I have perused this play on numerous occasions, and while Shakespeare unfailingly reveals something novel to me, this particular reading offered me scant insight and few surprises. However, I was struck by two parallels.

The first parallel lies within the play itself. I deeply appreciated the subtle resemblances between the Hotspur-Glendower and the Hal-Falstaff scenes. In each case, a young man spends a significant amount of time taunting a self-important, older man who is such a verbose blowhard that the audience almost instinctively sides with the young man. Hotspur, whom we are inclined to respect due to his high spirits and his feats as a warrior, is so easily provoked and wears his self-esteem so blatantly on his sleeve that his needling of Glendower, although perhaps justifiable, appears pointless, hasty, and ill-advised. (It may, in fact, prove to be his undoing, as Glendower fails to come to Hotspur's assistance when it is most needed - a dereliction perhaps exacerbated by the younger man's abrasive heckling.) As a result, although we like Hotspur at the end of the scene as much as we did at the beginning, our respect for him has diminished considerably.

In contrast, consider the Hal-Falstaff exchanges. Hal, already characterized as a wastrel, deflates Falstaff's pomposity with a controlled barrage of pointed wit, causing us to begin to admire him for his self-discipline (at least in conversation) and to sense that there may be more to him than meets the eye. Moreover, Falstaff, unlike the humorless Glendower, is a worthy adversary, brimming with wit and self-awareness, and the fact that Hal can not only hold his own but also maintain his composure suggests a self-awareness and a deliberately cultivated detachment from his debased surroundings, which prepares us for his eventual transformation just as much as his soliloquy about the sun.

The other parallel, between plays, is more closely related but certainly less significant. Lady Percy, in her efforts to obtain information about the impending rebellion, delivers a speech that closely resembles Portia's speech to Brutus in similar circumstances. Their subsequent conduct, however, is different. Portia, the stoic Roman, cuts herself in the thigh to prove her ability to keep a secret, while Lady Percy, a hardy warrior's bride, attempts to break her husband's little finger and force him to talk. (As I mentioned earlier, this isn't of great importance, but it is interesting to note how a great dramatist can utilize similar materials to achieve very different effects.)

Overall, I am once again astounded by Shakespeare's remarkable command of voices in this play. Hotspur, Falstaff, Glendower, Hal, and Mistress Quickly all employ language in highly distinctive ways, and even the casual banter of the servants in the stable yard is vivid and characteristic. I am also impressed by the expert and seamless integration of poetry with prose, history with comedy, and rhetoric with wit.

By the time he penned Henry IV, Shakespeare not only had mastered all these elements but also knew precisely how and when to blend them. This is undeniably the work of a master.

This is truly excellent stuff for those of us who have a penchant for imaginative swears or, alternatively, those who struggle with daddy issues. It presents a unique and engaging exploration that is bound to capture the attention of a wide range of readers.

I had initially been thinking of delving into the historical background of this topic. However, I'm hesitant to do so as I don't want to spoil the experience for myself. There's something exciting about approaching this material with a sense of curiosity and discovery, allowing the story or ideas to unfold naturally without the preconceived notions that might come from prior research.

Perhaps by remaining ignorant of the historical context, I'll be able to fully immerse myself in the present moment and let the text speak to me on a more personal level. It's a risk worth taking, as I'm eager to see where this journey will lead and what new insights or emotions it will evoke.

Glorious.

It has been nearly 40 years since the first reading, but it still shone brightly.

There were so many great scenes that seemed to unfold right before our eyes, and the memorable speeches left a lasting impression.

The wonderful characters were brought to life, each with their own unique personalities and stories.

It was as if we were transported into a different world, experiencing all the emotions and adventures along with them.

The book was a true masterpiece, one that would be cherished for generations to come.

It was a reminder of the power of literature to touch our hearts and souls, and to take us on a journey that we would never forget.

Even after all these years, it continued to captivate and inspire, proving that some things truly never go out of style.

