Brilliant. This is one of the best Shakespeare plays that encompasses just about every theme you could imagine. I loved the interaction between Hal and Falstaff, and then again between Hal and his father, the king. The themes of honor and dishonor are very interesting as well. Overall, I just loved everything about this play. ( )

As Shakespeare's history plays interest me more than his comedies and probably even as much as the tragedies, I have been reading the history plays in order over about the last seven or eight years. King Richard II fascinates me enough that I have more than once reread certain scenes in Richard II, especially his prison soliloquy and his murder, because he's completely incompetent as a ruler, even ridiculous, but rather fascinating as a self-absorbed navel-gazer. Whereas, I found 1 Henry IV simply less engrossing. The only scenes that greatly interested me are those displaying the progress of Prince Hal, the future Henry V.

The problem is that I found the political drama, the conspirators' rebellion, completely unremarkable and uninteresting except for the presentation of Hotspur, Harry Percy, as an ideal warrior-hero. Partly because I already knew Henry would survive and defeat it (because there is a 2 Henry IV) and Prince Hal would also survive (because I became familiar with Henry V in high school); partly because, having studied Shakespeare's political philosophy in college before I actually read the histories, I understood that the rebellions are par for the course.

Falstaff's wit is amusing, but his behavior on the battlefield is offensive and irritating. He looks for his life first and foremost; he plays dead when attacked by Douglas; finally he stabs Hotspur's corpse (killed honorably by Hal) to claim he, Falstaff, killed Hotspur.

Reexamining Richard II to compare it with 1 Henry IV and see how right I was, I believe Shakespeare's language, his turns of phrase, were more inspired in Richard II. Why not? I have heard Richard described as a "poet" and an "actor"; why shouldn't such a character have inspired Shakespeare even more than a dreary political cauldron featuring a prodigal prince, a witty scoundrel and an embattled king? ( )

This is one of the Bard's most famous historical plays. It contains quite a bit of comedy particularly from Sir John Falstaff and Mistress Quickly and some good politicking in the civil war between the king and his opponents, but somehow it did not quite gel as a whole for me. ( )

Personally, would have liked more Hotspur and less Falstaff, though I realize that more intelligent readers disagree. Falstaff was especially annoying in the Shrewsbury scenes. ( )

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. ( )

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. ( )

Been a few years since I've read through Henry IV, and glad to say I enjoy it just as much as always. When taken together with Part 2, really does give you anything you desire of "tragedy, comedy, history, pastoral, pastoral-comical, historical-pastoral, tragical-historical, tragical-comical-historical-pastoral". As they say. ( )

This review is written with a GPL 4.0 license and the rights contained therein shall supersede all TOS by any and all websites in regards to copying and sharing without proper authorization and permissions. Crossposted at WordPress, Blogspot & Librarything by Bookstooge’s Exalted Permission

Title: Henry IV, Part I
Author: William Shakespeare
Rating: 4 of 5 Stars
Genre: Play
Pages: 89
Words: 25K

Synopsis:

From Wikipedia

Henry Bolingbroke—now King Henry IV—is having an unquiet reign. His personal disquiet at the usurpation of his predecessor Richard II would be solved by a crusade to the Holy Land, but trouble on his borders with Scotland and Wales make leaving unwise. Moreover, he is increasingly at odds with the Percy family, who helped him to his throne, and Edmund Mortimer, the Earl of March, Richard II's chosen heir.

Adding to King Henry's troubles is the behaviour of his son and heir, the Prince of Wales. Hal (the future Henry V) has forsaken the Royal Court to waste his time in taverns with low companions. This makes him an object of scorn to the nobles and calls into question his royal worthiness. Hal's chief friend and foil in living the low life is Sir John Falstaff. Fat, old, drunk, and corrupt as he is, he has a charisma and a zest for life that captivates the Prince.

