Henry IV, Part 1

By William Shakespeare

The second play in William Shakespeare’s tetralogy of plays which also includes “Richard II”, “Henry IV, Part 2”, and “Henry V”, “Henry IV, Part 1” is believed to have been written no later than 1597. A history play, the drama concerns the unquiet reign of Henry Bolingbroke. Following the usurpation of the throne, Henry IV is plagued with guilt over his role in the imprisonment and death of King Richard II. In order to resolve himself of this internal conflict Henry IV leads a crusade to the Holy Land. Meanwhile the King is troubled by his son’s behavior. The future King Henry V, the Prince of Wales, nicknamed Prince Hal, has forsaken the Royal Court in favor of spending his time in taverns with lowlifes, which brings into question his royal worthiness by the fellow nobleman of the royal court. Prince Hal is particularly captivated by Sir John Falstaff, a charismatic old drunk. The action of the play revolves around three groups. First there is the King and his council. Secondly there is a group of rebels comprised principally of the Percys and the Mortimers. Thirdly there is the Prince and his companions, who provide a comic relief from the serious action of the play. Ultimately the Prince abandons his carousing ways and assumes his royal duty as the conflict between the King and the rebels comes to a head at the Battle of Shrewsbury. This edition includes a preface and annotations by Henry N. Hudson, an introduction by Charles H. Herford, and a biographical afterword.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Digireads.com Publishing
• Release date: Sep 21, 2020
• ISBN: 9781420977509

William Shakespeare

William Shakespeare (1564–1616) is arguably the most famous playwright to ever live. Born in England, he attended grammar school but did not study at a university. In the 1590s, Shakespeare worked as partner and performer at the London-based acting company, the King’s Men. His earliest plays were Henry VI and Richard III, both based on the historical figures. During his career, Shakespeare produced nearly 40 plays that reached multiple countries and cultures. Some of his most notable titles include Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet and Julius Caesar. His acclaimed catalog earned him the title of the world’s greatest dramatist.

Book preview

cover.jpg

HENRY IV, PART 1

By WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE

Preface and Annotations by

HENRY N. HUDSON

Introduction by

CHARLES H. HERFORD

Henry IV, Part 1

By William Shakespeare

Preface and Annotations by Henry N. Hudson

Introduction by Charles H. Herford

Print ISBN 13: 978-1-4209-7583-3

eBook ISBN 13: 978-1-4209-7750-9

This edition copyright © 2021. Digireads.com Publishing.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.

Cover Image: a detail of Henry IV, by C. L. Doughty (1913-85) / Private Collection / © Look and Learn / Bridgeman Images.

Please visit www.digireads.com

CONTENTS

PREFACE

INTRODUCTION

DRAMATIS PERSONAE

ACT I.

SCENE I.

SCENE II.

SCENE III.

ACT II.

SCENE I.

SCENE II.

SCENE III.

SCENE IV.

ACT III.

SCENE I.

SCENE II.

SCENE III.

ACT IV.

SCENE I.

SCENE II.

SCENE III.

SCENE IV.

ACT V.

SCENE I.

SCENE II.

SCENE III.

SCENE IV.

SCENE V.

BIOGRAPHICAL AFTERWORD

Preface

Johnson rightly observes that the First and Second Parts of King Henry the Fourth are substantially one drama, the whole being arranged as two only because too long to be one. For this cause it seems best to regard them as one in the introductory matter, and so dispose of them both together. The writing of them must be placed at least as early as 1597, when the author was thirty-three years old. The First Part was registered at the Stationers’ for publication in February, 1598, and was published in the course of that year. It was reprinted in 1599, and again in 1604; also a fourth time in 1608, and a fifth in 1613. In the first issue the authorship was not stated; but each later issue has the name of W. Shakespeare printed in the title-page as the author. The Second Part was first published in 1600, and there is not known to have been any other edition of it till it reappeared along with the First Part in the folio of 1623.

