more falstaff for their money, what kinda hilarity. his scenes were more funny too, i mean ? i will now call everyone dry toasts and nobody will stop me OR get the reference. refreshing! the insults in this were honestly legendary, i wish i could spend one day in shakespeares time just to know whether ppl actually talked like that EVER. like, just for "But what of that? he saw me, and yielded; that I may justly say with the hook-nosed fellow of Rome,-I came, saw, and overcame." the entire fucking play is worth it.
in general, this plays language... i just... loved it ??? in terms of language its probably one of my favorites of the ones ive read so far, there were some parts of this that i just. THEY WERE SO GOOD! i genuinely laughed out loud or went all "ooooh" or shit, i??? camp "kneeling before the master" for sure!!!
anyway, idk what im saying all i know is, this was amazing and i cant wait to reread it tbqh... what a play...
"I am your shadow, my lord; I'll follow you."
do NOT @ me for being contrarian, i actually enjoyed part 2 more than part 1???
tho this is obviously meant to be seen in full anyway, so fuck that, lets just say henry iv is amazing and i love william BUT WE KNEW THAT!
as ever, i enjoyed prince harry most of all, idk what it is about him (hes bi, thats what it is) but he was so good... oof! we love an obsession on my part (esp since i dont feel that connection to the REAL historical henry v (who, for some reasons, comes across as a jerk to me? dont ask?)) and his relationship with pointz... (have i a whole book PLANNED TO BE EXECUTED BASED ON THOSE TWO??? FOR SURE!) kids...
wasnt so unimpressed by falstaff this time around, too, he wasnt nearly as annoying as in part 1, and i continue to be amused at the fact that bill had to split the play into two parts bc the ppl wanted more falstaff for their money, what kinda hilarity. his scenes were more funny too, i mean ? i will now call everyone dry toasts and nobody will stop me OR get the reference. refreshing! the insults in this were honestly legendary, i wish i could spend one day in shakespeares time just to know whether ppl actually talked like that EVER. like, just for "But what of that? he saw me, and yielded; that I may justly say with the hook-nosed fellow of Rome,-I came, saw, and overcame." the entire fucking play is worth it.
in general, this plays language... i just... loved it ??? in terms of language its probably one of my favorites of the ones ive read so far, there were some parts of this that i just. THEY WERE SO GOOD! i genuinely laughed out loud or went all "ooooh" or shit, i??? camp "kneeling before the master" for sure!!!
anyway, idk what im saying all i know is, this was amazing and i cant wait to reread it tbqh... what a play...
"I am your shadow, my lord; I'll follow you."
July 29, 2017
HENRY IV, Part 2, is a "sequel", in the modern sense of the term, to HENRY IV, Part 1. This play again puts on stage Prince Hal, Henry IV's son, and the witty John Falstaff as well as all the characters we met in the first part.
Henry IV is dying. Prince Hal has proved himself as a great soldier. However, he still seems to consort with prostitutes and tavern dwellers. Falstaff status in the world has gone up (a little). He spends most of his time drinking and bragging about his relationship with Prince Hal. He looks forward to the happy time when his beloved friend will become King of England.
Falstaff is still quite funny but his character deteriorates noticeably. He is not likeable as before. He has become swollen with himself. The world, in this play, is a diseased and darkening world and Falstaff is a key representation of this decay.
Where in Part 1 Falstaff reflected on the concept of honor, to question and reject it, in Part 2 Falstaff dedicates a long soliloquy to ... sack.
Hotspur is dead, and a certain concept of honor as a grand political idea died with him. In place of honor we have Falstaff's celebration and ramblings on sack and the cold blooded betrayal of the rebels by Prince John, Hal's younger brother. In Part 1 we had a lively, gay and improvised world full of promise; in Part 2 the world seems corrupted and tawdry.
Of course, Misrule must be banished if Rule is to thrive so Hal has to reject Falstaff and his cronies when he becomes King Henry V. As expected, in the end Falstaff is banished, the Lord Chief Justice is adopted by the young King as a sort of adoptive "father" and a promising future can be expected for England.
