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?