It is beyond question that the original name of Sir John Falstaff was Sir John Oldcastle; and a curious relic of that name survives in Act i. scene 2, where the Prince calls Falstaff "my old lad of the castle. And we have several other strong proofs of the fact; as in the Epilogue to the Second Part: For anything I know, Falstaff shall die of a sweat, unless already he be killed with your hard opinions; for Oldcastle died a martyr, and this is not the man." Also, in Amends for Ladies, a play by Nathaniel Field, printed in 1618: "Did you never see the play where the fat Knight, hight Oldcastle, did tell you truly what this honour was?" which clearly alludes to Falstaff’s soliloquy about honour in Part First, Act. v. scene 1. Yet it is certain that the change from Oldcastle to Falstaff was made before the play was entered at the Stationers’ in 1598, as that entry mentions the conceited mirth of Sir John Falstaff. Nor is there any doubt that the Second Part was written before that change was made; for in the quarto edition of this Part, Act i. scene 2, one of Falstaff’s speeches has the prefix Old; the change in that instance being probably left unmarked in the printer’s copy. All which shows that both Parts were written long enough before February, 1598, for the Poet to see cause for changing the name.

Sir John Oldcastle, the good Lord Cobham, was much distinguished as a Wickliffite martyr, and his name was held in high reverence by the Protestants in Shakespeare’s time. And the purpose of the change in question probably was to rescue his memory from the profanations of the stage. Thus much seems hinted in the forecited passage from the Epilogue, and is further approved by what Fuller says in his Church History: Stage-poets have themselves been very bold with, and others very merry at, the memory of Sir John Oldcastle, whom they have fancied a boon companion, a jovial royster, and a coward to boot. The best is, Sir John Falstaff hath relieved the memory of Sir John Oldcastle, and is substituted buffoon in his place.

Another motive for the change may have been the better to distinguish Shakespeare’s play from The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth; a play which had been on the stage some years, and wherein Sir John Oldcastle was among the names of the Dramatis Personæ, as were also Ned and Gadshill. There is no telling with any certainty when or by whom The Famous Victories was written. It is known to have been on the boards as early as 1588, because one of the parts was acted by Tarleton, the celebrated comedian, who died that year. And Nash, in his Pierce Penniless, 1592, thus alludes to it: What a glorious thing it is to have Henry the Fifth represented on the stage, leading the French King prisoner, and forcing him and the Dauphin to swear fealty. It was also entered at the Stationers’ in 1594; and a play called Harry the Fifth, probably the same, was performed in 1595; and not less than three editions of it were printed. All which tells strongly for its success and popularity. The action of the play extends over the whole time occupied by Shakespeare’s King Henry the Fourth and King Henry the Fifth. The Poet can hardly be said to have built upon it or borrowed from it at all, any further than taking the above-mentioned names. The play is indeed a most wretched and worthless performance; being altogether a mass of stupid vulgarity; at once vapid and vile; without the least touch of wit in the comic parts, or of poetry in the tragic; the verse being such only to the eye; Sir John Oldcastle being a dull, low-minded profligate, uninformed with the slightest felicity of thought or humour; the Prince, an irredeemable compound of ruffian, blackguard, and hypocrite.

In the folio, the text of the First Part does not differ greatly from that of the quartos; and the quarto text is regarded by many as the better of the two. In the Second Part the folio text is much the better, some of the finest passages having first appeared in that edition. And there are many smaller differences; these, too, of such a nature as to infer that the folio must have been printed from an independent manuscript, and that the play had been revised by the author.

In these two plays, as in others of the same class, the Poet’s authority was Holinshed, whose Chronicles, first published in 1577, were then the favourite book in English history. And the plays, notwithstanding their wealth of ideal matter, are rightly called historical, because the history everywhere guides, and in a good measure forms, the plot; whereas Macbeth, for instance, though having much of historical matter, is rightly called a tragedy, as the history merely subserves the plot.

King Henry IV., surnamed Bolingbroke from the place of his birth, came to the throne in 1399, having first deposed his cousin, Richard II., whose death he was thought to have procured shortly after. The chief agents in this usurpation were the Percys, known as Northumberland, Worcester, and Hotspur. The lineal heir, next after Richard, was Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March, a lad then about seven years old, whom the King held in a sort of honourable custody.

Early in his reign, one of the King’s partisans in Wales went to wronging Owen Glendower, a chief of that country, who had been trained up in the English Court. Glendower petitioned for redress, and was insultingly denied; whereupon he took the work of redress into his own hands. Sir Edmund Mortimer, uncle to the young Earl of March, and brother to Hotspur’s wife, was sent against him; but his forces were utterly broken, and himself held in confinement by Glendower, where the King suffered him to lie unransomed; alleging that he had treacherously allowed himself to be taken. Shakespeare, however, following Holinshed, makes the young Earl, who was then detained at Windsor, to have been Glendower’s prisoner. After the captivity of Mortimer, the King led three armies in succession against Glendower, and was as often baffled by the Welshman. At length the elements made war on the King; his forces were storm-stricken, blown to pieces by tempests; which bred a general belief that Glendower could command the Devil, and call spirits from the vasty deep. The King finally gave up and withdrew; but still consoled himself that he yielded not to the arms, but to the magic arts of his antagonist.