Though less funny than the first part, this play is still wonderful. We knew that the Falstaffian holiday had to end. And however painful Falstaff's banishment feels for the reader (or spectator), we know the role of a King is essentially a lonely one, and we understand Hal's decision is part of the cost of being King.
Henry IV is dying. Prince Hal has proved himself as a great soldier. However, he still seems to consort with prostitutes and tavern dwellers. Falstaff status in the world has gone up (a little). He spends most of his time drinking and bragging about his relationship with Prince Hal. He looks forward to the happy time when his beloved friend will become King of England.
Falstaff is still quite funny but his character deteriorates noticeably. He is not likeable as before. He has become swollen with himself. The world, in this play, is a diseased and darkening world and Falstaff is a key representation of this decay.
Where in Part 1 Falstaff reflected on the concept of honor, to question and reject it, in Part 2 Falstaff dedicates a long soliloquy to ... sack.
Hotspur is dead, and a certain concept of honor as a grand political idea died with him. In place of honor we have Falstaff's celebration and ramblings on sack and the cold blooded betrayal of the rebels by Prince John, Hal's younger brother. In Part 1 we had a lively, gay and improvised world full of promise; in Part 2 the world seems corrupted and tawdry.
Of course, Misrule must be banished if Rule is to thrive so Hal has to reject Falstaff and his cronies when he becomes King Henry V. As expected, in the end Falstaff is banished, the Lord Chief Justice is adopted by the young King as a sort of adoptive "father" and a promising future can be expected for England.
Though less funny than the first part, this play is still wonderful. We knew that the Falstaffian holiday had to end. And however painful Falstaff's banishment feels for the reader (or spectator), we know the role of a King is essentially a lonely one, and we understand Hal's decision is part of the cost of being King.
January 9, 2019
I liked Henry IV less than I liked Richard II.
I think there was too little of Henry IV the King in this book, and too much of Henry V's "coming of age", or rather, "maturing" to the role of a leader. And definitely too much of John Falstaff... I could almost say that I saw more of King Henry IV in Richard II than here ;)
Had it not been a part of Shakespeare's Cronicles (or Second Tetralogy) on English kings, it could've easily been titled Falstaff.
So, for me, John Falstaff overtook the play.
But, let's start from the beginning...
Of course, there's a wide array of secondary and cameo characters -in which I often got lost- but it is reasonable and necessary plot-wise as the characters depict all of the substantial and influential gentry, nobility and clergy who took part in all the political power games, battles and parleys. The history of the English crown is so complicated, especially with the two main houses battling for power that I'm not going to complain about the length and complexity of Henry IV. And whether it is very faithful to the true events and the people's roles in history and politics or not, is not my concern. I can always read some more on the background and lineages of the Plantagenets, Yorks and Lancasters. However, the whole history of the power play between the big houses in England and especially inside the ruling dynasty is so intriguing that I was delighted to be able to look at it all from a different angle and not only from the history books I studied.
What I liked was, obviously, the flowing, flawless writing, the sharp-witted retords and the common truths concerning the wielding of power, the ruling of a divided kingdom and the loneliness of a king/a ruler - all of which was so cleverly and openly shown in Henry IV's monologues and his dialogues with his son and crown prince Henry V.
I read the original, English version of the play, although I did compare quite a few scenes with the Polish translation to see how it all worked in my mother tongue (I'm an English teacher and translator myself, so call it my professional quirk if you want) and I must say, IMHO, Shakespeare's work can be beautiful even in such a strange language as Polish ;) To my mind, the translator did a magnificent job.
And all of that leads me to the character of Sir John Falstaff. I'm afraid I didn't like him :(
I get it that he was depicted (and generally invented) in such a way as to show the inadequacies and vices of lower gentry (or maybe of nobility as a whole?). But why was he best friends with the Crown Prince? Was it to show how immature Prince Hal used to be? That his turning his back on Falstaff, failing and indigent as John was, was to show us the moment when Henry finally matured? Now that he was king, he simply cut himself off from John Falstaff to show the people around him that he's ready to rule, that he's man enough to stand up to the crown?
