The Ultimate Guide to King Henry IV Part 1

King Henry IV, Part 1

---

Apr 04, Pages. The acclaimed Pelican Shakespeare series edited by A. Updated by general editors Stephen Orgel and A. Braunmuller, these easy-to-read editions incorporate over thirty years of Shakespeare scholarship undertaken since the original series, edited by Alfred Harbage, appeared between and With definitive texts and illuminating essays, the Pelican Shakespeare will remain a valued resource for students, teachers, and theater professionals for many years to come.

For more than seventy years, Penguin has been the leading publisher of classic literature in the English-speaking world. With more than 1, titles, Penguin Classics represents a global bookshelf of the best works throughout history and across genres and disciplines. Readers trust the series to provide authoritative texts enhanced by introductions and notes by distinguished scholars and contemporary authors, as well as up-to-date translations by award-winning translators.

From the Trade Paperback edition. Fiction Fiction Classics Category: Also in The Pelican Shakespeare. However, he himself informs the audience that this time will be over soon and that he will proof himself worthy. Had I not known what king he was to become, I would have considered this announcement the greatest joke in the play.

Nevertheless, the aforementioned battle at Shrewsbury gives Hal his chance after he somehow gets his father to give him command and he does proof himself worthy indeed. There is the inevitable climax in form of single combat between Hal and Hotspur and it was thrilling. In the end, even the dishonourable Falstaff wants to make amends for his behaviour and vows to change his ways.

Thus, it can be said that apart from the overall theme of the Wars of the Roses, this play is also about sinful youths growing up to become men of honour. It definitely is the groundwork not only for part 2 but also for the next play about Henry V. I liked this play much better than the one about Richard II. Maybe I, too, fell for the comic relief and was blinded by fools becoming heroes. View all 25 comments.

Henry IV, Part 1

Taught this play many times in the 60's and 70's, when it was often the one Shakespeare play in a college Intro to Lit class: After my study with two prominent women Shakespeareans separate post-docs at Harvard and Breadloaf I moved, for the sake of my largely female community college students, to stronger women characters in the comedies and, say, Measure for Measure.

But I still offhandedly quote from 1H4, say "If reasons were as plentiful as blackberries…"Falst Taught this play many times in the 60's and 70's, when it was often the one Shakespeare play in a college Intro to Lit class: But I still offhandedly quote from 1H4, say "If reasons were as plentiful as blackberries…"Falstaff to Hal who's caught him running away. I emphasized students aloudread for Tone of Voice, essential for lit, and especially for drama. This play teaches tone really well: Falstaff insults the Hostess, by calling her "You woman! Because of Falstaff's tone.

Forgive I quote from memory here, last taught it two decades ago. Shakespeare shows his invention what we now call creativity, a different concept every time Falstaff speaks. For instance, Hal insults Fallstaff's overweight with common criticism more useful to oversized Americans now--"this bed-presser, this huge hill of flesh"--while Falstaff thinks up great anti-jogger insults, "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! Next Falstaff play-acts "in King Cambyses vein" playing Hal's father the King, saying about the Hostess, "For tears do stop the floodgates of her eyes.. Nov 20, Neil Walker rated it it was amazing. It may not be immediately obvious to people, when reading something like Drug Gang, but William Shakespeare has been a major and important influence on my writing. As an author, I have taken on board a lot of lessons from Shakespeare in terms of structure, story and character arcs. Henry IV, Part 1 has always been my favourite work of Shakespeare.

Primarily, this is because of the gradual transformation that Prince Hal goes through. Also, Falstaff is an amazing character, providing plenty of comi It may not be immediately obvious to people, when reading something like Drug Gang, but William Shakespeare has been a major and important influence on my writing.

Also, Falstaff is an amazing character, providing plenty of comic relief. The play manages to perfectly combine comedic elements, drama and an amazing story of a personal journey from wild and chaotic tearaway to triumphant hero. Apr 21, Becky rated it it was amazing Shelves: An absolutely brilliant and breathtaking work that is the perfect marriage of poetry, history, and wisdom. Falstaff may be one of the greatest creations of all literature, he is an astounding mix of hilarious wit, well-timed self-deprecation or should we instead say, full of valour in discretion?

