Ok, now the Harry/Henry from the last one makes sense. Because that was a very popular name, and they use Harry and Henry interchangeably. And Hal too. Just to add more confusion. So there's King Henry, Henry Percy (Harry/Hotspur) and Prince Henry (Harry/Hal). Seriously, y'all. There were more names for boys.

I'm lethally more insane now. Like permanently.

February 2023 review: I seriously have nothing smart to say about this play; I just fucking love it. I love it so much. I know nobody wants to read a Shakespearean history play (with a part ONE in the title, no less), but I've read the entire canon and can assert with confidence that this is always in my top 5 favorites list. Hal and Hotspur are some of Shakespeare's most compelling, fascinating, larger-than-life characters. Ooougughghghh when the characters are foils. When the characters are foils. This play's only flaw (beyond "needs more women," which with the histories is an unfortunate given) is that I can't stand Falstaff and I need his speeches to be, like, half the length (though I will admit he is better on-screen than on-page). Sorry to my Shakespeare class who had to deal with me in the back of the classroom bursting a vein trying not to stim and/or yell out answers to the professor's questions.

Also this reread has cemented my opinion that Hotspur is one of my favorite fictional characters of all time. He's got it all. Autism swag. Wife guy. Loud. Starts fights for no fucking reason. Smart as hell. Claims he hates poetry but talks solely in verse. Battle machine of a human being. Completely fucking insane. He is everything to me.

Moreover, the way Shakespeare crafts Hotspur's character is truly remarkable. His actions and words are so vivid and intense that he seems to leap off the page. His relationship with Hal is complex and充满张力, adding another layer of depth to the play. Despite his flaws, Hotspur's passion and drive make him a character that I can't help but be drawn to. I find myself constantly rooting for him, even when I know his actions may lead to his downfall.

In conclusion, Henry IV Part 1 is a masterpiece that I will continue to love and reread. It's a play that explores themes of honor, loyalty, and power, while also presenting us with some of Shakespeare's most unforgettable characters. Whether you're a Shakespeare enthusiast or just someone looking for a great read, this play is definitely worth checking out.

This is the first part of the story of Hal, who would later be known as the legendary Henry V. Before he became a national icon, Hal was a wild prince and a wastrel. At times, he was a snob and a bully, a condescending and cruel person.

Hal was well aware of the value of deceptive appearances. His debased life with lowly characters was just a calculated trick to make his emergence into public life even more remarkable.

This play is also about Falstaff, a fat, comic liar, a glutton, a coward, and a thief. Falstaff sees the world clearly and knows his place in it. His exuberance refuses to be dominated by any authority. He desires to live and enjoy life.

Although he is irresponsible, unreliable, and self-indulgent, hardly an admirable character at all, every time I read this play or watch a performance, the unforgettable Falstaff always remains my favorite. His larger-than-life personality and humorous antics add a unique charm to the story.

Despite his flaws, Falstaff has a certain appeal that makes him stand out among the other characters. He represents a different side of人性, one that is often overlooked or judged harshly.

Perhaps it is his ability to find joy and laughter in the most unlikely of situations that makes him so endearing. Or maybe it is his loyalty to Hal, despite their differences.

Whatever the reason, Falstaff is a character that will always be remembered and loved by audiences around the world.

Henry Bolingbroke ascended the throne as Henry IV by seizing the crown through force of arms while Richard II was preoccupied in Ireland. At the start of Shakespeare's two-part history, Henry expresses his desire to renounce all conflict in England. He proclaims:

'No more the thirsty entrance of this soil
Shall daub her lips from her own children's blood;
No more shall trenching war channel her fields,
Nor bruise her flowrets with the armed hoofs
Of hostile paces.'

However, it is not that simple. Almost immediately, Henry finds himself at war due to his own insults. The fiery Earl of Northumberland takes umbrage at him for not ransoming his sister's husband after a skirmish in Scotland. Percy, who has distinguished himself in battle, now turns against the king, egged on by many of the same nobles who supported Bolingbroke's usurpation. He is the perfect catalyst for the disgruntled lords. Even his own uncle and ally, the Earl of Worcester, describes him as a witless touch-paper:

'A hare-brain'd Hotspur, govern'd by a spleen.'

