What are three significant arguments Bevington makes in his essay? Do you agree or disagree with each of the arguments? Why or why not? (In your rationales use the article, plays, and the BBC film we've seen to date.) As always, you must respond to at least two others' posts to exceed expectations.
By the way, I'm looking for some burned intellectual calories in your responses. Go beyond the obvious.
1. King Henry has trouble dealing with the people that he previously dealt with. What is Henry to do with Richard? He becomes paranoid and people notice that he becomes weaker. The author gives examples and I do agree that he is paranoid when he drives the Percies into rebellion. It is almost increased with the civil war making him more paranoid. Harry definitely during his reign was carefully watching over his back.
ReplyDelete2. King Henry has troubles with his son. And his son really doesn't know how to communicate with his father until the end of Part 1. The author mentions that Harry never felt the responsibility of a normal person, and acts like a slob. Henry doesn't like this, although he doesn't know the entire story. But one thing the author fails to mention that Harry is doing this semi intentionally so that he can look a lot better during battle against hotspur. Although Harry isn't responsible, he is smart and adapts in any situation.
3.Falstaff tries to be a religious person to look more appealing. The atuhor says he mimics religion to look better. But with the people that know that he is faking, he gains their respect like harry. I completely agree with this because Harry adjusts to survive and he sees a complete slob somehow praised by so many people due to his lying antics.
I agree that Falstaff will use just about anything he can to gain appeal from others. He is constantly working or putting on a show to gain popularity among viewers.
DeleteI also agree that Falstaff will do anything in his power to improve his image. In his essay, Bevington states that Falstaff does not care about honor. Falstaff himself even states that he doesn't care about honor. I disagree. I think that Falstaff's desire to improve his image directly contradicts this statement.
DeleteI'm not sure that the author mentions that Hal doesn't know how to act like a responsible normal person. Hal addresses in the first Act that he is going to play along until he is needed. He purposely acts irresponsible to lower the standards.
DeleteIn his essay, Bevington examines relationships and dynamics between father and son, man and man, and husband and wife throughout Richard II and Henry V. After examining the relationship between Prince Hal and his father, King Henry, Bevington presents an argument that I personally would defend. Bevington sees Shakespeare proposing that before a man can maintain a relationship with a woman in the agreement of marriage, he must be capable of settling his disputes and conflicts with other men. This is apparent Henry IV and continues to Henry V. Before Hal can marry Katharine he must achieve a relationship with his father, prove that he is able to conquer Hotspur, and let go of his immature relationship with Falstaff. As far as we know the Hal and Katharine have a successful marriage that could be attributed to Hal's healthy relationships with the significant males in his life.
ReplyDeleteIn examining Shakespeare's perspectives on male-male relationships, a possible belief of Shakespeare's opinion on women is revealed. It seems that Shakespeare might be making the case that only hyper males who have proved their masculinity are attractive to women. When looking at the male-female companionships in Henry IV and V a trend becomes obvious. With the exception of Hal and the bar maiden at Eastcheep Tavern, the men who have relationships with women are all hyper males. For example, Harry Hospur, Lord Edward Mortimeter, and finally, Hal who by the time he marries could be considered a hyper male
Also in his examination of male-male relationships Bevington brings to light Shakespeare's belief in the importance of father-son relationships. While Hal doesn't have a constant relationship with his father, he always has a father figure. Part of what makes Falstaff such a likable character is the mentorship that he provides Hal. Falstaff helps Hal mature to the point that he can have a good relationship with his own father. Hotspurs refusal to accept the mentorship offered by King Henry could be attributed to Hotspurs death, reinforcing the importance of the father figure. The lack of Hal's mother also deserves mention. Without a mother in the picture, there are no distractions from the relationship between Hal and Henry.
FORREST PARKER
I agree that Falstaff helped Hal learn how to act accordingly to his position in society. We know that Falstaff can act as a whole range of characters including royalty. That can be seen when he acts like the king in the tavern. And we can see that Hal has learned from Falstaff because Hal also successfully reenacts the king as well.
