Table of Contents
NEW: DISCUSSION QUESTIONS--BELOW
HENRY IV, PART ONE, A STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND RATIONAL FOR A PERFORMANCE: THE PROTOCOL OF HAROLD BLOOM AND A.C. BRADLEY
SHAKESPEARE was interested in making money, so he wrote plays that his audiences wanted to see, and in so doing (as Bloom reminds us in Shakespeare, The Invention of the Human), defined personality--what in means to be human.) Thus, McKellen's Richard III not only dramatizes the rise and fall of a Medieval king, but more significantly probes the darker side of humanity's lust for power: we are taken on a tour of the mind of a dictator: Adolf Hitler, for he too reminds us of a side of our humanity we might rather not face. Bloom after all, tells us in his Macbeth essay that the king so steeped in blood and imagination reminds us most of ourselves. (p. 516 ff).

Thus, McKellen's production subordinated the almost forgotten pragmatics of the War of the Roses to the Nurenberg-like spectacle of Richard qua Hitler, and the play made perfect sense, for Shakespeare in dramatizing the mind of a tyrant touched on a universal.
What then in I Henry IV will sustain Bloom's thesis, and captivate a modern audience if the rigors of the War of the Roses do not?

We will take our cue from Harold Bloom's study of the play and its characters. Throughout his book, Bloom repeatedly lauds Hamlet and Sir John Falstaff as the characters whom he admires the most, characters whom Shakespeare endows with personalities that transcend time and place--they tell us what it means to be human. Hamlet's intellect embraces all, and Falstaff's wit embraces life.
What if the focus of our structural analysis is based on Bloom's interpretation of Falstaff? You should read Chapter 17 (pp. 217 ff) of Bloom's book , noting the following:

Wit is Falstaff's god, and since we must assume that God has a sense of humor, we can observe that Falstaff's vitalizing discourse, his beautiful laughing speech...is truly Sir John's mode of devotion...A veteran warrior, now set against the chivalric code of honor, Falstaff knows that history is an ironic flux of reversals. Prince Hal refuses to learn this lesson from Falstaff...One wouldn't want to...carouse with Falstaff, but if you crave vitalism and vitality, then you turn to...Falstaff, the true and perfect image of life itself...Falstaff to most scholars is the emblem of self-indulgence, but to most playgoers and readers, Sir John is the representative of imaginative freedom, or a liberty set against time, death, and the state, which is a condition that we crave for ourselves...Shakespeare essentially invented human personality as we continue to know and value it. Falstaff has priority in this invention [of the human]...the sublime Falstaff simply is not a coward, a court jester or fool, or a confidence man, a bawd, another politician, an opportunistic courtier, an alcoholic seducer of the young. Falstaff is the Elizabethan Socrates, and in the wit combat with Hal, the prince is a mere sophist, bound to lose. Falstaff, like Socrates, is wisdom, wit, self-knowledge, mastery of reality. Socrates too seemed disreputable to the power mongers of Athens.

Instructor's note on the dialectical process:

[Socrates was accused of corrupting the youth of Athens by teaching disrespect for the gods, and was executed for treason. Socrates also becomes the great literary persona in Plato's dialogues who in advancing the theory of the forms etc., manages to outrage the sophists, the professional educators of the day, who cannot argue consistently or in depth. He refutes their arguments on the nature of justice, education etc. with ease, and of course those in authority cannot abide refutation.]


The Intellectual Climate of Athens:

1--the first funeral oration of Pericles (from Thucydides' History)...

We alone regard a man who takes no interest in public affairs, not as a harmless, but as a useless character, and if few of us are originators, we are all sound judges of a policy, The great impediment to action is, in our opinion, not discussion, but the want of that knowledge which is gained by discussion preparatory to action. For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act and of acting too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection...