The play features three groups of characters that interact slightly at first, and then come together in the Battle of Shrewsbury, where the success of the rebellion will be decided. First there is King Henry himself and his immediate council. He is the engine of the play, but usually in the background. Next there is the group of rebels, energetically embodied in Henry Percy ("Hotspur") and including his father, the Earl of Northumberland and led by his uncle Thomas Percy, Earl of Worcester. The Scottish Earl of Douglas, Edmund Mortimer and the Welshman Owen Glendower also join. Finally, at the centre of the play are the young Prince Hal and his companions Falstaff, Poins, Bardolph, and Peto. Streetwise and pound-foolish, these rogues manage to paint over this grim history in the colours of comedy.

As the play opens, the king is angry with Hotspur for refusing him most of the prisoners taken in a recent action against the Scots at Holmedon. Hotspur, for his part, would have the king ransom Edmund Mortimer (his wife's brother) from Owen Glendower, the Welshman who holds him. Henry refuses, berates Mortimer's loyalty, and treats the Percys with threats and rudeness. Stung and alarmed by Henry's dangerous and peremptory way with them, they proceed to make common cause with the Welsh and Scots, intending to depose "this ingrate and cankered Bolingbroke."[3] By Act II, rebellion is brewing.

Meanwhile, Henry's son Hal is joking, drinking, and thieving with Falstaff and his associates. He likes Falstaff but makes no pretense at being like him. He enjoys insulting his dissolute friend and makes sport of him by joining in Poins' plot to disguise themselves and rob and terrify Falstaff and three friends of loot they have stolen in a highway robbery, purely for the fun of hearing Falstaff lie about it later, after which Hal returns the stolen money. Rather early in the play, in fact, Hal informs us that his riotous time will soon come to a close, and he will re-assume his rightful high place in affairs by showing himself worthy to his father and others through some (unspecified) noble exploits. Hal believes that this sudden change of manner will amount to a greater reward and acknowledgment of prince-ship, and in turn earn him respect from the members of the court.

The revolt of Mortimer and the Percys very quickly gives him his chance to do just that. The high and the low come together when the Prince makes up with his father and is given a high command. He vows to fight and kill the rebel Hotspur, and orders Falstaff (who is, after all, a knight) to take charge of a group of foot soldiers and proceed to the battle site at Shrewsbury.

The battle is crucial because if the rebels even achieve a standoff their cause gains greatly, as they have other powers awaiting under Northumberland, Glendower, Mortimer, and the Archbishop of York. Henry needs a decisive victory here. He outnumbers the rebels,[4] but Hotspur, with the wild hope of despair, leads his troops into battle. The day wears on, the issue still in doubt, the king harried by the wild Scot Douglas, when Prince Hal and Hotspur, the two Harrys that cannot share one land, meet. Finally they will fight – for glory, for their lives, and for the kingdom. No longer a tavern brawler but a warrior, the future king prevails, ultimately killing Hotspur in single combat.

On the way to this climax, we are treated to Falstaff, who has "misused the King's press damnably",[5] not only by taking money from able-bodied men who wished to evade service but by keeping the wages of the poor souls he brought instead who were killed in battle ("food for powder, food for powder").[6] Left on his own during Hal's battle with Hotspur, Falstaff dishonourably counterfeits death to avoid attack by Douglas. After Hal leaves Hotspur's body on the field, Falstaff revives in a mock miracle. Seeing he is alone, he stabs Hotspur's corpse in the thigh and claims credit for the kill.[7] Though Hal knows better, he allows Falstaff his disreputable tricks. Soon after being given grace by Hal, Falstaff states that he wants to amend his life and begin "to live cleanly as a nobleman should do".[8]

The play ends at Shrewsbury, after the battle. The death of Hotspur has taken the heart out of the rebels,[9] and the king's forces prevail. Henry is pleased with the outcome, not least because it gives him a chance to execute Thomas Percy, the Earl of Worcester, one of his chief enemies (though previously one of his greatest friends). Meanwhile, Hal shows off his kingly mercy in praise of valour; having taken the valiant Douglas prisoner, Hal orders his enemy released without ransom.[10] But the war goes on; now the king's forces must deal with the Archbishop of York, who has joined with Northumberland, and with the forces of Mortimer and Glendower. This unsettled ending sets the stage for Henry IV, Part 2.