From what we really know about kni An absolutely brilliant and breathtaking work that is the perfect marriage of poetry, history, and wisdom. You cannot help but love the tavern scenes, where Hal lets forth one of the more poignant soliloquies about the sun and informs us that this is all part of his plan- a plan that will briefly allow him to breathe free away from court where he will be immured for the rest of his life, and will also let him come to know the true stock of his kingdom.

Even the basest man clings to some sort of honor, and what does Falstaff say honor is? You know why I really like Hal? He is much like Hector of Troy, he is confined by his duty to his family and country, he craves freedom but does what he must, and Hotspur is much like Achilles…and really, Achilles is the arrogant ass that always deserved to die. I should note that I read along after I watched the Hollow Crown series. Marvellous acting, truly wonderful A prince gone wild 22 February Thank God for Youtube.

As I have said before reading a Shakespearian play that I have not seen on either stage or screen can be a difficult task at best. In fact reading any play that I have not seen on stage or screen can be difficult, since they are generally not meant to be read but performed. The printed plays seem to supplement the performances rather than to take their place, so when I came to read this play I searched Youtube and discovered that the BBC A prince gone wild 22 February Thank God for Youtube. The printed plays seem to supplement the performances rather than to take their place, so when I came to read this play I searched Youtube and discovered that the BBC versions of the history plays are available for viewing, so once I finished this play I ended up watching it and I must say that it really added to my appreciation of the play.

Remember, during this period of English history England was in the middle of the Hundred Years War with France, and historians consider Henry and Richard to be weak kings during their reigns the war in France was not persued. However, England controlled a lot of French land at this time and keeping the peace in this land was difficult at best. At the beginning of the play Henry calls off an pilgrimage to the Holy Land a crusade to deal with some rebellions in Scotland and Wales and I suspect that he never got to go on that pilgrimage.

The problem wasn't that Henry had usurped the throne though his own inner guilt did have something to say in regards to this but that he had to deal with rebellions in Scotland and Wales. His first decision ends up alienating his former friends because he decides not to seek the release of another Englishman namely because he had formed a marriage pact with Owen Gwendoler more on him in a bit.

As such these former friends end up rebelling against his rule and going over to his enemies. There are also family problems as well because his son, Henry who is to become Henry V has fallen in with the tavern crowd the Boars Head Tavern at Eastcheap which, unfortunately, is no longer there, though I do plan on going to Eastcheap when I am in London.

I am not sure where Henry's castle is supposed to be, but if we know London, we know that Eastcheap is quite close to the Tower of London in those days it wasn't a prison. The tavern crowd is run by the infamous Falstaff, one of the characters that seems to have obtained a legendary status in English Literature. While the plays in which he appears are not remembered, the character is. Falstaff is the fat, loud, cowardly, oaf that forms the comic relief of many a book and film as well as this play however he has a very important role here. While Owen Glendower has taken Henry's lords from him, Falstaff has taken is son, therefore Henry faces problems both in his position as a king and a rule as a father.

The robbery scene is very important as, while it seems to be only a minor part at the beginning, it has a very significant impact. Robbery, particularly armed robbery, is a very serious offence, and while today you may only land up in gaol though I would not call that a particularly light sentence, especially since it can stain your character for life in those days you would be executed. Basically the only reason Henry gets away with it is because he is the Prince of Wales. Even then there is a very serious father and son talk when he admits to his participation in the robbery and it also appears that he does not implicate Falstaff, who would have been executed for the deed.

It begins with riotous merry making with Falstaff as the central figure, and ends with the sheriff coming in asking questions about the robbery. While Hal manages to keep the Sheriff off of Falstaff's back and while the pickpocketing incident leads to a rather interesting result, with Falstaff claiming that bonds were stolen, only to realise that everybody knows they were simply records of what he owes Hal ends up confessing to his father, and his father's act of mercy has Hal turn around and become the Prince of Wales.

