Here is an annotated bibliography for Henry IV, part 1
Henry IV, part 1, Henry V
Barber, C.L. “From Ritual to Comedy: An Examination of Henry IV.” Modern Essays. 144-166.
Barber, C.L. “Rule and Misrule.” Twentieth Century Interpretations of Henry IV, part 1. Ed. By R.J. Dorius. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1970. 51-70.
In the Henry IV plays, Shakespeare combines comedy and history/chronicle play. “Shakespeare dramatizes not only holiday but also the need for holiday and the need to limit holiday” (51) in Hal’s reformation speech. He explains how comedy is alike and how comedy differs from ritual. Modern criticism tries to find universals in literature—archetypes, myths, rituals. Shakespeare is more complex, uses the ritual but makes us evaluate it at the same time. In Shakespeare’s plays characters may “try to organize their lives by pageant and ritual, but the plays are dramatic precisely because the effort fails” (52). The failure reflects their personalities and eventually their destinies. Shakespeare’s characters are also fascinated with magic, the power of words. He discusses the scapegoat analogy with respect to Falstaff. Falstaff is also unprecedented as he is a combination of the “clowning customary on the stage and the folly customary on holiday” (54). Nevertheless, Barber argues against considering Falstaff central to the Henry IV plays; Hal is central. Central also is the role of the king. This illustrates the source of the play as the Prodigal Son morality play with Vice represented by Falstaff and his cronies. Shakespeare changes this convention away from the question of whether Hal will be good or bad to whether he will remain in his holiday mode forever, yet Shakespeare answers this in Act 1 with Hal’s reformation speech, so the mystery becomes how and when he will reform, not if. This contrasts him to Richard II who did not discard his Saturnalia soon enough. Hal’s sense of timing is perfect. Falstaff’s genius is his ability to think his way out of predicaments (often that he got into himself). And comedic scenes in first 3 acts of Henry IV, part 1 are quite responsive to court situations so no head-in-the-sand attitude—in the tavern the evaluation is done through play. Falstaff’s counterfeiting death is like the King’s counterfeits which protect him from death. Falstaff is compared to Richard II in his use of language. “As Prof Tillyard has pointed out, Richard II is the most ceremonial of all Shakespeare’s plays, and the ceremony all comes to nothing” (67).***
Topics covered: ceremony, language, Hal, Falstaff, reformation theme
Barish, Jonas A. “The Turning away of Prince Hal.” Twentieth Henry IV, part 1. 83-88.
The rejection of Falstaff is a litmus test for audiences—are we moralists or sentimentalists? Themes of the Henry IV plays contrast authority/rebellion, business/pleasure, sobriety/negligence. But the dream, the holiday with Falstaff [unlike the time spent in the Golden World of As You Like It] does not permanently change/affect Hal; he rejects it and Falstaff. Hal does not synthesize the two worlds. Falstaff’s actions in Henry IV, part 2 justify the rejection. Antony and Cleopatra are seen as contrasts to Hal; they begin with authority, time, and end in play, holiday, timelessness. *
Topics covered: Falstaff, contrasts to other plays
Berman, Ronald. Twentieth Century Interpretations of Henry IV, part 1. Ed. By R.J. Dorius. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1970.
Bradley, A.C. “The Rejection of Falstaff.” Twentieth Henry IV, part 1. 71-77.
There is much more to Falstaff than the characterizations we laugh at him for (his size, his bombast, his lies, his lifestyle). We laugh at him but we are also entranced by him. He is happy and we share his enjoyment of life. He is also a “humorist of genius” (72). Though he loves his sack, his wit is not dulled by it. Bradley claims no one else in the play understands Falstaff. Falstaff has a “humorous superiority to everything serious” (74). His affection for Hal makes him vulnerable to the rejection. But his real situation (poor in purse though great in waist) and how he uses others makes him a contemptible person but only if looked at seriously. Since the focus of the Henry IV and Henry V plays is in the growth of Hal, in the end Falstaff must be disgraced, rejected. Thus Shakespeare changes the tone to favor the serious view rather than the comic in Henry IV, part 2. Nevertheless Bradley says “in the creation Falstaff [Shakespeare] overreaches himself” (77). He calls Falstaff the greatest comic character in history. He claims Shakespeare bestowed an infinity of mind in Falstaff (like that bestowed on Hamlet, Cleopatra, and MacBeth) but denied to Hal. ***
Topics covered: Hal, Falstaff, comedy
*Bullough, Geoffrey. “Introduction to Henry V.” Twentieth Century Interpretations of Henry V. Ed. By Ronald Berman. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1968. 20-28.
