Why do you think the play opens with such a lengthy legal discussion? What does it say about Henry's relationship with the church, considering how his father gained the throne?
I’m reading King Henry 4 Part 2 but there isn’t a place to blog for it so i will just blog here for now. The prologue was a very interesting way to open the play. I have never read a shakespeare play where the speaker in the prologue is an action (rumor). It was a very symbolic start to the play. The rumor theme is apparent throughout the first act. In the first scene Northumberland is told his son won the battle of Shresbury, only to be told later that his son has been killed and the battle lost. In the next scene we are informed that Falstaff is not healthy because he has recently been checked for diseases by a doctor. We also are told that he will fight in an upcoming battle against Northumberland. I know Falstaffs fate but i am left to wonder how he will die. Will it be because of disease or sword? Evan Tracy
I also read King Henry IV Part 2, so I suppose I will blog here as well. 1) Why is there this whole thing with rumors in the first scene. Will that play some significance later in the play? 2) Also, why did Rumor prematurely call Hal "King Harry" when he is not yet king. 3) Northumberland's anger at Hotspur's death is surprising, considering that it is a result of something Northumberland did. If he cared that much for his son, why didn't he at least send his troops? 4) Interesting how Falstaff even takes his disease in a very lighthearted tone. He doesn't seem to really care that much. 5)It seems like Richard II has become a martyr of some sort for the Archbishop. While previously they helped overthrow Richard, now they are citing him as a reason to overthrow Henry.
1) Why is Northumberland so healthy sounding in these scenes? 2) Was he ever really sick or was he just reluctant to go against the king? 3) If so why wouldn't he try to have convinced Hotspur not to fight? 4) Why is Falstaff allowed to get away with so many petty crimes? 5) When is Hal going to realize that he shouldn't associate with Falstaff anymore?
ACT 3: In the first scene we learn that the King is very unhappy, stressed, and has insomnia. He states that he is even less happy then the poor because at least they can sleep and be carefree. This scene reminds me of Falstaff and how jolly he is. King Henry must be very jealous of people like Falstaff. The theme of rumor was apparent again in this scene because the king is told that the rebels are 50,000 strong and might have Northumberland's support, both of which are merely rumors We are also told that Owen Glendower, a rebel leader is dead. The rumor theme in this play is driving me crazy because I can't take everything that is written as fact. How do we know that Glendower is dead and that thats not a rumor?
Act 1, Sorry it took me so long, I read Act 1 of Henry V. 1) I agree that Rumor introducing the play is quite interesting and different. How does this thought of rumors relate to the kingship, and will Hal's awesomeness always be in question?
2)What is the significance of the Chief Justice speaking in prose to Falstaff?
3)Also, does Falstaff seem to pull everyone done to his world and expose the fun-loving, but sinister people in all of us?
4)I agree with Ryan's 3rd point of the Act 1 blog. Why would Northumberland do that? He let his son go to die because he was scared to fight Hal and Henry's army. Shouldn't his anger be more disgust for himself, and will he choose not to fight again in this play?
5)Because the Archbishop of York seems like he is going to play a large part in this play, does that mean religious conflict will be present?
Act 2 Journal: 1) Why is this play so Falstaff heavy? Shouldn't we see more about Hal, being that the play is about him?
2)We see the foreshadowing of Hal's rejection of Falstaff here, when he is talking to Poins.
3)At this point in the play, it seems like Hal is a very unstable character. He is trying to be good and noble, however he quickly relapses into his old ways and wants to prank Falstaff.
4)Northumberland is quite annoying. He is constantly changing his stance on if he should support the rebellion. If he is supposedly so passionate about avenging Hotspur, then why does he have so much doubt?
5) It is interesting how people seem to fit their names in these plays. For example- Hotspur and Pistol's names both say a lot about their characters.
ACT 4 Finally we get to see Hal for a good length of time in these acts. It is interesting that Hal's younger brother John has a military victory in this act. If Shakespeare wanted to make Hal look like "super king" wouldn't he have made Hal fight the Archbishop of York and the other rebels instead of John? I have noticed an interesting trend in some of Shakespeare plays that character A will mistake character B as being dead. As a result character A does something that upsets character B when B wakes up. Why is it that Hal left his father after his death? Why didn't he stay or tell his brothers?
