Wednesday, September 27, 2006

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. Kleeman's class blog and post a comment to someone in that class.


Blogger Chennery F said...

3) I have a lot of questions about this scene. Firstly, Falstaff describes the type of people he has recruited. Why does he make this fact so known when it is such an embarrassment for him? Or is it even an embarrassment? Are all these people actually going to fight on the side of the king? It further proves how Hal is closer to the people, since he asked Falstaff to find troops and, well, look what Falstaff found. Could this possibly be where Hal realizes that a king truly cannot interact with these people, as Falstaff and his "army" pale in comparison to what Prince Harry could have in an army?

Wed Sep 27, 10:29:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Betsy H said...


I posted something very similar to you in my class blog. I'm still not completely convinced that Falstaff is embarassed of these men. I mean obviously, he should be, but there has to be some reason he chose them. I think he is attempting to look like a better leader, but leading this band of delinquents. Also, I think Hal was testing Falstaff in trusting he could find at least a semi-decent army. Wouldn't he want to look good for his dad by finding strong men, instead of leading these men?

Thu Sep 28, 01:08:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Betsy H said...


I posted something very similar to you in my class blog. I'm still not completely convinced that Falstaff is embarassed of these men. I mean obviously, he should be, but there has to be some reason he chose them. I think he is attempting to look like a better leader, but leading this band of delinquents. Also, I think Hal was testing Falstaff in trusting he could find at least a semi-decent army. Wouldn't he want to look good for his dad by finding strong men, instead of leading these men?

Thu Sep 28, 01:09:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Sarah E. said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Thu Sep 28, 03:45:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Sarah E. said...


I examined this aspect of the scene as well. Here is why I thought Shakespeare illustrates Falstaff's choices in the way that he does...

I think that Shakespeare deliberately chose this brand of army for Falstaff in order to cement the contrast between Falstaff and Prince Hal. Once again Falstaff has made a careless mistake in choosing these misfits for his army, further proving that his lifestyle will never change. As we discussed in class today, Falstaff's confidence in himself is actually a chracter flaw. His sinful boasting put him in the position of maintaining an army of cowards. Shakespeare uses this element of the plot to demonstrate the difference in a man who is willing to change, Hal, and a man who is too self-righteous to look forward and better himself. It is inevitable that Falstaff and his army will fail, thus proving that arrogance and pride are sinful qualities which lead to failure. Prince Hal's turn in character will allow him to become the most well liked King in England's history, thus Shakespeare is legitamizing history.

Thu Sep 28, 03:46:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Justin L said...

Response to Act 4 Scene 2:

5.) After reading Act 4 Scene 2, Falstaff’s actions and statements struck me in a very strange way. Throughout my entire reading of this play so far, I have come to view Falstaff as a corrupt man, yet not intrinsically, who may just not be smart enough to understand the situation that he has found himself in. However, after reading this scene, a new thought occurred to me regarding the character of Falstaff that I had never thought of before. When he conscripted his soldier’s he did not randomly pick out men, creating a very poor unit of men, but acted upon a well designed plan intended to fill his ranks with those who matched his criteria. By asking the farmers, landowners, and manns, people who had money to pay him off, he could still look like he was helping out the King’s cause yet still get his way, thus guaranteeing that he will not press the best young men into military service, but the ones that will cost him the least (4.2.14-20). Granted he states that he should be ashamed of his troops, yet does nothing to fix that or stop it, making me question whether his apology should be considered authentic or not (4.2.11-12) The question then becomes why did he choose to take this course of action? This question led me to the idea that Falstaff was never an innocent man, but corrupt from birth, yet so skilled as to make people ask the question of whether he was or was not. His actions show that he might actually hold a great deal of intelligence, however he just puts his power to poor uses. This can be seen in his statement that “well, to the latter end of a fray and the beginning of a feast. Fits a dull fighter and a keen guest” (4.2.80-83). He seems to understand here the timing of his actions and how that plays into the events of his life. Did Falstaff intentionally choose a very bad group of young men to be in his unit that would hurt the King’s chances? I think very possibly so. His actions are too well-thought out to be accidentally problematic in relation to the King’s causes. Out of this line of thinking came the most striking thought that I had regarding Falstaff. I realized that every bad move Falstaff takes seems to be planned, leading to the thought that could Falstaff be a key player in sabotaging the King? Is it possible that Falstaff has some vendetta out for King Henry and that his punishment is an attempt to destroy the greatness of his son? Thus, could the support that Falstaff gives to Hal’s plans, only be a guise for the true motives behind the actions Falstaff in recruiting some very unqualified people to fight in the upcoming battle (4.2.59-60)? Could Falstaff be trying to destroy the King? Or is money simply more important to Falstaff that doing what is morally right (4.2.13-14)? The more I read into the play, the more I questioned the true motives of Falstaff because on one end he is an unethical man, yet on the other he leads with strong convictions. At the end of the day, Falstaff seems to be man without a life, hope, or a purpose causing him live within a very large scam that is led by the pursuit of money.