I believe so...
Still, I know that John Falstaff plays an important role in the history of literature, that his appearance created inspiration to quite a few broad and cunning noble companions in many swashbuckling and historic works. And I admit that much of his banter was witty or eye-opening and very much needed for the plot, but I simply found him rude, lewd, tricky and stupid. I wouldn't trust him, not ever, as, IMO, he only took care of his own needs and well-being. And besides, there was just to much of him on page!!!
Our Polish Onufry Zagłoba from Sienkiewicz's Trylogia: Ogniem i mieczem, Potop and Pan Wołodyjowski was also probably inspired by Falstaff but this character was genuinely witty and clever. He was also loyal, albeit a bit cowardly, and kind-hearted.
I can't imagine half of the adventures the Trylogia's MC survived would have had such a positive outcome if not for Zagłoba's sharp tongue, quick wit and adaptive skills ;)
Generally, a great read if you're interested in British history (although not all the events are 100% true with historic accounts), the power play on the throne dais and the musings and internal battles the rulers must face.
I'll definitely continue with Shakespeare's royal Cronicles!
I think there was too little of Henry IV the King in this book, and too much of Henry V's "coming of age", or rather, "maturing" to the role of a leader. And definitely too much of John Falstaff... I could almost say that I saw more of King Henry IV in Richard II than here ;)
Had it not been a part of Shakespeare's Cronicles (or Second Tetralogy) on English kings, it could've easily been titled Falstaff.
So, for me, John Falstaff overtook the play.
But, let's start from the beginning...
Of course, there's a wide array of secondary and cameo characters -in which I often got lost- but it is reasonable and necessary plot-wise as the characters depict all of the substantial and influential gentry, nobility and clergy who took part in all the political power games, battles and parleys. The history of the English crown is so complicated, especially with the two main houses battling for power that I'm not going to complain about the length and complexity of Henry IV. And whether it is very faithful to the true events and the people's roles in history and politics or not, is not my concern. I can always read some more on the background and lineages of the Plantagenets, Yorks and Lancasters. However, the whole history of the power play between the big houses in England and especially inside the ruling dynasty is so intriguing that I was delighted to be able to look at it all from a different angle and not only from the history books I studied.
What I liked was, obviously, the flowing, flawless writing, the sharp-witted retords and the common truths concerning the wielding of power, the ruling of a divided kingdom and the loneliness of a king/a ruler - all of which was so cleverly and openly shown in Henry IV's monologues and his dialogues with his son and crown prince Henry V.
I read the original, English version of the play, although I did compare quite a few scenes with the Polish translation to see how it all worked in my mother tongue (I'm an English teacher and translator myself, so call it my professional quirk if you want) and I must say, IMHO, Shakespeare's work can be beautiful even in such a strange language as Polish ;) To my mind, the translator did a magnificent job.
And all of that leads me to the character of Sir John Falstaff. I'm afraid I didn't like him :(
I get it that he was depicted (and generally invented) in such a way as to show the inadequacies and vices of lower gentry (or maybe of nobility as a whole?). But why was he best friends with the Crown Prince? Was it to show how immature Prince Hal used to be? That his turning his back on Falstaff, failing and indigent as John was, was to show us the moment when Henry finally matured? Now that he was king, he simply cut himself off from John Falstaff to show the people around him that he's ready to rule, that he's man enough to stand up to the crown?
I believe so...
Still, I know that John Falstaff plays an important role in the history of literature, that his appearance created inspiration to quite a few broad and cunning noble companions in many swashbuckling and historic works. And I admit that much of his banter was witty or eye-opening and very much needed for the plot, but I simply found him rude, lewd, tricky and stupid. I wouldn't trust him, not ever, as, IMO, he only took care of his own needs and well-being. And besides, there was just to much of him on page!!!
Our Polish Onufry Zagłoba from Sienkiewicz's Trylogia: Ogniem i mieczem, Potop and Pan Wołodyjowski was also probably inspired by Falstaff but this character was genuinely witty and clever. He was also loyal, albeit a bit cowardly, and kind-hearted.