Act 5: This is the act that I have been waiting for since I first started reading Act 1 of Part 1. Falstaff was banished and Henry became king. I was shocked to read that Falstaff is going to receive regular payments so that he doesn't become poor and become a criminal again. Did Hal go far enough just by banishing Falstaff, or should Hal also have decided not to give Falstaff money? Also what was the point of the scene with Doll and Mistress Quickly?
Act 2: 1) Why is Lady Percy so nice in her memories of Hotspur. As we saw in Part 1, Hotspur obviously did not care for her. Is the sudden trauma of his death the reason for this?
2) Why does the Chief Justice speak in prose? He is in a somewhat high position yet he speaks to everyone in the same manner as Falstaff and his crew.
3) Is Hal's anger with Falstaff after he had been spying on him at the tavern his way of separating himself from his old ways? Does freaking out over anything bad said about him make it an easier transition?
4) Why does Northumberland choose not to send his troops? The last time he did not send them his son died.
5) Why is Hal separating himself from his old ways? Falstaff and the lower class have made him who he is and a better king; has Hal just been using them the entire time, even all the way back before part 1?
Act 3: 1) Thinking back to the prologue, with Rumor giving us the feeling that the crown is unstable, does Henry IV insomnia support this idea? Is he slowly falling from control of power?
2) What importance does religion have to the events in this play? Henry references the Crusades, and the Archbishops are always in conflict. Any deep message by Shakespeare?
3) The names of the prospects are hilarious. What do they signify? and what does it say about Falstaff and his belief on the war?
4) Why is Falstaff a bum? He is educated, witty and awesome, and yet he is not successful wealth wise. Does he choose this? and why?
Act 3 Journal: 1) Interesting how with Henry, Shakespeare portrays the life of the rich and powerful to be more detrimental to your health then that of a poor man.
2) Names describing the characters is very prominent with this act, with almost every character in Falstaff's scene.
3) I agree with Evan, how can we be sure that Glendower is actually dead? Many of the other rumors have turned out to be wrong.
4) Why is Falstaff continuously given authority when he abuses it so much?
5) Falstaff seems to have rubbed off on Bardolph quite a bit. Has he taken the place of Hal?
Act 4: 1) How will the killing of the rebels help Hal's plan of a united United Kingdom? Will it, or will it just make the people second guess him even more?
2) Why is Prince John sent to lead the army instead of the king to be Henry?
3) What makes the rebels so easily give up and surrender? In part 1 Hotspur died fighting an army of the size of John's with just as tiny an army as this rebel one.
4) How is Hal able to change someones mind so drastically so quickly? Time and time again he has changed his father's opinion in one speech.
5) Why does Henry IV want to die in the room called Jerusalem? Does he believe it will purify his soul, and that it will make up for the regicide he committed?
Act 5: 1) Why would Hal so publicly and viciously throw Falstaff out of his life? Falstaff was such and important part of Hal's childhood, and this made me not like Hal very much.
2) What does the arrest of the prostitutes represent? Is this a prelude to what Hal does in scene 5?
3) How do all the different characters represent Falstaff(Shallow, Silence, Pistol)? And does Hal prove to be the Shallow one?
4) Shakespeare throws a nice shout out to Elizabeth in the prologue. Why does he do this? Was Hal made in model of Elizabeth?
5) Does Hal handle the situation with the lower class in the correct way? Is what he does with Falstaff the correct move? and will he lose the support other lower-class members?
Act 5 Journal: 1) The Lord Chief Justice is the only honest character in this play. While Hal's brothers all tell him to praise Falstaff to the newly crowned Hal, he refused because it was wrong.
2) Also, it seems Hal's chase for a father figure has finally ended. The Lord Chief Justice has usurped Falstaff as Hal's father, and Hal even tells him that.
3)Interesting how Shakespeare in one scene has Falstaff speak about how he will make Hal laugh, and in the next Hal disowns Falstaff as a father figure.
4) Falstaff's corruption is seen yet again in this act, as he thinks that all of the laws will be void on him because of Hal being crowned.
5)This last scene is what I expected the whole play to be like. The relationship between Falstaff and Hal is finally terminated, and you can't help but feel bad for Falstaff. Interesting how Hal could be played as not even caring that he is disowning Falstaff, or that he could be really torn up about it.