Deletei never really thought about it using a woman's perspective
Delete1. Bevington points out that women are not a major part of the play until later. He says that Hal does not bother with women. Hal is too preoccupied with his other friends like Falstaff and Poins. This seems to be true, in the film, the only action we've seen with Hal and a women is when he pretends to be making out with the tavern girl when the sheriff comes in looking for Falstaff. Shakespeare could have been doing this to keep the focus on Hal to not distract the reader. The other thing that could be present is slight sexism. Women were not important figures in society in Shakespeare's time. Maybe he just didn't want to have plays about women because they would not be accepted by the hoi polloi.
ReplyDelete2. Bevington also says that Henry (Bolingbroke) feels the responsibility for Richards death. Even though he whispered it softly, he knows that he purposefully made it loud enough so Exton would hear him and carry out his plan. Bevington also says that prince Hal could serve as karma for henry because Hal is so rouge and disappointing for Henry. This could be a good point, and we know that Henry feels bad about having richard killed because he goes to the holy land after to cleanse his sins.
3. Bevington also states that part of the reason that Falstaff acts so wild is because he knows that his popularity comes from him putting on a good show and that the crowd expects him to perform. Falstaff never strays from his performance, even when he is attacked by Poins and Hal in the forest, he is yelling as he runs that 3 feet for a normal man is a mile for him. Then he falls down the hill. He knows that if he puts on a show they may not slay him and he could be saved. Falstaff is a great actor, we can see this when Hal and him pretend to be king in the tavern. Falstaff is good at enacting fake events and putting on a mask. His fat also helps him entertain.
I agree with the fact that Falstaff relies on his ridiculous antics to please the people around him. He also does this to endear himself to prince Hal. I also agree that women not being a major part of the plays is a result of Shakespeare trying to keep the focus on Hal. Shakespeare wanted to adequately develop Hal's character, and women would have been a distraction from his efforts.
DeleteI agree that one of the arguments is the little role of women in this play. It's interesting that Hal - in the film- would fraternize with a woman, and not in the play. I agree with the author that one of the reasons was so Hal would seem more focused on his goal.
Delete1. Bevington poses the idea that Hal has gone to Fallstaff as a father figure because his own father has given up on him. It's obvious that Henry IV is frustrated with his son. This is shown even in Richard II, in which Hal is only mentioned once in passing, but very negatively. The issue with this is that the king is disappointed in Hal because he is surrounding himself with the lowlifes of the kingdom, but Hal is doing this because his father is disappointed in him. It's sort of a chicken and the egg argument, and it had to have started with one of the two characters. That's why I disagree with the idea. Either Hal started visiting the bars without any provoking from his father, or Henry IV was a neglectful father in the first place. It can't be circular.
ReplyDelete2. Another idea Bevington explores is the idea that Fallstaff might be playing Hal, not the other way around. We get the impression from Hal (he pretty much flat out says it at certain points) that he is only using the tavern as a way to relax and bide his time before he leaves everyone behind to become king. But Fallstaff is smart, and even though he never says it, it is hinted that he might know this about Hal, in fact he may know a good deal more than he lets on to. I like this idea, because Fallstaff seems to win every argument he gets in, and he knows what his role is. It would be hard for Hal to pull the wool so far over his father figure's eyes.
3. The culminating argument about Hal and Hotspur's relationship is that Hal has to defeat Hotspur in order to become a man. This makes sense, because Henry IV says several times that he respects Hotspur more than his own son. If Hal is able to get rid of the competition, he take Hotspur's place in his father's eye. Hotspur represents Hal's need to grow up and take responsibility, because Hotspur is all about honor, and at the start of the play Hal has no honor, as far as his father is concerned.
I agree with the idea that Falstaff knows about Hal's plan. Falstaff is incredibly quick-witted and is very good at figuring people out. He would have pieced out Hal's plan easily. I also agree with the idea that in order for Hal to gain his father's respect, he has to kill Hotspur. Henry IV has always admired Hotspur as an honorable and masculine individual. When Hal kills Hotspur, all of Henry IV's admiration of Hotspur is transferred to Hal. It is the most efficient way for Hal to endear himself to his father
Deletehe becomes a man, however it's his own personal growth. He is okay with falstaff getting the credit as long as he grows personally
DeleteI think that Falstaff is onto Hal plan also, but its also improtant to remember that Hal is able to hide his plan from his father, and do its not inconcievable that he would be able to hide it from Falstaff as well. The evidence does seem to show that Falstaff knows, however.