Thu Sep 28, 05:12:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Jesse! said...

justin l,

Falstaff is indeed a mysterious character, it is ironic that we understand all his habits but unable to decipher his motives. However, I do not believe that Falstaff's immmorality will lead to the downfall of the King. Since he is in contact with Prince Hal, wouldn't he take more time to influence evil on the son rather than defend himself as criminal? His defense could possibly contribute to a large elaborate plan to sabotage the king. But we have seen that he is immensly incapable of succesful action and is easily fooled (as seen from the robbery). Most of all, Falstaff is comic relief and Hal's connection to the lower society. His use of a weak troop symbolizes Hal's unification of all men, weak and strong.(Wouldn't it be interesting if they were to beat Hotspur's highly trained men?)It makes sense that he would choose lowly men for his troops, because he himself is a lowly and corrupted man.

Thu Sep 28, 07:11:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Nathan H said...


I think part of why Falstaff's army is so rag-tag is to show a more corrupt part of Falstaff. One line I noticed seemed to point to the fact that these weren't actually the men he is supposed to be leading: "Such have I to fill up the rooms of them that bought out their services." It seems like at least some of these guys are poor substitutes for other men who could afford to buy off Falstaff who is easily persuaded by anything that shines gold.

Thu Sep 28, 09:40:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Matt L said...

Falstaff is not emabarrassed by his army. He is candid about his army's chances and appearence when he tells Hal, "Tut, tut, good enough to toss; food for powder, food for/ powder. They'll fill a pit as well as better. Tush, man,/ mortal men, mortal men." He hides none of his army's shortcummings. Hal certainly should realize he cannot continue to interact with these people. Falstaff is the guest at a formal dinner party that brings a bag of chips, while Hal, King Henry, and Westmoreland are in the kitchen preparing caviar. One of these is not like the others; Falstaff must get cut.

Thu Sep 28, 10:01:00 PM 2006  
Blogger  said...


Your questions really made me start to think more about how Falstaff acted. Now that I think about it maybe he tryed his hardest to find a suitable army for Hal but all he got was a bunch of farmers and that was why he expressed his dissapointment so much in that soliloquy. And even though he said, "Tut, tut, good enough to toss." maybe he was just trying to hide that he really cared about failing Hal, and then, because he didn't express his true feelings to Hal, Hal thought he was pretty much worthless and decided he should stop associating with him...? Just a thought.

Thu Sep 28, 10:12:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Aly A. said...


I was wondering some of the same things. I think that Falstaff's choice in troops shows his true character. Hal entrusted him with a great responsibility to see how he would handle it. And, typical Falstaff, did the bare minimum, just enough to pass the test. This shows the huge difference between Hal and Falstaff, and how Hal rose to the occasion when given responsibility and Falstaff barely scraped by.

Thu Sep 28, 11:04:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Kell-EH said...

Everyone so far,
Did Falstaff choose his troops? I was under the impression that these were the men that Hal had assigned to Falstaff to torment him because he would have to go on foot rather than horseback.

I think that I am missing something here. Will someone show me where I am going askew and where Falstaff chooses his troops?

Here's how I saw it:
In the end of Act III, the Prince says to Falstaff, "...Meet me to-morrow in the Temple Hall/ at two [a'] clock in afternoon/ There shalt thou know thy charge..."(III.3.199-2001). I took this to mean Hal assigns Falstaff to lead a pre-arranged group of men. The reason they are the worst and most embarrassing types of men is because they are foot soldiers (the lowest possible rank) and will prevent Falstaff from riding a horse easily into battle. More respectable people would have been upon horseback. Having to walk makes Falstaff and all of his sins seem common, in both senses of the word.