I’m reading King Henry 4 Part 2 but there isn’t a place to blog for it so i will just blog here for now. The prologue was a very interesting way to open the play. I have never read a shakespeare play where the speaker in the prologue is an action (rumor). It was a very symbolic start to the play. The rumor theme is apparent throughout the first act. In the first scene Northumberland is told his son won the battle of Shresbury, only to be told later that his son has been killed and the battle lost. In the next scene we are informed that Falstaff is not healthy because he has recently been checked for diseases by a doctor. We also are told that he will fight in an upcoming battle against Northumberland. I know Falstaffs fate but i am left to wonder how he will die. Will it be because of disease or sword?
ReplyDeleteEvan Tracy
I also read King Henry IV Part 2, so I suppose I will blog here as well.
ReplyDelete1) Why is there this whole thing with rumors in the first scene. Will that play some significance later in the play?
2) Also, why did Rumor prematurely call Hal "King Harry" when he is not yet king.
3) Northumberland's anger at Hotspur's death is surprising, considering that it is a result of something Northumberland did. If he cared that much for his son, why didn't he at least send his troops?
4) Interesting how Falstaff even takes his disease in a very lighthearted tone. He doesn't seem to really care that much.
5)It seems like Richard II has become a martyr of some sort for the Archbishop. While previously they helped overthrow Richard, now they are citing him as a reason to overthrow Henry.
1) Why is Northumberland so healthy sounding in these scenes? 2) Was he ever really sick or was he just reluctant to go against the king? 3) If so why wouldn't he try to have convinced Hotspur not to fight?
ReplyDelete4) Why is Falstaff allowed to get away with so many petty crimes?
5) When is Hal going to realize that he shouldn't associate with Falstaff anymore?
ACT 3:
ReplyDeleteIn the first scene we learn that the King is very unhappy, stressed, and has insomnia. He states that he is even less happy then the poor because at least they can sleep and be carefree. This scene reminds me of Falstaff and how jolly he is. King Henry must be very jealous of people like Falstaff. The theme of rumor was apparent again in this scene because the king is told that the rebels are 50,000 strong and might have Northumberland's support, both of which are merely rumors We are also told that Owen Glendower, a rebel leader is dead. The rumor theme in this play is driving me crazy because I can't take everything that is written as fact. How do we know that Glendower is dead and that thats not a rumor?
This is now officially the Henry IV part 2 blog. Remember to blog for each act. How has the character of Falstaff developed?
ReplyDeleteREMEMBER EVERYONE - AT LEAST ONE BLOG PER ACT:)
ReplyDeleteAct 1,
ReplyDeleteSorry it took me so long, I read Act 1 of Henry V.
1) I agree that Rumor introducing the play is quite interesting and different. How does this thought of rumors relate to the kingship, and will Hal's awesomeness always be in question?
2)What is the significance of the Chief Justice speaking in prose to Falstaff?
3)Also, does Falstaff seem to pull everyone done to his world and expose the fun-loving, but sinister people in all of us?
4)I agree with Ryan's 3rd point of the Act 1 blog. Why would Northumberland do that? He let his son go to die because he was scared to fight Hal and Henry's army. Shouldn't his anger be more disgust for himself, and will he choose not to fight again in this play?
5)Because the Archbishop of York seems like he is going to play a large part in this play, does that mean religious conflict will be present?
Kale Rogers
Act 2 Journal:
ReplyDelete1) Why is this play so Falstaff heavy? Shouldn't we see more about Hal, being that the play is about him?
2)We see the foreshadowing of Hal's rejection of Falstaff here, when he is talking to Poins.
3)At this point in the play, it seems like Hal is a very unstable character. He is trying to be good and noble, however he quickly relapses into his old ways and wants to prank Falstaff.
4)Northumberland is quite annoying. He is constantly changing his stance on if he should support the rebellion. If he is supposedly so passionate about avenging Hotspur, then why does he have so much doubt?
5) It is interesting how people seem to fit their names in these plays. For example- Hotspur and Pistol's names both say a lot about their characters.
ACT 4
ReplyDeleteFinally we get to see Hal for a good length of time in these acts. It is interesting that Hal's younger brother John has a military victory in this act. If Shakespeare wanted to make Hal look like "super king" wouldn't he have made Hal fight the Archbishop of York and the other rebels instead of John? I have noticed an interesting trend in some of Shakespeare plays that character A will mistake character B as being dead. As a result character A does something that upsets character B when B wakes up. Why is it that Hal left his father after his death? Why didn't he stay or tell his brothers?
