Henry IV Part 1 thread

[DJA]

So glad I found this thread. I AM studying Henry IV though only in like term 2 or even 3.

[drake]

haha do all grammar schools do henry IV part 1?

[Khendjer]

It certainly justifies some of my speculation why Henry IV students performed the best on the 2013 exam http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/exams/english/2013/English_examrep13.pdf

Is it fine to read the spark notes version instead?
and then perhaps a few months later, reading the traditional version?

there were guys at mhs capable of only reading the nfs version + watching the movie and ended up doing ok, like low forties. obviously this isnt recommended unless you're aiming to bludge and risk your atar a bit, though.

[literally lauren]

haha do all grammar schools do henry IV part 1?

Pretty much. I've heard (and this is pure conjecture) that certain schools, naming no names, will pick texts based only on average end of year scores. Regardless of levels of interest or length or difficulty... if it ranks highly, it goes on the list.

It certainly justifies some of my speculation why Henry IV students performed the best on the 2013 exam http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/exams/english/2013/English_examrep13.pdf

Your speculation is justifiable. We're all just screwing up the bell curves for everybody 

[Politics]

I am struggling trying to 'define' how Hal views honour! Any help would be greatly appreciated

[literally lauren]

I'll preface this by saying this is all totally debatable. In fact, I've seen entire essay topics devoted to Hal's multifaceted and manifold attitudes towards honour and other values, so I'll offer my opinion, but it's by no means conclusive.

Ultimately Hal's view of honour is irrelevant. For Hal, it is the importance of seeming honourable and doing honourable deeds that has bearing on his life and eventual kingship. This culminates in his magnanimous releasing of Douglas after the battle in Act 5, a gesture of good faith that solidifies his supposed redemption.
In simple answer to your question: Hal views honour as a tool for political success, a means to an end as opposed to Hotspur's complete and utter glorification of the idea.
You could argue he inherits this somewhat cynical view from his father who likewise "pluck'd allegiance from men's hearts" (*btw there's an excellent contrast between Henry's "pluck[ing of] allegiance" and Hotspur's pledge to "pluck drowned honour" from a river: one prioritises the end result while the other sees the more abstract ideas as a worthy goal. Perhaps this is why the Henry dynasty was more successful; they were striving for something tangible instead of some archaic, elusive notion like honour.*)
Anyway, while you could say Hal gets this perspective from his father, only seeing as Hal spends so little time with his father, it's more likely he learns this for himself through his enlightening Eastcheap experiences :p Also look at the order of certain scenes: Hal's brief soliloquy in Act 1 Scene 2 occurs long before his confrontation with his father, and personally I've always seen Hal as a more effective Machiavel than Henry IV.
Even more interesting is Falstaff's view of honour, but I'll leave that for another day

[DJA]

Act 1 Scene 2 Interpretation of Hal

Thought I'd go ahead and contribute to this thread to build up this resource. This is my first body para on Henry IV and it's specific to Act 1 Scene 2.
Topic was: How are we positioned to view Hal in Act 1 Scene 2?

Would REALLY appreciate any feedback/comment on this!