2--The Sophists:

In the Athenian experiment in democracy, the ability to think and speak well were necessary conditions for survival. According to one critic: "One of the solvents of traditional values was an intellectual revolution...a critical evaluation of accepted ideas in every sphere of thought. It stemmed from innovations in education. Democratic institutions had created demand for an education that would prepare men for public life...the demand was met by the appearance of the professional teacher, the Sophist...who taught, for a fee, not only the techniques of public speaking but also the subjects which gave a man something to talk about-government, ethics etc. The curriculum of the sophists mark the first appearance of European civilization of the liberal education. The sophists were great teachers, but like most teachers they had little control over their teaching. They produced a generation that had been trained to see both sides of any question and to argue the weaker side as effectively as the stronger, the false as effectively as the true, to argue inferentially from probability in the absence of concrete evidence...rather than to accepted moral standards...The emphasis on the technique of effective presentation of both sides of any case encouraged a relativistic point of view, and finally produced a cynical mood which denied the existence of any absolute standards.

(from The Norton Anthology of World Masterpieces. Volume 1 (New York: W.W. Norton, 1985, p. 7ff. Written by Bernard Knox.)

Socrates objected to the decline of standards, and used the dialectical process to force the sophists to see the limitations of their methods...

3--DEFINITION OF THE DIALECTICAL PROCESS FROM THE REPUBLIC of PLATO:
And when I speak of the other division of the intelligible, you will understand me to speak of that other sort of knowledge which reason herself attains by the power of dialectic, using the hypotheses not as first principles, but only as hypotheses -that is to say, as steps and points of departure into a world which is above hypotheses, in order that she may soar beyond them to the first principle of the whole; and clinging to this and then to that which depends on this, by successive steps she descends again without the aid of any sensible object, from ideas, through ideas, and in ideas she ends. I understand you, he replied; not perfectly, for you seem to me to be describing a task which is really tremendous; but, at any rate, I understand you to say that knowledge and being, which the science of dialectic contemplates, are clearer than the notions of the arts, as they are termed, which proceed from hypotheses only: these are also contemplated by the understanding, and not by the senses: yet, because they start from hypotheses and do not ascend to a principle, those who contemplate them appear to you not to exercise the higher reason upon them, although when a first principle is added to them they are recognizable by the higher reason. And the habit which is concerned with geometry and the cognate sciences I suppose that you would term understanding and not reason, as being intermediate between opinion and reason.

PREMISE:

Does Falstaff use the dialectical process to test the assumptions of the other characters...? result?
If so, here is the truest glory of Shakespeare's invention of the human: Bloom then cites the following passage by Falstaff as proof:

"Embowelled? if thou embowel me today...come you along with me." [V,iv,110-28]

He adds the following:

Shakespearean secularists should manifest their Bardoaltry by celebrating the Resurrection of Sir John Falstaff. It should be made, unofficially but pervasively, an international holiday, a Carnival of wit, with multiple performances of Henry IV, Part One. Let it be a day of loathing political ambition, religious hypocrisy, and false friendship...

If Bloom is correct, we should be able to develop strategies for a successful production using Falstaff as the focus. We will use a model for the tragedies suggested by A.C. Bradley in his Shakespearean Tragedy.

The following scheme has been suggested to dramatize the universals (recall Aristotle) in a Shakespeare play--note that it is different from the 'triangle' learned in earlier classes.

Let A stand for one major element the play's central conflict, and let B stand for the other. What happens is that B descends to Act III and rises, while A does the converse. Each scene in the play is primarily an A or B scene, and the tension between the two elements propels the conflict of the play as the universals are dramatized.

Project: You are going to develop a scheme for producing a film of this play. We know that a version requiring a degree in English history will not work, so we will construct the A / B model based on Falstaff. Therefore certain editorial decisions will have to be made about plot, character, setting, use of language etc. that will result in what will make a good film.

Methodology:

EXAMINE THE FOLLOWING STRUCTURE BASED ON BRADLEY'S MODEL (See: Shakespearean Tragedy, a link to which may be found on the site's index page.)