Henry the Fourth of England was a rather typical monarch of his era. He was power-hungry and not overly scrupulous. He forcefully took the throne from his predecessor and first cousin, Richard II. During his fourteen-year reign from 1399 to 1413, he was constantly suppressing rebellions by ambitious nobles who aimed to do to him what he had done to Richard.

However, when considering Henry IV not as a historical figure but as the title character in Shakespeare's two plays, historical considerations matter less. Shakespeare's real interest in writing "Henry IV" (both parts) is in telling the story of how Henry IV's son, Prince Hal, grew up to be King Henry V, Shakespeare's ideal of the English king. The more one keeps in mind that the "Henry IV" plays are really about Henry V, the more likely one is to enjoy "Henry IV, Part 1".

Shakespeare's depiction of Henry Bolingbroke in "Richard II" is that of a strong, tough, resolute, and ruthless figure who acts decisively in deposing a weak-willed king. But once he becomes King Henry IV, he seems passive and helpless. At the start of "Henry IV, Part 1", he sounds almost like Richard in his laments.

Guilt-stricken for deposing a God-anointed king, Henry IV dreams of expiating his sins by going on a crusade to the Holy Land. But with all the plots and schemes against him, he can't afford to leave his threatened throne. "So shaken as we are, so wan with care,/Find we a time for frighted peace to pant/And breathe short-winded accents of new broils/To be commenced in stronds afar remote." He sounds almost ready to cry out like Richard II.

While Henry IV faces all this political pressure, his son, Prince Hal, is no help. Young Henry stays away from court and leads a group of young hellions who drink, swear, fight, and chase women. His enabler is Sir John Falstaff, an errant knight with a hefty build and a penchant for all fleshly pleasures. Falstaff disclaims responsibility for leading Prince Hal astray, saying he was nothing before he knew Hal and is now little better than one of the wicked.

In ordinary times, Prince Hal's behavior might be just a royal scandal. But these are not ordinary times. Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, refuses to yield his Scottish prisoners to the king, a sign of possible future rebellion. King Henry IV is doubly pained by the contrast between Hotspur's battlefield heroism and Prince Hal's idle life.

Hotspur is a dynamic character with great stage presence. He gets many of the best lines and provides actors with opportunities for over-the-top declamation. He sympathizes with the deposed Richard and is willing to plot against King Henry IV. He despises the caution of those who won't join his rebellion, insisting that they can pluck safety from danger.

An Elizabethan audience would have seen Hotspur as the kind of nobleman who had plunged England into civil war. If Prince Hal lacks ambition for greatness at the start of the play, Hotspur has too much.

While Hotspur plots rebellion, Prince Hal is having a good time with Falstaff at the Boar's Head Tavern. He has no use for Hotspur's militaristic approach. Falstaff pretends to be an angry King Henry IV, upbraiding Prince Hal for his behavior. In a famous scene, Falstaff anticipates what the real King Henry IV will later say.

Moved by his father's rebuke, Prince Hal pledges to be more himself. He vows to redeem himself on Percy's head and shows his changed mind and heart. In this scene, viewers of Shakespeare's time would have seen the promising prince starting to learn how to be a king.

History plays like "Henry IV, Part 1" offered Elizabethan playwrights the opportunity to give audiences grand battle scenes. As the play approaches the Battle of Shrewsbury, Falstaff shows himself to be useless as a soldier. He pleads his girth and readiness to run away. Prince Hal, on the other hand, acquits himself well in the battle, showing how he will grow into the bold King Henry V. Hotspur, defeated by Prince Hal, gets one of the play's best lines as he reflects on the vanity of his lost hopes.

"Henry IV, Part 1" combines political intrigue, character development, comic relief, and epic battle action. It's no wonder it's one of Shakespeare's most popular history plays and that he felt obliged to write a "Henry IV, Part 2" after its success.

