Henry IV Part 1 thread

[literally lauren]

Sorry it took me so long to get around to this!

Your interpretation is definitely valid, and you wouldn't have to look far into the text to substantiate it. But for the sake of debate, I'll play a really pessimistic devil's advocate:
Hal does not change. Let the battle commence.

I see his frivolity as almost an attempt to repress and to escape the responsibility that is placed on him - it makes sense after all, who wouldn't want a life of hedonistic drinking and sex rather than the life of prince expected to present a good image etc etc 

Ha! You've fallen right into his trap. Hal wants us commoners to view him as fallible; he sets himself up not with the high-minded rhetoric of his father, but as a man with the same vices of alcoholism, lewdness and debauchery. Why do you think his soliloquy occurs so early on? Hal knows from the outset that this is only a temporary arrangement.

(Although I personally cannot discount the fact that he genuinely likes Falstaff and the 'tavern' world as I said before) It's just that in that the struggle within him between a life of freedom and the life of royal responsibility, he eventually sees the merit in going down the path of responsibility while still (at least for this play) retaining the connection with the common man - something Henry IV sees no merit in.

I'll direct you to the phrase "I will awhile uphold the unyolk'd humour of your idleness." I don't doubt there is some underlying tenderness for the fat rogue, but ultimately Hal sees himself as above all that hedonism. He may have enjoyed his time there, but ultimately he's just setting the foundation for his seeming redemption. He is "upholding" (read: tolerating) these circumstances; it is simply a testimony to his exemplary role-playing that he manages to obfuscate his motives.

All in all then I see him as the better Machiavel/more effective leader - he knows the public well because of his dealings with them.

I've seen a bunch of prompts dealing with the concept of what makes a good leader, or whether Hal or Henry was/is more successful. It's tricky to argue anything other than this^ though. I had a friend who was 100% Team Hotspur, but realistically the other agendas in the text are so anachronistic that Hal's title as heir apparent is pretty indisputable
{Happy to get into Hotspur or Falstaff-related conversations once we've sorted out the Prince }

Also what about the evidence pointing towards his astute knowledge of the correct time to 'pay the debt' and the way he raises himself up in the country's eyes.

Don't have my copy of the text with me at the moment, but since Hal doesn't have any more soliloquies, I'm assuming these are scenes with other people around? People for him to manipulate by putting forward this false image of the prodigal son seeking redemption?
All the discussion of time is further proof that it was all a stage-managed production in which Hal controlled not only what happened, but when.

Also the scenes which show him away from the public eye i.e. not performing but still demonstrating a great deal of empathy care friendship with say Falstaff. (i.e. the eulogy scene)

Firstly, note that the eulogy is in iambic pentametre; Hal is "making the shift" to the language of regal formality.
But the actual eulogy itself: "I could have better spar'd a better man.../ Death hath not struck so fat a deer to-day/ Though many dearer in this bloody fray."
Totes how I'd want to be remembered: 'Well, you're a loss, but ya know, coulda been worse, you lovable tub of lard.' If anything, Hotspur got a more respectful farewell than the man that was supposedly Hal's friend.

--> though that reminds me, on a Hotspur/Falstaff-related note: compare these two eulogies. Hal tells us "two paces of the vilest earth" is enough to hold Hotspur's body now (since his spirit is dead) whereas Falstaff is still referred to as fat; 'larger than life, even in (supposéd) death' ...
Food for worms thought


I am in no way trying to shoot you down with all of this. I actually think your line of argument has a lot more merit than mine in some instances. But if you can counter these sorts of arguments then your interpretation will be even stronger. And if you can't, it'll at least give you an alternate interpretation to discuss
Best of luck!

[DJA]

Argument that Hal CHANGES in the play

no problem!
let the battle continue

For the record and food for debate:
I’d like to define ‘change’ because that’s a contentious word in itself for me at least
So with the change I’m talking about for Hal it does not extend to his central Machiavellian qualities.
Ie. The times he says things like these:
“I will imitate the sun”
“My reformation, glitt’ring o’er my fault”

Hence, the way I see Hal centres around my acceptance that he realises and understands that eventually he will need to throw off this “loose behaviour” (wearing suggests the disingenuous nature of it after all) and pay the “debt”, but that he is biding his time until he is ready to do so. After all what we see for the most part is a Prince who has a keen idea of time and when the right time to act is. A case in point is the scene where he ‘so happens’ to be there to save the king’s life at ‘exactly’ the right moment from Douglas and then labours the point home saying essentially ‘look here dad don’t forget I saved your life here…if I wasn’t here you’d be dead.’

But what for me suggests that this Machiavellian ‘biding time’ until the time is right to pay the debt is a too clear-cut way of arguing his character is the sense that he genuinely does not want to leave this tavern lifestyle – beyond the performance which he puts on – together with evidence for a code of true honour/values beyond Douglas’ facetious mask of honour and Falstaff’s complete self-centredness.

Ha! You've fallen right into his trap. Hal wants us commoners to view him as fallible; he sets himself up not with the high-minded rhetoric of his father, but as a man with the same vices of alcoholism, lewdness and debauchery.

Agreed Hal wants commoners to view him as fallible, he is most definitely self-aware about this fact:
ie. "I can drink with any tinker in his own tongue" - so being able to 'speak' the language of the commoners, to assume the mask of the lower class in order to fit in and to further own motives.