1--Determine what A will stand for:__________________________

2--Determine what B will stand for:__________________________

NOTE THE FOLLOWING AS PROMPTS:

WHAT WOULD AN AMERICAN AUDIENCE WOULD WANT TO SEE GIVEN YOUR ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT POLITICAL CLIMATE? [REMEMBER HOW RICHARD III WAS FILMED WITH RICHARD AS HITLER:].

1. A FATHER-SON CONFLICT
2. A POLITICAL SETTING, OR AN ANTI-POLITICAL SETTING IN A TAVERN
3. A PLAY WITH AN ANTI-HERO: HISTORY OR IRONY?

THE QUESTION IS NOW HOW WILL THIS BE PRESENTED--RECALL THE PRAGMATIC THEORY?

1. DETERMINE WHAT A AND B REPRESENT. REMEMBER THAT A ASCENDS TO ACT III AND THEN DECLINES, WHILE B DECLINES TO ACT THREE AND THEN ASCENDS.

2. GROUP THE CHARACTERS: ARE THEY A, OR B OR SOME COMBINATION?

3. RECALL THE THEME PASSAGE (IN ACT I), AND THE KEY MOTIFS TO INCLUDE THE SUN AND CLOUDS.

4. AS WITH TAMING OF THE SHREW, APPEARANCE VS. REALITY IS IMPORTANT.

Label each scene in the play as A or B or maybe some combination of both:

ACT I:

scene 1=______________ 2=_______________ 3=______________

ACT II:

scene 1=_______________2=________________3=______________4=_____________

ACT III:

scene 1=_______________2=________________3=______________

ACT IV:

scene 1=______________2=_________________3=______________4=______________

ACT V

scene 1=______________2=_________________3=_______________4=_____________
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS FOR HENRY IV, PART I

[Determine for each scene its A / B protocol.]

I.i

1. Characterize the diction and syntax carefully of lines 1-33.
2. What irony is associated with Henry using children imagery?
3. What exposition is in the scene?
4. Characterize Henry; he may later be compared to Claudius' remarks to the court following King Hamlet's death and the marriage..

I,ii

1. What motif is in this scene, and why is it used?
2. Pick a line that best reflects Falstaff's character. Why?
3. Does the Prince join the robbers for the theft or for fun or for another reason?
Does the Prince ever address the issue ? (See question 5)
4. Analyze fully the theme passage.
5. Why does Hal choose to associate with apparent "low-lifes"? The A/ B significance will be important.

I iii

1. Examine Worcester's first lines in the scene. What is revealed about him?
2. What kind of language does Hotspur use? What does it tell you about him?
3. Compare/contrast Hotspur's report with Hal's theme passage? What do
you learn of each?
4. Is the king's case against Mortimer convincing? Is the truth told?
5. What is Hotspur's most impressive quality as he talks to Worcester?
6. Is Hotspur's account of the king's conduct (lines 145 ff) convincing? Is anyone lying?
7. Why does Hotspur join the rebellion?


II,i

1. What is the scene's purpose?

II,ii

1. Who dominates this scene? Why?
2. Discuss Falstaff's lines 10-30. What does he say that focuses attention on his nature?
3. Why is Falstaff funny? What does Bloom believe?

II,iii

1.What characteristic of Hotspur is in this scene?

2.What serious defects are in Hotspur's character? Have we been prepared for them?
3.What is in this scene that foreshadows the rebellion's outcome?

