Henry IV, Act IV, scene 2
Rebels and Courtiers, please comment on Act 4, scene 2. For detailed directions, read the Act 4, scene 1 post. When you finish commenting on this blog, go to Mr. Sale's class blog and post a comment to someone in that class.
http://sale4th.blogspot.com/
http://sale4th.blogspot.com/
posted by Cheryl Makovsky at 7:25 AM
4 Comments:
3. I was just wondering why Falstaff recruits such a band of cowardly misfits for his army. He says of them, "I pressed me none but such toasts-and-butter, with hearts in their bellies no bigger than pins' heads, and they have bought out their services, and now my whole charge consists of ancients, corporals, lieutenants, gentlemen of companies—slaves as ragged as Lazarus in the painted cloth, where the glutton's dogs licked his sores." Why would he want to lead these men into battle when they have never done anything courageous in their lives and would probably run at the first gun shot? It seems silly to me to hire such cowardly men when he is trying to help Hal and King Henry. I know that he is paid for getting men to fight, but why did he choose these men? Doesn't this automatically set Falstaff up for failure?
3. Is Falstaff trying to get killed? I'm wondering the same thing as everyone else, why did he pick such pathetic troops? It seems to me that his pride would be too great to lead an army of misfits "such as indeed were never soldiers, but discarded, unjust servingmen, younger sons to younger brothers, revolted tapsters, and ostlers tradefallen, the cankers of a calm world" (lines 25-257). This scene was not typical Falstaff. He was feeling badly for his troops, not joking around, and maybe even showing some remorse for taking advantage of his position and doing a bad job.
Falstaff is changing with Hal, and their relationship is not as fun and light hearted as it used to be. I kind of got the feeling that it was a little awkward between them because neither knew if they should joke around like old times or act respectable since now they are honorable men with many responsibilites. Is Falstaff finally maturing?
3. I also have questions about Falstaff in this scene. He appears to be so negligent and I can't understand why Hal put him in command in the first place. He's done absolutely nothing to prove his merit for such a position and when he is in the position, he's an terrible leader. He has no care for his men, describing them as "good enough to toss; food for powder, food for powder." On top of that he's really late getting to his assignment. If Hal has truly changed, wouldn't he be more careful in choosing his captains?
3. I think Falstaff is intriguingly different in this scene. He starts out by talking about his wimpy and weak army he collected for Hal. For one I don't recall ever hearing Falstaff say so much without boasting about himself and also staying on one topic, one actually of some importance. I was also interested by the way Falstaff addressed Westmoreland when he said, "I thought your honor/ had already been at Shrewsbury" (4.2.53-54). I didn't think Falstaff had that kind of respect for anyone but he seems sincere.If Falstaff cares about the war as much as Hal then is he as much as a static character as him? If he is, then how can Falstaff meet a tragic end and Hal become king?
Post a Comment
<< Home