In the end he is on the battlefield, rebuking Falstaff for his tomfoolery, and becoming the hero by slaying Hotspur in single combat. Owen Glendower was a Welsh rebel who was at war with the English during this period. I actually saw a documentary on Glendower and their suggestion was that it was during this time that Wales was transformed from being a wild and savage place to becoming that quaint place that we all associate with Wales today.

It is similar to Scotland, with the place going from the wild and savage land of Macbeth and the Highlander, to the bagpipe playing centre of learning that produced the likes of Adam Smith. He his made to appear as a sorcerer in league with demonic forces, and that his victories against the English are not due to his skill as an insurgent but due to his dabbling in the occult.

He only appears in a couple of scenes in the play, yet he the focus the part of the play that is not dominated by Falstaff. Where Falstaff has stolen the King's son, Gwendower has stolen the King's knights. However, in the same way that Henry brings order back to his family, he brings order back into the kingdom during the Battle of Shrewsberry, after which the play suddenly ends obviously in anticipation for part 2.

View all 9 comments. I also don't have it in me to go full snark on you, so let me just sum up this wonderful mess of a play: I never thought I would enjoy like I only know Targaryen. So much roasting, so many witty one-liners, all of the likeable characters who make stupid ass choices but you wouldn't expect anything less because it's fucking Shakespeare. Honestly, the biggest mood in this entire ass play is Prince Hal being a huge disappointment to his father on purpose.

His reasoning behind his lowly ways literally is the fact that he thinks that he can impress his father better if the latter has the worst opinion of his character I mean, he isn't wrong I still don't know if Hal really had to go all out hanging around with thieves and whores but go off, I guess, we all had some rough days in our teenage years. We all know, Roman culture is stabbing yourself just to prove a point, so I think Hal's take on life is actually quite reasonable.

Additionally, Henry IV, Part 1 is also quite the predictable play and not just because it's followed up by Henry V so you already know Hal's dad will bite the dust at some point, but because Shakespeare sets his character archetypes and plot points up in very obvious ways: It helped me a lot in my comprehension that this play was so foreseeable as I had enough on my hands with keeping all of those names apart why is literally every male named Henry or Richard???

The way he tried to bullshit himself through this war by basically dropping dead every five seconds without fighting at all, and then later claiming all the biggest wins for himself was so fucking relatable, my most used annotation was: I was rooting so much for Hal to finally prove his father wrong and make him proud in the end, whilst also feeling for Harry and his struggles to make a name for himself.

Shakespeare really did an amazing job at fleshing out all of these characters in a very short amount of time. Henry IV, Part 1 is definitely a play to remember and I cannot wait to finally finish its second part.

Related Articles

Honestly I was a little worried Shakespeare's historical plays would be boring, but they most certainly are not. This must be one of Shakespeare's best historical dramas, although there's a lot that's invented for dramatic effect; the Bard can never be taken as very historically correct, for he's first and foremost a playwright.

See a Problem?

The fairly simple plotline following the major points of the reign of the first Lancastrian king is enlivened by the inclusion of what should be Will's most comical character, Sir John Falstaff, bon vivant par excellence, who often steals stage from Prince Hal with his antics, rogu This must be one of Shakespeare's best historical dramas, although there's a lot that's invented for dramatic effect; the Bard can never be taken as very historically correct, for he's first and foremost a playwright.

The fairly simple plotline following the major points of the reign of the first Lancastrian king is enlivened by the inclusion of what should be Will's most comical character, Sir John Falstaff, bon vivant par excellence, who often steals stage from Prince Hal with his antics, rogue witticisms, and rascally way of life. I also liked the "Harry to Harry" point-and-counterpoint type of parallel narration for Henry Percy "Hotspur" and Henry of Monmouth "Hal" , which allowed Shakespeare to offer a comparative storyline for two young men with so much talent for warfare and leading men who, nonetheless, are underestimated and often chided by their fathers, the Earl of Northumberland and Henry IV respectively, and other elders of varied competence and vanity for two large flaws that colour the public perception of them: Hotspur has the shortest ever fuse in England, and his hot-headedness lands him in serious trouble as well as makes him vulnerable to manipulation by cunning older relatives, which culminates in a disastrous rebellion; and Hal is a hopeless carouser, whoremonger and reveller that's adding more gray hairs to his father's head with his licentious lifestyle and the bad company he keeps.