My Thoughts:

This really should have been entitled “Henry V, the Early Years”. While Henry IV is the titular character, he seems to do little besides provide a reason for more kingdom drama. Everyone is going off to war at a moments notice on what seems pretty much like a whim. During all of this, young Prince Harry (by the by, WHY does the name Henry spawn the nickname Harry? It's not even shorter for goodness sake) is carousing it up and being a blot upon his father's name. He is unfavorably compared to the other Harry, the one leading the rebellion against the King.

In the final battle Harry shows his royal colors and mans it up perfectly. He seems to have set his rascally youthful ways behind him and to take his responsibilities seriously. Of course, all his old low friends are sure they are going to be sitting pretty once Harry becomes King, so they do what they want. Oh ye evil men, Judgement is coming!

Once again, I am loving these history plays. I was actually looking forward to reading this when Shakespeare rolled around in my reading rotation. What a change from earlier plays where that word “Shakespeare” brought dread and dismal despair to my heart. In fact, I seriously thought about just reading Part II of Henry IV but thankfully calmer and wiser heads prevailed (ie, my rational self instead of my emotional self).

★★★★☆ ( )

I know everyone seems to think that Falstaff is one of the more interesting Shakespearean characters, but seriously? Not that much of a fan… I’m much more intrigued by Prince Hal, who begins the play as a total card-carrying cad yet finishes as the unsung hero of the skirmish against Henry Percy and co. Of course, he’s robbed of his glory by Falstaff, but who knows exactly how much court politics cares about things like that - as long as the crown wins the day and the country remains “safe.” We’re coming up to the beginning of the Wars of the Roses (does this battle count? Likely) and ongoing Hundred Years’ War, so really the country is going to be thrown into even more chaos. But back to Prince Hal. As much as we can’t help but be entertained by his antics early on in the play - poking much fun at Falstaff, thieving from his own father’s exchequer, and gadding about with his pals - it’s slightly disquieting behaviour for someone who is directly in line to the throne. And it’s not like he’s just one of the princes of the English Crown, he’s the heir to the throne after the death of Henry IV (formerly Bolingbroke), so when his father essentially calls him into the court to call him out on this behaviour we can’t help but cheer as well. He quickly recants his past behaviour (presumably in reaction to the seriousness of Henry Percy’s attack on his father’s crown and his own inheritance), and is off to the battlefront to confront the other Henry who shares glory in his (upcoming) realm. Hal expounded his knowledge and wealthy upbringing previous to these moments, but it isn’t until his one on one combat with Percy that he really expounds on his thoughts regarding the monarchy and his own place in it. Shakespeare’s audience may have been of differing opinions when it came to who should have rightly gotten the crown, but with a soliloquy like Hal’s it’s difficult not to think him the superior candidate to Henry Percy whose language is as firey and unbridled as his moniker, Hotspur. Hal takes the crown in the next play, so I’m very intrigued to see how his character develops further. ( )

The Folger Library deserves a lot of praise for the quality of this ebook edition of this Shakespeare classic with easily accessed footnotes provided in a form that does not distract from the text. Even the typical Foger essays are better in this edition than in most others in their series.

This was the first time I had read Henry IV, part 1 and now understand why it is such a favorite. Knowing Falstaff only from the later works, Falstaff in part 1 is shown to be a brilliant comic character. Hotspur, on the other hand, shows himself to be a poor leader with weak judgement leading to his eventual destruction. In contrast, Prince Hal shows qualities that will make him a fine leader.

One of the themes of the play fits well with the current political landscape since it deals with the presentation of alternate facts about events and the nature of truth.

The play is rich in characters and themes that will allow it to be read with pleasure many times. ( )

Still one of my most favorite histories, or at least part one of perhaps three. ;)

Our favorite wastrel, Prince Henry, Hal to his friends, a drunkard, a thief, the bosom buddy of dear fat old Falstaff, hides his bright sun behind vile clouds so as to shine all the brighter when his day finally arrives.