3/5stars

This play was just okay.

I'm a little confused as to why my teacher had us start reading the third book in a four-book series of plays without any background context. As a result, I was very confused throughout this book.

The characters were good, especially the young Prince. However, overall, this was just an average read. We'll see if that changes after my lectures this week though!


My response for class:

“Yea, there thou mak’st me sad, and mak’st me sin
In envy that my Lord Northumberland
Should be the father to so blessed a son -
A son who is the theme of honor’s tongue
Amongst a grove the very straightest plant;
Who is sweet fortune’s minion and her pride;
Whilst I, by looking on the praise of him,
See riot and dishonor stain the brow
Of my young Harry.”
1.1.78-86

\\tI find it extremely interesting how Shakespeare consistently portrays father-children relationships in his plays.

In Titus, we witness a father who easily kills his children for no legitimate reasons. Then, in A Midsummer Night's Dream, we have Egeus who is willing to kill his daughter if she doesn't obey him.

And here, we have Henry who is horribly jealous of Hotspur, doesn't really like his son, and may even be a bit embarrassed of him. After reading several of these strange family dynamics in succession, it has become much more evident that this is a pattern in his works.

Of course, in this play, King Henry and ‘young Harry’ actually do attempt to form a relationship. But, I still find it odd how Shakespeare writes his fatherly characters in relation to their children.

This is widely regarded as the greatest of Shakespeare's history plays. It vividly introduces two of his most unforgettable characters. One is Henry, the Prince of Wales, who is destined to become King Henry V in the future. The other is Falstaff, his dissolute drinking companion.

The play delves into profound themes such as familial loyalty. It shows how young people often "sow their oats" and live without a moral compass, especially exemplified by Falstaff. However, it also explores the process of growing up and taking on adult responsibilities.

These themes are truly timeless and hold just as much significance today as they did 400 years ago.

This Arden edition of the play, accompanied by its valuable essays, is, in my opinion, the best. I would also highly recommend Prof. Bloom's essay on Henry IV, Part I, which can be found in his book, Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. Nevertheless, it is advisable to read the play first and then the commentary. Sadly, too many people read commentaries on Shakespeare without ever delving deeply into the actual text.

About 3.75 stars, just not quite 4. This rating indicates that the overall experience or quality of something is relatively good, but there are still some areas that fall slightly short of perfection. It could mean that while there are many positive aspects, there are a few minor flaws or不足之处. For example, in a product review, it might suggest that the item functions well and has most of the features one would expect, but perhaps the design could be improved or there is a small issue with the durability. In a service review, it could imply that the staff was friendly and efficient, but the waiting time was a bit longer than desired or the facilities were not in pristine condition. Overall, a 3.75-star rating is a solid one, but it also leaves room for improvement.

Just here to state that the insults are truly the essence of this play. They are astonishing.

Thou mad mustachio purple-hued maltworm

Thou whoreson grease tallow catch

Thou dish of skim milk

Thou bacon-fed knave

Thou swoll’n parcel of dropsies

Thou stuffed cloakbag of guts

Thou whoreson caterpillar

Thou fawning greyhound

Thou fat-kidneyed rascal

Approximately 80% of the insults are fat jokes targeted at Falstaff. I must confess that I have not yet been completely overwhelmed by the supposed expansive genius of Falstaff that Harold Bloom and Mark Van Doren are fond of extolling. However, I'll provide a report after Part 2.

Hotspur is amusingly short-tempered and prone to flying off the handle. His outburst when the King refuses to ransom Mortimer from the Welsh is truly great:

He said he would not ransom Mortimer;
Forbad my tongue to speak of Mortimer;
But I will find him when he lies asleep,
And in his ear I'll holla \\"Mortimer!\\"
Nay,
I'll have a starling shall be taught to speak
Nothing but \\"Mortimer,\\" and I'll give it to him,
To keep his anger still in motion.