But let's not dwell too much on the courtly intrigues. What about Falstaff at the Boar's Head Tavern? This is really Falstaff's play. He is a drunkard, coward, thief, liar, and a 'huge hill of flesh'. Whenever he is on stage, he outshines everyone else. His friend, the young Prince Harry, hurls some fine insults at him, my favorite being:

'Fat Falstaff sweats to death,
and lards the lean earth as he walks along'

Falstaff's shameless antics are the highlight of the play, although they have little to do with the main action. When war is declared, Falstaff eventually gets involved. He enlists an army of prisoners and pensioners without uniforms to save money, which he pockets himself. When Prince Henry calls them 'pitiful rascals', Falstaff defends them, sort of:

'Tut, tut; good enough to toss; food for powder, food for powder; they'll fill a pit as well as better. Tush, man, mortal men, mortal men.'

Well, perhaps his defense isn't that strong.

As I completed my third reading of Henry IV, Part 1, I couldn't help but contrast it with my other favorite Shakespearean history play, Richard III. Both plays are undeniably brilliant, yet the differences between them are as vast as can be.

In Richard III, Shakespeare crafted his most iconic villain. Richard struts through the play, completely dominating it and stealing every single scene. On the other hand, in Henry IV, there are no clear-cut villains. Instead, we are presented with morally ambiguous adversaries. King Henry, despite the play bearing his name, is a secondary character, mainly serving as the disappointed father to Prince Hal, the play's main protagonist. Richard is a cunning schemer who ultimately meets his downfall due to his overwhelming ambition. Prince Hal, on the other hand, is a clever wastrel who is redeemed by finding his own ambition.

Henry IV, Part 1 offers a far more nuanced story compared to Richard III. Every character is morally complex and flawed, yet none of them evoke our hatred. In fact, all of them are somewhat sympathetic. Hotspur, the impetuous young warrior rebelling against the king, is easily the most likable and noble character in the play. Even the central focus of the play - the transformation of Prince Hal from a dissipated wastrel to a man who rises to the occasion and accepts the responsibilities of power - is not without its ambiguity, thanks to one of Shakespeare's greatest creations, Falstaff. Sir John Falstaff is perhaps the greatest embodiment of the Dionysian principle in all of literature. A drunkard, glutton, thief, and scoundrel, he still possesses an abundance of wit, humor, and good cheer, along with a certain earthy wisdom. His presence leaves us with a genuine sense of regret that Prince Hal manages to break free from his influence and embrace his destiny.

Read in The Norton Shakespeare, third edition.

This remarkable literary work offers a comprehensive exploration of Shakespeare's plays and sonnets.

The third edition likely contains updated annotations, critical essays, and a wealth of additional materials that enhance the understanding and appreciation of Shakespeare's genius.

Readers can immerse themselves in the rich language, complex characters, and timeless themes that have made Shakespeare one of the most renowned and studied playwrights in history.

Whether you are a student, a scholar, or simply a lover of great literature, The Norton Shakespeare, third edition, is a must-have resource that will surely provide countless hours of engaging and enlightening reading.

Shakespeare's works are renowned for their profound exploration of various themes and complex characterizations.

Take this particular historical drama for example. It masterfully combines political intrigue, where the web of power and manipulation is intricately woven. The themes of honor and rebellion add another layer of depth, as characters grapple with their loyalties and the consequences of their actions.

The complex character dynamics are truly captivating. We have the Prince, who undergoes a significant personal growth throughout the story. His transformation from a somewhat wayward youth to a more responsible and mature individual is a central aspect of the plot.

Then there is King Henry, who represents the established order and faces the challenges of maintaining his authority in the face of political tension.

And let's not forget Hotspur, who embodies the spirit of rebellion and engages in a power struggle with the king.