But that doesn't discount the fact that he simultaneously is distancing himself from responsibility at a human level - he also doesn't want to take on the duties that goes with his Princely "heart". Evidence that shows this are:
-At A2S4 when Falstaff is going all like 'Mortimer and northumberland are coming shouldn't you be worried Hal, this is like TOTALLY scary' Hal's response is telling - he says:
"we shall buy maidenheads as they buy hob-nails" - as I said in an earlier paragraph, complete dismissal insidious dismissal of femininity, suggests a crass reaction that is knee-jerk response to the very real threat of the rebels and the call to duty this represents for him as part of the crown.
While perhaps we might dismiss this as him performing to fit in with a crass lower class, after all Falstaff's response is shockingly accepting saying something like "thou sayest true we shall have good trading that way"  his next action compounds his previous dismissal of this responsibility (if we read it that way) - in that Hal suppresses this call to duty by reverting to parody/play-acting and diverting attention away by starting the act between him and Falstaff playing himself and HenryIV "Do thou stand for my father and examine me". It's as if he's like if 'If I do something else I'll forget about it and everyone else will forget about it!'

The evidence he changes from this to something different - perhaps more recognising of duty and perhaps more caring of the weak and respectful of women in general - is here:
-At the second call to duty in A2S4 when the Sheriff comes knocking and Falstaff is hiding away like the coward he is, Hal doesn't dismiss this call to responsibility like he does before. Instead he finds a balance between duty and friendship, not telling the Sheriff of Falstaff's whereabouts but then moving into a language of action that suggests his acceptance of the fact that he must re-claim his princely identity:
ie.  language of action: -"I'll to the court in the morning" -"We must all to the wars" -"The money shall be paid back with advantage"
this is a far cry from a prince who literally moments earlier was drinking with the "loggerheads" at the "base string of humility".
I think we cannot dismiss this shift into a mode of action and duty that these three statements suggest (the third a bit less so - more suggestive of his care for Falstaff - but this only supports a view of his balance) as simply a conniving performance because of 2 things:
1) The last line of Falstaff's parody of Hal in the act when he says "Banish plump Jack, and banish all the world" - essentially, if you leave me and leave this tavern life, you will lose the whole world - lose everything you love. Hal's reply is important "I do, I will" - for me the shortness of this reply and the lack of jokery as he does earlier suggests an emotive impact of Falstaff's preceding tirade ("if sack of sugar be a fault" "banish not falstaff"). Falstaff has hit Hal where it hurts, he has cut to the Prince's essential struggle - that this world is indeed a crucial part of his identity and the prince realises that eventually he will have to leave it ("I know thee all" from the soliloquy then takes on the other less insidious meaning of friendship and good-will) hence this short reply in which he just goes along with Falstaff, unable to make any sort of joke about it because Falstaff's comedy/buffoonery has gone to far, it has cut him too close to his heart. for me this is a turning point of sorts for Hal - while the Prince might have been considering both options (as in his princely duty and the tavern lifestyle) here he recognises definitively that he will eventually have to abandon the tavern for the royal life of duty and responsibility.
2) second point; Shakespeare's placement of 'A knocking is heard' for the sheriff DIRECTLY after Hal's recognition that he will have to move on. Coincidence? I think not! For mine, this serves to create a crucial juxtaposition to Hal's earlier response to Falstaff's reminder of the rebel forces rallying and Hal's complete dismissal of this. Instead as I said earlier he accepts this duty and goes to the court. (evidence above).
Again I don't think we can dismiss this as performance as he has nothing to gain from saying out loud that he will go to 'war' and to the 'court' in the context of the tavern he is in. Rather this a prince who is beginning to "pay the debt" - the debt of a lifestyle that is is denial of his responsibilities which he will pay back by "redeem[ing] all on young percy's head"
3) CHANGE FROM A RATHER CRASS INDIVIDUAL into someone who cares for the weak and demonstrates respect for women: While Falstaff stays the same throughout, mysogynistic, lazy and selfish, the Prince comes into his own, going AGAINST his friend and showing respect for the Hostess in A3S3.
Falstaff is all like "go you THING go" and "i know you well enough" sexual innuendos, "Go to" to the Hostess. In contrast, Hal comes in and addresses the Hostess politely "Mistress Quickly" and enquires about her husband "How doth thy husband? I love him well" AND even rebukes Falstaff that wicked Satan for his mean words, "Thou sayest true, Hostess, and he slanders thee most grossly". For mine I can't dismiss this as a performance for his own gain, because he has nothing to gain again - if anything he is simply inviting the ill-feeling of Falstaff for not supporting him and possibly the ill-feeling of the men around him in the tavern who are presumably equally misogynistic considering the nature of Plantagenet society. This Hal, defending the Hostess is a far cry from the Hal of earlier who dismisses women as "hob-nails" to be bought at leisure.
Also in contrast to the Hal who cruelly teases Francis in A2S4 by promising him a "thousand pound" without really meaning, we see a Hal of A5S1 who wants to "save the blood on either side) in order to save the lives of the common footsoldiers fighting in battle (although the strength of this evidence is hugely undermined by the political statement of what he is saying )

I'll direct you to the phrase "I will awhile uphold the unyolk'd humour of your idleness." I don't doubt there is some underlying tenderness for the fat rogue, but ultimately Hal sees himself as above all that hedonism. He may have enjoyed his time there, but ultimately he's just setting the foundation for his seeming redemption. He is "upholding" (read: tolerating) these circumstances; it is simply a testimony to his exemplary role-playing that he manages to obfuscate his motives.