Cambell, Lily B. “The Virtorious Acts of King Henry V.” Twentieth Henry V. 15-19.
Dean, Leonard F. “From Richard II to Henry V: A Closer View.” Modern Essays. 188-205.
Danby, John F. “Authority and Appetite.” Twentieth Henry IV, part 1. 93-95.
“Hal . . . is Shakespeare’s tired consciousness, Falstaff Shakespeare’s unconscious” (93). Hal is a model Prince, a paradigm. But Danby calls him a “Machiavel of goodness.” Rather than the ends-justifying-means philosophy, Hal espouses “let what you do indicate what you can do better” and lets ends look after themselves—the process/the technique is all important. Danby claims “Hal plays Shakespeare himself moving on, becoming more aware; as Hal turns away from Falstaff, Shakespeare himself turn away from Hal” (94). Rejection of Falstaff by Hal was an allegory for conflicting Appetite and Authority in England itself. (Spanish treasure fleets represented by merchants at Gad’s Hill, Essex’s rejection by Elizabeth like Falstaff’s by Hal). *
Topics covered: Hal, Falstaff, rejection
*Dorius, R.J. “Introduction.” Twentieth Henry IV, part 1. 1-11.
Dorius discusses ambiguity of characters of Hal and Falstaff, Hal’s relation to time, the two Hals—the private man associates with Falstaff and other common men, the public man in soliloquy promises to redeem himself. Hotspur gambles with time; Falstaff ignores it. Today interpretations of the play “fall on one side or the other of the pleasure principle” (2), either the focus is too much on Falstaff and even Hal is seen as manipulative, or Falstaff is seen as a clown. Hal is an unusual Shakespearean hero in that he succeeds without much suffering. There is a pattern in the history plays: someone goads another into challenging a powerful person, but unlike Brutus (egged on by Cassius to challenge Caesar or Hamlet by the Ghost or Othello by Iago or MacBeth by the witches), Hal does not choose to follow Falstaff’s lead of scorning Henry IV and actually supports his father. Hal assimilates the virtues of other characters such as Hotspur. Hal’s interaction with the world is more like a comedy hero’s. Hal can live both outside time with Falstaff (as in comedy) and in the world of flux (as in tragedy). Hal combines wise passivity of Hamlet with wisdom and intelligence of Shakespeare’s comedy heroes. But Hal doesn’t have to avenge a wrongful death of the king—just atone for it. Unlike Hotspur’s and Falstaff’s extremes, Hal represents the middle way. Dorius says in Hal Shakespeare “holds up a mirror for magistrates more humane than that devised by moralists” (7). Hal also is the prototypical Prodigal Son. Hal has political sense of timing like Bolingbroke and Richard III. Hal becomes more two-dimensional when he rejects the Falstaff side of himself to don his public responsibilities as King. Dorius contrasts Hal’s rejection of Falstaff against Antony’s choice of Cleopatra over all the world. **
Topics covered: time, parallels between plays, Hal
Dorius, R.J. “A Little More than a Little.” Shakespeare Histories. 113-131.
Dutton, Richard. “The Second Tetralogy.” Bibliographical. 337-380.
Ellis-Fermor, Una. “Shakespeare’s Political Plays.” Twentieth Henry V. 46-59.
Empson, William. “The Ambiguity of Falstaff.” Twentieth Henry IV, part 1. 78-82.
