KING HENRY IV PART 1 ANALYSIS FULL

Speaking overall, I am once again astonished by the great command of voices that Shakespeare demonstrates in this play. (Like I said, this isn't that important, but it is interesting how a great dramatist can use similar materials in support of very different effects.) Portia-the stoic Roman-cuts herself in the thigh to prove her ability to keep a secret, but Lady Percy-a hardy warrior's bride-tries to break her husband's little finger and force him to talk.

Their conduct afterwards, though, is different. Lady Percy, in her attempts to gain information about the coming rebellion, delivers a speech that is very much like Portia's speech to Brutus in similar circumstances. The other parallel-between plays-is closer, but certainly less important. In addition, Falstaff-unlike the humorless Glendower-is a worthy opponent, filled with wit and self-awareness, and the fact that Hal can more than hold his own-and keep his temper too-suggests a self-awareness, a deliberately cultivated distance from his degraded surroundings, that prepares us for his eventual transformation just as much as his soliloquy about the sun. Hal, already characterized as a wastrel, punctures Falstaff's pomposity with such a controlled attack of pointed wit that we begin to admire him for his discipline (at least in conversation), and sense that there may be more to him than appears on the surface. (It may, in fact, prove fatal, since Glendower fails to come to Hotspur's aid when most needed-a dereliction perhaps precipitated by the younger man's abrasive heckling.) Consequently, although we like Hotspur at the end of the scene as much as we liked him at the beginning, we respect him a good deal less.Д¬ontrast with this the Hal-Falstaff exchanges. Hotspur, whom we are inclined to respect because of his high spirits and his achievements as a warrior, is so easily irritated, and carries his own self-regard so close to the surface, that his needling of Glendower-although deserved-seem pointless, rash and injudicious. Each young man spends much of his time needling a self-important, older man who is such a windbag that the audience is almost automatically on the young man's side.

I was struck with two parallels, however-one within the play itself, and one within Shakespeare's body of work.ДЇirst of all, I appreciated the subtle parallels between the Hotspur-Glendower and the Hal-Falstaff scenes.

I have read this play many times, and-although Shakespeare always shows me something new-this reading gave me little insight and few surprises. Each young man spends much of his time needling a self-important, older man who is such a windbag that the audience is almost automat First of all, I appreciated the subtle parallels between the Hotspur-Glendower and the Hal-Falstaff scenes. I was struck with two parallels, however-one within the play itself, and one within Shakespeare's body of work. Photographic images of the originalВ Q0 Fragment, which is assumed to have been printed in Peter Short's printing house in 1598, appear in the fifth appendix.В Finally, a reference section provides a list of abbreviations and references, a catalog of ShakespeareвЂ™s works and works partly by Shakespeare, and citations for the modern productions mentioned in the text, other collated editions of Shakespeare's work, and other related reading. The appendix on casting features a doubling chart to show which characters may be played by one actor. Appendices provide the sources of 1 Henry IV, discussions of Shakespeare's metrics, andВ the history of the manuscript. Kastan also covers the recurrence of the word 'honor' in the text and the role that women play.

KING HENRY IV PART 1 ANALYSIS FULL

The full and engaging introduction devotes extensive discussion to the play's language, indicating how its insistent economic vocabulary provides texture for the social concerns of the play and focuses attention on the central relationship between value and political authority. Conventionally regarded as a history play, much of it is in fact conspicuously invented fiction, and Kastan argues that the non-historical, comic plot does not simply parody the historical action but by its existence raises questions about the very nature of history. David Scott Kastan lucidly explores the remarkable richness and the ambitious design of King Henry IV Part 1 and shows how these complicate any easy sense of what kind of play it is.

King henry iv part 1 analysis