-He's known all along that this redemption will be magnified fine because of his association with the lower classes (i.e.. his reformation will "attract more eyes") - it's just that he hasn't formed definitively in his own mind the right time to assume the "robe" of his princely visage because the pull of the tavern world is too great and he's justified it as upholding the 'unyoked humour of [the] idleness' of the lower classes. So because he's so good at his performing, he writes off his own inability to actually assume his princely heritage as a clever strategy (i.e.. I'll so offend to make offence a skill) justifying his own actions by self-referentially priding himself in his Machiavellian qualities - justification is that this 'offence' of association with lower classes and base qualities is in fact a 'skill' in itself lol Although ultimately I acknowledge the ambiguity of that quote haha if I analyse it I'm saying both for sure.
-I do agree with you that he sees himself as above all that hedonism and he's definitely drawn to it, but i don't think we can say he's just setting the foundation for his seeming redemption. If that's the case, why the emotional response to Falstaff's plea for Hal not banish him and reminder that he will lose the "world" by leaving the tavern life? (Argued earlier in this post see the reply to first quote)

I've seen a bunch of prompts dealing with the concept of what makes a good leader, or whether Hal or Henry was/is more successful. It's tricky to argue anything other than this^ though. I had a friend who was 100% Team Hotspur, but realistically the other agendas in the text are so anachronistic that Hal's title as heir apparent is pretty indisputable
{Happy to get into Hotspur or Falstaff-related conversations once we've sorted out the Prince }

-Just a thought on the Hotspur thing - I think he's a poor leader when it comes to the sort of leader needed for this political world. Hotspur is a medieval avenger from a time long gone and while he does mature somewhat over the play learning and displaying better judgement than at the beginning, ultimately his core identity as a passionate and hot-headed warrior leaves him open to defeat at the hands of one like Hal who knows the value of the right time for each and every mask - the Prince is able to be a warrior when he needs to be and a politician when he needs to be.

Don't have my copy of the text with me at the moment, but since Hal doesn't have any more soliloquies, I'm assuming these are scenes with other people around? People for him to manipulate by putting forward this false image of the prodigal son seeking redemption?
All the discussion of time is further proof that it was all a stage-managed production in which Hal controlled not only what happened, but when.

I don't think Hal controlled 'when' in a stage-managed production when he moves towards duty and abandons the tavern lifestyle. If my analysis of the scene when the Sheriff comes in (which is above again)  is legit that that would suggest a more spontaneous move towards duty then something more pre-meditated and thought through.

Firstly, note that the eulogy is in iambic pentametre; Hal is "making the shift" to the language of regal formality.
But the actual eulogy itself: "I could have better spar'd a better man.../ Death hath not struck so fat a deer to-day/ Though many dearer in this bloody fray."
Totes how I'd want to be remembered: 'Well, you're a loss, but ya know, coulda been worse, you lovable tub of lard.' If anything, Hotspur got a more respectful farewell than the man that was supposedly Hal's friend.

--> though that reminds me, on a Hotspur/Falstaff-related note: compare these two eulogies. Hal tells us "two paces of the vilest earth" is enough to hold Hotspur's body now (since his spirit is dead) whereas Falstaff is still referred to as fat; 'larger than life, even in (supposéd) death' ...
Food for worms thought

I'll take the complete opposite interpretation of the same evidence which will probably be actually food for worms but here goes - this is how I see it _if I am interpreting what you said correctly):
-The iambic pentameter in regal formality doesn't suggest Hal's disingenuous nature - rather it's a man who is deeply emotional after the 'paying back of his own debt', this culmination of this key moment of validation as well as the passing of a great man in his eyes - hence in this emotional state the only way he can compose himself to deliver a fitting eulogy for Hotspur is to use the regal formality of iambic pentametre so he doesn't break down completely and is unable to even speak (makes sense for falstaff as well than). I also believe there's no point arguing the respect of his tone when eulogising Hotspur's death - do we agree on the respect there?
-"I could have better spar'd a better man.../ Death hath not struck so fat a deer to-day/ Though many dearer in this bloody fray." In eulogising Falstaff, the difference in the rendering of Hotspur's death with the honour of a fallen knight and Falstaff's 'death' as a bumbling fool essentially is crucial because Hal is eulogising each man in the manner appropriate to his relationship with them. While for Hotspur as a knight and enemy, Hal's eulogy for him is formal and stiff, for Falstaff, his dear friend and confidant, he is comfortable enough to make the joke as in the above quote (essentially saying he is useless as usual) because in life, Hal and Falstaff are able to joke around (hence the jokes in death "fat a deer" "old acquaintance" "all this flesh"). Hence in death, Hal commensurates each man as appropriate to how he knew them in life.
What is crucial is that this we can assume that is not a performance - while not a soliloquy, Hal is not in front of a crowd. He is alone with the 2 dead men and thus we can at least what he says is genuine and not a performance. So what does he say when he is alone? Not words of cunning manipulation, or triumph over his victory, or maybe a coldblooded dismissal of the "contagious clouds" of the lower class that Falstaff embodies. nope - rather here we see a man who has respect for the dead and venerates each appropriately.


As always, I’m not a complete ‘Hal is awesome’ apologist and my true interpretation falls somewhere in between, but since it helps me consolidate my understanding, I’ll continue in this vein.

And as I’ve got to the end of this I’ve just come to the conclusion that it’s probs impossible to go either way. I think there is too much ambiguity to conclusively say Hal DOES change (in terms of his worldview and what he wants out of life) and Hal DOES NOT change. After all we could read him as performing all the way through and putting on a façade all the way through – then he never changes. Or we could interpret some moments as the ‘truth’ as you like it – for me being his internal human motivations/values – shining through.

Hence the way I would phrase it in terms of analysing his soliloquy would be like: "While Hal might seem to be.....and we recognise his...., ultimately.....
Acknowledging and covering all bases!