DeleteIn his essay, Bevington offers new insights into the relationship between Falstaff and Prince Hal. Bevington presents many opinions about the hidden meanings behind the interactions between Falstaff and Hal. One of these arguments is that Falstaff knew Prince Hal and Poins were the ones who robbed him I agree with this argument completely. In Bevington's essay, it identifies that Falstaff knows that Prince Hal and Poins were supposed to be a part of the brigade of thieves. Their absence from the attack Falstaff carries out against the merchants at Gad's hill would have been noticed, particularly by a sharp-minded man like Falstaff. It also identifies in the article that Falstaff endears himself to Hal through telling hilarious and outrageous lies. The lie he tells about how the robbery was so ridiculous that it could have been intentional. Falstaff knows that Hal wants to hear Falstaff tell a ridiculous lie about the robbery. Falstaff also knows that if he doesn't stay on Hal's good side, he could be in trouble when he becomes king. Falstaff uses his knowledge of the robbery to create a hilarious lie to entertain Hal.
ReplyDeleteBevington also presents the argument that Hal is just using Falstaff to hide his greatness. Hal uses Falstaff to essentially make himself look bad. Hal does this so that when he sheds Falstaff and rises to power, His transformation will be incredible. I agree with this argument because of an interaction between Falstaff and Hal in act 2, scene 4 of Henry IV. In this scene, Hal takes on the role of his father and Falstaff takes on the role of Hal. They have a brief dialogue in which Falstaff begs Hal not to banish him. Although Hal is acting as King Henry IV, he states in response to Falstaff’s plea, “‘I do, I will.’” Hal is planning to rid himself of Falstaff, which makes me think Hal has been planning this since the beginning.
Bevington also presents the argument that Hal will never be free of Falstaff. However, I completely disagree with this argument. In part 2 of Henry IV, Hal publicly rejects Falstaff by not making him the chief justice. Falstaff and Hal had already begun to separate throughout Henry IV part 2, and this action created an even larger gap between the two men. Bevington identifying that Hal will never be free of Falstaff is illogical. When Hal assumes the throne as Henry V, he will be able to do whatever he wants. Falstaff has no control over Hal once he is king. Eventually, the two will separate entirely due to the desires of King Henry V.
I also believe that Hal uses Falstaff to mask his greatness. As you stated, by setting everyone's standards for him low with his friendship with Falstaff, Hal is effectively guaranteeing that his image can only rise. However, I do not think that Hal will be able to rid himself of Falstaff. I think that Hal's physical eradication of Falstaff is possible, but Falstaff's influence on Hal's wit and quick decision making will live on forever.
DeleteI agree with your first point. I hadn't considered this, but it is clear that Falstaff endears himself to Hal through his lies, and this situation presented an opportunity for another outrageous lie-perhaps too outrageous to not be intentional.
DeleteI believe in Bevington's argument that Hal will never be able to free himself from Falstaff. I think that it is not specifically Falstaff that Bevington is referring to but rather any individual who posses similar attributes to Falstaff. This similar individual could be able to change Hal in a way that Falstaff did.
DeleteFORREST PARKER
1. Bevington states that after Hal's (Henry V) death, "he was such a hero that he needed a fictional youth," and that Shakespeare assigned him a fictitious youth of adventure and pleasure. Additionally, Bevington argues that Hal's irresponsibility can be attributed to his hesitancy to be like his father, Henry IV, who rules with an iron fist. I agree with Bevington. I think that Hal despised his father's indisputable dullness and lack of personality. I also agree with Bevington in that Hal's wildness is a result of both his instinct and need to be different from the Henry IVs and Percies of the world. I think that Hal's refusal to become a Machiavell is what makes him so successful as a leader. By having emotion, obvious faults, and personality he becomes more relatable to the common folk.
ReplyDelete2. Later in the passage, Bevington basically implies that Falstaff serves as a surrogate father for Hal, and that Hal enjoys Falstaff's company because he "seems utterly devoted to him [Hal]). Bevington continues by saying that Falstaff provides Hal with all of the things he needs from a father, such as comradeship, fondness, approval, and merriment. I disagree with Bevington. Although Falstaff's escapades and compliments may temporarily stimulate Hal's well being, I do not think that he serves as Hal's father figure. Falstaff is merely one of Hal's close companions. As displayed later in Henry IV, as much as Hal dislikes his father's techniques, he still wants to impress him. This is proved by Hal's extreme to desire kill Percy, the man Hal's father wished his son was more like. If Falstaff served as Hal's father figure, then Hal would try his hardest to impress him rather than make a fool of him as he often likes to do.