In the beginning of his reign the King led an army into Scotland, and summoned the Scottish King to appear before him, and do homage for his crown; but, finding that the Scots would neither submit nor fight, and being pressed by famine, he gave over the undertaking and retired. Some while after, Earl Douglas, at the head of ten thousand men, burst into England and advanced as far as Newcastle, spreading terror and havoc around him. On their return, they were met by the Percys at Homildon, where, after a fierce and bloody battle, the Scots were utterly routed; Douglas himself being captured, as were also many other Scottish noblemen, and among them the Earl of Fife, a prince of the blood royal. The most distinguished of the English leaders in this affair was Henry Percy, surnamed Hotspur; a man of the most daring and impetuous spirit, who first armed at the age of twelve years, after which time, it is said, his spur was never cold.

Of the other events, suffice it to say, that they are much the same in history as in the drama. The battle of Homildon was fought September 14, 1402; which marks the beginning of the play. The battle of Shrewsbury, which closes the First Part, took place July 21, 1403; Prince Henry being then only sixteen years old. The King died March 19, 1413; so that the two plays cover a period of about ten years and a half.

HENRY N. HUDSON.

1880.

Introduction

THE First Part of King Henry IV. was first published in a quarto edition of 1598, bearing the title:—

The | History of | Henrie the | Fourth; | with the battell at Shrewsburie, | betweene the King and Lord | Henry Percy, surnamed | Henrie Hotspur of | the North. | With the humorous conceits of Sir | John Falstalffe. | At London. | Printed by P. S. for Andrew Wise. . . . 1598.

Five other quartos were issued before the appearance of the First Folio, each described on the title-page as ‘newly corrected by W. Shakespeare.’ They are dated 1599, 1604, 1608, 1613, 1622. Two more appeared in 1632 and 1639. Each appears to have been printed from its predecessor. The title in the First Folio ran: ‘The First Part of Henry the Fourth, with the Life and Death of Henry sirnamed Hot-spurre.’ It was printed, in the view of the Cambridge editors, from a partially corrected copy of the Fifth Quarto, with occasional reference to the earlier quartos.

The Second Part from the outset never rivalled the fame of the First. A single edition only was issued in quarto, in 1600, with the title:—

The Second Part of Henrie | the fourth, continuing to his death, | and coronation of Henrie | the fift. | With the humours of Sir John Fal-|stalffe, and swaggering | Pistoll. | As it hath been sundrie times publikely | acted by the right honorable, the Lord Chamberlaine his servants. | Written by William Shakspeare. London. Printed by V. S. for Andrew Wise and William Aspley. 1600.

In some copies of this Quarto, the first scene of Act III. was omitted; the omission being afterwards rectified by inserting two new leaves and resetting part of the type.

The Folio text of the Second Part was apparently derived from a transcript of the original MS. It contains several striking passages not found in the Quarto, yet clearly inseparable from the context. The text of both parts in the Folio has been rigorously purified of all profane oaths and biblical allusions.

The First Part was entered in the Stationers’ Register under date of Feb. 25, 1597-8, as ‘The Historye of Henry the iiiith.’ Critics are unanimous in regarding it as the work of one of the two previous years 1596-7. Some slight allusions have been detected to events of 1596; while the perfect uniformity of manner which connects this play with the Second Part, and both with Henry V., favours the later year. For the Second Part was clearly unknown and presumably unwritten when the First Part of the History was entered as ‘The History,’ i.e. in Feb. 1598.

