In the first place, it is primarily Henry IV, upholder of law and order, not Henry the sinner, who appears here and in the rest of the play - quite logically, since increasing attention has been paid and will be paid to the rebels. The point of view represented here is surely not to be ignored, but it may do Henry IV less than justice.
#KING HENRY IV PART 1 ACT 3 SCENE 1 HOW TO#
Moreover, his second and much longer speech (29-91) is practical instruction on how to influence people - the right people - what with his remarks on dressing himself "in such humility that did pluck allegiance from men's hearts" (51-52). Perhaps, it is argued, he is not sure that Hal's apparent failure is a sign of God's displeasure, but he is well aware of the "displeasing service" he himself had done - usurpation and regicide. He'll breed revengement and a scourge for me. That, in his secret doom, out of my blood Why, for example, should he say to his son:įor some displeasing service I have done, To some, King Henry may appear especially calculating in parts of this scene. The thematic relationship between main plot and subplot is sufficiently clear, for the reader has come directly from the scene in which this meeting between prince and king has been parodied. Because of Hal's vow and his appointment as supreme commander of one large force, the way is prepared also for the shift in the comic subplot. In this scene, the climax and turning point are reached. Sir Walter Blunt arrives with the news that Douglas and the English rebels even now have assembled their troops at Shrewsbury. The king himself, joined by Westmoreland and Prince John, will lead another army which will join Hal's in the North.
Overjoyed, the king declares that Hal will be placed in command of royal forces. He solemnly promises to "redeem all this on Percy's head" (132) that is, he will prove his loyalty and worth by performing glorious deeds in opposition to the valiant Hotspur. To Henry IV it seems that Hal is his greatest enemy, not the Northern rebels and Mortimer.Ĭhagrined by this strong reproof, Prince Hal urges his father not to believe those who have led the king to misjudge him. At that time, the king himself was like young Percy, who, no older than Prince Hal, commands "ancient lords and reverend bishops" into battle and has won "never-dying honour" by capturing the renowned Douglas.
He especially sees in his son the same fatal weaknesses which led to Richard II's downfall. If the king himself had chosen, as Hal has done, to cheapen himself in "vulgar company," he never would have won the allegiance of Englishmen. Hal has absented himself from councils of state, letting his younger brother take his place. The king voices his deep concern at considerable length. Hal does not claim to be blameless, but he states that busybodies and scandalmongers have exaggerated accounts of his behavior. The king seems to believe that Hal's dereliction may be evidence of God's punishment for "some displeasing service" he (the king) has done. He passionately censures the heir-apparent for "inordinate and low desires" and for indulging in "such barren pleasures" in the company of such "rude" individuals (12-14), ignoring his status and obligations as a prince. At the palace in London, Prince Hal appears before his father, who dismisses members of his court so that he can speak alone to his son.
0 kommentar(er)