One of these young men will realise in time he needs to change course if he wants to walk far in life, but the other's path will end at a battlefield by Shrewsbury as a consequence. This would be the tragedy portion of the play, but even so it doesn't lack humour, with Falstaff's "cowardly lion" battle exploits that are worth a smile or two. I would have objected to calling this Henry IV , though! I'd suspect Shakespeare doesn't like Bolingbroke a great deal, because even in Richard II , where he ironically had a larger role than in this play named after him, he seemed to me slightly more sympathetic to the deposed king than to the then Duke of Lancaster.

Likewise, in this play, he's more enamoured of Prince Harry what's it with scandalous English princes called Harry? Hey, that sounds much cooler! Oct 18, Cindy Rollins rated it it was amazing Shelves: Having just watched The Hollow Crown, this play was much easier to listen to. The audio alone can be quite confusing, but a familiarity with the play helps. I love this whole cycle of plays. Shakespeare's ability to mix pathos and humor hits its stride in this cycle of plays.

The Arkangel recording is excellent, as expected. Apr 22, Dave Cullen rated it it was amazing. I love this play, and this edition.

It's captivating and insightful, and I'm reading right after finishing "The Plantagenets," which I also recommend, and which teed it up nicely. One problem with reading the history of the English kings is their stories tend to blur together after while. I think I have this set of Henry's etched in my brain for another 20, too. I tried two other editions of Henry IV, before settling on this one Arden: The explanatory notes were very helpful, and I would have been very happy with this edition. But I compared this with Arden reviewed here line by and Arden had far more historical information and insightful notes on the wordplay eg, biblical sources he was playing off.

Also, the Oxford actually overdid it explaining some phrases I found obvious. Also, get historical info on all the major characters. This appears to be the best out there. It costs a bit more: If money is really tight, I highly recommend the "Oxford School Series," and note that's different than just "Oxford," which is also out there. I started act 5 today, and still loving it.

Racing through it, on my scale. I could do without Falstaff, but loving Hal and Hotspur and the other rebels and even the king sometimes. Wrapped up in a frenzy. View all 7 comments. Feb 28, Liam rated it liked it. This was pretty good!!

The story was well developed and I felt like the characters all had a level of depth to them that you quite often don't see in Shakespeare so that was really nice to see! The fact I enjoy the history behind the story makes it even more enjoyable! Prince Hal keeps surprising me. Now I'm ready to watch Tom Hiddleston amaze me in the role!! This is a story of 2 3 4 people. I really am out of my element analyzing this because it is a complete play about half of a story. I will give my best summary of events so far. This play again is a story of relationships in an ever shrinking geometric shape.

We begin with the title character one would do good to remember Richard II and Henry IV last enc " Two stars keep not their motion in one sphere. We begin with the title character one would do good to remember Richard II and Henry IV last encounter with him from that play, it informs Henry's thoughts here and we quickly meet three other characters that make our relationship almost-rectangle that starts this play off. On the other hand King Henry has adopt [Henry] Percy as a surrogate son because he shows all the qualities that he wishes Hal, the future Henry V , had.

This quickly breaks apart as Percy goes against the King over an unimportant matter and joins a rebellion a very important matter it is only now with this love relationship triangle that the real drama of this story is exposed. This and the next play are a story of men making choices that effect them. I have a hard time deciding if it is a story of three men or two so I will decide that after I go through part 2 but for now I will layout perspectives and in particular I will focus on Hal for now. If he chooses one he will have to reject the other for good.