But the Second Part must have been produced before the close of the year, for a few months later the character of Silence was already famous enough to point an allusion in Jonson’s second comedy, performed in 1599.{1} Henry V. is fixed with equal definiteness to 1599. The three plays thus composed in close succession form a trilogy on the career of the great Lancastrian king, clearly more after Shakespeare’s heart than any other figure in English history. A deep gulf separates this trilogy, in manner and matter, from all the previous Histories, even from Richard II, which looks so like a prelude to it. Richard III., Richard II, and John are almost devoid of prose. Of Henry IV. and Henry V. nearly one-half is prose;{2} and this external difference rests upon differences of dramatic method by no means wholly due to the less passionate and tragic quality of the subject. Richard II. moves throughout among courtly persons; if for a moment we are suffered to hear the vox populi (as in iv. 1.), it speaks pathetically, in blank verse, like the rest. Yet Richard, not less than Hal, had given occasion for scenes in the Eastcheap vein of humour and realism which flowed with such marvellous freedom in 1597-8. Characteristically enough it is only in the later play that Shakespeare draws the

Reviews for Henry IV, Part 1

[ubiquitousuk-784690 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

In performance I have found 1 Henry IV to be a bit tedious so a part of me wanted to dislike the experience of reading it order thay my earlier opinion might be validated.

Alas, I found the experience of reading the play to be thoroughly entertaining. The characters are rich, the wordplay wonderful, and the plot arc also quite satisfying. Now I see why this play is often held among Shakespeare's best.

[et.carole · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Another play for my Shakespeare class. Not a favorite; I don't think the themes of honor etc. are expounded on very well in this one.

[mrslee_1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Don't look for an educated review here, I've barely touched the surface having only read the play one time. I tried to watch two versions of this, but they did not catch my fancy. I enjoyed the reading of it though, and intend to read the second part very soon. Action, intrigue, a bit of comedy/farce. Good stuff.

[booksfordinner · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Folger editions are my fave.

[medievalgirl-1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This play was the second in a series of 8 which together formed Shakespeare’s masterful saga of 'History' plays chronicling the turbulent final century of the Plantagenet Dynasty from the deposition of Richard II in 1399 to the death of Richard III at Bosworth field in 1485.

Altogether, they have all the high drama of an epic saga with their vivid accounts of treachery, ambition, power, betrayal, feuding and war in an age of bloody upheaval.
If all this sounds gloomy and depressing, there are also colourful well-developed and memorable characters including the 'man mountain' plump and usually tipsy John Falstaff and the heroic Henry V as well as plenty of courage, chivalry and deeds of daring-do with a smattering of romance and humour.

Whoever said Shakespeare was boring? It should be said, however, that I could not fully appreciate these plays by simply reading them- they had to be seen as well. They are not, after all, novels, and reading through them in the way one would a book can be a tedious experience.

In this play King Henry IV struggles to maintain his position and power in the face of rebellion from the influential, passionate, impetuous and headstrong Henry Hotspur young son of the powerful Earl of Northumberland who joins with the King's enemies.
Alongside the threat of rebellion and civil war King Henry strives with his own wayward son Prince Hal (the future Henry V) who spends most of his time in seedy taverns and the company of ne'er-do- wells such as John Falstaff.

As events come to a head, Hal promises to prove himself worthy of his father's respect, and ultimately the position and authority of his future Kingship on the battlefield.

[trilliams · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

It doesn't have the famous speeches of Henry V, but it has the action, the humor, Hotspur, and... FALSTAFF. I can only imagine some Elizabethan Chris Farley got rich off this part. It would only make sense.

[aliceanna-1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Much more interesting than Richard II. The love of Henry IV for Hotspur over his own son seems to foreshadow the King Lear tragedy. Shakespeare depicts HIV as a fairly weak king, in my opinion, but I suppose this is meant to boost HV's status.The Hal/Falstaff robbery scene was quite amusing and set up the drama of the Hal/Hotspur confrontation with Falstaff taking credit for Hotspur's death.

[amerynth · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I really enjoyed reading Shakepeare's "King Henry IV, Part One". It was my first time reading one of Shakepeare's historical plays and this one exceeded my expectations.It's got a good story line, Henry IV is fighting rivals for his throne and trying to bring his unruly son under control. Falstaff is a pretty funny character -- I thought he was much more fun here than in "The Merry Wives of Windsor."

[coach_of_alva · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

The central characters are supposed to be an old king trying to keep the crown he so dubiously earned and the wild young prince whose only apparent virtue in this play is his loyalty and fighting prowess. They are, as everyone knows, upstaged by two anti-heroes, the warrior Hotspur and the rough Sir John Falstaff. Hotspur was most interesting in his domestic scenes, where he proved himself to be an indifferent husband and a very trying in-law. I have heard so much about Falstaff over the years that it was a great joy to finally meet the old fart. Family conflicts, plots, fight scenes, and plenty of comic relief: someone watching this at the time would have thought that Shakespeare had done all that anyone could do with a history play.

