• In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

Henry IV (Part 1), Act 5

#135: Dec. - Jan. 2015 (Fiction)
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17016
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3507 times
Been thanked: 1310 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Henry IV (Part 1), Act 5

Unread post

Henry IV (Part 1), Act 5

Please use this thread to discuss Henry IV (Part 1), Act 5.
User avatar
Taylor

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Awesome
Posts: 959
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:39 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 422 times
Been thanked: 589 times

Re: Henry IV (Part 1), Act 5

Unread post

In the immortal words of Albus Dumbledore we "Open at the close"

King:
"Rebellion in this land shall lose his sway,
Meeting the check of such another day;
and since this business so fare is done,
Let us not leave till all our own be won".

Shrewsbury is a great success for the Crown, The death of the rebels greatest champion has the survivors running to the hills.

In the beginning there is a rising of a feeble Sun. Bad weather portending a bad day, The King does not want war with his subjects, but is resolved to do them in for the sake of England.

There is a last minute appeal to peace by the rebels, But only on their terms which started this mess in the first place. Hal offers to settle matters in a death challenge to Hotspur, The King rejects this offer, as well he should, I don't think victory by either Hal or Hotspur would settle underlying issues.

In this exchange between King, Worcester and Hal, we find the none other than Falstaff is present for these proceedings.

Worcester:
"I have not sought the day of this dislike".
King:
You have not sought it? How comes it then?
Falstaff:
Rebellion lay in his way, and he found it.
Prince: to Falstaff
Peace, chewet, peace.

I can picture Falstaff lurking about, looking fat and ingratiating in the presence of the king. even here Hal is looking out for his odd friendship with an" ox with the pudding in his belly". How bold is Falstaff in the first place? He's the very thing the King laments of his son. Hal has essentially shushed Falstaff, obviously keeping his attention from the King.

Time to get ready for last minute shopping for even heathens respect this time of year, I for one wouldn't show up for Christmas dinner without an arm full of gifts to exchange. Merry Christmas People.
Last edited by Taylor on Sat Dec 20, 2014 10:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Taylor

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Awesome
Posts: 959
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:39 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 422 times
Been thanked: 589 times

Re: Henry IV (Part 1), Act 5

Unread post

I have decided that I am all in for Falstaff, His is a kinship towards Hal that to me can be compared to a step fatherly type relationship. I think there is genuine attachment between these two, for instance....

Falstaff:
Hal, if thou see me down in the battle and bestride
me, so. Tis a point of friendship.
Prince:
Nothing but a colossus can do thee that friendship.
Say thy prayers, and farewell
Falstaff:
I would 'twere bedtime, Hal and all well.
Prince:
Why, thou owest God a death.
Falstaff:
tis not due yet. etc. and so on..

Its at this point that Falstaff goes into his better part of valor contemplation.

This exchange between the two, pin-points the honesty of their relationship. Pragmatic I think might be the word to use at this time to describe the anxiety present in these two just prior to conquest through war.
Of course for everyone involved angst is omnipresent. Bluster, bravado, these things are meaningless, humbleness, humility in the face of bigger things, leads to an honest repose.

Hotspur:
I thank him that he cuts me from my tale,
For I profess not talking, Only this;
Let each man do his best. And here I draw a sword,
Whose temper I intend to stain
With the best blood that I can meet withal
in the adventure of this perilous day.
Now, Esperance! Percy! and set on!
sound all the lofty instruments of war,
and by that music let us all embrace,
For, Heaven to Earth, some of us never shall
A second time do such a courtesy.

I think here Hotspur shows humility to the challenge ahead, all things in life should be approached with this type of determination.