I’m enjoying this far more than I thougt – true lit geek here

(also apologies in advance for any slight misquotes - I tried to find the quotes in the book but some I just wrote and hoped for the best 

[DJA]

Hotspur's complexities as a character

Zezima - Considered Hotspur and wrote up some contrasting ideas in text response format – hope this helps

(Sorry I'm admittedly not Lauren..IMPOSTER you say)

-Hotspur’s growth over the play as a character on the political stage (to an extent):
While Hotspur’s core identity centres around his subscription to an ideal of martial honour, over the course of the play we see a character who while hampered by passions and emotional outbursts, begins to at least recognise the importance of pragmatic thought and rationality. In Hotspur’s enthused acceptance and recognition of the “indentures” of political machination offered by his uncle Worcester, culminating in the Percy prince’s exclamation “it is exceedingly well aimed”, Shakespeare illuminates his burgeoning acceptance of politicking as a valid method of achieving personal motives rather than outright combat. Indeed in the lead up to the battle of the closing Act, Shakespeare presents to us a leader who prioritises patience rather than rash action. Hotspur’s answer to Blunt’s offer of dubious “pardon” from the king, “We’ll withdraw a while…in the morning early shall mine uncle/Bring him our purposes” implicates logical and rational thought; this is a man who has matured to the point that he is able to see the value in considering the proposition over night rather than making a hasty decision on the spur of the moment.

-A more positive view of Hotspur's honour as inherently admirable (even though he dies as a result arguably):
While Hotspur’s martial honour is one that is ultimately incompatible with a Plantagenet world of scheming and manipulation, it is nonetheless admirable in and of itself. Hotspur stands apart from other characters in his unwillingness to deceive and or to don the “vizards” of deception and manipulation to achieve personal ambitions. Rather Shakespeare presents to us a man who is steeped in a Medieval tradition of the past, illuminating a warrior identity of chivalry and honour that goes beyond ruthless realpolitik. The hyperbolic imagery of his claims to “pluck honour” from the “moon” and from the depths of the “deep”, suggests his wholehearted and loyal subscription to the notion of honour; Hotspur is a man who will go to any length to reclaim “banished honour” and win the praise of the people. Indeed we see just how commendable these noble qualities are in the attitudes and veneration from the characters around him. Even Henry IV is drawn to praise the young Percy, declaring his nature as a “valiant and approved Scot”, “gallant” in every way. As Hotspur in the final act rallies his troops with the stirring cry “Now Esperance! Percy!”, upholding the honour of his family name to the last, we are aligned with the incorrigible young Percy and his desire for his men to “each...do his best”, no more and no less.

-Hotspur’s deficiencies in terms of his patriarchal and misogynistic and classist attitudes
While we can admire Hotspur’s martial honour, our respect for the young Percy is undermined by his baser qualities, most prominent among them being his patriarchal attitudes towards his wife and his classist attitudes. In the first meeting we see between Hotspur and Lady Percy, Hotspur’s dismissal of his own wife as a “trifler” and his declarations “I love thee not”, “I care not for thee, Kate” foreground Hotspur’s prioritisation of the “sport” of war above all else. Hotspur cannot see his wife as an individual in her own right; he is unable to confide in her and answer the “question” that she asks. He treats her as little more than an extension of his own identity, ordering her to cease questioning him and exhibiting overt patriarchal attitudes in his branding of her as “yet a woman”. Worse still is his crass mockery of his wife in opening scene of Act three. In response to his wife’s coarse language, he imitates her in jest “Not you, in good sooth!” and compares her to a “comfit maker’s wife”, undermining not just her freedom to express herself in any way that she chooses, but also dismissing her noble blood. Compounding these less commendable qualities is the implication of “comfit maker’s wife” - the insult that he throws at his wife - for it is here that we also recognise his dismissal of the lower classes. In contrast to Hal who sees the “wisdom” of the common people, Hotspur sees them as below his heroic stature.

[literally lauren]

(Sorry I'm admittedly not Lauren..IMPOSTER you say)

*cue Falstaffian mock outrage* DEPOSE ME!?
No but seriously, +1s to everyone for contributing here.

Zezima, the interpretation of Hotspur as an honour-bound, outmoded cliche is the dominant one, so you can definitely discuss that on safe ground. However, alternate readings can always help add a dimension or two, so I'll build on what's already here as well as contribute some other views on both him and Falstaff, since I think we've pretty much covered Hal.

DJA, I would agree that there is too much ambiguity for definitive proof, but this is the sort of thing you can acknowledge in your essay. Way to many responses ignore the fact that this is a play, or rather, a document used for performance; a medium that is inherently less stable than a novel. Acknowledging the dramaturgy can be quite beneficial, especially for some of the more resonant lines, most notable "I do. I will." Is this delivered with an air of self-righteousness and duty (as in the RSC version) or with a sense of solemnity and resignation (as in the BBC version)?
Also (I swear I'll stop getting distracted soon) there is a really clever critic who noted this "I do. I will" functions on multiple levels. It could be:

• "I do" as Henry IV, "I will" as Henry V (a reference to 2HIV in which Hal, now Henry V formally banishes Falstaff, thus this line is proleptic of his change in allegiance. This the most likely interpretation of the RSC Globe version; video is a few posts above.)
• "I do" as Henry IV, "I will" as Hal (hints at a more emotional banishment)
• "I do" though not just yet, "I will" later (even more emphasis on the fondness Hal has for Falstaff - this would be delivered much more solemnly)

∴ not only are there the role-playing dynamics evident within this scene, but also some noteworthy ambiguities for Hal's character that a performance/interpretation must address.