Our view of Hal as an easy-going friend of the common folk despite his princely heritage is undermined by the ending soliloquy of Act One, Scene Two which discloses a shrewd and cunning mind, ordinarily concealed by his relaxed outward appearance. Hal’s interaction with Falstaff reveals his proclivity for quick-witted humor. In the barrage of joking insults Hal engages in, as he brands Falstaff “fat-witted” and caring nothing by for “cups of sack”, “capons” and “hot wench[es],” Falstaff’s affectionate reply “sweet wag” reveals the amiable bond of companionship that ties both men together. Moreover, the delivery of these lines in prose – the language of the masses – from Falstaff and perhaps more pertinently, the Prince himself, suggests Hal’s alignment with the people rather than remaining aloof as befitting to his heritage.  We are thus presented here with an image of friendship that seemingly transcends the dichotomy of commoners and royalty between Falstaff, a hedonistic rogue who is introduced as confused as to even the “time of day” and Hal, the Prince and next in line to the throne. Yet even as this joking continues in a verbal repartee where Falstaff’s comical inversions places Hal as the reason behind his “wicked[ness],” the ending of the scene bodes a more ominous illustration of the shrewd persona that Hal does not reveal to his self-indulgent friends. Delivered in the rigid formality of iambic pentameter, Hal’s opening line “I know you all” in reference to the common folk initially suggests his familiar understanding of his friends when viewed in line with the reading established by his actions and words up until this point. However, the persistent slurs to the common folk that characterizes the inner workings of his mind – “foul and ugly mists”, “base contagious clouds” and “sullen ground” – undercuts our simplistic outlook on his witty and good-natured personality. Furthering this challenge to our initial take on his character are verbs that suggest inherent duplicity: “imitate”, “falsify”, “seem” and “show”; Hal seems pre-occupied with artificial performance rather than genuine sentiment. When the enigmatic Prince finally attests to his ability to “throw off” his “loose behavior” in a manner akin to donning and then throwing off a piece of costume – a façade or a pretense – we are left unable to ignore the more cunning, even disingenuous aspects of his character. Whether this shrewd and calculating identity is Hal’s true self is debatable; what is clear is that Shakespeare intends to complicate the view of Hal as easygoing, jovial, humorous with our realization that the Prince is able to conceal facets of himself from his ‘friends,’ presenting instead a persona that he knows will ingratiate himself with the masses. 

[literally lauren]

I won't bother meticulously quoting and correcting this since there are very few errors in expression or vocab (and certainly none that assessors would mind.) But I do think this is a very lit-ish paragraph. Usually this isn't a problem, and it's better that you write in a Lit. style for English than the other way around, but you could probably afford to zoom out from the language and look at some bigger ideas, character/thematic development, or Views and Values. Obviously this prompt is not your standard VCAA exam style and the focus on one particular scene does lend itself better to a Literature analysis than an English exploration, but keeping the two styles separate is important nonetheless.

Having said that, you substantiate your interpretation well with some excellent analysis. Restructuring some of this and integrating quotes as slowing sentences rather than lists would probably help, (not that these quotes aren't integrated, just that they're grouped to demonstrate the same point as opposed to the English way of weaving evidence together) but I can't see any assessor having too much of a problem with this.

It's quite long, (pushing 500 words would be my approximation) but redundancy isn't an issue and clarity isn't impacted so provided you're confident writing this much in exam conditions you should be fine.

Hope that helps

[DJA]

I won't bother meticulously quoting and correcting this since there are very few errors in expression or vocab (and certainly none that assessors would mind.) But I do think this is a very lit-ish paragraph. Usually this isn't a problem, and it's better that you write in a Lit. style for English than the other way around, but you could probably afford to zoom out from the language and look at some bigger ideas, character/thematic development, or Views and Values. Obviously this prompt is not your standard VCAA exam style and the focus on one particular scene does lend itself better to a Literature analysis than an English exploration, but keeping the two styles separate is important nonetheless.

Having said that, you substantiate your interpretation well with some excellent analysis. Restructuring some of this and integrating quotes as slowing sentences rather than lists would probably help, (not that these quotes aren't integrated, just that they're grouped to demonstrate the same point as opposed to the English way of weaving evidence together) but I can't see any assessor having too much of a problem with this.

It's quite long, (pushing 500 words would be my approximation) but redundancy isn't an issue and clarity isn't impacted so provided you're confident writing this much in exam conditions you should be fine.

Hope that helps

You leg haha Thanks so much.

Could I ask actually about that - How do you keep the two styles for english and lit (text response vs passage analysis) separate? That's something that I still don't know how to split? What are the key differences?

