The Gadshill robbery plot, carried out in 2.1-2.2, is foiled, as expected, by Hal and Poins. In the following scene (2.3), Hotspur receives notice of an (unidentified) ally’s decision to withdraw from the rebellion. These two episodes are a good example of the parallel plot structure: in stealing from the thieves, the Prince of Wales undoes the efforts of his tavern companion, Falstaff, to live by theft and thereby stands opposed to such behaviour. (Indeed, at 3.3.171, we learn that Hal has returned the stolen money to its rightful owner.) It is appropriate that Hal’s other great foil, Hotspur, is the recipient of bad news regarding the rebellion. Both Falstaff and Hotspur are, in their own ways, a challenge to the ruling authority: one defies law and order, the other defies the king’s right to govern. And both challenges, in these scenes, begin to wane.
What else do we learn about Hotspur’s character in 2.3, one of the few scenes in the play involving male-female relations?
Though the tavern scenes are written in prose, the language is just as vital and “poetic” as the blank verse of the court scenes. This is particularly true of 2.4, whose principle concern is Hal’s and Poins’ prank against Falstaff, Peto, Bardolph, et al.
This major prank, however, is preceded by a minor one in which the two friends (Hal and Poins) have some fun at the expense of one Francis the Drawer (a drawer is a barkeep): they make him run back and forth between two rooms until he’s flabbergasted and confused. This treatment of Francis is a telling counterpart to Hal’s speech just prior (2.4.4-31). Here he describes in wonderful detail the drinking games he plays with his tavern buddies, “Tom‚” “Dick‚” and “Francis” (6-15). Hal is very pleased with himself here. Why? And how does this self-satisfaction play against his treatment of Francis the drawer?
In the middle of all this fun, Hal’s thoughts turn suddenly to Hotspur (99). This is strange, no? Why does he do this? And notice the way he mocks Hotspur’s military bravado (99-105). What does this brief moment tell us about Hal?
The long scene that ensues when Falstaff and the other robbers arrive is crammed full of comic moments and language. (Be aware of what is happening here: Falstaff does not know that Hal and Poins are the ones who robbed the robbers.) The scene’s language is entertaining not only because it is funny; its sheer sound conveys the exuberance and vitality of life in the tavern world. It scintillates and pops with a percussive music all its own, in contrast to the languid and lyrical music of the court scenes. Identify a passage or two that you find particularly humorous and explain why it’s effective. (Confine your observations to lines 110-359.)
The latter phase of the scene is precipitated by news from court summoning Hal to assist his father in putting down the rebellion (322-359).
To prepare the truant son against the tongue-lashing he’s likely to receive from the king when he goes home, Falstaff suggests that Hal “practise an answer” (361-62)‚ i.e., rehearse an explanation for his poor behaviour. What ensues is a sort of play-within-the-play, a mock interview in which Falstaff plays the king, and Hal plays himself—until Hal proposes that they switch roles (417-18).
Like 1.2 wherein the friends’ witty exchange is shadowed by darker hints of Hal’s waning loyalty, here the fun and games are laced with grim ironies anticipating the inevitable sundering of their relationship. Most devastating perhaps is Hal’s response to Falstaff’s plea (Falstaff as Hal, that is) that the king (played by Hal at this point) not banish Hal’s corpulent friend: “Banish not him thy Harry’s company, / Banish not him thy Harry’s company. / Banish plump Jack, and banish all the world,” to which Hal curtly responds, “I do. I will” (460-63). On the level of the play-within-the-play, Hal is pleading with his father. On another and more melancholy level, Falstaff is pleading with his friend not to forsake him. Notice that Falstaff’s language at this point turns from prose to pitch-perfect iambic pentametre, the music of the court world to which Hal’s destiny leads him. It is a supreme irony that this music is put in the mouth of the man whose values completely undermine those of the “legitimate” court.
Can you identify other ways in which this scene’s final phase combines humor and drama? Or perhaps you might focus on one or several of the many comic ironies—in, say, Falstaff’s speech as king chastising his son (385-404). Notice the insulting things Falstaff is implying about members of the royal family—the king, the queen, and Hal himself. Can you identify these insults? Be specific. They’re not obvious.
Other comments about this scene?
The mock interview of 2.4 has its counterpart in 3.2. This scene captures in miniature the whole of Hal’s transformation from tavern wastrel to noble prince and warrior.
Notice his first answer to his father’s charge (18-28). Is this a genuine apology? If you’re confused by the language here, it’s not simply because you have a rough time reading Shakespeare. Hal’s speech is, I think, deliberately opaque and obfuscated. When we get to the bottom of it, Hal is offering an excuse here, is he not? What is that excuse?
Well, he doesn’t get off that easily. The king now subjects his son to a shaming ritual that is also a brief history lesson (29-91). Henry is telling Hal (and us) about his past exploits, particularly his rise to power. What is it that he would teach his son here? Who is the “skipping king” (60) and how does he fit into the lesson?
Notice the analogies Henry explicitly draws at lines 93-96. To paraphrase, Hal is to the present what Richard was to the past; and Hotspur is to the present what Henry/Bolingbroke was to the past. Is there not something odd about these comparisons?
Examine, finally, Hal’s tremendous response to the lesson (129-59). This is a far cry from the first response, yes? Notice the imagery at lines 135-37. What sort of language is this, and why is it appropriate? Now ask yourself, what might Falstaff have thought were he to witness this?
One final observation: Henry’s line at 160 nicely captures the connection between the play’s two plots, implying that success in either is dependent on that of the other. This is entirely in keeping with the patriarchal analogy connecting kings and fathers. Henry’s success in the political sphere is inseparable from his success in grooming the heir-apparent for service. The sun/son is about to rise.
One final word about the Prodigal Son story that Hal invokes implicitly in the sun-king soliloquy. For those of you familiar with the story, what is the one important difference between Hal and the Prodigal Son, and why does it matter?
©Robert Whalen, 2025