Anywho, most of my posts here are unnavigatably long, so I'll break this up a bit:

Hotspur

Hotspur is the “theme of honour’s tongue” but shows excessive honour. Whereas Hal internalises honour, Hotspur glorifies it as a code of honour that is both intrinsic and external. Hotspur is livid at a “certain lord” on the battlefield who “talks like a gentlewoman”, showing his  conformity towards an archaic and rigid conception of honour. At the end of his life Hotspur laments not the loss of “brittle life” but the “proud title” that Hal has won from him, inarguably suggesting  that it is Hotspur's obstinance and inability compromise in challenging times that causes his downfall. This is characterised by Hotspur’s hot-headedness, when he openly insults his ally, Glendower. The ostensibly unprovoked outburst where he proclaims that he had "rather live on cheese and garlic" than listen to Glendower talk coupled with the undiplomatic assertion that at Glendower's “birth/our grandma earth… in passion shook” highlights the small and hubristic mistakes that a great warrior may make that renders him “dishonourable”, delineating the idea that political machinations and attainment of honour extend beyond the battlefield into the lenses of interpersonal relationships and personal character.

Firstly, it's worth unpicking why Hotspur's honour is in excess. In any other tale, he'd be the hero, and this is certainly how he thinks of himself --> very much a pastiche of a valorous knight riding into battle, plucking up drowned honour and being all manly-like. But to go back to the idea of performance for a moment, is Hotsper to be played as a dangerously inept contradiction of a man, a risible, anachronism, or even a laudable character in amidst all the deceptive political machinations? It would seem Shakespeare wants us to herald Hal as the leader Gotham England both deserves and needs, but his treatment of Hotspur varies form scene to scene.

His interplay with Kate is quite telling; I always imagined this to be a great encapsulation of their relationship:

Her: a loving, doting wife who asks for little more than his wondrous company
Him: the put-upon gentleman who would rather be smashing crowns thank you very much.

Or perhaps Kate is more self-aware than we give her credit for, and she is more like a weary, desperate woman who is all too accustomed to her husband's ill-treatment of her.

By contrast, Hotspur's death scene could be played to either comic or tragic effect. (Note the Elizabethan understanding of 'comedy' was one that involved a cyclical unity, as opposed to tragedy's linear downfall; it doesn't mean laugh-out-loud amusement.) Perhaps his literal death was inevitable given the exigencies of his character; the Hotspurian idea of honour died long ago, so there is no place for him here (read: two paces of the vilest earth is enough, in contrast to his vainglorious ego.)

However, we could also examine Hotspur through the lens of justice, and this ties in with the idea of his attitudes being "unprovoked." He claims (repeatedly, almost ad nauseum) to be a man of honour restoring the kingdom to its rightful state, and yet when we see the rebels dividing up the land, there is a great deal of petty squabbling about whose section is cut off by the river and who gets a better view etc. Originally, the land would have all been Mortimer's (or perhaps another side character... Glendower maybe? My memory's fuzzy here) but the point is Hotspur's motivations are just as unfounded as his morality.

Furthermore, Hotspur is not only trumped by Hal's acumen, but is also exploited by his own camp (~Act 5, Scene 2: :Worcester and Vernon discuss how they will withhold information from him --> for his own good? Would Hotspur's campaign and system of values be more tenable if everyone was as honest as he?)

In terms of his comic role, there are a couple of amusing moments:
- his refusal to listen to messages arriving before battle, probably containing critical information; instead he rallies his men and declares "life is short." You can't help but picture a bunch of guys rolling their eyes behind him while he makes this grandiose, Braveheart-esque speech.
- consider the humorous incongruity of his refusal to handover prisoners because of the way a 'popinjay' spoke to him.
- his bellowing for his hourse towards the end is not too dissimilar from Hal's parody of him "...give my roan horse a drench..."

However, as DJA astutely noted in his positive paragraph, it is difficult to refute his character entirely, as he embodies some of the objectively greatest values. But I think what Shakespeare is suggesting here is that the intent and rhetoric are no longer sufficient in the new political landscape; that someone with the shrewdness and hyper-awareness of image like Hal is ultimately better suited to leadership.

Falstaff

This might be somewhat scattered since I can't find all my neatly ordered notes, but here was my go-to interpretation regarding Falstaff:

His trickery is deliberately transparent. He fools no one, least of all the audience, because he doesn't need to. When we're talking about the spectrum of role-playing, we have Hotspur down one end, and though he's not entirely deluded, he never quite fully becomes his role. Hal is somewhere in the middle, vascillating between roles (which, depending on how you look at it, bould hint at a degree of self-division.) Hal possess the same proficiency as Falstaff in his language and customs, but he is more capricious in his choice of roles. (Or you could argue he's just a conniving sonovabitch, but I'll concede there's some degree of apprehension in his character.) But even Hal is never fully subsumed by orgiastic debauchery, nor ris he fully committed to integrity. Finally we have Falstaff whose liability to percipience is made all the more stark by this comparison.

To Falstaff, a dead man, however honourable in life, is a "mere counterfiet" now. His idea of reality and truth is based in 'living deep and sucking out all the marrow of life' to borrow a phrase from Thoreau, (though here, marrow=sack ). He kind of gives this away during the play extempore; that line about speaking "not in words, but in passion." He may lie verbally, but he is successful in his own mind because he remains alive, and wholly himself. His spirit survives largely unscathed.

However, we then have the problem of his "mere scutcheon" soliloquy. This telling criticism of honour reveals that there is profit to be made from exploitinig "mortal men," and undertaking most characters exercise w/o moral qualms (Hotspur=exception) and in this sense, Falstaff can be considered a self-aware parody.

In The Hollow Crown series, this scene delivered extremely solemnly, and I'm actually not a fan of this version because it underplays the complexities of Falstaff's character. Instead of trying to reconcile his bombast and hedonism with his remarkably astute insight into the motivations of those around him, they instead make him out to be two completely different characters in these scenes.

