Shakespeare’s Henry IV part two in the minds of the Elizabethan audiences (original) (raw)

Shakespeare and the Book of Henry

Humanities, 2023

Abstract In this article, I argue that the four plays of the Henriad (Richard II, 1 and 2 Henry IV, and Henry V), as presented in the 1623 Folio, constitute a unified whole intended for reading. The plays are connected not only by the endings of one play leading directly into the beginning of the next, but they are also unified by thematic and verbal echoes. I will focus first on establishing the connections between the plays, and then on the thematic resonances. I show how the plays are connected by verbal echoes, some thematically relevant, some not. I then show how Shakespeare provides differing accounts of Richard’s fall and invites the reader the compare and contrast them with each other. Finally, I turn to Shakespeare’s treatment of the common soldier, which culminates in the confrontation between the disguised Henry V and Michael Williams, Alexander Court, and John Bates, a scene not present in the quarto version of this play. Although this scene can stand alone, one has to have read the previous chapters of the Henriad to comprehend the full force of Shakespeare’s revision.

“Authority and Subversion in Shakespeare’s Henry IV.”

Critical Theory, Textual Application. Ed. Shormistha Panja. [ISBN 81-86423-76-1.], 2002

Shakespeare criticism has come a long way from flogging the Tillyardian construct of the history plays although the bogey is yet to be comprehensively exorcised. 1 Although Riggs sees the "Tudor myth" operating "throughout the cycle" of Shakespeare"s history plays, he does situate Shakespeare"s chronicle plays within a veritable industry of similar productions that remain generic interlopers between the more fully developed dramatic forms of "the moral interlude, de casibus tragedy, chivalric romance, and the Senecan revenge play." 2 Apart from establishing the essentially impure and pluralistic format of the history plays Riggs dwells briefly on Tudor ideology"s politically expedient course of making the popular heroical drama more rigorously "historical." 3 Tennenhouse, equipped with a vastly sophisticated critical armoury,

Prince Hal and the Body Falstaff: Theatre as Psychic Space in Shakespeare's 1&2 Henry IV

PsyArt, 2020

Aligning psychoanalytic and embodiment approaches, this paper focuses on 1&2Henry IV using Julia Kristeva's concept of the imaginary father, a 'maternal-paternal conglomerate,' as a third space within primary-narcissism. While Hal's 'education' has been analyzed in relation to dualities of order and disorder, few, if any have considered Falstaff as an intrapsychic figure of intimate revolt who supports the crafting of psychic-theatrical-imaginary space. Hal's youthful narcissism and his ability to connect with the popular voice are explored as a result of Falstaff's presence in the 'prehistory' of his kingship. Falstaff's verbal copia, his 'belly of tongues,' recalls the unruly female tongue as the site of disorder, but also the mother tongue that confers national identity as a return to the vernacular richness of the land and its people. While Hal is able to organize the various dialects and settings of 1&2HenryIV, it is the body Falstaff who impregnates the play.

'[R] Emember, With Advantages': Creating Memory In Shakespeare's Henry V

northernrenaissance.org

In three sections, this essay will explore how one of Shakespeare's best known history plays, Henry V, works to create rites of memory principally via language, which through both form and semantics constructs the memory it endeavours to transmit. My first section will briefly consider the play's reputation as a whole and how it has been remembered and understood in literary studies, and argues that the play's attempts to create memory have often been misconceived by critics to date. My second section considers Henry's St. Crispin's day speech at Agincourt and argues that he endeavours to create the enduring memory of himself and those around him on that day, before considering how successful he is in doing so. My third section discusses how the Chorus engages with memory, arguing that the Chorus seems to provide the audience with the means of creating their own memories of the play within set parameters, but that at the same time the Chorus' own language constrains it from doing this. This reveals the way memories inhere as much in the style and structure of the play as in its characters or events.

Once More: The Case for a (Mindful) Reading (Ironic) of Henry V

Henry V has one of the most divisive critical histories in the Shakespeare canon. For the first two hundred years after being published, it was seen as a patriotic celebration of the heroic warrior King Henry V and his victory at Agincourt. But in 1817 William Hazlitt made remarks critical of the King and several subsequent commentators interested in character analysis followed suit. In 1919 Gerald Gould made an astonishing claim that Shakespeare was actually being ironic in the play, that it is ‘a satire on monarchical government, on imperialism, on the baser kinds of ‘patriotism’, and on war.’ From that point on, many commentators have felt it necessary to approach the play relative to the antipodal views Gould had essentially initiated: in Henry V, is it Shakespeare’s intent to present King Henry V as an exemplar, a mirror for other monarchs to emulate, and to glorify his incredibly improbable victory at Agincourt, or was Shakespeare being less than upfront with his motivation to actually show an (ironic) ‘reversed’ reflection of this magisterial ideal. Many readings of the play in the past fifty years have focused on some form of reconciliation of these two views, but this article contends the poetic imagery and a correctly oriented manner of interrogating the text reveal a largely under appreciated masterpiece, and that beyond a reasonable doubt: the play is ironic.

Shakespeare's Use of Staged and Literary Mirrors in Henry IV, Part One

Through his use of stage compositions, Shakespeare could make visual motifs reverberate with audiences by mirroring these images again within the same play. The playwright's history, "Henry IV, Part One" contains one noteworthy example which occurs in two separate acts, both involving the character of Hotspur.

Shakespeare: Revising and Re-visioning

Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 2012

This article engages with one of the current critical and bibliographical concerns of Shakespeare studies: the collaborative nature of Shakespeare’s work. Bibliographers have identified other hands in the fabric of Shakespeare’s plays. Here the focus is Shakespeare’s collaboration in the plays of others. Three such instances will be examined; The Book of Sir Thomas More, The Spanish Tragedy and The Chronicle History of King Lear. Substantially different as these cases may be, in all of them Shakespeare is working with the materials of others. Shakespeare’s King Lear is an adaptation of the older Leir play performed by the Queen’s Men and in that sense it is a deeply collaborative work. As this essay concludes, without a model there would be nothing to stimulate, or provoke or exceed.