3. Bevington believes that when choosing between honor or death Falstaff will choose death every time. By saying this, Bevington implies that Falstaff does not truly care about honor. I don not agree with this belief. I think that Falstaff cares greatly about honor, he is just to smug to admit it. For example, after Hal's prank on Falstaff at Gads Hill, Falstaff claims that he was ambushed by a hundred men. Why? Because Falstaff would be embarrassed to tell the truth due to its lack of honor. It's okay if you run from an ambush of one hundred man, but if you run from an ambush of a couple man you are a disgrace. A similar example is seen later on in Henry IV. After Percy has already been killed, Falstaff rises from the pile of bodies in which he has been playing dead in, and stabs the deceased Percy in the leg. Why does Falstaff stab Percy in the leg? Falstaff stab's Percy in the leg because he wants credit for the kill, because it would bring him great honor.
I agree with you on your third argument. I think your example regarding Falstaff claiming the credit for Hotspur's death makes a lot of sense. Do you think that Hal realized this and that is why he didn't take his credit for Hotspur's death or just because he didn't want to fight it?
DeleteThe way you presented Bevington's first argument is very well done. I completely agree with the idea that Hal wanted to be regarded as such an opposite figure from his father that he did everything in his ability to not identify with him.
DeleteNug, I like the way you described how greatly Falstaff cares about honor. It's so true, both of those examples are excellent and well written. I think the main reason for every one of Falstaff's lies is honor.
DeleteI believe the significant arguments in his essay are all geared towards the relationship with Hal and his father, since Bevington’s thesis is around that topic. The arguments suggest that …
ReplyDelete1. Hal has no distractions (women) so he can fulfill his role a son. 2. Hal’s and Hotspur’s age is the same to raise tensions between the two to fight for honor. 3. Lastly, he makes the argument that “Hal will become king by becoming his father; Hotspur cannot do that” (92).
1. In addressing his first argument, I agree that Hal has absolutely no distractions as far as finding a female companionship. It’s interesting to note that Hotspur was distracted at one time during the play when he is talking/arguing with his wife. One person mentioned in class a long time ago about why Shakespeare even put in a woman and answered by saying it might be a glimpse of what home life could be. However –tangent aside-, Bevington brings back this argument to his essential thesis. He argues that Hal needs to figure out who he is and what kind of son he should be for his father. I don’t totally agree with the argument that it’s all about his father. I’m sure that it’s part of the reason why he’d stayed away from girls…. However, I don’t understand why he became so enthralled in getting to know the town drunks and hooligans instead of getting to know some females. Perhaps, it’s because of the immaturity level, though Bevington believes that it’s because he wants to impress his father and is too busy for that type of nonsense. EVEN THOUGH HE HAS TIME FOR SHENANIGANS WITH DRUNKS. The main reason why I don’t agree with some of his arguments is because Hal is supposed to be the Machiavell. Hal will do anything to gain power.
2. In the second argument, Bevington addresses that Hotspur’s age has changed to be the same as Hals in order to make a “sibling” rivalry for the King’s love. I partially agree with this argument. I agree in a way because it could be that Hal battles for his father’s love. It’s interesting that historically Hotspur is much older, but in the play he’s the same age as Hal. I disagree because I don’t believe it was for “Love” but for honor. Bevington makes a good point by saying that the reason why Hal messes around with drunks is because he is faced with “a denying father, and caught in a fierce rivalry with a young man whom his father would like to call ‘son.’”
3. In the last argument, Bevington states that Hal will become his father. I completely disagree with this argument. Hal is so much different from his father. Hal was vocal about his plans to take back his honor and then some, unlike his father in Richard II. In Richard II his father was a man of action. Bolingbroke had a plan to raise an army and take the thrown by force. It seems that Hal bides his time to take action. He hangs around the tavern and waits to take his honor. In an interesting point, Bevington states that “the security of England’s dynastic future lies in the family structure of fathers and sons.” Though it might be for the sake of England, it doesn’t mean that Hal will become his father.
