Henry IV, Part 2 - Shakespeare

When last we left our heroes, Prince Hal had just killed Hotspur in battle.  His father, King Henry IV was proud of him and had begun to hope that maybe, just maybe, the prince wasn't as worthless as the friends that that prince had gathered to him.  Falstaff had claimed to have killed Hotspur and was hoping that his friendship with Prince Hal would protect him from (true) charges that he had robbed some men of a thousand pounds.
As part 2 opens, we find that the king is sick and everyone is worried about what kind of king Prince Hal will be.  Falstaff is being sought by the Chief Justice about the theft and there is a not subtle hint in the air that the Justice may be in trouble if he doesn't drop the matter.  Threatening the new king's friends is a terrible career move. 
The revolt that killed Hotspur is also still afoot.  This time it is stopped not by battle but by treachery.  The leaders of the revolt are tricked into dispersing their men.  Then they are taken captive.  This plotline is then closed.
Meanwhile, the king is close to death.  He lays down and asks that the crown be put near him.  Prince Hal comes in and after a short time, thinks that his father is dead.  Hal takes the crown and speaks about what an awful burden and challenge awaits him.  King Henry IV wakes and finds the crown missing.  He accuses his son of wishing his death.  Hal convinces him that this is not so.  The king understands and then dies.
Prince Hal is crowned Henry V and he works very hard to assure the kingdom that he is up to the task.  He specifically tells the Chief Justice that he must continue to do his job.  He tells him that he respects what he is doing.
Falstaff learns that the crown has changed hands and he rushes to the coronation with his cronies.  He breaks in to speak to the king and Henry V tells him that Falstaff and his men must never come near him again.  The Chief Justice throws them in prison. 


The main theme of the 'Henry IV' plays is that of the upbringing of Henry V.  I don't know how much of a concern this really was at the time, but Shakespeare brings it to the fore.  A wild, wastrel prince is a thing to be feared and how lucky is England to have avoided such an awful fate. 
Meanwhile, the titular king is given fairly short shrift.  He worries and worries.  He has some nice speeches and a couple of notable lines.  "Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown" being one of them.  But these aren't his stories.


We get the full action of Prince Hal becoming Henry V and throwing off his former, disreputable companions.  In most cases this is no big deal.  Poins, Bardolph and Pistol are clearly trash.  In the case of Mistress Quickly and Doll Tearsheet, they are good women (in some ways) but clearly on the lower rungs of society.
The shocking case is that of Sir John Falstaff.  His exile and imprisonment at the end feel like a betrayal.  True, he is not an honest man and it's best for all involved for him to not have the king's ear.  But the turn is brutal.  I can't help but wonder if Shakespeare himself thought so.  The play ends with an epilogue that literally tells the audience that the story of Falstaff is not done yet.


I can't imagine reading/seeing either of the Henry IV's without the other.  Neither one would work.  The first part would feel wildly unfinished while the second part would feel too much like it begins in the middle.  Shakespeare had already written a trilogy of Henry VI plays.  I bet he planned on several plays here.  From what scholars can tell, the continuing story of Falstaff, 'Merry Wives of Windsor' was made between Henry IV part 2 and Henry V.  The only break from this set of characters and stories was (probably) 'Much Ado About Nothing'. 
I can't tell if I liked the Henry IV plays or not.  They are quite difficult to stage (I'm sure).  But I'd like to see them done by someone else, in a different way.  (I almost wonder if they'd be better done as a group reading!)  Worth going over, of course, just not certain what the best way to communicate this type of story.

Books Read in March

I just realized that I completely missed doing one of these for February.  And now I can't remember what I read that month.  Well, one book, but I'm sure I read more than that.  Oh well! 

• The BFG, by Roald Dahl - This was new to me.  (I read this in February at the insistence of my daughter.  We read 'The Little Prince' together and I read this as part of a deal.  Both books have movies coming out and we wanted to be prepared.)  The BFG is a Big Friendly Giant.  He is part of a society of giants, but he is the most humane of them all.  This book is a critique at human societies pitched towards children, especially in respect to war.  Very good, very creative and I enjoyed it.
• The Just City, by Jo Walton - I really enjoyed this one.  The premise is that the goddess Athena has plucked people from all over time and space to recreate Plato's 'Republic'.  They do this as faithfully as they can.  They even purchase slave children so they can free them and raise them by the described methods of Plato's work.  After some years have passed, Athena brings Socrates to live in the city and, well, he does his own special thing.  Highly recommended.
• Hyperion, by Dan Simmons - A reread for me, but I barely remembered anything.  This is a science fiction work set some centuries in the future.  It centers on a group of pilgrims on a journey to beg wishes from a killing entity known as the Shrike.  Each pilgrim tells their story, much like in Chaucer's 'Canterbury Tales'.  Each story has its own style and the whole adds up to a very good mystery.
• The Fall of Hyperion, by Dan Simmons - The sequel to 'Hyperion'.  This was new to me.  The first book simply ends with every loose end, well, still loose.  This book did an excellent job of tying everything up, which isn't always true with 'mystery' style books.  Not as good as the first one, because the individual stories are so much more compelling, but still worth reading.

