Henry IV, Act V, scene 5
Courtiers and Rebels: Post a comment about this scene. See the Act V scene 1 post for detailed instructions.
posted by Cheryl Makovsky at 10:09 AM
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Previous Posts
- Henry IV, Act IV, Scene 1 and Instructions
- Henry IV, Act IV, scene 2
- Henry IV, Act IV, scene 3
- Henry IV, Act III, scene 1, lines 1-197 and Instru...
- Henry IV, Act III, scene 1, lines 198-276 and scene 2
- Henry IV, Act III, scene 3
- Henry IV, Act II, scene 3
- Henry IV, Act II, scene 4, beginning-line 337.
- Henry IV, Act II, scene 4, line 338-end
- Henry IV, Act I scene 1
6 Comments:
3. I didn't really like how Shakespeare ended the play. It seemed to me that he wanted to end it quickly, so he just left out a well thought-out ending. I was just curious why he did this. I know there is a second part to the play, but it seems to me that this scene should have either been put in part 2, or Shakespeare should have written a better conclusion.
Haley:
I too wondered about the ending of the play. It's a Shakespearean convention to end a play with the next ruler of the kingdom and, in a sense, Hal is the next ruler and not his father. I know, also, that another play follows under the title of Henry the IV, but I didn't think it would matter. Why didn't Hal finish things up? I think it would have seriously changed the ending just because who says what is so important. I agree also that the ending seems rather brief and wonder if the addition of Part 2 makes this ending worthwhile. On the other hand, Shakespeare's play have always stood alone before. Was he in too much of a hurry to continue his line-up of the king plays? Personally, I'd say the only reason he clipped it short at the end is because the plays continue. Like with books in a trilogy, one forgets exactly how one of the books ends and continues on to the next because it's not until the third book of the three that the ending truly makes a difference. I'd like to see this hypothesis through by reading Henry IV, Part 2 because I would imagine it could either be exciting or escape another Shakespeare convention.
6. I thought it was interesting how Prince Henry and Lord John grew so close to each other throughout the battle and afterwards. My take was that each had doubts about the other's potential and ability before the rebellion. In the future, I think Prince Henry and Lord John will rely on each other more often and more fully than they had in the past. Before they were almost rivals, with the King comparing the younger John to Prince Henry and asking why John was taking princely responsibilities on himself when Henry should be caring for them. However, after the battle, Henry bestows of his responsibilities and honor on John willingly when he says, “Then, brother John of Lancaster, to you, this honorable bounty shall belong” when speaking about setting Douglas free. John responds with, “I thank your Grace for this high courtesy, which I shall give away immediately.” Both are very respectful and cordial to each other, a surprise after all of Henry's adventures with the pub-crawlers.
5. I enjoyed seeing the dynamics of the King's family in this scene. Previously, the king was always disappointed in Hal and moping about his bad behavior and never really focusing on John. He obviously wasn't that proud of John either if he longed so badly for such a noble son like Hotspur. In this final scene however, they all seem like they have come to means and accepted each other for who they are and now finally respect one another. Hal's generosity and respect towards his brother is shown when he tells him "Then, brother John of Lancaster, to you this honorable bounty shall belong. Go to the Douglas, and deliver him up to his pleasure, ransomless and free" (25-28). Hal was showing kindness to his brother and Douglas, making him and even more admirable character. Although the play doesn't end very dramatically, the characters at least end resolved and content with each other.
Haley and Sarah-
Thanks for finding out the critic's insight on the ending, Sarah! I completely agree that Shakespeare was trying to create a hook and an element of suspense ending so unresolved and abruptly. Even though its not the most intense suspense, I think it serves its purpose well enough, because I'll admit, I was wondering what happens in the next battle with Mortimer and Glendower.
At first I thought, OK the ending is nothing special, but then I remembered that this is only Part I of Henry IV so I thought that might explain why it ended the way it did.
I also wondered why Shakespeare would have the King speak last (because doesn't he always have the person that becomes the new king speak last?) But then I remembered the "Part 1" so I then realized that it made sense because he is still the king at the beginning of part 2.
So basically my paraphrase of this scene is, "To be continued - go read Henry IV, Part II."
Post a Comment
<< Home