[stillatim · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I was a bit worried that I wouldn't get it, since I always have trouble with any books or movies which mix the funny and the serious. But I had no problems with this (unlike, say, The Tempest). Looking forward to part II and Henry V.

"But thoughts, the slaves of life, and life, time's fool
And time, that takes survey of all the world,
Must have a stop." Hotspur, V 4 80-82.

"Why? She's neither fish nor flesh; a man knows not where to have her."
"Thou art an unjust man in saying so. Thou or any man knows where to have me, thou knave thou." Falstaff & Mrs Quickly, III 3 126-129.

[dinadansfriend · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Richard II is dead, and Henry of Bolingbroke is now king Henry IV. He has a wild son, Prince Hal, and his nobles are restive, especially the earl of Worcester, a former ally in the overthrow of Richard II. Hal has low companions, notably John Falstaff, a disorderly knight, but comes to his father's aid in quelling part of the rebellion. There is a lot in this play about conflict between fathers and sons. It reads well.I've recorded it as read 6 times.

[alcracka · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Another great one! If I remember right, the second part of Henry IV is not as great...I'll have to kinda slog through it on my way to Henry V, which at this point is like having sex with your wife. Henry V, not slogging through 2 Henry IV, I mean. I've read Henry V like fifty times and seen the movie at least five - my mom really liked that thing. That and Amadeus. Remember back when VCRs were for watching old movies instead of new ones? ("No, because I'm not a million years old like you." "Get off my lawn.") Anyway, after thinking about it for six and a half sentences, the sex / Henry V comparison doesn't make any sense, so never mind.

I found myself losing focus sometimes during 1 Henry IV, and I'm not sure whether it was the context - I had little free time this weekend and I found myself reading it in small bites, sometimes while the wife watched cooking reality shows. Not a great way to read Shakespeare - or maybe it was that it's been a while since I read a bunch of Shakespeare in quick succession, and my Shakespeare muscles have gone all flabby. We'll see.

Where Richard II was very faithful to the actual history, Shakespeare departs more readily from the strict truth of things in the Henry IV plays. He throws a lot more stuff in from non-historical characters, Falstaff being the obvious one, possibly because he needs some padding to make this into two different plays; I'm not sure why he did two plays, but maybe I'll get it more after the second one. (I've read all this before, but it's been a while so I don't remember how 2 Henry IV ends.) The dramatic arc in this first part works perfectly, anyway; the climactic (and completely fabricated) duel between the young Henry V and Hotspur makes a great Act V.

Interesting, by the way, that Henry V is at least co-lead with Henry IV in this first part, and he's clearly the main character in the second. Just sayin'. I wonder whether we'd see these plays differently if 2 Henry IV had been called 1 Henry V. I think Henry IV gets less attention than Henry V in part because it's two plays, which makes people more anxious about reading them. More commitment, y'know? But if you take 1 Henry IV on its own...well, it's not as good as Richard II, but it's very good.

I'm rambling badly, aren't I? Truth is I have work to do and I don't want to do it. But okay, I should get to it. See you soon for 2 Henry IV.

Saccio's book, by the way, is great. Fun to read, really informative. My pattern has been to read the chapter about the play, then the play, then my Riverside Shakespeare's intro to the play; it's working out nicely. There's a lot of flipping between books involved, though; I'm going to buy a physical copy of Saccio today so I can reference it better. Paging around on a Kindle totally sucks.