You have his dower, guilt-ridden, serious, cold, father on one end and jolly, fun-loving, warm, hardly-serious, fat I will let him finish," We are foreshadowed at Act II scene 4 at what choice Hal makes and I don't think it is much of a spoiler since again there is a play called Henry V. Falstaff was a very interesting character that I almost liked I'm still on the fence at how I feel towards him. He can carry a scene like no other in this play but his character personality-wise does not make him desirable to emulate. He was on thin ice with Hal and it seemed Hal did what he could to warn him and try to encourage him to take him more seriously but Falstaff's shameful, cowardly behavior at the climatic battle seals his fate in Hal's eyes and it is only a matter of time before he is cast out of Hal's circle permanently.

We do get, surprisingly, Falstaff doing a very deep soliloquy on the nature of honor in the face of war and possible death [and why he refuses to risk his life]: Yea, but how if Honour prick me off when I come on? Can Honour set to a leg? Honour hath no skill in surgery then?

What is that word, Honour? He that died o' Wednesday. Is it sensible then? Yes, to the dead. Detraction will not suffer it: Honour is a mere 'scutcheon, and so ends my catechism. In the end Hal's bravery in the battle, not to mention his triumph over Percy, restores him in his father's-and the country's-eyes. I would speculate on more but I will pick up when I review part 2. Thou see'st I have more flesh than another man; and therefore more frailty. Dec 01, Roy Lotz rated it really liked it Shelves: But this play is the equal of many of its better-known brethren. The more I read Shakespeare, the more curious I am about what kind of man he was in the flesh.

Who could have such a sympathetic understanding of people from all rungs of society? What single person could portray so compellingly such vulgar comedy, such passionate romance, such homicidal villainy, such heartrending tragedy as exist in his plays? His versatility defies possibility. Yet, underneath the multifarious forms of his plays, a single unapproachable genius can be detected—if only because they are so uniformly marvelous that one never doubts it is the same animating force that runs through them. Of course, five stars! It's William Shakespeare , after all.

I love re-reading the plays just to enjoy the richness of the Bard's language. The eponymous king is more in the background, fighting a rebellion by Hotspur, Douglas, Owen Glendower, and Worcester -- to name just a few. He knows his hold on the crown is tenuous: When he killed Richard II, he made a lot of promises which he had been sl Of course, five stars!

When he killed Richard II, he made a lot of promises which he had been slow o fulfil. I would give the play five stars for no other reason than Falstaff's speeches, which are hilarious, including "discretion is the better part of valour. We see in this play the beginnings of what will become the warrior king Henry V, somewhat rueful that he has been so associated with Falstaff and his crew of lowlifes.

Jun 24, Trevor rated it really liked it Shelves: I reviewed Richard II in January and decided at the time I would review all of the four plays in the series. I intend to get through the next couple in what will seem in comparison at any rate to be me zipping along at a rate of knots. I had to read this in high school — so thought I would be more familiar with it than it turns out that I am. But most of the play had faded to background noise and nothingness. People often say that the great thing about Shakespeare is that none of his bad guys are ever just bad guys.

What is particularly interesting in this play is how few of the characters are in the least bit likeable. Falstaff is sometimes funny, but generally not even that — a coward and a liar, a drunkard and a glutton, I felt I was meant to laugh at him, rather than with him, but could hardly manage that. The King is at best annoying, his son Hal is a pain in the bum, and Hotspur comes across as the kind of person who spent too long as a child pulling the wings of flies.

If Richard II is about the divine right of kings coming to an end — this play is about the guilt that comes from bringing about that end. Henry IV is only an incidental character in this play, really, despite it being named after him. At the start he wants to go off to the Holy Land and kill some Arabs it is remarkable how long this has been seen as a bit of a panacea in the West — done something wrong?

Feel a bit bad about it? Having trouble at home? Why not head off to the Holy Land and kill some Muslim Infidels! All will be forgiven. He is also mistreating from a sense of guilt those who helped to bring him to power. Not a great idea alienating your supporters without a really good reason. Hal has taken to drinking in bars and chasing after loose women with a fat old guy called Falstaff.

Hal has decided to do this because when he finally does come good the brightness of his good deed will shine so much brighter against the black background of his previous bad deeds. This is almost a return to the divine right in the previous play — God will provide an occasion when he will be able to shine — but this hardly seems a reasonable thing for him to actively hope for, in fact, rely upon. There is an arrogance to this sort of idea — the kind of stupidity young men are all too prone to — that rings very true, but is also incredibly irritating at the same time.

