I mentioned in my write-up for Richard III that I gave my students two choices this year for a play to read. It wasn’t exactly a close call. Only about a third of them went with Richard III, and truth be told, I did encourage them to go with the other pick: Henry IV Part 1. My thinking was, given who my students are (and I am not saying more than that), the story of Prince Hal in Henry IV Part 1 was much more relevant to their futures than the evil presence that was King Richard.
Of course, Henry IV Part 1 is also a much shorter play all told. That might have been a factor as well.
But I would actually argue that not only is Henry IV Part 1 a shorter play than Richard III, but it is also a better one. Shakespeare wrote Henry IV Part 1 later in his career, after he’d grown a bit as a dramatist. This was the second play of his second tetralogy on English history, and the second one was in many ways far superior to the first due to Shakespeare’s increase in skill. The only play in the second tetralogy that I’d argue is weak is Henry IV Part 2, though that comes from the fact that it’s a sequel to Part 1, and like many sequels, it more or less repeats what everyone liked about the first one but not as effectively. The other two–Richard II and Henry V–show a writer in complete control of his literary powers. That said, one play among the four had to be the best, and I would argue, as would many others, that the best is Henry IV Part 1.
I think the reason for that is it does a couple things very well that other history plays don’t. For one, it doesn’t act like a history play, devoting a good deal of time to the antics of Shakespeare’s great comedic character Sir John Falstaff. Falstaff, I like to argue, is 95% fictional, and he’s not 100% because he may have at one time been named after an actual historic figure in the form of Sir John Oldcastle, but Oldcastle still had family living in Shakespeare’s time and they may not have taken kindly to their ancestor being written as a fat, old drunk and thief. Considering how often Shakespeare gives any of his characters any sort of physical description, it says something that we know Falstaff is both old and fat, particularly the fat as just about everyone who knows him seems to comment on the man’s weight or just make fat jokes. Falstaff may even make one or two himself. Falstaff’s girth, combined with his unearned bravado and a complete inability to tell the truth.
Falstaff doesn’t just appear in this play. He inhabits it.
The end result is, despite the king’s name being in the title, the play is really about his son Prince Hal, the future Henry V, one of England’s great warrior kings and something of a national hero at the time of Shakespeare’s writing. Shakespeare’s audience would have known full well that the foolish young man hanging out with drunks and thieves and just enjoying himself was going to grow up into a model for chivalry and a great tactician. He’s a disappointment to his father, an embarrassment for his country, and a source of mockery for the rebels, most notably another Henry, Henry “Hotspur” Percy. Hotspur, portrayed as a bit impetuous but otherwise a man of high regard, is something of anomaly for Shakespeare. Despite rebelling against the king, Shakespeare never really portrays him as a villain. His enemies speak highly of him, even until the end. He stands as a contrast to Hal, the rising star who takes his place before the play is over.
And therein lies what this play really is: essentially, an origin story for Henry V. He’s a disappointing son to a gloomy father who wishes another, seemingly more promising young man (Hotspur) was his son instead just as Hal, perhaps, uses the more fun-loving Falstaff as a substitute father. But Hal is a prince of the royal blood. He can’t just be merry and enjoy himself. He has responsibilities he can and must live up to. This is an origin by way of legend, something akin to the American story of George Washington cutting down the cherry tree. It doesn’t present history the way it happened so much as the way the audience maybe wanted it to happen. And, if nothing else, the play gave us Falstaff, and as fictional characters go, we would all be much the poorer if he’d never come around. Banish Jack Falstaff, and banish all the world.
Grade: A
0 Comments