Therefore, when I interpreted scene 2, I assumed Falstaff's leading these rejects into battle for Hal was a symbol of even the most sinful citizens uniting behind the crown in support of King Henry V. I saw an army of distasteful characteristics consolidate to form a powerful force.

This is also representative of Hal. Through his interactions with the pubcrawlers, the prince has cultivated negative qualities such as drinking and unlawful behavior. However, uniting them, Hal is able to use these vices to relate to his future subjects and become a beloved king. I thus think that this army of vices will help Hal defeat Hotspur on the battlefield, representing the completion of Hal's transformation into a kingly state of mind and validating his relations with vagabonds.

Sat Sep 30, 12:08:00 AM 2006  
Blogger kelsee p said...

1.) Falstaff and his men are marching west toward their rendezvous with Henry at Bridgnorth. Then Falstaff sends Bardolph to buy some wine, and, while Bardolph is gone, Falstaff talks about finding his unit of foot soldiers. Falstaff seems to prove to be a very corrupt military captain, which is not surprising (to me anyway). Instead of using his power to draft the best soliders, he has instead targeted wealthy merchants and farmers who want to stay home. These individuals are willing to bribe Falstaff in order to get out of the service. As a result, Falstaff has made a good deal of money for himself, but his troops consist only of ragged men willing to let themselves be hired as soldiers. His soldiers include mostly, house servants, youngest sons with no inheritance, and bankrupt laborers. They are mostly undernourished, untrustworthy, and unimpressive. While Falstaff waits for Bardolph to return, Harry and Henry’s ally, Westmoreland, comes down the road and take him by surprise. Westmoreland is suspicous of Falstaff’s soliders, but Falstaff cheerfully tells him that they are good enough for cannon fodder. Harry warns Falstaff that he must hurry, for Hotspur and the Percy allies are already preparing to fight, and Henry has already made camp at Bridgnorth. The group hurries westward to meet Henry.

Sat Sep 30, 01:00:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Stacie C said...

Act IV, Scene ii, #3
Falstaff's long speech confused me as to his true intentions. He continues to use Hal as a source of money, as he says in line 8, as he says "I'll answer the coinage", and he is certainly still a pub crawler. However, he has now been forced to do some work by recruiting soldiers for the King. Instead of requiring the best and brightest men to fight, he allows them to bribe him to use a released prisoner in their place. Although each of these men give Falstaff money, it still seems illogical because it is contributing to the overall loss of the King's cause, and also the loss of Falstaff's main source of income. Also, why does he complain about these men as dishonorable, because Falstaff isn't fighting either, and he were in their position, he would bribe someone to get himself out of duty? What is the purpose of including this speech in the scene, other than to further establish Falstaff's lack of character and unreliability?

Sat Sep 30, 06:28:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Kylee L said...

Act IV, scene 2:
5) In this scene Falstaff recruits men for his army who are dishonest, unemployed, and sons with no inheritance. Falstaff took advantage of his role as a military captain. He asked rich farmers and property owners whom he knew would not want to serve, to be soldiers. To get out of being recruited these men bribed Falstaff with money and as a result Falstaff was able to make a great deal of money for himself. I think that Falstaff believes he was smart because he made a lot of money. Falstaff does not appear to realize that his soldiers might not be enough help for Hal, but Falstaff seems to care less. My reaction to Falstaff is that he is just being his typical self, which is trying to benefit himself.

Sun Oct 01, 12:12:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Sean K said...

Could this scene be one of the reasons why Hal banishes Falstaff when he becomes Henry V? Falstaff clearly states that he will not march to Coventry and that he selected a rag-tag army to save himself money. Is this some of the disloyalty that Hal refers to when he is Henry V? He gave Falstaff a chance to prove himself in battle with his own battalion, but Falstaff cannot handle responsibility and will not mature. This could be the final blunder of Falstaff that Hal will not put up with.

Sun Oct 01, 02:30:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Emily M said...

