Continuing chronologically through the Bard’s history plays, we have finally hit the meat of the Henriad saga, which (much more often than my claim on Richard II) a number of reputable people would argue is some of Shakespeare’s best work. Henry IV, Part 1 is interesting to read and review without having read Henry IV, Part 2 yet, much in the way Prometheus Bound is difficult to read with the rest of the trilogy being lost. Much of Henry IV, Part 1 is set-up for the next installment and therefore it is difficult to get the full vision of this story without having the second part. Nevertheless, Henry IV, Part 1 stands on its own strong enough for me to call it a masterpiece of literature, and its quality by the end of it excites me to read much more Shakespeare very soon. 

     Henry IV, Part 1 is a play that grew on me over time. At first, the set-up with Henry IV (the former Henry Bolingbroke of Richard II) interested me the most. He is trying to control his own kingdom after so much civil strife, leading to conflict over his subordinate the hot-headed, achillean Hotspur who, out of snubbed pride, plots a rebellion against him. The piece de resistance of the play, Hal and Falstaff’s relationship, did not land with me at first. Perhaps that is because I haven’t read a lot of Shakespeare in a while, and the bandying word-play they have with each other is extremely difficult to immediately understand and therefore find funny at once. However, as the play continued, both storylines hooked me more and more. The main set-up of Hal having to choose between listening to his father by accepting his role as a king with responsibilities and seeking mindless pleasures and innocuous jokes with Falstaff and his tavern friends is deeply interesting. Additionally, the juxtaposition of Hotspur as a young, arrogant man who is deeply desirous for the throne and for glory against Hal, the rightful heir to the throne, who would rather play tricks on his oafish, drunken friends was well executed. By the end of the play, their duel holds lots of weight as their rivalry in every aspect has been well preestablished. Overall, the themes of pride, what it means to be a king, and Hal’s choice he’s faced with between friends and his kingdom are really well done, and thoroughly gripping to read about.

     The highlight of the play for most, however, would have to be John Falstaff. After reading Henry IV, Part 1 I skimmed a short writing by Shakesperian critic A.C. Bradley about Falstaff, and what he said I found humorous. Bradley claims that Falstaff’s role in the Henriad is to be the childish, careless free-will Hal has to ultimately abandon in lieu of his kingdom; however, Shakespeare did not account for the fact that Falstaff would be so, darn likeable that him being left behind would make readers and audience members upset. Falstaff has been given so much scholarly attention over the years from Dr. Johnson, to Morgann, to Bloom (all of which I’ll give attention to when I finish the Henriad), and it is not hard to see why. Much like Dionysus in Euripides’ Bacchae, Falstaff is a lecherous, drunken, endlessly fascinating labyrinth of contradictions. He’s an old man with the rambunctiousness of a twelve year old, he’s a fat man with the jocund energy of a very lively person. When he speaks, he often says things about himself that are flat-out untrue, and so blatantly untrue that it is clear that he is saying it just to be humorous and start banter with another person. He never takes anything too seriously, has no regard for “honor” or “bravery,” and seeks nothing more but to live merrily and in excess. Falstaff is such an interesting figure that has influenced so many other characters, from the adventurous but more refined Pickwick, to the downgraded satire of Dostoevsky’s Ferdyschenko. I am so excited to read more about Falstaff in the next plays, as Henry IV, Part 1 has certainly become one of my favorites already.