This drama is yet another piece that showcases Shakespeare's remarkable talent for blending drama, humor, and a deep exploration of human nature. It continues to captivate audiences centuries after it was first written, leaving a lasting impact on the world of literature and theater.

In the 1960s and 1970s, I taught this play numerous times. Back then, it was often the sole Shakespeare play in a college Intro to Lit class. It's a great play, but it has a heavy male focus. After my studies with two prominent women Shakespeareans (separate post-docs at Harvard and Breadloaf), for the sake of my largely female community college students, I shifted to stronger women characters in the comedies and, for example, Measure for Measure.

However, I still casually quote from 1H4. For instance, "If reasons were as plentiful as blackberries…" Falstaff says this to Hal when he's caught running away. (Just posted on July 4, 2018, our blackberries on my FB "Parodies Lost" with Falstaff's note.) I emphasized to students the importance of aloudreading for Tone of Voice, which is essential for literature, especially for drama. This play teaches tone extremely well. Falstaff insults the Hostess by calling her "You woman!" and she takes great offense, saying "I was never called so in my life." Why? Because of Falstaff's tone. (Forgive me for quoting from memory here, as I last taught it two decades ago.)

Shakespeare showcases his invention (what we now refer to as creativity, a different concept) every time Falstaff speaks. For example, Hal insults Falstaff's overweight with common criticism that's more relevant to overweight Americans today - "this bed-presser, this huge hill of flesh" - while Falstaff comes up with great anti-jogger insults like "you starveling, you eelskin, you dried neat's tongue, you bull's pizzle…you sheath, you bow case, you vile standing tuck….Oh, for breath to utter what is like thee!" (4.4.270ff).

Next, Falstaff play-acts "in King Cambyses vein" as Hal's father the King, saying about the Hostess, "For tears do stop the floodgates of her eyes..". Then Falstaff satirizes the King's doubt about his paternity of Hal and also Hal and his father's facial appearance, "That thou art my son, I have partly thy mother's word…but chiefly a foolish hanging of thy nether lip, that doth warrant me." All of this is delightful, and along with the robbery scene, it surrounds the very serious scene of Hotspur reading the letter and heading away without telling his wife where: "Thou will not utter what thou dost not know."

By the way, wouldn't it be nice if candidate Trump (rhymes with "rump"?) knew half as many military terms as Lady Percy - who overhears Hotspur in his sleep - "of trenches, tents..frontiers, parapets/ Of basilisks, of cannon, culverin/ Of prisoners ransom…all the currents of a heady fight…"

At any rate, I have only scratched the surface of this grand historo-comedy, to vary Polonius's list of dramatic genres.

Henry IV, Part 1 by William Shakespeare is an interesting play that I recently read as part of a Shakespeare readalong on Litsy, where I read one act per week.

The play is perhaps best known for the character of Falstaff, the overweight and immoral foil to the crown prince. His antics provide much of the humor in the play. In Act 2, there is also a remarkable display of Shakespearean insults that are both entertaining and impressive.

While Henry IV, Part 1 is not my favorite Shakespeare play, it is still curious and engaging in its own way. It offers a somewhat inaccurate portrayal of the challenges faced by Henry IV, who had usurped the throne and disposed of the previous king, Richard II.

This play is part of a four-play sequence that includes Richard II, Henry IV Part 1, Henry IV Part 2, and Henry V. Since I joined the group after they had read Richard II, I will be reading Henry IV Part 2 next. I'm looking forward to seeing how the story continues and how the characters develop.

Overall, Henry IV, Part 1 is a worthy addition to the Shakespearean canon and a must-read for fans of the Bard.

My vast and ardent love for Hotspur is unfortunately balanced out by the truly boundless annoyance I feel every time Falstaff speaks, leaving this play at a middling 3 stars.

Because really, an absolutely staggering proportion of the play is taken up by Falstaff talking. It seems as if the playwright couldn't resist the urge to let this character ramble on and on. I can't understand why he's such a beloved character. I hate him in a way that I can't even back up with critical analysis; he's just a bad fool, and I want to pelt him with spoiled produce for the crime of being unfunny. He's more verbose than Polonius but worse because it's not even a joke that he's talking that much. And in prose, too?? Jail.