Hal and Falstaff I think give us a modern ideal of tolerance that was uncommon at a time of uncharitable obedience to a class structure of ignorance and cruelty that surrounded them. I think theirs is a sort of surrogate relationship, both idealist caught up in the reality of life in there time. A rejection of status quo, but both having an enforced roll to play.
Last edited by Taylor on Sun Dec 21, 2014 9:34 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Henry IV (Part 1), Act 5

Unread post

Taylor wrote:I have decided that I am all in for Falstaff, His is a kinship towards Hal that to me can be compared to a step fatherly type relationship. I think there is genuine attachment between these two, for instance....
Hi Taylor, Thanks.
On a second reading of some passages, I'm inclined to agree with you that there is an affection between these two. A central theme seems to be courage and honour and it's meaning and value.
The soliloquies are a device to give the audience the real thoughts and feelings of the protagonists so these provide the best guide to the real motives and ideas of the characters.
Falstaff and Hal seem to embody two extremes. Falstaff that bravery and honour are worthless and foolish as in the proverb; "A living dog is better than a dead lion." Still he's prepared to use the currency cynically for self promotion as when claiming he killed Hotspur. Falstaff throws Hotspur's body down casually like a sack of potatoes, reflecting his estimation of Hotspur's reckless pursuit of honour through battle,when the deck was loaded against him.
Hal though has his own agenda based on the prevailing notions of bravery and honour. A calculated plan to lower public expectation of him and a desire for a glory by defeating Hotspur and so showing that Hotspurs glory really belongs to him.
The question is though whether this is real or a kind of vainglory?
In the real political world things are not simple and the various parties have personal aims and ambitions. Douglas may be an enemy to Hotspur one day and an ally the next.
Mortimor the king's ally and brave warrior becomes the enemy when captured then marrying enemy Glendower's daughter.
So the achievement of glory through bravery by Hal must be measured against the real world of scheming,desire for land and power, and the fickleness that seems to pervade this world.
Could a wounded barfly like Hal really have defeated someone like Hotspur in hand to hand combat? I doubt it.
And how great was the overall victory given the turn of events heavily favouring the king's army and perhaps the decimated ragtag army of Falstaff's is a pointer to the real price of glory and honour in that world.
It would seem that neither Falstaff or Hal represent anything of real meaning or worth.
The king really wants peace in the land but it's beyond his control,and at the same time would prefer a crusade against the pagans as a 'virtuous' war.
Shakespeare plays fast and loose with history and seeks to entertain, and as was said in an earlier post had to be careful in his presentation given the reality of monarchy in his own day.
Last edited by Flann 5 on Sun Dec 21, 2014 10:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Taylor

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Awesome
Posts: 959
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:39 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 422 times
Been thanked: 589 times

Re: Henry IV (Part 1), Act 5

Unread post

Flann5 wrote:
Hal though has his own agenda based on the prevailing notions of bravery and honour. A calculated plan to lower public expectation of him and a desire for a glory by defeating Hotspur and so showing that Hotspurs glory really belongs to him.
I think I understand what your saying, both Falstaff and Hal use Hotspur in their respective notions for self advancement as an expedient, is Hal out to lower himself in the public eye or to lower public perception of Hotspur?

In perusing Richard 2 I found an interesting exchange between Henry 4 and Hotspur,

King:
Can no man tell me of my unthrifty son?
'Tis full three months since I did see him last.
If any plague hang over us, 'tis he.
I would to God, my lords, he might be found.
Inquire at London, 'mongst the taverns there
For there, they say, he daily doth frequent
With unrestrained loose companions,
Even such, they say, as stand in narrow lanes
And beat our watch and rob our passengers,
While he, young wanton and effeminate boy,
Takes on the point of honor to support
So dissolute a crew.
Percy:
My lord some two days since I saw the Prince,
And told of those triumphs held at Oxford.
King Henry:
And what said the gallant?
Percy:
His answer was, he would unto the stews,
And from the common'st creature pluck the glove
and wear it as favor, and with that
He would unhorse the lustiest challenger.
King Henry:
AS dissolute as desperate. Yet through both
I see some sparks of better hope, which elder years
May happily bring forth.

