• In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Henry IV (Part 1), Act 1

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

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Awesome
Posts: 962
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:39 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 422 times
Been thanked: 590 times

Re: Henry IV (Part 1), Act 1

Unread post

You've managed to get a bit ahead of me, but not to worry I'll plunge ahead.
Geo wrote:
Shakespeare arguably uses Hotspur as a foil for Hal as well. He also contrasts high drama of the state with the lowlife antics of Hal and his comrades. That's a kind of foil as well.
I'm trying to get a handle on Hotspur, One thing I find bold about his character is the way he goes right at the king when his life is essentially obliged to his sovereign King! such balderdash, brazen brass bald defiance!. The King is forgiving or obliging at least, to a kid he's wished was his own, the King has a soft spot for Hotspur, Does this make the King weak in this respect?.

Hotspur (giddy-up) He really is not much different from Falstaff in so far as he wants to know what's in it for him?
Do his pockets fatten up with this "ingrate and cankered Bolingbroke" or is he better served by a brother in law the rightful heir to the throne? "Why, it can not choose to be a noble plot, and then the power of Scotland and of York to join with Mortimer, Ha".
User avatar
heledd
Doctorate
Posts: 508
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 4:47 am
12
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 117 times

Re: Henry IV (Part 1), Act 1

Unread post

Oh yes! That is why i took a dislike to Hotspur, though fond of Falstaff. I think Falstaff sees through more of the injustice and false honour in their world, while Hotspur just takes it for granted. Hotspur is not much of a thinker.
Life's a glitch and then you die - The Simpsons
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: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Henry IV (Part 1), Act 1

Unread post

Hotspur's name suits him. Young and brash with a choleric temperament.

Shakespeare originally had a different name for Falstaff. It was Oldcastle after an old nobleman, but he changed the name or maybe was asked to change his name so as not to offend one of his relatives. There's actually textual evidence in the play that supports the idea that Shakespeare had once used Oldcastle. Hal refers to Falstaff as "my old lad of the castle" in 1.2.40. Also in Act 2, one of the characters utters this line: "Away, good Ned. Falstaff sweats to death." Those who know about these things say this line is metrically irregular. But if "Oldcastle" (with three syllables) is substituted for "Falstaff" it then becomes regular. Can you believe it?
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
heledd
Doctorate
Posts: 508
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 4:47 am
12
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 117 times

Re: Henry IV (Part 1), Act 1

Unread post

I’ve watched the video a few times now, and it gets better each time.
Henry 1V had very good reason to refuse to ransom Mortimer, who was after all, named by Richard 11 as his successor.
Hotspur remarks on the terror he sees in Henry 1V’s face at the mention of Mortimer’s name.

And when I urged the ransome once again
Of my wife’s brother, then his cheek looked pale,
And on my face he turned an eye of death,
Trembling even at the name of Mortimer.

Hotspur is too hot headed to think logically, and easily manipulated. How could he believe that the king could possibly entertain the notion of paying a ransom? Mortimer has just lost a thousand soldiers in battle, their bodies were mutilated by Welsh women, and he has supposedly fallen madly in love with the daughter of his enemy, Glyndower. At a time when all marriages of the nobility were arranged? I don’t think so, and neither does the King. He accuses Hotspur of lying.

Thou dost belie him, Percy, thou dost belie him,
He never did encounter with Glendower.

Indicating that he understands that Owain and Mortimer are in an alliance.
In temper, Hotspur constantly interrupts his uncle and father, His father chides him

Why, what a wasp-stung and impatient fool
Art thou to break into this woman’s mood.
Tying thine ear to no tongue but thine own!

What a difference to the King’s opinion of Hotspur! Neither father thinks very much of their children. But both Worcester and his father Northumberland take the opportunity to tell Hotspur that King Richard had named Mortimer as his successor, and from thereon are able to reign in his temper for their own means. Northumberland is certain of the support of the Archbishop of York, whose brother King Henry murdered.
Hotspur fantasises about being the sole epitome of honour ‘To pluck bright honour from the pale-faced moon,’ while Falstaff thinks of themselves as without honour ‘gentlemen of the shade, minions of the moon.’
And what of young Prince Hal? His banter with Falstaff has very cruel undertones. Is his friendship with the lower classes a way of taking revenge on his father? He seems the opposite of Hotspur, very cold and calculating, while pretending to be everyone’s friend.
Life's a glitch and then you die - The Simpsons
User avatar
Taylor

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Awesome
Posts: 962
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:39 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 422 times
Been thanked: 590 times

Re: Henry IV (Part 1), Act 1

Unread post

heledd wrote:
I’ve watched the video a few times now, and it gets better each time.
I'm not watching a performance, but rather reading an annotated book. I totally agree though, It gets more interesting the further into the story I get, I find my self reviewing parts already read. back an forth, it slows down forward momentum. but for me has thickened the read. I can only imagine your having to rewind the video, or re-watching, to pick-up subtleties that aren't evident on first viewing.
I like your take on both fathers not trusting the thinking or actions of the two Henry's, its interesting that it takes a battle to death for either father to gain true respect for their respective kid.
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: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Henry IV (Part 1), Act 1

Unread post

Some of the history surrounding the succession of English kings can make your head spin. In Act 1, Henry IV is still thinking about a crusade to help alleviate some of his guilt in usurping the throne, and to help unite the English people against a common enemy. But these hopes are dashed right away as the King receives reports of unrest in his kingdom. Most notably, Westmoreland tells the King, Edmund Mortimer has been captured by the Welsh.

. . . the noble Mortimer
Leading the men of Herefordshire to fight
Against the irregular and wild Glendower,
Was by rude hands of that Welshman taken,
A thousand of his people butchered

But the King is disinclined to pay for Edmund Mortimer's ransom. Why? We are told that Mortimer was mentioned by the dying deposed Richard II as the rightful heir to the throne, ahead of Henry IV.

Looking at the geneology is pretty complicated. But, briefly, you have to look back to the reign of Edward III who was king of England from 1327 to his death in 1377, and who had seven sons. Richard II was the son of Edward III's first son (Edward the Black Prince), so very much a rightful king. After the death of Richard II, the rightful heir to the throne would come from the line of Edward III's second son, and, failing that, the line of the third son, etc.

In fact, Edmund Mortimer was the son of the third son. So rightfully he was next in line for the throne.

However, in fact there were two Edmund Mortimers, and the Edmund Mortimer who was captured by the Welsh was not the son of the third son. He was actually an uncle of the 5th Earl of March, at best third in line to the throne. (It actually doesn't make sense that a man who has a legitimate claim to the throne would be given an army to fight for the King anyway.)

It turns out that Holinshed, an English chronicler, made a mistake with the two Edmunds. And since Shakespeare was using Holinshed, he made the same mistake.

Ahh, but it doesn't really matter. We know Shakespeare's history isn't very accurate. You don't read the Bard for a history lesson, we read it for the drama. :-)

NOTE: All this is from Isaac Asimov's "Guide To Shakespeare."
-Geo
Question everything
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 1

Unread post

Hi Geo, Thanks for that.
I'm a bit wary of Shakespeare's histories from what little I know of the actual history.
It doesn't really matter as Asimov says, as Shakepeare is crafting a drama and holds up a mirror to society,relationships and human nature in all it's aspects.His mastery of language is often at the heart of things.
I never did work out how to upload extracts even though you tried to help me with this. Anyway I'll plod on and transcribe sparingly to give some original lines from the play itself,where worthwhile.
Post Reply

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