(I.iii.219-26)

This is excellent shit-talking (perhaps reminding the reader of Method Man's boasts of how he would torture his enemies on Enter the Wu-Tang). The play is fast-paced and entertaining, with much of it taking place in a pub where people drunkenly make fun of each other. Is it as incredible as it has been built up to be over the centuries? I'm not certain. But you'll definitely pick up some outstanding insults for your collection.

Just as I did with Richard II, I embarked on reading this while simultaneously watching The Hollow Crown: King Henry IV, Part 1 (2012). The cast, featuring Jeremy Irons, Tom Hiddleston, and Simon Russell Beale (who, in my opinion, shone the brightest as Falstaff), was truly remarkable.

Both the play and the film were tremendous. I thoroughly enjoyed the experience of reading the play and seeing it come to life on the screen.

My favorite passage has to be this one in particular:

'Tis not due yet; I would be loath to pay him before
his day. What need I be so forward with him that
calls not on me? Well, 'tis no matter; honour pricks
me on. Yea, but how if honour prick me off when I
come on? how then? Can honour set to a leg? no: or
an arm? no: or take away the grief of a wound? no.
Honour hath no skill in surgery, then? no. 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.

Falstaff is such an interesting character. His lazy and boastful ways provide much of the play's humour, yet in reality, they might be off-putting. However, his character brings such depth to the play, as exemplified by the quote above. I can't help but applaud Shakespeare for creating him.

So yes, I loved Falstaff - not as a person, but as a character. And I loved this play.

Do watch The Hollow Crown! It's truly fantastic.

Kinda boring because it felt like all they did was chat. They just went on and on about various things, and it didn't really seem to have a clear direction or purpose. However, I did enjoy all of the insults. There was something quite entertaining about the way they would exchange sharp remarks and jabs at each other. It added a bit of a spicy flavor to the otherwise dull conversation. But overall, it was still a rather lackluster experience. Maybe if they had focused on a more interesting topic or had engaged in a more lively debate, it would have been more engaging. As it was, it was just a lot of chit-chat with a few insults thrown in for good measure.

This could have been called Henry V: The Prequel.

The life of Henry IV takes a backseat to the evolution of Prince Hal from a spoilt, over-privileged rich kid to the heir apparent. Hal's unethical father figure, Sir John Falstaff, is widely regarded as one of Shakespeare's most captivating characters. Without a hint of shame, he lies, steals, and drinks. When caught, he skillfully changes the subject or tells more lies, never pausing to consider the consequences. Watching the transformation of the carousing Hal into Prince Henry couldn't have a clearer starting point. The witty exchanges between the rogue and the royalty are the pièce de résistance of the play.

Elsewhere, Henry Percy (Hotspur) is a rebel in name only. His defiance of Henry IV is one-sided. For the king, Hotspur embodies the warrior-noble he desires to see in Hal. If Falstaff represents the lowest depths, Hotspur is the lofty heights that Hal must reach.

In many respects, this is a remarkable play. Not only does Falstaff offer无尽的 entertainment, but Hal is also surprisingly complex. He is rebellious in his own way, yet yearns for his father's approval. He is fond of Falstaff, but also holds him in contempt. He is irresponsible, yet acutely aware of his own irresponsibility.

So I had the experience of going through this book via an audio book.

It's quite an interesting phenomenon that the strained relationship between King Henry and Prince Harry actually reminded me of the relationship between me and my mom.

I couldn't help but laugh out loud (loooool) when this thought crossed my mind.

It's strange how certain fictional or historical relationships can have such a relatable impact on our own lives.

Maybe it's because there are common themes and emotions that we can all identify with.

In this case, the tension and difficulties in the relationship between King Henry and Prince Harry seem to have struck a chord within me, making me think about my own experiences with my mom.

It makes me wonder if there are other people out there who have had similar thoughts and feelings while reading or listening to this book.

Overall, it's been a thought-provoking and entertaining experience.