I think all characters demonstrate propensity to public expectation.
Flann 5 wrote:
It would seem that neither Falstaff or Hal represent anything of real meaning or worth.
Your right, but they are as real as times allow.
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Henry IV (Part 1), Act 5

Unread post

Taylor wrote: I think all characters demonstrate propensity to public expectation.
I think that's true.
Kings generally were more concerned about the powerful landowning nobility than the general public.
The wars of the Roses were basically a family dispute about who was entitled to the crown and rule of England.
There is the theme of Hal's relationship with his dad King Henry. Henry wishes that Hotspur was his son rather than Hal as Hotspur exemplifies bravery and honour.
Yet Hotspur rebels against the king,and Hal who is a rebel of a different sort shows his loyalty finally by disposing of Hotspur!
Shakespeare is quite lenient towards king Henry as far as real history goes. Henry ruthlessly seized power and murdered Richard who was understandably out of favour at the time.
As I say,redemption and reconciliation comes through loyalty shown in warrior bravery,yet in the background is the whole history of wars,land grabs and murders.
The ordinary people and soldiers are the proverbial cannon fodder in these power games, and well represented as pawns in the medieval imagery of the chess set.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Henry IV (Part 1), Act 5

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote:The soliloquies are a device to give the audience the real thoughts and feelings of the protagonists so these provide the best guide to the real motives and ideas of the characters.
Falstaff and Hal seem to embody two extremes. Falstaff that bravery and honour are worthless and foolish as in the proverb; "A living dog is better than a dead lion." Still he's prepared to use the currency cynically for self promotion as when claiming he killed Hotspur. Falstaff throws Hotspur's body down casually like a sack of potatoes, reflecting his estimation of Hotspur's reckless pursuit of honour through battle,when the deck was loaded against him.
Hal though has his own agenda based on the prevailing notions of bravery and honour. A calculated plan to lower public expectation of him and a desire for a glory by defeating Hotspur and so showing that Hotspurs glory really belongs to him..
Perhaps one of the reasons we like Falstaff, despite the fact that he’s a bit of a cad, is that he isn’t afraid to to speak his mind. We see this mixing of kings and clowns in other Shakespeare plays. The Fool is typically the only character capable of speaking the truth because everyone else is caught up in keeping up appearances. In King Lear, for example, after the King loses his power and is reduced to wandering the countryside, the Fool is making irreverent comments that cut through all the bullshit. We see this in Hamlet as well. The Gravedigger talks about death as the final equalizer, which helps the Prince accept the ultimate meaning of his destiny.

So I keep thinking about Shakespeare’s comments about the role of society (all the world’s a stage and we are merely players). The King in Henry IV, more than anyone, has to play a role. And Hal arguably resists his role at first. Or he recognizes his role all too well. Maybe he’s both procrastinating and positioning himself for the ulitimate comeback at the same time. I just don’t know!

In any event, we know Falstaff’s heart’s in the right place when he mouths off in front of the King and Hal has to shush him up. The Earl of Worcester makes a disingenuous comment about not seeking this “day of dislike” (the rebellion), and Falstaff says sarcastically, yeah, right, rebellion just happened to lay in his way, and he found it.

Hal, despite all of his posturing to look good for the people, apparently lets Falstaff take the credit for killing Hotspur. Is it because he recognizes the truth of what Falstaff says about honor?

“What is honour? a word. What is in that word honour?
What is that honour? Air. A trim reckoning!
Who hath it? He that died o’ Wednesday. Doth he feel it? no.
Doth he hear it? no. ‘Tis insensible, then. Yea,
to the dead. But will it not live with the living?
no. Why? detraction will not suffer it. Therefore
I’ll none of it. Honour is a mere scutcheon: and so
ends my catechism.

We see nobility in Hal’s actions. And Falstaff shows his usual willingness to capitalize on the honor of killing Hotspur even while he views honor with contempt. This is a complex character, and the relationship between Hal and Falstaff sort of defies all logic. Maybe Hal respects Falstaff's ability to see the world without filters and is willing to make many concessions for his old friend. But how will it be between the two of them when Hal eventually becomes King? This takes us full circle back to Falstaff's questions from Act 1.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Taylor

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Awesome
Posts: 959
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:39 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 422 times
Been thanked: 589 times