[literally lauren]

I'm sure there are threads in the Lit/English boards that go into more detail but in general: English essays are like a barrel. At either end you've got the big picture V&V stuff, and the really close analysis of language features etc. but the bulk of your essay consists of character/thematic discussion. For Lit however it's like an inverted pyramid with a whole lot of close analysis first up, and then some broader contextualisation, all tied together in a neat little conclusion about how language creates meaning overall.
If you need any clarification, send me a PM and we'll keep this board for Henry discussion

[Politics]

Awesome, Thanks lauren!

[DJA]

The strengths and shortcomings of the big two - Hal and Hotspur

Thought I'd submit some more writing on the dichotomy between Hal and Hotspur - hope this can help anyone. If there is any discussion points/feedback with what my reading is so far, please raise them.  Looking at you Lauren haha

The topic was: Through his contrast of Hal and Hotspur, Shakespeare accentuates the strengths and shortcomings of both.
(Note this is in the light of the first half of the play and not yet a full essay)

Food for thought:

In contrasting Hal and Hotspur in the light of the first two acts of the play, Shakespeare illuminates Hal’s resolute determination to uphold family and image as jarring against the Prince’s initially careless disregard for responsibility. Hotspur’s key strengths lie in this prioritization of the Percy family name above all else together with his determination to uphold what he believes is right regardless of his own risk. In response to King Henry’s slurs towards his brother-in-law Mortimer as a “foolish” and “revolted” “traitor”, Hotspur immediately seeks to defend him, citing Mortimer’s “valiant” and “noble” nature in “changing handiment” – doing battle – with Glendower. Hotspur cannot sit back and allow his kin be “slandered with revolt”; even when confronted with the might of the King, Hotspur stands by what he knows to be the truth and upholds Mortimer for his deeds in battle. When the King replies “He never did encounter…Glendower” – unwilling to recognize or even grapple with what has been brought to light – Hotspur determines to “solemnly deny” all other “studies”, “save how to gall” and bring down Henry in order to depose of a King who he believes is utterly weak and unfit to rule.  It is this depiction of loyalty and adherence to principle that throws into stark relief Prince Hal’s propensity for gross conduct and unruly behavior. The frivolous image of Hal from the opening of Scene four, “drinking” with “three or four loggerheads” at the “very base string of humility” is a far cry from Hotspur’s rigid adherence to his value system. Here instead, we see a Prince who is behaving in a cavalier manner, as emphasized by the rather unkind bullying of Francis, the hapless steward of the tavern, through the empty promise of a “thousand pounds” simply for the sake of personal amusement. Furthering this dichotomy between the two young men is the crass carelessness of Hal’s reply at Falstaff’s reminder of Worcester and the civil war that is brewing; the Prince offhandedly remarks, ”if this civil buffeting hold, we shall buy maidenheads as they buy hobnails.” The implicit suggestion here of the abundance of women and easy sexual gratification due to the deaths of their husbands in a war is deeply confronting and it paints Hal as desperately trying to repress this reminder of his responsibility as a prince through bawdy foolery, through joking and through his association with the common people. While Hotspur embraces his identity as the son of the Percy family, determined to uphold this name at all costs, Hal appears at this stage of the play to care for anything but for his royal title, seemingly able to deny this name in favor of the hedonistic life of the commoners.

