Henry IV (Part 1), Act 3

Please use this thread to discuss Henry IV (Part 1), Act 3.

In scene 2 the King and Hal have finally confronted each other for the audience to see.

King
Tell me else, could such inordinate and low desires
Such poor, such bare, such lewd, such mean attempts
Such barren pleasures, rude society
as thou art matched withal and grafted to,
Accompany the greatness of thy blood and
hold their level with thy princely heart?

This guy is not thinking much of his son right now. and yet why? This is yet to be revealed and I'm not certain we ever do find out all of Hals degeneracy. We just assume there is to much.

The quote goes on for some time in a similar vain, The King is merciless to his kids pride. but yet there are similarities between father and son, both in their own way have ingratiated themselves to the people. Hal in carousing with the locals, the king by humbling himself to some locals.

Hal
So please your Majesty, I would, I could
Quit all offenses with as clear excuse
As well as I am doubtless I can purge
Myself of many I am charged withal.
Yet such extenuation let me beg
As, in reproof of many tales devised,
which oft the ear of greatness needs must hear,
By smiling pickthanks and base newsmongers
I may for some things true, wherein my youth
Hath faulty wandered and irregular,
Find pardon on my true submission.

I shall hereafter, my thrice gracious lord,
Be more myself

And God forgive them that so much have swayed
your Majesty's good thoughts away from me.
I will redeem all this on Percy's head

These are not complete passages but I think its enough to get a sense that Hal is contrite to his father and more than prepared to take on his obligation to his fathers crown. They ultimately resolve their differences. Fathers and sons reconcile with each other every day in every place on earth and it will always be that way.

I previously quoted that passage from Richard II where the King laments his son's behavior. But I agree, we don't get much of a sense of the length of time in which Hal is behaving badly. It's mostly just alluded to.

In the passage Taylor quotes above, to some extent Hal is blaming others—"smiling pickthanks and base newsmongers"—for his bad reputation. But, yes, he is contrite and reiterates the promise in Act 1 that he will surprise everyone with noble deeds. In that sense he comes across as remarkably in tune with how he's being perceived and what he needs to do to win everyone over. As Taylor mentioned earlier, Hal is very much in control.

In Scene 2 here, the King discusses the fine art of creating a public image. It doesn't look good for Hal to be seen with low-borns, the King says. he himself has "plucked allegiance" by dressing in humility.

"And then I stole all courtesy from heaven,
And dressed myself in such humility
That I did pluck allegiance from men’s hearts,
Loud shouts and salutations from their mouths,
Even in the presence of the crownèd King.
Thus did I keep my person fresh and new,
My presence, like a robe pontifical,
Ne'er seen but wondered at, and so my state,
Seldom but sumptuous, showed like a feast
And won by rareness such solemnity.

Funny thing, the King must not be doing that great of a job of honing his public image since he now faces a rebellion from Hotspur and co.

I liked the Scene 1 where Hotspur and his kin are dividing up England for themselves after they conquer the King's forces. Just a bit of hubris here?

Even then they seem to be trying to gain advantage over each other as to the more prime pieces of country they mean to take.
I get the sense that even if they are victorious, its likely before long they would be at each others throats.

Yes, it seems that Hostspur's clan are in it for themselves, not so much trying to do what's right. There are a couple of instances where Hotspur is too invested in his on anger that he fails to see the big picture. For example, he criticizes the King for his political machinations without seeing the manipulations by the Percys—the Earl of Northumberland and Earl of Worcester. They're goading him into taking action while maneuvering themselves out of harm's way.

I was reading the description for The Hollow Crown and somewhere it alludes to the fact that Richard II was the rightful king, but a poor ruler. While Henry IV is not the rightful king, but a better ruler. And, indeed, Henry IV seems to be motivated to keep his country united even if he is a usurper. Perhaps these grander themes become more apparent when you read the other plays in the Henriad—seeing the four plays as a part of a larger whole.

It begs the question Do we venture to read Richard II, for additional background?

I spent the evening reading through part 2, which begins with the fallout from the rebels failure at Shrewsbury. I think that to go forward it might be necessary to go back. (to Richard 2) I'm trying not to bring other plays into this discussion, but with these particular ones its almost unavoidable.

I'm thinking about reading Richard II next, but only because I'd like to read it before watching the first part of The Hollow Crown. I've already read Bevington's intro, which I can scan in if anyone else wants to read it.

But yeah, after Richard II, how can we not then read Henry IV, Part 2? Why not read the whole Henriad? It's something you can mention at parties or put in your resume. We can also read The Merry Wives of Windsor which also features Sir John Falstaff.

I would appreciate it indeed. Since this thread, for me it has been re-reading parts of Richard 2 and Henry 4 parts 1&2, just to try and put the whole story in perspective. for me its been like a minor study of sorts.

With Falstaff, as a character, its a case of loving to hate him.