I can't imagine half of the adventures the Trylogia's MC survived would have had such a positive outcome if not for Zagłoba's sharp tongue, quick wit and adaptive skills ;)
Generally, a great read if you're interested in British history (although not all the events are 100% true with historic accounts), the power play on the throne dais and the musings and internal battles the rulers must face.
I'll definitely continue with Shakespeare's royal Cronicles!
August 22, 2020
Hal’ın olgunlaşma sürecini tamamladığı "Kral IV. Henry Bölüm II / IV Henry, Part II", olayları Falstaff, meyhaneci kadın ve IV Henry’nin küçük oğulları Lancaster, Gloucester, Clarance gibi yan karakterler üzerinden anlatmasından ötürü ilk bölüme kıyasla daha ağır ilerleyen bir oyun. II. Richard’dan tahtı oldukça ilginç bir şekilde devralan IV. Henry’nin son zamanları olması sebebiyle geçmişiyle yüzleşmeye başladığı oyunda, oğlu Hal’la tam olarak kaynaşarak tahtı huzur içinde teslim etmesine tanıklık ediyoruz. İsyancılarla olan savaşın tam olarak bastırılarak ülkeye huzur gelmesiyle eski defterlerin artık bir bir kapandığı oyun II. Richard’dan huzursuz bir şekilde alınan tahtla bozulan düzenin V. Henry’le beraber tekrar gelmesinin bir metaforu niteliğinde. Henry’nin haylazlıklarına son vererek Falstaff gibi ciddiyetten uzak arkadaşlarına sırt çevirerek aileye odaklanmasıyla, aile temasına da dikkat çeken Shakespeare, oyunun finaliyle bunu güzel bir şekilde vermeyi başarıyor.
22.08.2020
Londra, Birleşik Krallık
Alp Turgut
22.08.2020
Londra, Birleşik Krallık
Alp Turgut
March 4, 2023
not as good as the first one but man that hal can character arc
---
march 2023 review:
how did i give this four stars the first time. was it because the commentary essay is really good? because it is really good. but this play has, like, three decent scenes and the rest of it is deathly fucking boring. granted, those three scenes (kate percy yelling at northumberland, hal at his father’s deathbed, and the last scene between hal & falstaff) are integral to the henriad (hence the 3-star rating), but they're surrounded by page after interminable page of side characters nobody cares about having conversations that are not funny. why is there such a dearth of hal in this play he is literally the guy. society if falstaff would shut the fuck up
🎵Bad Dream Baby—Hippo Campus🎵
---
march 2023 review:
how did i give this four stars the first time. was it because the commentary essay is really good? because it is really good. but this play has, like, three decent scenes and the rest of it is deathly fucking boring. granted, those three scenes (kate percy yelling at northumberland, hal at his father’s deathbed, and the last scene between hal & falstaff) are integral to the henriad (hence the 3-star rating), but they're surrounded by page after interminable page of side characters nobody cares about having conversations that are not funny. why is there such a dearth of hal in this play he is literally the guy. society if falstaff would shut the fuck up
🎵Bad Dream Baby—Hippo Campus🎵
March 2, 2016
This wasn't as good as the first part but it was still okay. Kind of lost interest due to there being so many characters and it all got a little hard to follow but I did really like the ending!
November 9, 2017
Love, love, love the themes of this play so excellently handled in all their joys and sorrows.
June 3, 2024
In preparation for Players Kings in London's West End (29 May, with Sir Ian McKellen, Toheeb Jimoh and Richard Coyle among others), I read the two plays. Part 1 had some funny bits in the tavern and a lot of talk about wars, rebellions and religion. Part 2 has much less funny parts and is generally more serious. Shakespeare's language is always brilliant, of course, but a lot of it was lost on me because I don't have the historical knowledge. I really enjoyed the West End performance with the modern costumes and set.
I listened to the audiobooks by the Marlowe Society at the same time and it added a lot to my reading experience. (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...)