While Hal might be seen to be careless and ribald in his dealings with the public, as the play unfolds, the more pertinent antithetical quality between our growing understanding of his political know-how and Hotspur’s warrior persona, serves to highlight the differences in these contrasting modes of being. Hal might play the fool in the presence of his friends of the tavern world, his cited ability to be “proficient” at any “language” of the people stands as a profound symbol for his penchant for wearing masks and playing the roles which befit the situation. In the political realm, these “vizards” of façade and pretense are shown by Shakespeare to be an undeniably necessary – even a positive trait. Hal, as the master of the ‘languages’ of façade, mingles with the public, “uphold[ing]” the “humour of…idleness” as a thin veneer, while internalizing his struggle between responsibility and his desire to exist in the “world” of “sack and sugar.” His outward eloquence and quick wit allows him to form seamless relationships with the common man; he understands that “wisdom cries out in the streets” and to neglect this public sphere is foolish. Hal’s description then of Hotspur’s “eloquence” as the “parcel of reckoning” – weak and ineffectual – magnifies the negatives of Hotspur’s rather restrictive warrior identity. Hotspur seems almost pitifully out of place in Henry’s court – the realm of political machination. His code of honor and identity as a warrior-avenger figure leaves him raging and passionate, venting his feelings of anger at the “perfumed” effeminate nature of the “certain lord”, “demanding” his prisoners. Hotspur’s flaw lies in his inability to conceal and to wear a mask. Without this ability to construct a facade, Hotspur with his burning passion is left open to the king’s wrath and suspicion as Henry replies “Send us your prisoners, or you will hear of it;” the implicit threat “hear of it” illuminates the danger of letting emotions rule and foregoing thinking before acting. In a moral sense, Hotspur might be seen to be more authentic than Hal; he speaks the truth regardless of the situation, save the somewhat sycophantic reference of his “love” for King Henry. Yet in terms of politics, the contrast between both characters – one the medieval avenger – and the other, a seemingly wayward Prince, suggests that Hotspur cannot match Hal in terms of expedience and the concealing of inner thoughts. In the context of the royal court – even the public sphere – this is an undeniable shortcoming as Shakespeare seems to suggest throughout that it is those who play the game of masks who eventually succeed; those who subscribe to an antiquated code of rigid honor are likely to fail.

[meganrobyn]

A tiny point - 'maidenheads' are hymens, therefore virgins. So it's often interpreted as a 'joke' about the raping of girls and young women as soldiers travel through the country in war. Just makes it that tiny bit worse...

[literally lauren]

I'll preface this by saying this is again an excellent analysis, so my qualms are mainly just me playing devil's advocate for the sake of bringing up alternate readings.

In contrasting Hal and Hotspur in the light of the first two acts of the play, Shakespeare illuminates Hal’s resolute determination to uphold family and image as jarring against the Prince’s initially careless disregard for responsibility. I think there is a distinction to be made between his 'family values' and his image. The latter is of paramount importance, whereas seeming loyal to his lineage is more like a subsection of that outward appearance. Also, there are many interpretations of the play that suggest that Hal does not change. This could be a prompt in and of itself, and is certainly up for debate, but I'd be careful not to be too rigidly diagnostic about Hal's "initially careless disregard." My way of circumventing this was basically to add 'seeming' or 'seemingly' as a qualifier to any of those assertions. The trues insight we're granted into Hal's motives comes in the form of the little soliloquy at the end of Act 1 Scene 2, so judging by that you could argue that he has a persistent and learned mistrust for others' true intentions, therefore he maintains his disregard throughout the play, and then simply pretends to shine through the baseless and depraved clouds when the time suits him. Hotspur’s key strengths lie in this prioritization of the Percy family name above all else together with his determination to uphold what he believes is right regardless of his own risk. In response to King Henry’s slurs towards his brother-in-law Mortimer as a “foolish” and “revolted” “traitor”, Hotspur immediately seeks to defend him, citing Mortimer’s “valiant” and “noble” nature in “changing handiment” – doing battle – with Glendower. Hotspur cannot sit back and allow his kin be “slandered with revolt”; even when confronted with the might of the King, Hotspur stands by what he knows to be the truth and upholds Mortimer for his deeds in battle. When the King replies “He never did encounter…Glendower” – unwilling to recognize or even grapple with what has been brought to light – Hotspur determines to “solemnly deny” all other “studies”, “save how to gall” and bring down Henry in order to depose of a King who he believes is utterly weak and unfit to rule. <-- Again, this is quite Lit-y, which isn't too much of an issue provided it's balanced out with the more English-y stuff like this --> It is this depiction of loyalty and adherence to principle that throws into stark relief Prince Hal’s propensity for gross conduct and unruly behavior. The frivolous image of Hal from the opening of Scene four Be sure to clarify the Act as well in a full piece, “drinking” with “three or four loggerheads” at the “very base string of humility” is a far cry from Hotspur’s rigid adherence to his value system. Here instead, we see a Prince who is behaving in a cavalier manner, as emphasized by the rather unkind bullying of Francis, the hapless steward of the tavern, through the empty promise of a “thousand pounds” simply for the sake of personal amusement. Cool point of interest: I  read an article that talked about how Francis' to-ing and fro-ing was in some ways a metaphor for Hal's state of mind. He is undoubtedly fond of the tavern lifestyle, even if he doesn't see it as a durable option, so whilst he waxes lyrical about how he will "glitter o'er [his] fault," he too seems keen to delay the inevitable. The dismal state of Henry's expectations at the beginning suggest Hal has been dwelling in this world for some time already, preferring to shout 'Anon, Anon' than attend to his courtly duties. Furthering this dichotomy between the two young men is the crass carelessness of Hal’s reply at Falstaff’s reminder of Worcester and the civil war that is brewing; the Prince offhandedly remarks, ”if this civil buffeting hold, we shall buy maidenheads as they buy hobnails.” The implicit suggestion here of the abundance of women and easy sexual gratification due to the deaths of their husbands in a war is deeply confronting and it paints Hal as desperately trying to repress this reminder of his responsibility as a prince through bawdy foolery, through joking and through his association with the common people. I agree with Megan in that the joking does have a much darker (read: depraved, lascivious) undertone to it, but you've dealt with it well here. While Hotspur embraces his identity as the son of the Percy family, determined to uphold this name at all costs, Hal appears at this stage of the play to care for anything but for his royal title, seemingly able to deny this name in favor of the hedonistic life of the commoners.