I agree with your third argument. On page 83 Bevington even says, "A good part of what strikes others as his irresponsibility we can attribute to his hesitancy to be like his father- powerful but cold, baleful, disapproving." Although he may inevitably have similar traits, I believe Hal will be a very different ruler than his father.
DeleteI agree with your second argument. If Shakespeare had not chosen to make Hotspur the same age as Hal, Bowlingbroke would not have desired him as a better son. I think that by making Hotspur and Hal the same age allowed Shakespeare to show more dramatically the rivalry between the two young men.
DeleteI agree with your third argument too. Prince Hal has not proven himself to be like his father at all (an effective Machiavel, disapproving), except for his strong military capabilities.
DeleteOne of the significant arguments that Bevington brings up is the rivalry between Hotspur and Hal. He claims that part of the friction, “grows out of his awareness that the father prefers Hotspur”. I thought this was an interesting point. Bevington makes the point that is, “in part a competition for parental love and approval.” Though set on becoming King and proving he is fit for the role, it makes me wonder whether or not he is doing this for the people or just to win approval from his father.
ReplyDeleteAnother argument is that Falstaff is a coward not on instinct, but as a matter of common sense. He relates this argument to the battle scene, when Falstaff plays dead and covers himself with bodies. Although I believe this action could be called common sense I believe it was much more initial instinct. Falstaff’s main goal was to stay alive, whatever it took and the idea to play dead and bury himself with bodies was the first one that popped into his head.
The last argument is whether or not Falstaff is really the ignorant person Hal takes him to be. Regarding the robbery in the beginning of the play, Bevington brings up the idea that Falstaff may have been in on the whole scheme from the start, and even when Hal and Poins listen to Falstaff’s story, he hints and challenges Hal to catch him out in his lie. Bevington writes, “Falstaff is, to be sure, a confirmed liar, but he is also, and supremely, an artist of the magnificent lie. He has his audience, and he knows what his audience wants.” This ties into Bevington’s idea that Falstaff sees that his role is to be “the butt, the scapegoat” and because he is constantly reminded that he is on trial by Hal, he will play whatever role is needed to continue to maintain a fellowship with Hal. Although this is an interesting point I’m not sure I would completely agree. I honestly believe that Shakespeare created the role of Falstaff simply for entertainment purposes, to appeal to audiences and allow there to be a comedic aspect to this play. Although it may be the case that Falstaff was playing along with Hal and Poins’ practical jokes, I think that he simply was the butt of the jokes and didn’t even know it.
I agree with you that Falstaff is not cowardly, but pragmatic. We see in all of his conversations with Prince Hal that he's not afraid to interact with/challenge authority.
DeleteI agree with your first point. It's interesting to think about what his main motive is, but I think it's definitely a combination of the two. Defeating Hotspur would certainly gain his father's approval, but becoming King is also quite the accomplishment.
DeleteI agree that Falstaff is much smarter then makes himself out to be. In fact I would go as far to say that he is the smarter then Hal because he is in a place that he is content with and can manipulate true power.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. Bevington’s first argument in his essay is that Shakespeare went through a phase in the late 1500s of writing plays involving romance, or plays involving male conflict. It is clear that Henry IV part I & 2 is a play that involves male conflict over the throne. However the play isn’t as simple as that. Bevington continues to state that in Henry IV part I Hal has little to no contact with women. According to Beavington, “women are so little a part of Prince Hal’s life because he has his mind on other things. He needs to discover who he is”. I agree with this statement because the sole purpose of the play is for Hal to transform into the great king, Henry V.
ReplyDelete2. Bevington continues his essay by pointing out the irony of Henry IV’s admiration for Hotspur. Henry IV is so intrigued by Hotspur’s honor on the battlefield and his ability to fight, that he even declares that he wishes he could have him as his own son. This is ironic for two reasons. First-off when Henry IV was Hotspur’s age he had absolutely no honor, his strategy was to gain personal gain by disregarding the rules previously set-forth. His high regard for Hotspur is ironic for a second reason because as Bevington states, Henry IV “would like to have him as a kind of son—a better son, in fact, than the King’s own wayword heir”. This is also ironic because when Hal decides to start acting kingly he is much more successful than his father.
