Talk:Henry IV, Part 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia's Elizabethan theatre coverage, and has come to the attention of WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, an attempt to create a comprehensive and detailed resource on the theatre and dramatic literature in England between 1558 and 1642. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (just like any other article!), or visit WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Henry IV, Part 1 is part of WikiProject Shakespeare, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Requested move

Henry IV, part 1 → TBD – The "P" in "Part" should definitely be capitalized. I'd like to see the consensus on Roman versus Arabic numerals and comma versus no comma before moving the page, though; hence {{moveoptions}}. — Quuxplusone 02:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The current title (Henry IV, part 1) is obviously incorrect. The questions are, first, whether to use Roman or Arabic numerals, and second, whether to keep or remove the comma. That is, which of the following is preferred? Quuxplusone 02:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Approval voting is encouraged for page moves requested on WP:RM.

[edit] Discussion

Are the ideas of "ideal king" and Machiavel neccessarily mutually exclusive? Arguably Hal became the ideal Machiavellian king? Without any more detail about what is meant by "ideal king" the section is a bit unclear; would the author care to expand upon their concept of ideal king? --Trithemius 00:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There are several factual errors in the "Plot" section:

  • the rebellion was coming from the Scottish, yes, but also Wales, the Archbishop of York, Edmund Mortimer, and the Percies. Hotspur led the battle at Shrewsbury, but not necessarily the rebellion as a whole, which had several co-equal leaders.
  • The trick Poins and the Prince played on Falstaff had them dressing in buckram -- not in Kendall Green.
  • As to Falstaff's seal-ring, the text does not support the statement either that the Prince ever took it, or that it was valuable.

Moreover, "drowsy and pudgy" hardly describes Falstaff -- "fat, vital, and clownish" comes closer.-- Jrmccall 00:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In "Themes and Interpretations" the phrase "prolix inventions" is not useful -- it has no referent, either in Wikipedia or on Google. Moreover, while it is true that several of the characters are prolix -- Hal, Falstaff, Hotspur, even old Henry Bolingbroke (let's face it, Shakespeare usually gives lots of words to his major characters!) -- and much may be revealed thereby, yet they are not, in general, re-inventing themselves -- or if they are, it is not through prolixity (Bolingbroke, of course, reinvented himself in Richard II as a king). And Falstaff, who exhales falsehood, rarely expects to be believed. Others tell truth (lubricated by the usual lies of social life), or cautiously evade it. In Part 2, Justice Shallow is an old fabricator, or may just be deluded about his supposed wild youth. But the most outrageous liar in Part 2, Prince John of Lancaster, is hardly prolix, and his treacherous lie more reveals than re-invents him.

So I feel that sentence to be more confusing than enlightening, and am removing it. -- Jrmccall 15:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It is completely untrue that there is a widespread consensus Part II is worse than Part I. To many Part II is considered the better play and it is rare, even in Shakespeare, to find more profound and moving scenes than Henry IV on his deathbed. The reason Hal and Falstaff meet sporadically is to show that Falstaff is losing touch with Henry and Henry is completing his transition into a worthy heir.It demonstrates that their relationship is coming to an end and Falstaff is no longer worthy of a place in the Prince's life. Matt_Wilk