While Hal might be seen to be careless and ribald in his dealings with the public, as the play unfolds, the more pertinent antithetical quality between our growing understanding of his political know-how and Hotspur’s warrior persona, serves to highlight the differences in these contrasting modes of being. Hal might play the fool in the presence of his friends of the tavern world, his cited ability to be “proficient” at any “language” of the people stands as a profound symbol for his penchant for wearing masks and playing the roles which befit the situation. In the political realm, these “vizards” of façade and pretense are shown by Shakespeare to be an undeniably necessary – even a positive trait. Hal, as the master of the ‘languages’ of façade, mingles with the public, “uphold[ing]” the “humour of…idleness” as a thin veneer, while internalizing his struggle between responsibility and his desire to exist in the “world” of “sack and sugar.” His outward eloquence and quick wit allows him to form seamless relationships with the common man; he understands that “wisdom cries out in the streets” and to neglect this public sphere is foolish. Hal’s description then of Hotspur’s “eloquence” as the “parcel of reckoning” – weak and ineffectual – magnifies the negatives of Hotspur’s rather restrictive warrior identity. One of my favourite words in this instance was 'pastiche,' referring to the tradition of 'knights in shining armour' that Hotspur is almost unconsciously parodying. Hotspur seems almost pitifully out of place in Henry’s court – the realm of political machination. His code of honor and identity as a warrior-avenger figure leaves him raging and passionate, venting his feelings of anger at the “perfumed” effeminate nature of the “certain lord”, “demanding” his prisoners. Hotspur’s flaw lies in his inability to conceal and to wear a mask. Without this ability to construct a facade, Hotspur with his burning passion is left open to the king’s wrath and suspicion as Henry replies “Send us your prisoners, or you will hear of it;” the implicit threat “hear of it” illuminates the danger of letting emotions rule and foregoing thinking before acting. In a moral sense, Hotspur might be seen to be more authentic than Hal; he speaks the truth regardless of the situation, save the somewhat sycophantic reference of his “love” for King Henry. Yet in terms of politics, the contrast between both characters – one the medieval avenger – and the other, a seemingly wayward Prince, suggests that Hotspur cannot match Hal in terms of expedience and the concealing of inner thoughts. Consider also the slightly punning name: Hotspur = hotheaded (no one ever said Shakespeare was subtle.) You could even contrast some of his more petulant outbursts (esp. over the distribution of land that wasn't even his to begin with) against Hal's ability to command the stage even in crisis (ie. when he is about to receive news of his father's illness he orders the others to "hide thee about the arras" etc.) In the context of the royal court – even the public sphere – this is an undeniable shortcoming as Shakespeare seems to suggest throughout that it is those who play the game of masks who eventually succeed; those who subscribe to an antiquated code of rigid honor are likely to fail.