I listened to the audiobooks by the Marlowe Society at the same time and it added a lot to my reading experience. (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...)
April 3, 2019
Hal has to grow up and leave poor Falstaff behind.
August 24, 2017
I have not been posting recently because I have found that my most meaningful reads continue to be in groups of unexpectedly related books along with a critical volume to prompt insights. So reviews pile up because I have to finish all of the books before I write.
This time I picked up the second book of the Gormenghast triology by Mervyn Peake and the third book of Shakespeare’s Henry IV tetralogy, while continuing to work through Derek Traversi’s Shakespeare: From ‘Richard II’ to ‘Henry V'. About halfway through all of them I started to feel the resonance. Both of the series study the consequences of the neglect of a ruler's responsibilities. In both, the country suffers as it is thrown into chaos, and we watch the development of a hero destined to bring it back into balance. (Note the parallels in this review draw on all four of the Shakespeare plays and the first two books of the Gormanghast trilogy; I haven’t read Titus Alone yet.)
The parallel plots:
In Gormenghast, the scholarly Lord Sepulchrave retreats to his study, and the countess is holed up with her pet birds. They ignore governance and their children; Steerpike starts to take over when vengeance for a rather small incident takes charge of his character. Violence expands, and evil pervades the palace. Steerpike manipulates the lord’s twin sisters and others into acting as his agents. Eventually the castle itself is threatened with total destruction.
In the Shakespeare series, the source of trouble is partying. Richard II, the king has been reveling with the corrupt courtiers and neglecting to govern or steward his country’s resources. Bolingbroke is driven to turn an injustice into open revolt (in contrast to Steerpike’s turn to subterfuge when offended). But rebellion against one king begets rebellion against the next. According to Traversi, the emphasis in both Henry IV plays is on the disruption in the kingdom. We see little contact between Henry and Hal until near Henry’s death. Although King Henry is definitely concerned about his son, he doesn’t seem to take steps to do anything. Manipulation of others, and deceit, pervades the kingdom. In a light-hearted way, it characterizes the tavern world.
Parallels continue. In both works, mano-a-mano duels are key plot devices that also represent critical conflicts of values. In Richard II, the single combat (that doesn’t come off) in the first scene is the last gasp of chivalry as a new tougher world order comes into play. Then the battle scene between Hal and Hotspur in Henry IV part 1 repeats and finalizes this change of worldviews.
In Gormenghast, the duel between Flay and Swelter is partly a difference of temperaments, and partly a conflict of dedication to the kingdom and an evil nature. In writing this, I wonder if it isn’t also addressed to what Peake perhaps viewed as a change of worldviews from the old aristocratic realm to the dominance of the commoner. The final duel in Gormenghast is really between the kingdom and its would be usurper and dynasty-destroyer. Henry the IV, in part 2, faces not one but an alliance of men who want to destroy his dynasty and seize territory. We don’t get a full battle scene, but we could call the negotiation between Lancaster and York in Henry IV part 2 a kind of duel that the ruling government wins.
But there are intriguing contrasts between the two series. Consider how the two princes escape the oppressive court. Hal has calculated that he can enjoy himself, prepare to reign a kingdom of various social classes, and set the stage for an ascension that will put the stain of his father’s bloody takeover behind him. He revels at Mistress Quickly’s tavern, but never completely acts like a commoner with abandon. He humors Falstaff’s claim to mentor him, but what he is really learning is how this class reasons and reacts, lessons he can use later in battlefield and public relations. Here, language delights in puns, wit and repartee. It is all down to earth, nevertheless there is always a reserve about Hal. Pondering the limits on the life of the ruler later, he laments the constraints that wearing the crown will put on every experience and impulse. Traversi and other critics emphasize his virtually iron clad self control, as Shakespeare makes us see what it costs him. But he never seriously considers walking away.
Titus, on the other hand, is a child without Hal’s reasoning powers. His tutoring at the loving hands of Bellgrove and Flay is real. To escape the ritual and dictatorial reign of his elders, he runs away to the solitude of the forest without any reflection at all. He finds magic in his encounters with the forest child, not brigandage, as when Hal ventures at night to the forest. The richness of the language rests in ornate description; in the forest there is no speaking.