The play is so much more than this, it examines the nature and futility of way, the effectiveness of political machinations, and it's subversive in the resonance of its comedy *in the Elizabethan sense. This could so easily have been a tragic tale of a prodigal prince gone wrong, or of the downfall of the white knight, or an outright Comedy like the Merry Wives of Windsor which features Falstaff minus a lot of his wit and insight. Instead we have a far more multilayered text that is lumped in with the history plays mainly because academics wouldn't know where to put it otherwise. Also, it fits into a category of about 8 other plays about guys called 'Henry,' so I guess it makes sense.

What we see in Falstaff's tavern world is a far more generous environment than the political battlefields. Even in Falstaff's mocking play with cushions for crowns, he sees fit to dub his fellow onlookers "nobility" and Mistress Quickly his "sweet, tristful Queen." Falstaff is not totally anarchic, there is an internal method to his madness, and a logic in his world.

Some other bits and pieces you might want to explore:

• Falstaff cannot be judged by an ethical view he so demonstrably rejects
• Falstaff is a necessary corrective to the vacuous high chivalry of the play
• Blunt's "honour" is proof of now insubstantial and "insensible" these abstracts are to Falstaff, and how little need he has of them
• The Kind dismisses Falstaff as a representative of poor, bare, lewd, rude society, but in the end it is Falstaff's zest, gaiety, wit and warmth that wins audiences.
• 'Falstaff is both the chief joker, and the chief joke.' (This was from one of the articles I read, definitely debatable.)
• To Falstaff HAl doesn't represent the safety of status and state (though this is what he pretends to be concerned with.) Rather, it is the sustenance and provision of sack that drives his relationship. <--also debatable.

Lastly, an open challenge. What is the significance of the deaths in this play?
-though we're using 'death' here to include counterfeiting and subterfuge as well.
A hint:
Hotspur dies once by Hal's hand, and 'dies' once by Falstaff's
Falstaff 'dies' once, by his own hand             *<^ in both of these cases, Hal's reflections are not truly final eulogies.
Henry 'dies' multiple counterfeit deaths, but never his own.

I've also got some academic articles floating around so I'll see if I can scan some copies if anyone's interested.

Happy studying!

[literally lauren]

Since I can't upload files the size, I found online versions of two of the articles, hopefully these will help

'The Player Prince: Hal in Henry IV Part 1' by David Boyd
Henry IV Part 1: 'Harmony of Contrasts?' by J.P. Roche

[DJA]

I love your vocab Lauren.

Literally copying down new words into my vocab list from your post hahaha

I mean seriously WHAT'S A RISABLE??

[literally lauren]

Whoops, that was a mistype of 'risible,' my bad :p haha

[DJA]

Whoops, that was a mistype of 'risible,' my bad :p haha

Nah all good - I thought it was just some cool new word that you made and that I was determined to use somehow.

All good writers make up their own vocab let's be honest here.

[M_BONG]

In The Hollow Crown series, this scene delivered extremely solemnly, and I'm actually not a fan of this version because it underplays the complexities of Falstaff's character. Instead of trying to reconcile his bombast and hedonism with his remarkably astute insight into the motivations of those around him, they instead make him out to be two completely different characters in these scenes.

Can you elaborate a little bit more on this cuz I always thought Falstaff as an insensitive (almost unaware or clueless) person who has a simplistic and innocent view of people around him, especially when his horse was being hidden by Hal and others as a prank. I would argue that he is unaware of the human condition - unable to manipulate people. He lies about the thieves robbing him and can't put a lie properly without screwing up and he can't control the people around him who reveals that he told them to smear themselves with speargrass to make it look like bad. To me, Falstaff is completely transparent, unaware of motivations of other people. And he doesn't seem to notice how Hal is manipulating him to augment his pre-ordanied "transformation". So why do you say Falstaff knows the motivations of people around him?

-Hotspur’s growth over the play as a character on the political stage (to an extent):[/i]

Does Hotspur really grow? I mean before the most important battle of his life he is basically saying hooray my father Northumberland is ill, makes me look better because if I solo everyone I look better = still the naive man that he is. Also, after Hal kills him he says I don't care if you have taken away my brittle life, I care that you have taken honour away from me. I think Shakespeare deliberately used this scene to suggest that Hotspur is still the hot-headed man that he is even at his death - his fatal flaw and he doesn't change at all from this. Right before the battle he also says that "I do defy/The tongue of soothers" aka. I don't care about pleasing people, I will say whatever the hell I want.


Also, I read through the quote that you mentioned - "we'll withdraw a while". which you claim to implicate logical thinking. I read it as him not trusting Blount to pass on the message to the king properly (Hotspur being paranoid, as he always is) and he wants his uncle to go instead of Blount passing on the message.

--

I think the way Hal, Hotspur and Falstaff work is that they all fit on a spectrum. Falstaff is at one end and Hotspur the other. Falstaff does not disregard honour but he wants superficial recognition more than honour => he wants to be the one to be recognised for Hotspur's death so he can be "some earl or duke". Which brings to question, how was he knighted?  Also, he wants superficial names/epithets once Hal beomes king - "Let us be Diana's foresters, gentlemen of the shade" etc. He does not internalise honour, rather he wants to be seen to be recognised by others to be honourable even though he wouldn't put any effort himself in acquiring it. To him, men are mere "food for powder" and "he that rewards me, God rewards him". Falstaff, in my view, is almost your classic version of "sour grapes" -> can't get honour, say it's a bad thing. But secretly, he is smitten and wants others to see him as honourable.

I think Lauren makes a good point about Vernon and Worcester withholding the king's offers from Hotspur. Because people can't trust Hotspur for the person that he is. Hot-headed and irrational. Had they revealed the king's plea for peace to Hotspur, Hotspur would in all likelihood dance around, bragging - all at his own loss because his complacency could mean the king killing him without him being aware.