Response to Act 4 Scene 2

7)If I were an actor playing Falstaff, I would play the first part of the scene with Peto as the usual, big-bellied, prideful Falstaff. THen once Peto exits, I would probably sit down, as if I were telling the audience a secret. I would begin sitting, and as the monologue continues, I would pause in important parts, and stand up for emphasis. At the end of the monologue, I would sit back down. Then Falstaff is very surprised to see the Earl of Westmoreland and Prince Hal, so I would sort of jump out of my chair, but because Falstaff is so overweight, I would fall to the ground becuase of how flustered he becomes. This would of course make the audience laugh. Then to show the Prince's kindness, instead of making Falstaff attempt to get up, the Prince and the the Earl would some sit on the ground with me, where we would discuss the war until the end of the scene.

Sun Oct 01, 05:20:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Robyn Louis said...

I can't believe what an embarassment Falstaff is. Why does Harry put up with him?
One comment that I thought was really interesting was when Prince Harry comments on Falstaff's troops. Harry shows his dissapointment when he tells Falstaff that he has never seen such pitiful rascals. Falstaff's retort is "Tut, tut, good enough to toss; food for powder, food for powder. They'll fit a pit as well as better. Tush, man, mortal men, mortal men." Line 61 Falstaff is basically saying that they are good enough to die. These pathetic men are better off in a mass grave than if we fill the grave with good men. I can't believe that Falstaff is seriously saying that you mine as well have pathetic men die.
If Harry is really serious about defeating the rebels and killing Hotspur he may want an infantry that is going to support him. I think that since Harry wants to get rid of his shame and prove himself that he wont tolerate Falstaff anymore. He kept his promise to his friends and gave Falstaff a position in his army, but he is not going to sacrifice this battle just for Falstaff.

Sun Oct 01, 05:27:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Molly M said...

Act 4, Scene 2
Hal's search for a role model in Falstaff has failed. By this scene Hal has chosen to follow his father. This scene emphasizes that Hal has learned from Falstaff what not to be as a leader. Falstaff's actions serve as a foil to Hal's turn around and decision to change his life. Hal is choosing to follow his father and to accept his role as prince and to take on his responsibilities. He is following a great leader and is on his way to becoming great. We know that he will be great because of the history behind it. In this scene Hal asks Falstaff, "But tell me, Jack, whose fellows are these that come after?" (lines 59-61). Falstaff responds, "mine, Hal, mine" (line 62). Then Hal goes on about how rascally and pathetic Falstaff's men are. The people who follow Falstaff are not the kind of people that Hal wants following him when he is king. Hal is not looking for money from bribes as Falstaff did, but rather for people who support him and who will follow him out of loyalty to their king and to their country. Hal is able to see in Falstaff who he does not want to be as a leader and this allows him to see part of who he needs to be. At this point in the play, Falstaff, symbolizing the tavern, is an example of what is wrong as king. The rebels are providing Hal with the opportunity to make a stand. And the court, Hal's father is providing him with a position to fill and an example to follow. All three parts of society are impacting who Hal is on his way to becoming.

Sun Oct 01, 06:07:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Maya R said...

What I want to know is why does Hal trust Falstaff to raise a trustworthy army when he knows how corrupt and lazy Falstaff is? Falstaff obviously will turn any situation into a method of swindling people. Does Hal allow this to happen so that he will seem even more noble than Falstaff? Is Hal secretly planning on ruining Falstaff by letting him have charge of these soldiers?

Sun Oct 01, 06:12:00 PM 2006  
Blogger ChristyH said...

Response to Act 4 Scene 2:
7) If I were Falstaff in this scene, I would be very worried about the future of my army and myself, but at the same time, I would know that humor is really the only way to fix my stresses. Falstaff admits his army is not well prepared when he says, "...and such as indeed were never soldiers, but discarded, unjust servingmen, younger sons to younger brothers, revolted tapsters..." (4.2.25-27). It takes a lot of courage for Falstaff to admit that his army is full of unmotivated men, but he is definately feeling lost because of his misfit army. Throughout the play, Falstaff has added humor to every scene, and taken every situation very lightly. Though deep down Falstaff knows he has a pitiful army, he replies to Hal's disappointment in his army by saying his soldiers are, "good enough to toss; food for powder, food for powder. They'll fill a pit as well as better" (4.2.59-60). Falstaff is saying that if nothing else, they will be good amunition for the cannons! I think in this scene, Falstaff is finally realizing the war is coming and this is serious business, but he is covering for is insecurities by making a joke out of his joke of an army.