The contrast between the commoner in the two series is profound. There is a wild richness in Falstaff and the world of the tavern that is in a different universe than the gray life of the villagers outside the Gormanghast castle. This difference emphasizes that Peake wrote in the midst and aftermath of WWII. Life in depression and postwar Britain was indeed gray, bleak, and limited.
Peake creates an amazing world, but he is mortal. He cannot match the range and depth of character that Shakespeare brings to life. We find the doctor and Bellgrove amusing, dedicated civil servants, and we are charmed by the gothic detail. But Peake never wrote anything like the Crispin speech, or Falstaff’s musing on honor. [I was amused earlier in the year, reading some continental authors, to note their insistence on Shakespeare’s definite mortal level of accomplishment. Of course he’s not perfect, but the dissenters were a bit tender in being so emphatic.]
I am definitely going to finish the Gormanghast trilogy. It is absorbing and well written. I also recommend the Traversi. Traversi is a little repetitive his theme of disorder, but I was certainly led to think more deeply about the plays while reading him. I am still bewildered by the Falstaff scences in Henry IV part 2 though. Perhaps watching a production, as opposed to reading the play, would help.
In looking to find out what Traversi's reputation was, I came across a gem of an obituary in the New York Times, September 14, 2005. Excerpts:
A very English life.
This time I picked up the second book of the Gormenghast triology by Mervyn Peake and the third book of Shakespeare’s Henry IV tetralogy, while continuing to work through Derek Traversi’s Shakespeare: From ‘Richard II’ to ‘Henry V'. About halfway through all of them I started to feel the resonance. Both of the series study the consequences of the neglect of a ruler's responsibilities. In both, the country suffers as it is thrown into chaos, and we watch the development of a hero destined to bring it back into balance. (Note the parallels in this review draw on all four of the Shakespeare plays and the first two books of the Gormanghast trilogy; I haven’t read Titus Alone yet.)
The parallel plots:
In Gormenghast, the scholarly Lord Sepulchrave retreats to his study, and the countess is holed up with her pet birds. They ignore governance and their children; Steerpike starts to take over when vengeance for a rather small incident takes charge of his character. Violence expands, and evil pervades the palace. Steerpike manipulates the lord’s twin sisters and others into acting as his agents. Eventually the castle itself is threatened with total destruction.
In the Shakespeare series, the source of trouble is partying. Richard II, the king has been reveling with the corrupt courtiers and neglecting to govern or steward his country’s resources. Bolingbroke is driven to turn an injustice into open revolt (in contrast to Steerpike’s turn to subterfuge when offended). But rebellion against one king begets rebellion against the next. According to Traversi, the emphasis in both Henry IV plays is on the disruption in the kingdom. We see little contact between Henry and Hal until near Henry’s death. Although King Henry is definitely concerned about his son, he doesn’t seem to take steps to do anything. Manipulation of others, and deceit, pervades the kingdom. In a light-hearted way, it characterizes the tavern world.
Parallels continue. In both works, mano-a-mano duels are key plot devices that also represent critical conflicts of values. In Richard II, the single combat (that doesn’t come off) in the first scene is the last gasp of chivalry as a new tougher world order comes into play. Then the battle scene between Hal and Hotspur in Henry IV part 1 repeats and finalizes this change of worldviews.
In Gormenghast, the duel between Flay and Swelter is partly a difference of temperaments, and partly a conflict of dedication to the kingdom and an evil nature. In writing this, I wonder if it isn’t also addressed to what Peake perhaps viewed as a change of worldviews from the old aristocratic realm to the dominance of the commoner. The final duel in Gormenghast is really between the kingdom and its would be usurper and dynasty-destroyer. Henry the IV, in part 2, faces not one but an alliance of men who want to destroy his dynasty and seize territory. We don’t get a full battle scene, but we could call the negotiation between Lancaster and York in Henry IV part 2 a kind of duel that the ruling government wins.