The Prodigal Son story was very popular in Shakespeare’s time. Falstaff can be seen as the medieval Vice character, but it doesn’t explain his appeal. He is also associated with the cowardly swashbuckler of the Latin plays. Within the history tradition Falstaff stands for social disorder (parallels to the rebel leaders who, through usurpation, are attempting disorder). In “real life” he is the scandalous upper class character whose antics please the lower class (this is unique to Shakespeare). He also stands for Machiavellianism, and he is hence a good teacher for the king, though his rejection is necessary. Rejection is necessary at the end if only because of Falstaff’s great expectations and how he might have misused power. Empson claims Falstaff is a self-portrait and ties him to Shakespeare’s life experiences after breaking off from his patron. **
Topics covered: Falstaff
Frye, Northrop. “Nature and Nothing.” Twentieth Henry IV, part 1. 89-90.
In Shakespeare, histories constantly look back to Golden Age (Henry VI looks back to Agincourt; Henry IVs and V to Richard, John of Gaunt to age of Edward III). Bolingbroke being seen as a natural force (not a wicked Machiavellian usurper or Hamlet-like righteous avenger) is needed because Richard is not doing what is required of a king. This breaks the connection to the cosmic order and glorifies Richard. Hal has more right to the throne but still exhibits guilt like his father. The histories center on the revolving wheel of fortune with the dialectic of nature (high) with nothing (low). Nature is associated with art, connecting the myth of lost paradise (the fall of Adam) to the reality of our lives.*
Topics covered: Bolingbroke, Richard
Frey, Northrop. “Comedy and Falstaff.” Twentieth Henry IV, part 1. 91-92.
Shakespeare realizes a profound pattern in comedy connected with ritual of death and revival with the eventual victory of summer over winter. Shakespeare’s comedy is “not Aristotelian and realistic . . . nor Platonic and didactic” (91). Like Spenser’s Fairie Queene, there is a green world. In the Henry IV plays, this is the tavern of Falstaff’s world Shakespeare subject matter is not as much nature or reality or morality as it is language itself. *
Topics covered: ritual, comedy, Falstaff
Greenblatt, Stephen Jay. Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in Renaissance England. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988.
Included in this book is an essay that has become famous called “Invisible Bullets” about the issues of class and culture in the history plays.
Hawkins, Sherman H. “Virtue and Kingship in Shakespeare’s Henry IV.” English Literary Renaissance 5(1975): 313-43.
Hodgdon, Barbara. William Shakespeare First Part of Henry the Fourth. New York: Bedford, 1997.
Humphreys, A.R. “The Unity and Background of Henry IV, part 1.” Twentieth Henry IV, part 1. 18-40.
Humphreys argues against Sir Edmund Chambers’ view that the history of the history plays was just a backdrop for the setting for the comic character of Falstaff. He agrees with Hazlett that tragic and serious is equal to comic and farcical. Two aspects, serious and comic, do not alternate but are integrated together or juxtaposed to force a judgment of each in relation to the other. They look like opposites (court/tavern, gravity/wit), but both plots support the same themes (threat to Henry IV’s rule by Hotspur and Hal). The rebels’ self seeking is disguised by talk of honour and the exploits of Falstaff and his gang of thieves are romanticized. We are meant to contrast Hotspur’s rant about the Morimer/Glendower battle with Falstaff’s account of his battle with men in buckram green. Another serious/comic comparison is more obvious: the play within the Jest scene with Hal’s actual confrontation with his father; the Gad’s Hill attempted theft with the rebels’ revolt. Hotspur and Falstaff represent virtue and vice, but live in their fantasies. Hal needs both to rule wisely and must live in the real world. Humphreys contrasts I.i and I.ii, also II.ii and II.iii, and IV.i and IV.ii. Put into historical perspective, Shakespeare’s first tetralogy focuses on questions of right and wrong, justice and injustice; the second on more expedient questions of strong or weak, secure or insecure. Falstaff’s comments act as a criticism of corrupt state but Shakespeare does not allow him the last word. The world of Henry IV is Shakespeare’s comic vision, acceptance, inclusiveness. Humphreys traces Falstaff’s connection to Sir John Oldcastle and explains the differences in character which Shakespeare included. ***
Topics covered: structure, foils and contrasts, Hal, Falstaff, Hotspur
Hunter, Robert G. “Shakespeare’s Comic Sense as it Strikes us Today: Falstaff and the Protestant Ethic.” In David Bevington and Jay L. Halio, eds., Shakespeare: Pattern of Excelling Nature. Neward: Univeristy of Delaware Pres, 1978.