As for the other characters, Henry IV himself remains as opaque as ever. It's been two full plays and we haven't gotten real insight into his thoughts or emotions even once. Somebody needs to tell this man he's a titular character. And then get him a soliloquy, asap.

Did I mention I love Hotspur? I love Hotspur. His dialogue is so natural, and often funny, but also full of raw, compellingly-expressed passion. He and Hal are fascinating foils. I love the two stars in one orbit metaphor and the idea that the two of them are shaped to fill the same space, of which there is only one. And Hal is not who I was expecting him to be. He feels removed, sort of distantly calculating and manipulative in everything he says and does in front of others. His two genuine moments, his early soliloquy about his future redemption and his tender eulogy for Hotspur, are literally breathtaking in contrast.

Overall, this play had the action that Richard II lacked, with an engaging tragicomic battle sequence, but fell short in terms of emotional impact. This is mostly because all the moments of passion were stranded between vast wastelands of Falstaff's inane equivocation, which really dulled their cumulative effect. It's a pity that such great potential was somewhat marred by the overabundance of Falstaff's tiresome chatter.

Can't wait to discuss the end with my buddy reader Melissa!

This is my first Shakespeare history, and it has been incredibly engaging. There are numerous iconic characters in this play. Sir John Falstaff, with his larger-than-life personality, is truly a memorable figure. Prince Hal, too, is a complex character. The struggle within him of what kind of king he will become in the future and how he will deal with the models of manhood presented to him at this stage of his life is fascinating. Will he be like Hotspur, full of bluster and anger? Or will he be a man of the people, driven by desire like Falstaff? Maybe he will be as ready as his father to seize power by any means. I am excited to continue reading and discover the answers.

This play has opened up a whole new world of Shakespeare's works for me, and I can't wait to see where this journey takes me. I'm sure Melissa and I will have many interesting discussions about the characters, the plot, and the themes of this play.

I read this book in the winter semester of my sophomore year, in 1965. I loved it deeply. After Hamlet in my senior year, it will always rank as close to my personal favourite in those formative years. Guess why?

I saw myself as a junior Prince Hal. Guess a lot of us kids do, if we read it as teens. I had opted out of maths and sciences at that point, seeing my future in the humanities, and my dad, the scientist, was disappointed.

I wanted to get back into his good graces.

And Prince Hal does exactly that in his dad's - the King's - eyes, by single-handedly defeating his dad's prime rival, Hotspur, the warrior his dad compares him to (and in whose courage he finds young Hal sadly lacking). Until the day Hal kills Hotspur on the field of battle. Then, finally, Hal's star rises.

It took me a long time to realize I could never be an Alpha Male like my Dad - or like the King and his son, Hal. I always fell flat. But in the end, I would learn to keep my nose at the daily grindstone: tedious work in this world, and long, long after the age Hal became King of England.

Sic transit gloria!

Or does glory pass so easily?

It did for me at first. In my early years after the diaspora of my high school buddies to bigger and better worlds, I frequented the home town company - as an aging Prince Hal - of my own kinda Falstaffs and Bardolphs, alas.

Thankfully, meeting my wife soon after sounded their death knell in my life - as Hal (now in glory in Part II of King Henry IV) ditched poor, ludicrous Falstaff? But Hal's glory I was fated not to share.

That's where the tedium of the grindstone - still my chosen metier today - comes in.

Hard work can pay off, as my time in the office has done, and - in these older days - as Goodreads had lent dignity to my retirement!

And it's no good hoping for deliverance from our toils, my friends - not in this world! You will find your emoluments, but not your glory here.

Shakespeare, die-hard Renaissance Romantic that he always was, saw his only glory to be here on earth, alas.

But I still hope for the crown of Peace in the hereafter.

And, like T.S. Eliot, I for one am content that my:

Temporal reversion (has) nourished

The life of significant soil -

And has done that primarily for the Greater Glory of God.