3. The insight Bevington provides about Prince Hal’s and Falstaff’s relationship is very intriguing. He starts out by saying that Falstaff acts as a father figure to Hal. I disagree with this statement because I believe that Falstaff was merely an intellectual figure in Hal’s life that helped shape his quick-wit. As Bevington continues to write he also shows, through the scene of Hotspur’s death, how Falstaff represents Hal before his kingly transformation, making the audience see Hal’s transformation in contrast to his original disposition.
I thought his point about how Shakespeare focused on the male development into men in his plays. I wonder if people during the time noticed the absence of women. I agree with you that the play is focused on Hal's transformation. Although you say it ironic that Henry IV was intrigued by Hotspur's honor, but I think it goes to show the guilt he sees in how he took power to his throne. He probably wish he had had more honor at the time.
DeleteThe point you made about hal having almost no contact with women is very logical. However I do think that the lesser role that females played in society at the time was more of an influence on the decision to not include female characters in the play rather than hals minimal female contact.
DeleteLooking at a variety of Bevington’s significant points, I disagree with his overarching claim that Hal is a Machiavel whose story “has run exactly according to the script he fashioned for it” (92). Overall there is little indication that Hal is a Machiavel in Henry IV part 1; the Machiavel here is Falstaff.
ReplyDeleteOne of Bevington’s claims is that “This rivalry [of Hal v. Hotspur] in all such cases is at least in part a competition for parental love and approval” (83). Maybe this is so, internally, for Prince Hal. But Hal has misjudged the situation; the king has handed over the reins of war to Hal not for the purpose of comparing his son with Hotspur and determining a winner of his approval, but as a measure of Hal’s merit alone. Understanding the king’s position requires recalling from Richard II that the king is a Machiavel and is highly capable of understanding that Hotspur is a threat. As Bevington mentions, “The security of England’s dynastic future lies in the family structure of father and sons” (92). Should Hotspur beat Prince Hal, the King won’t look fondly upon Hotspur. As Hal’s father tries to reestablish order in the kingdom, the rite of passing power from father to son is one of his last bulwarks against those who wish to steal his power. Despite the king’s comments about Hotspur’s superior capabilities, the supposed competition for affection which Hal is fixated upon doesn’t exist. Another point is that caring about someone’s approval is inherently un-Machiavellian.
Hal’s interactions with Falstaff also undermine the idea that Hal is a Machiavel. Although Bevington tries to draw the conclusion that Hal uses Falstaff as only a dehumanized prop and that their entire friendship is artificial, Bevington’s own analysis of the play’s climax, the battle scene, tells us that the nature of their friendship was different. Bevington also tells us one of Hal’s options is to “cling to Falstaff’s joie de vivre and his ironic questionings, even while distancing himself from Falstaff’s self-interested claims on Hal’s friendship” (91). This suggests that Hal reaped significant benefits from the friendship, a joy of living, but that Falstaff’s own ulterior motive-- to create a claim to power-- damaged their relationship.
Continuing this farther, Falstaff’s myriad roles are much more Machiavellian than Hal’s passivity. We see that, like a Machiavel, Falstaff has no regard for honor, instead focused on maintaining the little political merit he has left: “One of his philosophical principles is that one has so few options when one is dead. [...] He catechises himself. ‘What is honour? A word. What is in that word “honour?” What is that “honour”? Air” (91). Falstaff continually improvises, even if not effectively—creating intentionally transparent lies, hiding himself under bodies at the battle-- and he carries the charm and boldness of a classic Machiavel. He never accomplishes his goals, however, because what he wants (to breach class lines from commoner to royalty) is systematically impossible.
1. Bevington suggests that Falstaff often serves as a father figure for Hal. Because Hal lacks a strong bond with his father, Henry IV, he’s looking for someone to step in to play the role. He argues that the disappointment Hal feels from his father has driven him to surround himself with the commoners and bar rats of the town, and in turn, has left his father even more disappointed. I disagree with this argument. Though Hal enjoys Falstaff’s company, I don’t see their relationship as one of a father and son, but rather a companionship. As we see in the play Henry IV, Hal enjoys Falstaff’s company because of the conversations they have and the jokes they share at the bar, but most importantly, the image that spending time with Falstaff brings him. This leads me to the next major point: Hal spends time with Falstaff in order to hide his own potential.