Re: Henry IV (Part 1), Act 5

Unread post

Geo wrote:
We see nobility in Hal’s actions. And Falstaff shows his usual willingness to capitalize on the honor of killing Hotspur even while he views honor with contempt. This is a complex character, and the relationship between Hal and Falstaff sort of defies all logic. Maybe Hal respects Falstaff's ability to see the world without filters and is willing to make many concessions for his old friend. But how will it be between the two of them when Hal eventually becomes King? This takes us full circle back to Falstaff's questions from Act 1.
Bravo for Showing us the full circle, I honestly didn't see it coming.
Hal, despite all of his posturing to look good for the people, apparently lets Falstaff take the credit for killing Hotspur. Is it because he recognizes the truth of what Falstaff says about honor?
Hal absolutely saw through Falstaff's fantastical story because Hal is intimate with fat Jacks exaggerations, interestingly we'll learn in part two that Hal has definite ideas about honor that wont mirror Jacks. I think your right though, at Shrewsbury, at that moment Hal has little regard for his own personal vain-glory.
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Henry IV (Part 1), Act 5

Unread post

geo wrote:We see nobility in Hal’s actions. And Falstaff shows his usual willingness to capitalize on the honor of killing Hotspur even while he views honor with contempt. This is a complex character, and the relationship between Hal and Falstaff sort of defies all logic. Maybe Hal respects Falstaff's ability to see the world without filters and is willing to make many concessions for his old friend. But how will it be between the two of them when Hal eventually becomes King? This takes us full circle back to Falstaff's questions from Act 1.
Maybe you are right Geo,about Hal's view of honour changing. I haven't advanced beyond part one at this time.
It's a tangled complex story. Valour is the greatest virtue apparently.Often though loyalty is based on family or marriage ties and personal motives of revenge or justice from their standpoint.
Most of the conspiring rebels were supporters of Henry originally, but only to reclaim his land which they say, he had sworn was his only goal.
Mortimer we are told was Richard's preferred heir and is brother in law to Hotspur. Mortimer is captured in battle fighting for the king against the king's enemy Glendower, but promptly marries his daughter.
The issue of the ransom of Mortimer, sought using his captured Scot's army as a lever by Hotspur, lights the fuse of smouldering suspicions on all sides.
The ideal of valour and honour is upheld by Hal in wanting to decide the issue one on one with Hotspur,but I would agree with Taylor that it's not going to deal with the underlying issues.
Worcestor and Vernon in the end are executed as traitors, though their view is pragmatically that the king would kill them anyway sooner or later,as traitors.
King Henry despite his desire for peace suspects Hotspur and others of latent goals of deposing him in favour of Mortimer.
There's ambiguity between the personal family loyalties and political ones.
Falstaff is a clown like character but his pragmatism questions the romantic ideal of valour.
I think his cynicism is corrosive and his only remaining goals are self indulgent.
He's portrayed as a coward in the robbery escapade and playing dead rather than be killed in combat.Neither has he the slightest qualm about stealing the money bound for the kings treasury.Hal of course reimburses this which Falstaff considers madness.
So there's an inherent value contradiction in Hal allowing him claim honour for killing Hotspur.
It may be that Hal can't actually live with the romanticised ideal in practice, and his personal attachment to Falstaff overrules his unrealistic values,at least at this time.
Nonetheless there is a moral compromise here, at odds with his avowed values. I doubt he will be appointing Falstaff chief treasurer when he takes the throne.
Last edited by Flann 5 on Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:53 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Taylor

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Awesome
Posts: 959
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:39 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 422 times
Been thanked: 589 times

Re: Henry IV (Part 1), Act 5

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote:
Nonetheless there is a moral compromise here, at odds with his avowed values. I doubt he will be appointing Falstaff chief treasurer when he takes the throne.
That is the true oddity of the relationship, I don't think I'd trust Jack with my bank roll either :P

I found this Quote from Harold Bloom:
"What, then are the teachings of the philosopher of Eastcheap? Eating, drinking, fornication, and the other obvious indulgences are not the heart of Falstaffianism, though they certainly take up much of the knight's time. This does not matter, because Falstaff, as Hal tells us, has nothing to do with the time of the day. That which we are, that only we can teach; Falstaff, who is free, instructs us in freedom-not a freedom in society, but from society".

I feel better about that "whoreson round man" all the time. :yes:
Post Reply

Return to “King Henry IV, Part 1 (Arden Shakespeare: Third Series) (Pt. 1) - by William Shakespeare”