King Henry -- 3.1.198-276 and 3.2
Please post your comments for Scene 1, lines 198-276, and Scene 2 of Act 3 of Henry IV, Part 1 here. (See instructions under the post for Scene 1, lines 1-197.)
posted by T Sale at 9:46 AM
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Previous Posts
- King Henry -- Act 3, Scene 3
- King Henry -- Act 2, Scene 3
- King Henry -- Act 2, Scene 4, Lines 1-137
- King Henry -- Act 2, Scene 4, Lines 138-end
- King Henry IV, Part 1 -- Act 1, Scene 1 Reading Blog
- King Henry IV, Part 1 -- Act 1, Scene 2 Reading Blog
- King Henry IV, Part 1 -- Act 1, Scene 3 Reading Blog
- Crucial Odyssey Questions
- Summer Reading
6 Comments:
Response to Act 3 Scene 2:
5) After exploring Act 3 Scene 2, the character that Prince Hal took on caught me by total surprise through the actions that he took in front of his father. Throughout the play leading up to this point, Prince Hal lives in a world of deception, hiding his true feelings under a shroud of confusion and double-loyalty. He states that he wants to live a princely life, yet clearly sides with Falstaff and Poins in plans to rob those who are around, believing that he can live two lives at once, reaping the benefits of both. However, at one point, he began to realize that this is not possible, that he can not live this double standard, confessing that “I am doubtless I can purge myself of many I am charged withal” (3.2.22-23), promising to “be more myself” (3.2.95). The question now lies in why does Prince Hal have this change in moral grounding, or is not a change in moral grounding, but a change to the practice with which that moral grounding is upheld? Is Hal finally beginning to realize who he really is, forcing him to take responsibility for his actions, as evidenced in his promise to his father when he states that he “will wear a garment all of blood and stain my favors in a bloody mask, which, washed away, shall scour my shame with it” (3.2.140-142)? But then, why is he doing this? The last time he was mentioned in the play, he was summoned to the King in the pub with Falstaff, and now he is there. What happened in between? What caused this change? Nothing is specifically pointed to in the text, but I do think that the text offers clues as to the reasoning placed before him by the King that shaped this change in Prince Hal. During the King’s initial discussion with Hal, he states that he wants to know what “else, could such inordinate and low desires, such poor, such bare, such lewd, such mean attempts, such barren pleasures, rude society as thou art matched withal, and grafted to, accompany the greatness of thy blood, and hold their level with thy princely heart?” (3.2.12-19), forcing Hal to think about the person that he has actually become, instead of the person that he needs to be. This is a reality check for Hal, that says these acts of your previous life are not made for you, that you are made for something much greater. But, what is amazing about this scene is not that Hal simply understands the arguments put forth by his father, but that he accepts the criticism of his past life, agreeing to change and live a more princely life, as evidenced by his statement that “my youth hath faulty wandered and irregular, find pardon on my true submission” (3.2.29-30). This scene presents to the readers the true character of the Prince, allowing for them to gain deeper insight into the relationships that are forming in this play, now especially in relation to his father. This is why Hal’s reaction to the King stunned me, in that now they are becoming what a father and son should be.
Response to the end of Act 3 Scene 1 (lines 198-276):
6)
The end of Act 3 Scene 1 further explores the bitter relationship between Lady Percy and Hotspur. I think their relationship is quite odd, honestly. Hotspur first begins by making a crude statement: "...come, quick,quick, that I may lay my head in thy lap." Lady Percy then criticizes him for this statement. This portrays Hotspur in a worse light than he is already in from the beginning of the scene. Now he is not only immature and obnoxious, but tasteless as well. Hotspur and Lady P continue to argue. To me, it is hard to tell if they are playfully arguing, or if they are extremely annoyed with each other. In Act 2 Scene 3, Lady P is very upset that Hotspur is once again leaving her for battle. Now in this scene she seems very annoyed with his continuous antics and childish remarks. Another example is when Lady P says, "Then be still" and Hotspur remarks, "Neither; 'tis a woman's fault." Not only is his comment sexist, it is incredibly rude to say to his own wife! Throughout this scene, their relationship confuses me even further. It seems to me however, that Lady P is ready for Hotspur to leave for battle, due to his immaturity.
I'm from another class and I think I am in the right place...
Robin Louis...
Your question is interesting. Remember that Hal's actions and words are cunning and intentional. We as reades in fact do not yet know what Hals true intetions are and may not find out untill the end of the Henriads. However, I think King Henry is in fact very upset by Hal's actions and disquise. God pardon thee! yet let me wonder, Harry,at thy affections, which do hold a wing quite from the flight of all thy ancestors.Thy place in council thou hast rudely lost.
Which by thy younger brother is supplied, and art almost an alien to the hearts of all the court and princes of my blood: the hope and expectation of thy time is ruin'd, and the soul of every man
Prophetically doth forethink thy fall."
Kendra:
You say that Hotspur is not a leader nor is worthy of being a leader. I disagree. Not all leaders deserve the authority they are given yet often times do end up leading. Perhaps it is not the kind of leadership one wants to respect or the kind of leadership that is effective in getting others to do what one wants them too. Hotspur is a leader. Just because he mocks Glendower for his beliefs that does not reflect on his role as the leader of the rebel camp. Hotspur has his own opinions. Dictators are often intolerant but don't they get the most done in the shortest amount of time? Hotspur may not be the most beloved character in this play but he does get get his point across. In the first act He is remarkably upset about the King wanting to take his prisoners. I don't think that the King ever gains possession of these men because of Hotspurs violent determination. His temper may not be any exceptional quality but he does indeed coerce others into doing what he wants them to... or else he would not be such a prominent figure in the rebel camp. Likewise, would you consider Halto be leader? He is not the leader of nation yet but he is kind of a leader for the pub crawlers. He protects them, like he does when Falstaff cannot pay for his breakfast. Also, the pub crawlers have some level of respect for him which is noted when the tell him about what they want when he is king. They all realize that he will have authority over them. Hal and Hotspur may not be the most upstanding leaders but they both have a following of people that respects them and also allows them to assert their apparent authority.
(Emily Richey from Kleeman's class)
Dear Christy,
I enjoyed reading your post because it gave me a new insight on Act 3 Scene 2. My group and I had discussed this scene earlier and this is what we found: the king is dissappointed in Hal and talks in an upset tone. He is not necessarily angry, it's just that he may be speaking to Hal in a troubled, fatherly manner. Hal then responds to King Henry as if he is completely sorry for what he had done and is totally willing to change in order to be a good future king. We thought that this may have been slightly dishonest, in that Hal may have said it just to appease his father.
Also, when you questioned as to why Hal would join the side of Henry's enemy, I think it was totally hypothetical. Henry is wondering why he should share with Hal about his foes when his own son can't even be trusted with that sort of knowledge.
I'm now curious about how the play will turn out and if Hal will really change his ways to become a good king. It will be interesting to see if he sticks to his word and adjusts his lifestyle for the better.
ACT 3.1
In this scene, Hotspur once again shows his hypocratic side. He says, "And I can teach thee, coz, to shame the devil
By telling truth: tell truth and shame the devil.
If thou have power to raise him, bring him hither,
And I'll be sworn I have power to shame him hence.
O, while you live, tell truth and shame the devil!" He urges Glendower to tell the truth and banish the devil, but does he not, in earlier scenes aviod the truth by not telling Kate? Is he then, joking when he says this to Glendower? But then Mortimer says, "Come, come, no more of this unprofitable chat." I cannot tell if Hotspur is serious when he talks of truth telling, but i think he is. Why is he then, such a hypocrit?
Post a Comment
<< Home