ReplyDelete2. We discussed this point in class, but Bevington presents the idea that Hal spends time with Falstaff and the other frequent bar-goers to make himself look bad. He wants to portray himself as one of the lowlifes so that his rise to power is all the more impressive. I completely agree with this argument because in the beginning of the play, Hal spends most of his time with Falstaff. He’s completely content with their relationship, or so it seems, and continues to go to the bars every night. However, later in the play, Hal is willing to let go of his relationship with Falstaff when an opportunity to prove himself to his father arrises. He then goes on to be an excellent contributor to the success in the war.
3. Early on in the article, Bevington points out that women rarely play significant roles early on in the play, but often serve as a prize at the end. I agree with this. In Henry IV, in both the play and movie, we rarely see any female characters as most of Hal’s significant relationships are with the men of the town. This could be to keep the reader focused on Hal and his journey toward manhood, or perhaps because during that time women didn’t hold very important roles in society. Regardless, Bevington is right in saying that women rarely play significant roles.
In his article, Bevington makes arguments that revolve around Prince Hal and his relationship with both King Henry IV and Falstaff. These relationships are key to the development of Prince Hal. Bevington states, “Shakespeare deliberately chooses a very different way from that of the comedies of thinking about the maturation of a young male” (80). Shakespeare gears away from romantic stories and in Henry IV focuses on the development of boys to men, such as Hal.
ReplyDeletePrince Hal’s character goes through a process of growing up in the Play Henry IV. The first point is that Prince Hal is affected by his “father issues.” Because there is no woman in Hal’s life, all of his attention is focused on his relationship with his father and other father figures, such as Falstaff. Hal doesn’t know how to deal with his father issues and instead chooses to spend his time in place where he is well liked by many, which happens to be the tavern. As home he is compared to the “honorable” Hotspur and is looked down upon as son by his father. We see the interaction between the two in the movie to be heated and how much the king is disappointed with Hal. However, even though he was not liked much by his father for a long time, the time and relationships he developed in the tavern may have made him into a better King later on.
Prince Hal’s second father figure in the play was Falstaff, the lazy, lying, comical man. Hal values this relationship because Faltsaff listens and provides some comedy in his life. He’s a person that Hal has more power over. Bevington argues that Falstaff was actually smarter then how he acted and was aware of the Prince’s actions such as the robbery. This allowed the Prince to believe that he had power and positioned them both better.
One of the last points he makes is that Hal learned to be a better King then his father with his history of relationships. King Henry IV was worried and was no longer connected with the common people or the people who helped him get into power. However, Hal was connected with the common people in a couple of ways. He was connected with those who spent their time in the pub as well as displayed his responsibilities as a Prince as he valiantly fought in the battle. From his experience of what worked and didn't work, he became the better king. However in the future he still doesn't have many relations with women until he won his wife in battle.
1. The first significant argument I thought Bevington made in his essay was how Prince Harry has sought Falstaf as a father figure because King Henry neglected him as a child. I definitely agree that Falstaf is seen as a father figure for Harry but I don’t agree that it was due to Henry wanting to neglect his son. The reason Henry is disappointed with Harry is because he surrounds himself with lowlifes in the tavern instead of being a respected Prince. It is unclear why Harry began hanging out in the tavern but it is definitely the reason why king Henry is cold towards him.
ReplyDelete2. The second idea I found significant was how Falstaff is playing Harry as much as Harry is using Falstaf. The reader is lead to believe that Harry is just using the guys in tavern to trick his father into thinking he’s a loser to then shock him when it is time for Harry to take power. Bevingtion believes that Falstaf is using Harry to secure endless money and food for him to relax for the rest of his life. This questions if Falstaf acutally likes Harry or if Harry is just a source of income being a wealthy Prince.
3. Lastly Bevington talks about the relationship between the Prince and Hotspur. It is definitely true that Harry had to kill Hotspur to restore his fathers faith in him for King Henry constantly talked about how he admired Hotspurs quick witted bravery. Hotspur represents Prince Harry’s need to become a man and be seen as honorable in his fathers eye. It is interesting that Hostpur and Harry almost switch places for at the begining Hotspur had all the honor and Harry had none where at the end Harry is seen as the one with honor.