Sun Oct 01, 06:15:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Eric G. said...

In my opinion there are two ways an actor portarying Hal could preform the scene. The first is somewhat obvious. Hal could obviously be really heated about Falstaff's actions and selfishness in a time of such need. Hal doesn't have many lines but one of them is a fat insult instead of a joke. Falstaff jokingly says that the poor soldiers certainly didn't learn to be skinny from them probably expecting a playful jab back from Hal. Instead of joking though the Prince says "unlees you call three fingers in the ribs bare," and leaves. These lines would probably be send with sincere anger because Hal exits right after the insult indicating that he isn't going to play games.

The second way an actor could portray Hal is to have him in somewhat of a stupor. When I read the scene I got a sense of Hal looking over the barren footmen and thinking this is what Falstaff has to offer. Ironically the indulgence of Falstaff will lead to a bare life like that of his soldiers. Hal sees this and is caught off-guard by the path he was/maybe still is on. I really got this feeling when Hal said, "But tell me, Jack, whose fellows are these that come after?" and Falstaff responds "Mine, Hal, Mine." An actor choosing to do the scene this way would not be angery but saddened (for the already barren and Hal's wasted oppurtunity) and shocked at the wasteland to which Hal trods towards.

Sun Oct 01, 09:06:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Kaeli K said...

7)In this scene, Prince Henry is finally becoming a man in his way of thinking. He is no longer all about joking and wasting life away, but rather about taking charge and doing something. He actually begins to look down on the people that are similar to how he use to be,evident when he call Falstaff's army "pitiful rascals". He also displays his new maturity when he no longer wants to joke around and laugh with Falstaff about his weight: " No, I'll be sworn unless you call three fingers in the ribs bare. But, sirrah, make haste. Percy is already in the field". Prince Henry is no longer wants to joke around. He means business, is ready to fight, and be a proud warrior, and wants those around him to do the same, especially Falstaff. Prince Henry feels ready and anxious to fight because of a previous conversation with his father, where he swore to make him proud and this is his opportunity. Prince Henry feels confident about him self and his abilities because he is not worrying about himself but rather Falstaff and his warriors as displayed in the previously mentioned quotes.

Sun Oct 01, 10:25:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Melissa said...

Act 4.2
7. Falstaff is a power-hungry, greedy manipulator in this scene. He figures, I have been given this duty to lead troops toward Bridgnorth to fight by the Prince of Wales, why shouldn’t I make the most of the power I have been given? Only of course, the power will be used to his advantage. After he sends Bardolph away to fetch him wine, Falstaff reveals his sneaky con to find foot soldiers. Rather than find the best soldiers to fight and win for the country and the King, he attempts to draft the wealthiest farmers and merchants who do not wish to fight, so they pay him to not draft them. He states, “…I have got, in exchange of a hundred and/fifty soldiers, three hundred and odd pounds” (4.2 13-14). The idea is genius, really; because now Falstaff can actually pay for everything he desires. However, in exchange for his profits, his troops consist of terrible, shabby soldiers who are undernourished, unreliable, and ill-prepared to fight the Rebel forces. Falstaff believes now that he has this power and ability to manipulate and control people, he is superior to the rascals that he himself once was. He ponders, “I’ll not march through Coventry with them, that’s flat. Nay, and the/villains march wide betwixt the legs, as if they had/gives on, for indeed I had the most of them out of/prison” (4.2 37-40). He is oblivious to the fact that he use to be one of the low-life’s that he recruited, now that he has money to blind him. His methods, however (robbing the wealthy and taking bribes so they don’t have to fight), still prove that Falstaff is the same rascal that he always was, even though he has been given a tremendous responsibility.

Sun Oct 01, 11:24:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Melissa said...


I believe that Falstaff made it such a big deal to make it known the kind of men he was recruiting because he wanted to reassure himself of his power and abilities to manipulate given to him by Prince Hal. To him, they aren't an embarrassment, they are a reminder to him of how far he has come from the low-life, dog of a man that never had money or any dignity; when in fact, he still is one of them, because of the methods his is using to recruit these men.