Jenkins, Harold. “The Structural Problem in Shakespeare’s Henry the Fourth.” Twentieth Henry IV, part 1. 96-98.
Jenkins connects incidents in the plays to Holinshed and suggests Shakespeare changed his mind in the writing of this tetralogy. The play suggests Hal’s ascension to the throne would come shortly after Shrewsbury when, in fact, 10 years intervene. Shakespeare perhaps started with a poem by Samuel Daniel, “The Civil Wars,” as a model (in which Hotspur is young as in Shakespeare’s play). Jenkins says Shakespeare perhaps changed his mind in Act IV (not the same decisive action as in Richard II and Henry V), in Henry IV, part 1, Act IV just works as preparation with part 2 saved for the transfer of power. So the climax becomes the battle, not the transfer of kingship to Hal. *
Topics covered: history, creative process
Kernan, Alvin B. “The Henriad: Shakespeare’s Major History Plays.” Modern. 245-278.
Deals with Lancastrian tetralogy of history plays.
**Krims, Marvin B. “Hotspur’s Antifeminine Prejudice in Shakespeares 1 Henry IV.” Literature and Psychology GET REST OF INFORMATION 118-131.
Kris, Ernst. “Prince Hal’s Conflict.” Approaches to Shakespeare. Ed. by Norman Rabkin. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964. 182-202. also found in Twentieth Henry IV, part 1. 109-111.
The conflict between father and son is acted out three times in Henry IV, part 1. First Hal’s symbolically goes through the confrontation with his own father in a play-within-a-play with Falstaff. Hotspur’s conflict is with a weak father too ill to help him in battle. Shakespeare also establishes the triangular relationship between Hal-Henry-Falstaff and Hotspur-Northumberland-Worchester. Also Henry has two possible sons: Hal and Hotspur. Hotspur is a foil to Hal—acting out Hal’s desire for rebellion against Henry. Kris thinks Hal may have idealized Richard II, whom he would have accompanied to Ireland (as a hostage). Hal connected to Hamlet in that a father figure killed an admired relative of his. Psychology interprets Hal’s reaction as forming a filial attachment to a father substitute, usually the antithesis of the father. *
Topics covered: foils, father/son relationships
Langbaum, Robert. “Character versus Action in Shakespeare.” Twentieth Henry IV, part 1. 102-105.
As readers interpret Falstaff in a psychological or anti-psychological way, he is seen either as flawed and an object of scorn or in control of comedy as he laughs at himself. Is he an agent of the past or in control of his own story? Falstaff represents excess, but not as a Vice as in Aristotle. It is a cause of his failure but also of his destruction. Falstaff creates his own atmosphere, takes over the stage, asserts his point of view. But in focusing on the psychology of character we must ignore the external truths (money, power). We should judge Falstaff as an artist. But by focusing only on character, we ignore the way elements of the plot interact with the themes. *
Topics covered: Falstaff, excess
Le Guardia, Eric. “Ceremony and History: The Problems of Symbol from Richard II to Henry V.” Twentieth Henry IV, part 1. 41-50.
La Guardia uses the terms of ceremony and history to explain the conflict of divinity and mortality: history means the event itself, not its ideal. Mimetic reality is ceremony and reflects what ought to be in a timeless golden world. Le Guardia says Richard’s was a mystical kingship—Henry V’s, a rational one. There is a decadence in Richard’s poetic, chivalric sensibility. Hal’s world is different but it is Shakespeare’s intent to show decline or rise, loss or gain. Le Guardia says we are meant to see the world as man participating in both worldviews. Richard has excessive faith in symbol and ceremony; Henry V does not. Bolingbroke is a foil to poetical man. Hal in Henry IV plays must create a symbolic order of kingship through actions in court or on the battlefield. He says Falstaff is much like Richard in his love (and exaggeration) of language. Drama balances the creative power of imagination with immediate experience. Also he claims Henry IV is the best balance of history and ceremony politically but its loss is in imagination. He discusses the power of language, of naming something. **
Topics covered: language, contrasting world views, Hal
Rabkin, Norman. “Life and Power in the Histories.” Twentieth Henry IV, part 1. 106-108.