An interesting lens through which to view the text is to examine your interpretation of Hotspur. Though the play's title suggests a Henry-centric story, and the plot is ostensibly a bildungsroman about Hal's seeming maturation into a political figurehead, the inferred attitudes towards Hotspur is quite central in determining the message of the text. Should we view his downfall as something tragic, or is he the fool - not the wise fool like Falstaff - but the fool who puts his faith in archaic ideals? I know some people genuinely sympathise with him, and I know others who are somewhat irritated by his obstinacy. The scene between him and Kate is especially interesting; one would assume a valourous knight would also be predisposed to chivalry, yet the entire scene almost reads like a mockery of his values. There's a version of this play that was performed at the Globe and they chose to have Kate in the background rolling her eyes and delivering every line with such sarcasm, that the audience can't help but laugh at Hotspur's assertions. It's almost reminiscent of ~5:06 in this video.
In order to get a full sense of the staging of this play, I'd highly recommend this:

3:00 and 8:39 are quite cute too, bless Sir Roger Allam, he is the one true Falstaff.

[DJA]

Some notes on the Machiavel.

*the first week we studied this text, we had a guest speaker who discussed the idea of the Machiavel in the play. He told us Henry IV had nothing to do with redemption or the 'prodigal son' allegory. At the time I thought he was wrong, but I'm glad he spoke to us because it's critical that you understand the core of the text: Hal does not change, he only seems to. Of course, the minor degree to which he may change is up for debate, but the point is, this text is not about a wayward son coming to terms with his future and stepping up to redeem his father's love and country's respect. It is of a shrewd Machiavel who is adept and deception and an astute judge of human behaviour. I'll expand upon this in later practice essays, but for now, a crash course in Niccolo Machiavelli's political contributions to the literary world* 
...

Reading some of this I want to clarify some things. Would love some thoughts with what I think so far!

My current reading of Hal from what we have studied/analysed so far doesn't discount your interpretation; The way I see Hal is that I do acknowledge in the opening act and continuing on that he is to an extent a son who is struggling with the responsibility placed on him as a Prince and part of a royal family with a father who is shown to be reasonably dismissive of him - not exactly a great father figure. Hence in the opening acts, I see his frivolity as almost an attempt to repress and to escape the responsibility that is placed on him - it makes sense after all, who wouldn't want a life of hedonistic drinking and sex rather than the life of prince expected to present a good image etc etc 
Yet I also believe that yes - I don't think he 'changes' in terms of his core identity as per say - his cunning political Machiavellian mind and adept manipulation is present throughout from the very beginning (in his soliloquy) and continuing all the way throughout the play. (Although I personally cannot discount the fact that he genuinely likes Falstaff and the 'tavern' world as I said before) It's just that in that the struggle within him between a life of freedom and the life of royal responsibility, he eventually sees the merit in going down the path of responsibility while still (at least for this play) retaining the connection with the common man - something Henry IV sees no merit in.
All in all then I see him as the better Machiavel/more effective leader - he knows the public well because of his dealings with them.

But yes - I do see him as a Machiavel throughout, but also as a young man who is drawn to a life of freedom and struggling with the prospect of submitting to a life of princely responsibility.

Legitimate? I'll post evidence in terms of quotations if we can get a discussion going

Thanks again Lauren

EDIT: Also what about the evidence pointing towards his astute knowledge of the correct time to 'pay the debt' and the way he raises himself up in the country's eyes.
Also the scenes which show him away from the public eye i.e. not performing but still demonstrating a great deal of empathy care friendship with say Falstaff. (i.e. the eulogy scene)