As for Hal, I believe this scene shows Hal's caring nature for Falstaff--after all, he gave him this tremendous responsibility. I think that after seeing the men that Falstaff recruits, however, Hal will be thoroughly disappointed in his "friend" and maybe realize that he must detach himself from such people, because it could cost him the honor of the crown, and be a detrimental blow to the country if Falstaff's troops do not follow through and fight boldly in the name of the King.

Sun Oct 01, 11:30:00 PM 2006  
Blogger sarahg said...

Act IV, Scene II


To begin, I think that this scene shows even more ways that Prince Hal is breaking away from the pub crawler gang, and all of his old buddies. Hal is taking on more and more responsibility and working hard to prove himself. Falstaff is taking some responsibility by searching for troops, but he is doing a half-hearted job while continuing to be completely selfish.

Honor is :
"a showing of usually merited respect"
"a keen sense of ethical conduct: integrity"
(definitions from

Hal has shown that he is truly striving for honor, but Falstaff is obviously not. He is blowing off his responsibility to Hal and to the king by selfishly collecting money bribes from wealthy people who do not want to fight. His actions in no way deserve respect or praise, but even when Westmoreland confronts Falstaff, he is unable to get this point across.

The last few scenes have shown that most of the Rebels and most of the Courtiers are honorable, or are at least trying to act respectably and appropriately for the given circumstance. Falstaff's actions in this scene show that the pub crawlers do not have the honor that the other two "worlds" have shown.

Sun Oct 01, 11:43:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Amy J said...

I find the way Falstaff talks about the men he has hired very interesting. Obviously he cannot find men like the king can hire, because he is rebelling. In fact, it makes perfect sense that he would choose men who are “the cankers of a calm world (lines 27-28). They are the only ones who would be willing to risk their lives and their honor to fight in a rebel, rag-tag army. However, it may be interesting to see how this army works together, since many have no traits of honesty or courage. I wonder if they will be able to accomplish anything because the group as a whole lacks integrity. This does not seem to bother Falstaff, however; he seems to take it as a joke, as usual. The manner in which he speaks is at times serious, but often a bit jollier than most men would sound if in his situation. Will this army be able to accomplish their goals, or will their ruggedness tear them apart?

Mon Oct 02, 07:51:00 AM 2006  
Blogger Eric W. said...

9) Falstaff is very descriptive of the men he is recruiting, "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 and a long peace, ten times more dishonorable-ragged than
an old feazed ancient" (4.2.25-28). Is this the type of honor and courage Falstaff is looking for in his soldiers? Falstaff recruits cowards, fools, and street mongers. What is is point in doing this? I am sure he would of had better luck posting a sign in the middle of the street for recruiting soldiers. It seems as if he purposefully discovered the most dishonest, cowardice people on planet earth. Sweet Falstaff... YOU DID IT... you officially found the worst possible candidates to serve in the war under the king. I think that Shakespeare might of added this for comic relief, or as a foil to Prince Hal. Prince Hal can look at that kind of people Falstaff found for him and realize that he was at that stage at one point in his life. Hal might take this event and really focus on the qualities it takes not only to be a soldier, but a king. I still don't understand why Falstaff did this. The king will obviously be extremely disappointed in these soldiers. Another factor that probably played a significant role was Falstaff getting paid by these soldiers. Falstaff took this opportunity to fulfill Prince Hal's requests will creating a business transaction. Is Falstaff really that selfish? He is putting the country in jeopardy by having these scoundrels fight and die miserably than to actually find bold, courageous soldiers that would make a difference.

Mon Oct 02, 04:57:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Matt P said...

In this scene, Hal is not so much searching for a role model or being educated about his country, but is becomoming his own man and being less influenced by his former role model, Falstaff. In this short but sweet scene, Hal comes in and questions Falstaff's pitiful troops. Falstaff says they will fill a grave as well as any better men. Hal, probably realizing that Falstaff is too old and satisfied to mend his ways, doesn't quarrel with Falstaff about his poor recruiting, but instead orders Falstaff to the battlefield. This shows Hal's maturity and leadership skills developing because he knows how to deal with people. Hal knows he can not get Falstaff to become honest and valiant, so Hal deciedes to use what he has in Falstaff. This also shows that Hal has outgrown Falstaff's influence.

Mon Oct 02, 09:17:00 PM 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home