Alsp, Hotspur has too much honour because he glorifies honour - his life is about honour and life without honour is not life. Hal has a balance, he is occasionally consumed by debauchery, hangs around Falstaff who LOVVEES the whorehouses. Directly contrasted against this is Hotspur who has lost his "stomach, pleasure" (AKA sex). Hal knows to enjoy himself (fits in with the common man) whilst Hotspur is just a man who appears hyper focused on one thing and can't change. All this was written by Shakespeare during or near the time of Queen Elizabeth I (the "virgin" queen)'s reign. QE1 was a "people's queen" married to the people of England. Thus, it can be said that Shakespeare mirrors some aspects of QE1 in Hal as Hal is schematic in his ability to converse with the people (unlike his father). Shakespeare could be showing why Hal is more successful - he can garner support of all of society (not just members of the gentry) and this is what makes him a good leader like QE1 As Douglas says to Hotspur"Thou art the King of Honour" and really to me, that sounds comedic because WTH cares if you are the king of honour. Falstaff's soliloquy almost resounds back sharply - "honour has no skill in surgery" - almost shutting down Hotspur. Also, Hotspur not only has honour, he has an irremovable superiority complex. When Worcester claims "Oh, How you cross my father", Hotspur says "I have no choice". He is the person that he is, tackless and unable to engage in any wise plans to become the true King (instead of merely being the King of Honour).

Whilst Hal is the conniving man that he always is. He hangs out in Eastcheap really to make himself look better once he decides to change. It's like how a person who gets a D+ looks REALLLY good once he gets an A whereas a guy who gets B+ doesn't look as good once he moves to an A. He wants to appear saint-like. Like Falstaff says "art thou indeed/Able to corrupt a saint". He wants to have this aura surrounding him as if he was touched by the god - THE LEGITIMATE KING (since Kings were god's representative back then) like a saint repenting for his mistakes. Also, Hal has no real respect for his friends at Eastcheap. "I know you all"... He almost feels sorry for himself for hanging around these "loggerheads", having "sounded the very bass string of humilty". It is unequivolcal that Hal doesn't give a crap about Eastcheap - he feels sorry for himself for hanging out with the lowest wrung of society (the very bass string of humility).
 He is WELL AWARE of his father's worries - who questions why he "holds their level with thy princely heart". Hal knows he is a bad child, he knows his father's kingdom is "shaken" but he is doing it for a deeper motive - to appear a better king than his father to the people - to be the bad child who repents and becomes a saint due to the words of god..... I mean he says to his father "I shall make this northern youth exchange/His glorious deeds for my indignities". Hal knows that Hotspur, at the moment, emanates glory and he merely "indignities". Basically Hal is aware of the fact that he is in a hellhole, Hotspur isn't. The difference here is that Hal can change things around, Hotspur can't because Hal has a plan, Hotspur doesn't and never has.

So I would argue that no one changes in the play...

Can anyone compare their interpretations with mine again? Thanks This is after one day of closer reading.. would love to have it critiqued

[DJA]

Does Hotspur really grow? I mean before the most important battle of his life he is basically saying hooray my father Northumberland is ill, makes me look better because if I solo everyone I look better = still the naive man that he is. Also, after Hal kills him he says I don't care if you have taken away my brittle life, I care that you have taken honour away from me. I think Shakespeare deliberately used this scene to suggest that Hotspur is still the hot-headed man that he is even at his death - his fatal flaw and he doesn't change at all from this. Right before the battle he also says that "I do defy/The tongue of soothers" aka. I don't care about pleasing people, I will say whatever the hell I want.

Yes I agree with you hence - why it's important to see this quality in Hotspur as (to an extent). You wouldn't argue that Hotspur changes over the course of the play, you would argue that his passions, subscription to honour and flaws stay with him to the end but he also at least begins to see the validity of more rational thought before action.

Hotspur is overall, hotheaded and passionate to a fault and up untill his death - that's undeniable and that's what I would personally focus on for the greatest part of a paragraph.
Indeed before his battle he gets a "letter" and laughably says "I cannot read them now" - dismissing this maybe vital piece of information in favour of battle - Lauren pointed this out.

However, I think it would be a fallacy to just dismiss him as an impetus Medieval avenger type figure.
If I analyse Hotspur, I will always try and find a facet of complexity in him - as such you mentioned:
"I mean before the most important battle of his life he is basically saying hooray my father Northumberland is ill, makes me look better because if I solo everyone I look better = still the naive man that he is. "
I read this differently - I think its important to take into consideration the divide between inner thought and outer action. Hotspur may seem blusteringly confident and hotheaded on the outside, but what about his inner thoughts and contemplations?
Our first hint into this is of course the troubled sleep that his wife Kate describes - I'll refer you to Act 2 Scene 3 where we learn of Hotspur's "faint slumbers" and his sleepwalking - "murmur talks of iron wars". We can see that inside, he is not as confident in their plans of war as he makes out to be - this is a man who is uncertain and troubled on the INTERIOR.
In this light, I don't think its valid to see his stoic statements that his father's illness will make him look better on the battlefield as what he ACTUALLY feels and thinks - we can see this as more of a blustering attempt to prove his confidence in the eyes of his troops and also to perhaps convince himself that their course of action will succeed even if his father isn't actually there.
Supporting this reading is the dichotomy between Hotspur's words in Act 4 Scene 1 when he first actually hears of his father's absence from the battlefield and his later statements that this fact is not in reality a hindrance to their plans. For at first Hotspur admits in horror and dismay "This sickness doth infect The very lifeblood our enterprise" line 28, suggesting that he realises deep down and quite definitively that his father's absence is a negative and damper on their plans of war.
In this way, Hotspur's seemingly thoughtless, confident and blustering statements are undermined - while he may later say things like "No harm, what more", laughing off any hindrance to their plans, we as an audience understand that Hotspur knows within himself the flaws to their plans.