Act 5:
ReplyDeleteThis is the act that I have been waiting for since I first started reading Act 1 of Part 1. Falstaff was banished and Henry became king. I was shocked to read that Falstaff is going to receive regular payments so that he doesn't become poor and become a criminal again. Did Hal go far enough just by banishing Falstaff, or should Hal also have decided not to give Falstaff money? Also what was the point of the scene with Doll and Mistress Quickly?
Act 2:
ReplyDelete1) Why is Lady Percy so nice in her memories of Hotspur. As we saw in Part 1, Hotspur obviously did not care for her. Is the sudden trauma of his death the reason for this?
2) Why does the Chief Justice speak in prose? He is in a somewhat high position yet he speaks to everyone in the same manner as Falstaff and his crew.
3) Is Hal's anger with Falstaff after he had been spying on him at the tavern his way of separating himself from his old ways? Does freaking out over anything bad said about him make it an easier transition?
4) Why does Northumberland choose not to send his troops? The last time he did not send them his son died.
5) Why is Hal separating himself from his old ways? Falstaff and the lower class have made him who he is and a better king; has Hal just been using them the entire time, even all the way back before part 1?
Act 3:
ReplyDelete1) Thinking back to the prologue, with Rumor giving us the feeling that the crown is unstable, does Henry IV insomnia support this idea? Is he slowly falling from control of power?
2) What importance does religion have to the events in this play? Henry references the Crusades, and the Archbishops are always in conflict. Any deep message by Shakespeare?
3) The names of the prospects are hilarious. What do they signify? and what does it say about Falstaff and his belief on the war?
4) Why is Falstaff a bum? He is educated, witty and awesome, and yet he is not successful wealth wise. Does he choose this? and why?
5) Who will die in the war?
Act 3 Journal:
ReplyDelete1) Interesting how with Henry, Shakespeare portrays the life of the rich and powerful to be more detrimental to your health then that of a poor man.
2) Names describing the characters is very prominent with this act, with almost every character in Falstaff's scene.
3) I agree with Evan, how can we be sure that Glendower is actually dead? Many of the other rumors have turned out to be wrong.
4) Why is Falstaff continuously given authority when he abuses it so much?
5) Falstaff seems to have rubbed off on Bardolph quite a bit. Has he taken the place of Hal?
Act 4:
ReplyDelete1) How will the killing of the rebels help Hal's plan of a united United Kingdom? Will it, or will it just make the people second guess him even more?
2) Why is Prince John sent to lead the army instead of the king to be Henry?
3) What makes the rebels so easily give up and surrender? In part 1 Hotspur died fighting an army of the size of John's with just as tiny an army as this rebel one.
4) How is Hal able to change someones mind so drastically so quickly? Time and time again he has changed his father's opinion in one speech.
5) Why does Henry IV want to die in the room called Jerusalem? Does he believe it will purify his soul, and that it will make up for the regicide he committed?
Act 5:
ReplyDelete1) Why would Hal so publicly and viciously throw Falstaff out of his life? Falstaff was such and important part of Hal's childhood, and this made me not like Hal very much.
2) What does the arrest of the prostitutes represent? Is this a prelude to what Hal does in scene 5?
3) How do all the different characters represent Falstaff(Shallow, Silence, Pistol)? And does Hal prove to be the Shallow one?
4) Shakespeare throws a nice shout out to Elizabeth in the prologue. Why does he do this? Was Hal made in model of Elizabeth?
5) Does Hal handle the situation with the lower class in the correct way? Is what he does with Falstaff the correct move? and will he lose the support other lower-class members?
Act 5 Journal:
ReplyDelete1) The Lord Chief Justice is the only honest character in this play. While Hal's brothers all tell him to praise Falstaff to the newly crowned Hal, he refused because it was wrong.
2) Also, it seems Hal's chase for a father figure has finally ended. The Lord Chief Justice has usurped Falstaff as Hal's father, and Hal even tells him that.
3)Interesting how Shakespeare in one scene has Falstaff speak about how he will make Hal laugh, and in the next Hal disowns Falstaff as a father figure.
4) Falstaff's corruption is seen yet again in this act, as he thinks that all of the laws will be void on him because of Hal being crowned.
5)This last scene is what I expected the whole play to be like. The relationship between Falstaff and Hal is finally terminated, and you can't help but feel bad for Falstaff. Interesting how Hal could be played as not even caring that he is disowning Falstaff, or that he could be really torn up about it.