[ncgraham_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

After a bad experience with Richard II, I was starting to worry that Shakespeare’s history plays weren’t for me, when Henry IV, Part I came along to save me from that delusion. This is a wonderful play, perhaps one of my favorites of Shakespeare's now. It balances so many different elements—the court, the tavern, the rebel camp, the pathos, the humor, the discourse on honor. And it presented me with characters I could truly care about.Faltstaff is often put forward as one of Shakespeare’s greatest creations, and understandably so. The old, fat, roguish knight has a towering presence even on the page, and I could sympathize with his fatherly love for Prince Hal and his fear that the boy will eventually turn on him. Henry IV, who was emotionally distant in Richard II (like most everyone), has some wonderful moments of vulnerability, even breaking into tears in Act III scene 2. And despite the fact that he’s the antagonist, I found Hotspur oddly likable. He’s brazen and impetuous—there must be Scots blood in there somewhere—and in spite of his constant avowals that he does not have “the gift of tongue,” he’s quite eloquent:“But I tell you, my lord fool, out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.”Methinks the noble lord doth protest too much.Actually, the only character who I had trouble liking was Hal himself, the protagonist. I learned this story through an old Wishbone episode, which whitewashed the character somewhat, so I was surprised to pick up the play and discover just how cunning and scheming he is. His dissoluteness and eventual redemption are not genuine, but staged to bring about a certain end; in the meantime, he manipulates the people around him with Machiavellian dexterity. I find that more and more I am placing a premium on honesty, both in books and in real life, and that may be why I prefer some of the other characters over the prince. Falstaff’s attempts at fibbing and playacting are generally unconvincing to those around him—he is inexpert—and I don’t think Hotspur could every bring himself to tell a barefaced lie, which may be one of the reasons I find him so lovable.This is where we ended our perusal of the history plays in my Shakespeare class, but I plan to continue with this particular tetralogy before PBS airs new adaptations of all four plays later this year. Because I enjoyed Henry IV, Part I so much, I’m looking forward to reading more about these characters.

[lyzadanger · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Blah, blah, blah, John Falstaff, what a laugh. Blah, blah, blah, the meaning of valor and honor. The prodigal brat son repairs his ways and leads the country to implied future greatness. These are all themes that seem a bit tired in our day, but Shakespeare probably played some role in putting them together in the first place.Henry IVi is the second of the Bard's (imposing) historical tetralogy following the ascent of Lancastrian dynasty, which first grapple into power in Richard II and carry it through the series. Then there's the Henry VI plays (a different set). Then things devolve into chaos in full-on War of the Roses mode through dastardly Richard III before everyone gets vanquished by the glorious Tudors (one must pause and consider the historical source here a bit—Shakespeare as propaganda mouthpiece for the Tudors? Hells yeah, for sure). OK, OK, so the Shakespeare history plays. Hard. I won't gloss over that. And by hard I mean keeping one's head around the characters. The (wayward) future Henry V is referenced in the play as: Prince, Henry, Harry, Hal, Lancaster, the Prince of Wales. Most people are named Henry and most have more than one title, which also serves as a moniker. Here's my advice. Remember these names: Percy, Neville, Northumberland. Those are the names and ducal territories of the dastardly northerners who rebel against Henry Bolingbroke (that is, the former Duke of Lancaster, aka Henry IV) in the play. To this day, the Percys and Nevilles are northerners with oomph (the current head of the Neville clan is Christopher George Charles Nevill, 6th Marquess of Abergavenny, born 1955; the current Duke of Northumberland is a Percy). The fractious Percys and Nevilles, fronted by exquisite hothead Henry Percy—sigh, another Percy, another Henry, but rest easy: he's called Hotspur throughout the play and lives up to the title—aren't happy with the hand they've been dealt since Henry IV's deposition of wimpy old Richard II. Promises, promises, Henry IV made, but apparently isn't delivering. The specific reasons for the revolt are not that clear, nor do they appear to be that important to Shakespeare.At the same time, wastrel/quintessential prodigal brat, the young King Hal, is frolicking around with the farcical John Falstaff, who resembles nothing more than a 16th-century Homer Simpson: fat, dumb, greedy, pathetic comic relief. His bawdy dipshittery is a stand-in for Hal's real father (the king). The king would like nothing more than for Hal to act like Hotspur (this before the revolt), who, in his mind, is the ideal valiant son. Throughout the play, Falstaff plays the opposite tack in terms of honor, through several speeches decrying its perceived value. Interesting stuff. The play's tavern antics are balanced with standard Shakespeare high-falutin' battle scenes. Everything ends well enough, with Hotspur dying grandly and honorably, and the succession less threatened. The plays vernacular, prose (i.e. not in meter) sections are some of the hardest Shakespeare to get through, and require glossing for all but the most middle/early-modern English expert. Get a good edition with lots of footnotes. I use the Folger Library series, not because of their physical quality—they have rough paper and the reek of coloring books or newsprint—but because their facing-page notes are the easiest reference I've found for getting through the plays. Not by a sight my favorite Shakespeare play, but, hey, I'm making it through the histories.

[crowyhead · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I'm not as fond of Shakespeare's histories as I am some of his other plays, but Falstaff is a great and memorable character.