Also, I read through the quote that you mentioned - "we'll withdraw a while". which you claim to implicate logical thinking. I read it as him not trusting Blount to pass on the message to the king properly (Hotspur being paranoid, as he always is) and he wants his uncle to go instead of Blount passing on the message.

First of all where else has Hotspur been paranoid - paranoia suggests a distrust and suspicion of others which is a quality which I see most pertinently in Henry IV and the political manipulators of the play, not Hotspur. Hotspur for mine is too trusting - I mean he trusts his family - upholding his family name to the point that he has no idea that Worcester is in reality seeking his own ends and survival - his own uncle essentially betrays him through withholding key information.
I can't see him as paranoid tbh - any evidence to the contrary would be greatly appreciated!

While I can somewhat accept your reading of his "withdraw awhile", doesn't his 'not trusting Blunt to pass on the message to the king' if you are reading it that way suggest a rational - logical conclusion and action in not wanting Blunt to pass on an erroneous message to the King.
I mean if we dismiss Hotspur as 100% hotheaded and passionate to a tee, then he wouldn't even consider this fact - he would just make a quick knee-jerk decision as to them not accepting the peace offer and send Blunt off to the king to deliver the message - he wouldn't even consider that Blunt wouldn't be trusted.
In this way, Hotspur has grown to an extent. We can't see the passionate young Percy from his opening speech to the king at the start of the play, being this suspicious of people/taking the time to think over a course of action (depending on your reading).
If we take a reading of Hotspur NOT growing at all, it is easy to alternatively present the view that Hotspur has these more rational qualities within him - as evidenced in this moment - but for the most part they are obscured by his emotions/passions.

[M_BONG]

Hi Lauren, Dj and others

Do you think Hal changes genuinely in the play?

 I was initially skeptical about his true transformation, and the interpretation that it is all an act works well - especially his soliloquy, his treatment of those in Eastcheap and his calculated moves, of waiting for Hotspur to screw up because he is 'but my factor'.  There are a plethora of examples that would suggest he doesn't change internally and in his own words, only for a while "uphold the yolk of idleness".

But I talked to my teacher today and he said that there is also no reason to suggest he doesn't change out of his own accords AKA he's not actually putting on a show. And he said I would be accused of being too extreme or unsubstantiated by some assessors for saying Hal is acting everything, especially when his soliloquy is so early on that he could have changed.

He said, at best,  Shakespeare leaves ambiguities as to Hal's changes - that at worst, Hal has some dark intentions but he genuinely wants to change for the better. As I think about it more, this seems to make sense and there is not a strand of the play that actually refutes Hal's genuine change (unless I were to do some research on Henry IV part 2 or Henry V...)

Thoughts?

Also, I am still making my mind up: if I decide that I want to stick with my own interpretation, should I moderate it a little bit to pander to the whims of my teacher? I mean, he has a tendency to mark my ideas down if he disagrees personally with them....

[DJA]

Hi Lauren, Dj and others

Do you think Hal changes genuinely in the play?

 I was initially skeptical about his true transformation, and the interpretation that it is all an act works well - especially his soliloquy, his treatment of those in Eastcheap and his calculated moves, of waiting for Hotspur to screw up because he is 'but my factor'.  There are a plethora of examples that would suggest he doesn't change internally and in his own words, only for a while "uphold the yolk of idleness".

But I talked to my teacher today and he said that there is also no reason to suggest he doesn't change out of his own accords AKA he's not actually putting on a show. And he said I would be accused of being too extreme or unsubstantiated by some assessors for saying Hal is acting everything, especially when his soliloquy is so early on that he could have changed.

He said, at best,  Shakespeare leaves ambiguities as to Hal's changes - that at worst, Hal has some dark intentions but he genuinely wants to change for the better. As I think about it more, this seems to make sense and there is not a strand of the play that actually refutes Hal's genuine change (unless I were to do some research on Henry IV part 2 or Henry V...)

Thoughts?

Also, I am still making my mind up: if I decide that I want to stick with my own interpretation, should I moderate it a little bit to pander to the whims of my teacher? I mean, he has a tendency to mark my ideas down if he disagrees personally with them....

Zezima for my opinion I'll refer you my earlier post in which I argue the times that Hal does change with evidence and the like. 
Scroll until you find the post named "Argument that Hal CHANGES in the play"

Overall my opinion can be summed up thus: Hal's central Machiavellian qualities do not change throughout the play. His transformation is a change of his mindset shown in his move from shunning responsibility and indulging his desires as a youth with the commoners to truly embracing the "princely heart" and duty that he exhibits later in the play.

With the bolded part of what you said, my initial response is no - I wouldn't change your interpretation (if it is sound and you can back it up) just for your teacher. Your teacher won't be marking your exam end of year so it won't matter. You should only take his advice on if there is a solid case to be made for changing your interpretation.

Hope this helps!

[deekay]

You can argue that Hal does not change at all during the play but the 'transformation' that takes place is the impression of Hal to the audience.

His guise to the audience as a 'truant to chivalry' reveals to be a ploy of greater machination of his own creation to establish a dichotomy between his actions and his true nature to later contrast his reformation from his 'shadow of succession' into an heir seemingly fit for the throne.

Also -
Hal's time in the tavern world to the audience seems to be a potential subversion of his political desire and fate, is later revealed to be the product of that desire. Shakespeare displays a carefully calculated intemperance within Hal to make his 'reformation' be 'more wondered at'.