Henry's desire for Hal to leave the company of Falstaff completely self serving. I also disagree with what you are identifying as Bevingtons first argument.
DeleteFORREST PARKER
I agree with what you said about the relationship between Hal and Hotspur. I think it is very obvious that hal needs hotspur dead to regain faith from the king. It is very interesting how you identified the switch between harry and hotspur.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1) It was very interesting how bevington pointed out that with the choice between death or honor, Falstaff will choose death every time. This may seem like the truth at first because of the role of a fat drunken man that Falstaff is but there are a scenes that imply Fallstaff really does care about his image and his honor. The most blatant case of which was when Fallstaff hides in the pile of bodies to then get up and stab percy. The only reason that he does this is to acquire the honor and fame of killing a man like percy.
ReplyDelete2)Another thing bevington talked about was the argument about Hal and Hotspurs interesting relationship. He talks about how Hal has to defeat hotspur in order to become a man and I think this is 100% true. It is very apparent that King Henry respects Hotspur more than his own son. But if Hal were to eliminate Hotspur he would also eliminate the competition.
3) Very early in the article bevington talks about how women do not play very significant roles in Shakespeare and when women do play roles, they are usually oriented towards the later part of the play. this is definitely very true. Out of all the plays that we have read or watched there has been no significant roles played by females. I would say that this is probably because at the time, women did not play very large roles in society.
I mostly agree that Falstaff wanted the honor from killing Percy, but I think it was because he wanted to score points with the King, not appear more honorable in general.
Delete-The first point is that there are many problems surrounding Bolingbroke, and so Hal doesn't know how to deal with him. Bevington says that Hal hangs out in the tavern because its the opposite of how his father is: fun, approving, friendly, as opposed to how calculated and disapproving Bolingbroke is. I disagree. I think Hal hangs out in the tavern because he wants to, not out of unease about his father, and because it fits into his plan.
ReplyDelete-The second point he makes is that Falstaff is much more calculated in his actions than he appears, and that his persona is generally an act. He uses how Falstaff deals with Hal in part 1 and 2 to support this. I agree, as based on the evidence he provides it appears that Falstaff did recognize Hal at Gadshill, and is constantly trying to stay in Hal's favor for when he becomes King.
-The third point is that Hal has to reject Falstaff in order to come fully to manhood. To become his father, as Bevington puts it, Hal must leave the his tavern persona behind, and Falstaff is his last connection to that. I agree because Hal would have been a pretty terrible king if he still hung around with Falstaff and the other tavern people while on the throne, and it would have lessened his legitimacy, which is what he worked to obtain by killing Hotspur.
1. One of Bevington’s ideas is that men come later in the game; the main characters of Shakespeare only deal with women once they have settled with all men. All men that have been with women in the plays or movies so far have finished their business with men first. They have gained their powerful positions and are ready to fool around.
ReplyDelete2. Bevington makes the argument that Hal will never be rid of Falstaff. I agree because, like he says, Hal has adopted Falstaff as a father figure. Hal trusts and loves something that is gross and self-centered, and I think it is easier for him to love Falstaff because he doesn't feel obligated to him, like he does to his real father, who is also self-centered. Hal’s relationship with Falstaff is completely his choice. Hal has used Falstaff to get to know the low-culture part of the world, and I think he did this because he knew that someday he would be in charge of both low-culture and high-culture people. Perhaps in a way, Hal also uses Falstaff to level himself. He wanted to let his father deal with getting the throne for him, and knew that he would be ready when his time came. I think Hal is a genius and knew what he was doing from the start.
3. Bevington implies that Falstaff will never choose the honorable choice. I disagree with this argument. I think that the reason behind every single lie Falstaff tells is to gain a little bit more honor in his own mind. This is ironic because everyone knows that lying is dishonorable. A couple examples of his lies are when he claims that he fought an exaggeration of men in the forest and lost his money, and when he claimed that he killed Percy. Both times the audience knows that he is lying to gain honor, or credit to his name. Because he lies to become honorable, I think that as Falstaff develops and truly feels the love Hal has for him, he will make an actual honorable choice, rather than just lying to become that way.