And so it proves. They almost use that very line. I really wanted to like Hal more — but that was quite out of the question. I probably would have liked to have liked Hotspur more too, but how he treats his wife is anything but loveable and sealed his fate for me. Jun 05, Rhonda rated it it was amazing Shelves: I had a wonderful professor as an undergraduate who transferred his lifelong love of Shakespeare to me, no small task considering how wildly rebellious and impatient I was with things that were difficult.

While the author's language has always been beyond reproach, I have only to look at my weathered volume of the Collected Works to see some of the comments I had made and realize that I had allowed something notable, from time to time, to slip past me. This time, I downloaded a new copy and bega I had a wonderful professor as an undergraduate who transferred his lifelong love of Shakespeare to me, no small task considering how wildly rebellious and impatient I was with things that were difficult. This time, I downloaded a new copy and began fresh.

It was, indeed, a great deal of work and I stopped at each questionable word and determined what it might have meant in Shakespeare's time. More often than not, I would find myself surprised that I had really read this at all, so clearly had I missed various nuances I discovered that the serious parts and by this I mean decidedly non-comic were far easier to read.

Even then, Shakespeare was not above throwing in a quip or two which might have evoked laughter but it is fairly easy to trace. I look down at my notebook now and find pages of words or phrases which delighted me. I find myself cringing at the thought of having "read" this in order to be prepared for a class which would take place at 2 PM. Some years later, I discovered it meant a lot. While Part I of Henry IV is far easier in this regard than part 2, I spent hours poring over the comic scenes in search of new meaning.

Get A Copy

It was well rewarded as sometimes I would simply feel as though I were in the theater seeing the actors on stage and laughing from the fifth row. Other times, there were obscure jokes or perhaps those which might have elicited groans and guffaws, puns so common that one could have understood them without much learning at all. Clearly Shakespeare took greater care in Part 2 to create a few more comic scenes for the audience and I could not help but think that he both wanted to make the play more popular and more accessible.

Still the language is universal beyond measure. I remember years ago, when, as a graduate student, I taught primarily Spanish speaking kids in a private school English and History. I managed, with some help, to convince the principal to allow my 8th graders to see a Shakespeare play. I was anxious to see whether my thesis concerning language would hold up. It was so,in fact, wildly successful that we repeated the outing on a second occasion for a second play.

I remember watching the students' faces, nervous and intimidated at first, but in awe of such an excursion into adulthood. The nervousness disappeared and even the few with a lower grasp of English, were delightedly fixated at the stage, the actors, but especially the language. I am not sure how it was possible, but I actually heard them quoting lines to each other on the bus ride back to school.

I recognize that I am neglecting the review of the plot and story here, but I shall leave that to better reviewers. For my part, reading this anew was akin to discovering the beauty in a work of art, sitting on a bench in the Prado and marveling at Goya for an entire afternoon. It has, indeed, been a matter of later rather than sooner that I have come to see the colors and texture and depth of field in this play. In many ways, I liken it to understanding history, the distillate of men and women that is made once the schema of dates and facts are absorbed. It is no small thing that I have finally seen the great art in it At length, I experienced the author's giving of himself, not so that his name might be exalted, not so the story might be remembered, but that the colors and sounds might exist at all, without names and without analysis and without the overwhelming logic we impart so cruelly to most of our lives.

Art is the victory of love over judgment. To understand such, leave your ego at the door. 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. I've read Henry V like fifty times and seen the movie at least five - my mom really liked that thing.

• Tell, Dont Show!
• Yo Mama Jokes - 555 Funny Insults: The New And Best Ones [Illustrated Edition]
• LifeGraf: A new way for doing a life review
• The Babysitter
• LImportance dêtre Constant : Cahiers rouges - inédit - traduction et préface inédites de Charles Dantzig (Les Cahiers Rouges) (French Edition)
• Preactive Leadership