Richard II establishes a theme that is dealt with throughout the tetralogy: political success is always “complementary to qualities of the human spirit incomparable with it” (106). The theme is involved with creating a harmonious commonwealth. In the Henry IV plays Shakespeare contrasts political success against Falstaff’s sense of life, sensuality. But perpetual play must be rejected. Hal knows early on what Richard II does not learn until the end, that he must be aware of time and the concord of the staff. The natures of the players make the unfolding of history inevitable. The two extreme views of honor expressed by Holspur and Falstaff just show its meaninglessness. Rabkin says the theme of this history cycle is likened to a psychological view of man: that he is torn between the demands his role places on him and his desire to make his place in history and the instinctive sense that life is amoral and gratification to self is all that matters. Like Freud Shakespeare is not optimistic about man’s ability to balance the pleasure principle with the reality principle. **
Topics covered: time, honor, characters
Reese, M.M. “Henry V.” Twentieth Henry V. 88-93.
Rossiter, A.P. “Ambivalence: The Dialectic of the Histories.” Twentieth Henry V. 74-87.
Tillyard, E.M.W. “Henry V.” Twentieth Henry V. 36-45.
Toliver, Harold. E. “Falstaff, the Prince, and the History Play.” Twentieth Henry IV, part 1. 13-17.
The 18th Century interpreted Henry IV as an impressive King and Hal as a hero, not a Machievellian. And that time period would not have understood a Freudian interpretation of Falstaff. Our modern view reads the histories as Shakespeare’s attempt to integrate providential order, politics, and timeless human impulses—inner conscience and outward exigencies of political life. The language is that of incantation and ritual. While tragic ritual explores man in relation to fate (death/god), history focuses more on the man within the political role (destiny filtered through social medium). The audience is prepared to view histories in nationalistic terms. Toliver sees history as instructive (the Renaissance Humanist Christian view). He references Aristotle’ terms anagnorisis and catharsis to describe Falstaff’s role as victim. The central action is finding the balance between the inner self and social responsibility. He sees Falstaff as a rebel against history. **
Topics covered: Hal, Falstaff, history, language
Traversi, Derek. “The Climax of the Play.” Twentieth Henry IV, part 1. 99-101.
The central duel between Hotspur and Hal resolves the “honour” question and destiny. Hotspur’s final speech expresses disillusionment and seeks emotional closure. No one really wins the final battle; the king cannot creative unity, and the rebels fail. Falstaff is an ironic spectator in this battle. Shakespeare creates contrast in language between Hal’s 2 epitaphs—to Hotspur and to Falstaff. Falstaff’s speech and action of stabbing the dead Hotspur also prove to illustrate the chivalry we just saw in Hal’s battle with Hotspur. Falstaff ‘s change in character, connected to his social aspirations, which is more fully developed in Henry IV, part 2, is seen beginning here. **
Topics covered: honor, Falstaff, Hotspur, Hal, climax
Traversi, Derek. “Henry the Fifth.” Twentieth Henry V. 60-73.
Traversi, Derek. “The Historical Pattern from Richard II to Henry V.” Shakespeare Histories. 102-112.
Walter, J.H. “Introduction to Henry V.” Shakespeare Histories. 152-167.
Williams, Charles. “Henry V.” Twentieth Henry V. 29-35.
Wilson, J. Dover. “Falstaff and the Prince.” Shakespeare Histories. 132-151.
Wilson, J. Dover. The Fortunes of Falstaff. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964.
Winny, James. The Player King. The Theme of Shakespeare’s Histories. London: Chatto & Windus, 1968.