But there are intriguing contrasts between the two series. Consider how the two princes escape the oppressive court. Hal has calculated that he can enjoy himself, prepare to reign a kingdom of various social classes, and set the stage for an ascension that will put the stain of his father’s bloody takeover behind him. He revels at Mistress Quickly’s tavern, but never completely acts like a commoner with abandon. He humors Falstaff’s claim to mentor him, but what he is really learning is how this class reasons and reacts, lessons he can use later in battlefield and public relations. Here, language delights in puns, wit and repartee. It is all down to earth, nevertheless there is always a reserve about Hal. Pondering the limits on the life of the ruler later, he laments the constraints that wearing the crown will put on every experience and impulse. Traversi and other critics emphasize his virtually iron clad self control, as Shakespeare makes us see what it costs him. But he never seriously considers walking away.
Titus, on the other hand, is a child without Hal’s reasoning powers. His tutoring at the loving hands of Bellgrove and Flay is real. To escape the ritual and dictatorial reign of his elders, he runs away to the solitude of the forest without any reflection at all. He finds magic in his encounters with the forest child, not brigandage, as when Hal ventures at night to the forest. The richness of the language rests in ornate description; in the forest there is no speaking.
The contrast between the commoner in the two series is profound. There is a wild richness in Falstaff and the world of the tavern that is in a different universe than the gray life of the villagers outside the Gormanghast castle. This difference emphasizes that Peake wrote in the midst and aftermath of WWII. Life in depression and postwar Britain was indeed gray, bleak, and limited.
Peake creates an amazing world, but he is mortal. He cannot match the range and depth of character that Shakespeare brings to life. We find the doctor and Bellgrove amusing, dedicated civil servants, and we are charmed by the gothic detail. But Peake never wrote anything like the Crispin speech, or Falstaff’s musing on honor. [I was amused earlier in the year, reading some continental authors, to note their insistence on Shakespeare’s definite mortal level of accomplishment. Of course he’s not perfect, but the dissenters were a bit tender in being so emphatic.]
I am definitely going to finish the Gormanghast trilogy. It is absorbing and well written. I also recommend the Traversi. Traversi is a little repetitive his theme of disorder, but I was certainly led to think more deeply about the plays while reading him. I am still bewildered by the Falstaff scences in Henry IV part 2 though. Perhaps watching a production, as opposed to reading the play, would help.
In looking to find out what Traversi's reputation was, I came across a gem of an obituary in the New York Times, September 14, 2005. Excerpts:
...Given that he had already published his first Shakespearean work, a life in academe signalled. However, he was disinclined to join the senior common room and sought out a broader life. In 1939, he obtained a post as lecturer at the British Institute in Rome, where he was arrested for apparent disrespect to Il Duce, but returned to England with the outbreak of war, catching one of the last boats to leave France. His singular lack of physical coordination meant that he was unsuited for military service.
Instead he was sent to the British Institute in Madrid. He adapted to the odd life in post civil war Spain, forging a strong relationship with the director of the institute, Walter Starkie, whose own personality did nothing to mitigate the eccentricities of the place and time.
In Madrid, in 1944, he married Maria Concepcíon Vázquez de Castro y Sarmiento, one of the first women in Spain to graduate from a university and a pupil of his at the institute. At the age of 25, she was arrested as she travelled by train with him to a walking expedition, because Franco's laws required her to have the written permission of her father to travel any distance with an unrelated man. He himself had close encounters with the civil guard for being in prohibited areas, although it was never clear whether this was by design or through insouciance.
He remained in Spain, in Bilbao and Barcelona, until 1948 when he was posted to South America as representative of the British Council in Uruguay and subsequently Chile from 1948 to 1955. He then spent four years as representative in Teheran before returning to Madrid in 1959 and subsequently Rome in 1965. His time with the British Council began in its infancy. He had the benefit, because of distance and poor communication, of autonomy in how he discharged his responsibilities. His postings were invariably a great success, because of the broadness of his interests and his desire to communicate them...
A very English life.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 820 reviews