II,iv

1. Compare Hal in this scene with his father in III,ii.
2. Notice in this scene how Hal's jesting with Francis is a set up for something more serious. What is it? What other character is involved, and what
does Hal think of this other character? Is his opinion true, and why is the answer important?
3. Compare Hal's lines 100-115 and Hotspur's lines in I,iii,240-248. What is learned of each?
4. This scene 'exposes' Falstaff. How does he act, and why is it funny? Would you say Falstaff has wit? What is his most admirable quality?As usual, this comedic scene has a very serious purpose. Is it a court or anti-court scene? Study fully lines 365-485 with Hal and Falstaff role playing. Answer the following based on those lines:

a. How are the lines a play within a play?
b. Is Falstaff's style always colloquial? Why?
c. What roles are assumed, and what do they 'say to each other?
d. Should the Prince be blamed in this scene given the
seriousness of the political situation?


III.i

1. How is Glendower portrayed in this scene? Contrast his behavior
with Hotspur.
2. What is the irony in lines 75 ff? Why?
3. Does Hotspur make a good impression in this scene? Why?
4. What role does Gloucester assume in this scene (lines 189 ff.)? What does this scene tell you of the Percy rebellions?

III,ii

1. Compare this scene with Act I; what is important in each scene? How are they linked?

2. Contrast Hal with his father. Does Henry have a valid complaint, or
is he just ignorant or some combination of both? Justify your answer.
3.What is the real reason that Henry is angered with Hal?
4. Compare this scene with II,iv. When does Henry go too far and what
is Hal's response? Note how the theme passage is involved.
5. Why is Hal so angry about his vow to kill Hotspur?

III,iii

1. How is Falstaff's behavior similar to II,iv?
2. What do you make of Falstaff's character now after III, ii?

IV,i

1. What imagery/motif patterns are in this scene and I,i? Why?
2. Who has the better political insight. Hotspur or Worcester? Why?
3. Compare Hotspur 5 reaction to the letter in II,iii, 1-38 with this scene.
4. See Hotspur's lines 45-54. Is his response typical of his character?
5. Is Hotspur--lines 79-90-correct in his opinion?
6. Note that Hal is characterized in this scene. Who speaks on him, what do
they say, and what point is made? Note: How is this a transition scene and from what to what?
7. Why does Hotspur come off badly in this scene?
8 What must happen to the rebellion given this scene? Why?

IV,ii

1. What is your opinion of Falstaff? Compare his behavior in other scenes?

lV,iii

1. What happens to the rebellion in this scene?
2. What is Blunt's role in this scene? How does Hotspur react?

V,i

1. Give an interlace motif in lines 1-25 to other places in the text.
2. Do you believe Worcester in lines 23-27? Why?
3. Look at Falstaff's lines and the Prince's reply. What can be concluded?
4. Examine Prince Hal's lines 83 ff. What is Shakespeare doing that explains the comedic scene
5. Give a specific dramatic evaluation of the King's offer. Is it logical?
6. Evaluate Falstaff in this scene.
7. Falstaff's lines ending the scene, 129 ff, have been called his "catechism."
Explain what this means. Evaluate the lines in light of his character and the play as a whole. Think carefully here about our [A / B] Bloom and Bradley hypothesis

V,ii

1. What does Worcester do in this scene? Is it justified, and are we prepared?
(See: I,iii,300f)
2. Look at Hotspur's lines 73-82. Is this a typical response for him? What is the point here?
3. What is Hotspur's point in saying he cannot talk-line 95. Is the character
sincere?


V,iii

1. Evaluate Falstaff in this scene. What has happened/
2. Evaluate the Hal/Falstaff relationship. Has either changed and why?

V,iv

1. Give a flashback court/anti-court interlace here.
2. Is the king the 'hero" in this scene? Why? Your response should give
an important clue to the theme.
3. The entire play has been moving toward a central conflict which
is in this scene.Note the A/B pattern. What is it? Evaluate the outcome, and analyze the characters involved. Why was not the scene considered a little
childish in the Renaissance if we might feel that way today?
4. What motifs are involved that relate to the theme passage?
5. How does Hal feel about Falstaff?
6.Why does Hal agree to lie for Falstaff?

V,v

1. Does the play end with a settled conclusion? Why? What was Shakespeare
probably planning to do?