I think that's it.  I've been very busy with the actual Great Books books.  As I write this, I've completed 13 of the 59 pieces that I have left.  (I had envisioned this as a three year project, but now I'm thinking that two years is a definite possibility.)  I've also finished 17 different plays by Shakespeare since the beginning of the year.  Barring some catastrophe [knocks on wood], I should finish all 38 with time to spare. 
One casualty that I've had is the short story project.  It never really came together on my end and I've been more interested in other things.  I feel a little bit bad about this, but not overwhelmingly so.  It's a worthy project and I'm sure I'll return to it.  Just not in 2016.

Henry IV, Part 1 - Shakespeare

The 'Henriad' continues.  Henry IV is older now and a more established king.  His son, mostly called Prince Hal, is the primary focus.  Hal has fallen in with a group of rogues and scoundrels, most notably a huge man named John Falstaff.  Very early in the play, Falstaff decides to rob some men in the forest.  Prince Hal decides to make a game of this and, along with his friend Poins, he will then rob Falstaff.  They do this, not for the money, but to see what kind of story Falstaff makes up to cover the fact that he has been robbed.  The series of thefts happen and Falstaff does indeed run off like a coward. 
Meanwhile, the king is back at the castle and he is lamenting the sad state of his oldest son.  There is a threat to the north, carried to an extent by a man named Hotspur.  King Henry IV wishes that his son had as much of the ambition and drive as Hotspur.  The king sends men to summon Hal to the castle.
Prince Hal is at the Boar's Head tavern with Poins.  Falstaff and his men arrive and tell the tale of how they were beset by dozens of men (instead of two).  The prince tells him what really happened and Falstaff is momentarily stunned.  But only for a moment.  Then he tells the prince that he knew what was happening the entire time, but couldn't really attack the heir to the throne.  Shortly afterwards, both Falstaff and Hal pretend to be Hal and the king.  This ends with Falstaff 'holding court' over the tavern.
Hal is taken back to the castle and the king is angry with him.  He upbraids him for his behavior and choice of friends.  Hal is chastened.  Preparations are made to go north to face the rebels, led by Hotspur.  Once there, the battle commences.  Hotspur and Prince Hal happen to face each other singly, with Hal winning and killing Hotspur.  The king now sees him in a different light.


It's hard to believe that this could have been written as a standalone play.  The story is deep in character but very shallow in plot.  Prince Hal, who becomes Henry V when crowned, is an important figure in English history.  A play about his upbringing would not simply stop once he defeats Hotspur in combat.
There is an early speech from the prince where he talks about how he is simply with the common folk for the time being, but will break with them when he needs to.  It's hard to know what to do with a speech like this.  To take it at face value makes Hal a conniver of the first order.  It's far, far easier to believe that he played with rogues and scoundrels and then rose to be worthy of majesty at a later time.  But that isn't how Shakespeare presents him.


The headline character of the Henry IV plays is Falstaff.  He is a very large man, but not just in girth.  He also has a larger than life quality.  He is a master at wordplay, even when wrong-footed.  When the prince accuses him of something, he quickly finds a way to explain how the prince got the wrong end of it.  There seems to be a genuine affection from Falstaff to Hal.  Maybe in return as well.
Falstaff also represents a curious balancing act as well.  We, the audience, are drawn to him.  (In some ways, he is a very large precursor to roles like Han Solo.) 
However, he is also steadily corrupting a crown prince.  Hal isn't just some boy, he will someday be king of the realm.  Can he do this in any good way if Falstaff has a say about it?  Doubtful.  In the very opening scene of the two of them together, Falstaff tells Hal not to hang any thieves when he is king.  The implication is clear, Falstaff thinks there is too much law and order and he wants the throne to agree with him.  I imagine this would have been terrifying to the general populace.


This play was also new to me.  It's hard for me to see it plucked out from it's place in the 'Henriad' and enjoying it simply on its own merits. 

Richard II - Shakespeare

'Richard II' opens with a feud between Henry Bullingbrook and Thomas Mowbray.  They each accuse the other of treason (i.e. talking out against the king) and cowardice.  Richard II, the king, tries to get them to settle their differences amicably but they won't do so.  Instead, they will fight in single combat.  They ready themselves, but before the fight begins, the king stops it.  Both of them will be exiled.  Bullingbrook for ten years (later reduced to seven), Mowbray for life. 
Bullingbrook's father, also Richard II's uncle, is a man known as John of Gaunt.  Some years later the king is summoned to Gaunt's deathbed.  Gaunt insults the king before dying and when he dies, the king takes all of his land and inheritance, in part to fund a military expedition to Ireland.  His advisors caution him against this, but he is king and will do as he will.
In response, Bullingbrook breaks his exile and returns to England.  There he finds support among some of the other nobles.  King Richard II is in Ireland and unable to oppose him and the king has little support among those still in country.  When Richard II arrives home, his cause is lost. 
Instead of giving in to Bullingbrook's demands of inheritance and safe return to England, Richard II abdicates the thrown.  He will be deposed, and names Bullingbrook, now known as Henry IV, his successor.  He does this freely, but with great regret. 
After this, he is taken off to be held in the Tower and then another castle.  There are plots to put Richard back on the throne and the new king wishes that he was out of the way.  Supporters of Henry IV kill Richard and bring him to the king.  Henry IV is heartbroken.