In here, of course, we establish the lout with a sharp mind and careful cunning, dissembling for all to see but careful of the long game. When his his father sore needs his son's aid, Hal comes to the rescue, throwing off all such base clouds, or as little as need be, to ensure both his father and the close court of his worthiness, and he does so with flying colors, killing the most worthy night in England, the poor Percy of the Hot Blood, and so restoring both his honor and his valor in both word and deed.

This, of course, is just the prelude. The foreshadowing. The stage upon such things as the Ides of March are set.

Ever since I first read this, I've always called such low tides in men "The Hal Effect".

"Let no one expect shit of thee, and when the time draws neigh, toot your horn and shock the living hell out of them."

;)

Seriously, Shakespeare? Who knew that when Will Shook his Spear, he'd ever have so much to say? ;) ( )

No. 18 in The People's Penny Shakespeare, this slim paperback has been used for a performance, intended for the person playing Hotspur. Pencil annotations on the cover suggest this and even the name of the actor, perhaps Miss Rucker - in pencil, with date 9/2/01, 7.30. Some redaction of text has been applied though crossings out and sticky paper.

Just reread this after finishing Richard II. I will move on to part 2 immediately. Interesting analysis by Folger of the Falstaff character. ( )

Possibly going to see the RSC version of this (and part II) soon. Even if I don't, this is one of the good ones. Falstaff is one of Shakespeare's great characters, so it's always a pleasure to read this.

Also, Orson Welles has a really good version of these stories called Chimes at Midnight. ( )

Before he was urging on his troops with words like “band of brothers”, Henry V was just Hal. He liked to drink and carouse and ignore his father’s wishes. He was not yet the warrior king he would become. I loved watching him start to transform in this play. These plays are part of the eight that make up Shakespeare’s War of the Roses histories.

There are a few stand out characters including the clever and charismatic Hotspur (Henry Percy). Although he is technically our hero’s foe, this plot actually makes him a more sympathetic character than Hal. He fights for what he wants. He’s quick to anger, but he’s also willing to put himself in danger to protect what he loves. While Hal is leisurely screwing around in taverns, Hotspur is taking things seriously.

Sir John Falstaff is another great one. He is the epitome of the classic fool. He is constantly looking for a new way to get out of work and cheat someone. He is the butt of Hal’s jokes and his drinking buddy, but nothing ever seems to faze the corpulent coward. He reminds me of Thénardier in Les Misérables.

BOTTOM LINE: I particularly loved part 1 of this pair of plays, but they are both excellent. They show that one person can rise above and choose a more noble life. They give hope for personal transformation while at the same time they highlight the sacrifices that come with power and leadership. Someone Shakespeare marries those lessons with battle scenes, bawdy comedy, and even quiet moments of romance in a way that only he seems able to do.

I would highly recommend watching the Hollow Crown series either first or in conjunction with reading the plays. They are beautifully done and helped bring the work alive for me.

“But thought’s the slave of life, and life time’s fool;
And time, that takes survey of all the world,
Must have a stop. O, I could prophesy,
But that the earthy and cold hand of death
Lies on my tongue.”

“Youth, the more it is wasted, the sooner it wears.”

“O, while you live, tell truth, and shame the Devil!”

“The better part of valor, is discretion.” ( )

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. ( )

Folger editions are my fave. ( )

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. ( )

Sadly, I bailed on this play only 30 pages from the end. But when a play takes about 20 minutes for me to read a two-page spread, it's time to get out of there. I've seen the Hollow Crown adaptation featuring Jeremy Irons, Tom Hiddleston, and Simon Russell Beale, and thank goodness for them -- having them in mind helped me get through much more of the play than I would have otherwise. The Signet Classics edition has a lot of footnotes, some unnecessary, others unable to fully explain the item being footnoted. The constant back-and-forth from text to footnote to text again also slowed me down when reading. This experience doesn't bode well for Part 2. Maybe a scene-by-scene Coles Notes to read along with the play is required. ( )

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. ( )

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. ( )

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." ( )

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. ( )

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. ( )

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. ( )