This play was entirely unknown to me.  I read a bit of English history before starting in and the basic plot lines seem accurate.  Richard II comes off as weak, or at least not strong enough.  He is surrounded by toadies and yes-men, and they have weakened him. 
The scene where he is deposed (Act IV, scene 1) is simply astonishing.  Richard II is being ripped from his expected place in the universe and he has enormous trouble coming to grips with this.  He must give up this power, and he will, but how can he not BE the king? 

K. Rich. Give me the crown. Here, cousin, seize the crown;
Here, cousin,
On this side my hand, and on that side thine.
Now is this golden crown like a deep well
That owes two buckets, filling one another,
The emptier ever dancing in the air,
The other down, unseen, and full of water:
That bucket down and full of tears am I,
Drinking my griefs, whist you mount up on high.

The entire scene must be a difficult one to play.  Richard has an internal weakness, in that he can't see the universe through anyone else's eyes.  As he speaks, we come to pity him.  In many ways, it would have been easier for him if the crown were torn away in battle.  The act of giving it away, undoes him.

The speech that is probably the headliner in this play comes from John of Gaunt.  As he lays dying and regrets what has become of the king and kingdom, he speaks of the wonder that is England:

This royal throne of kings, this sceptered isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall,
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands;
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England...

Simply gorgeous.

Links to the Past

Why we should praise the works of translators link

Shakespeare's skull, probably stolen link

Epictetus and the pursuit of happiness link

Why We Should All Learn from the Classics link

Is the Bible More like Plato or Copernicus? link

Dungeons and Dragons with Philosophers (Existential Comics) link

Peloponnesian War - Thucydides

(This is in regards to Books VI, VII and VIII.  My previous posts dealing with Thucydides are here.  The posts specifically about the Peloponnesian War are here and here.  A timeline of the Greek conflicts and writers, which I found very useful, is here.)


The reading plan called for reading just books seven and eight, but I decided to start with six instead.  And boy am I glad that I did.  The books break down roughly like this:

• Book VI deals with the decision to break the peace and invade Sicily.  It includes arguments both pro and con and deals with the actual invasion plans.  It follows the reaction on Sicily (especially Syracuse) and other important cities.  It ends with the a large group of Athenians and allies camped outside of Syracuse.
• Book VII starts with the Spartan response.  It follows the Spartan soldiers who were sent to help Syracuse.  It then deals with the various battles and eventual surrender of the entire Athenian army there.
• Book VIII deals mostly with conflicts all over the Aegean Sea.  The Spartan side would foment revolt and the Athenians would try to tamp it down.  Meanwhile the Persian king kept both sides hoping that the Persian fleet would help them.  While this was going on, an oligarchic revolt succeeded in Athens.  The book ends with the defeat of the Athenian fleet in the Hellespont.

Of the three, Book VI was easily the most interesting.  Nicias argues against the invasion.  He talks about long supply chains and lack of friendly territory to retreat to.  Most ominously, he says "I affirm, then, that you leave many enemies behind you here to go there far away and bring more back with you".  This turned out to be exactly what happened.  Athens created a powerful enemy in Syracuse and other cities.  Even setting aside the material loss, which was enormous, the invasion created suspicion among other cities that they could be next.  Suddenly, Athens faced revolt everywhere else.
The pro argument was mostly borne by Alcibiades, who made an explicitly pro-Empire argument.  If Athens could conquer Syracuse, the rest of Sicily would fall in line.  Once Sicily (which was a major grain producer) was Athenian, conquering Italy would be easy.  After Italy, they could wipe out the Peloponnesian (read Spartan) threat.  He said, "Moreover, we cannot fix the exact point at which our empire shall stop; we have reached a position in which we must not be content with retaining what we have but must scheme to extend it for, if we cease to rule others, we shall be in danger of being ruled ourselves". 
The results for Athens were disastrous.

Upcoming

I've finished the 'Peloponnesian War' and I'm saying goodbye to the Greeks (for now).  But I'm not moving all that far forward, just to the Roman period.  It's back to the Stoics (I think) with Epictetus and his 'Discourses'.  I thought about going with Virgil's 'Aeneid' while I still have the Trojan war fresh in my mind, but decided to go a different way.


Meanwhile, I'm about four Shakespeare plays behind in reviews.  I've been trying to decide if I should review the history plays before I'm done with that tetralogy or not.  I'm leaning towards waiting but we'll see what happens.