King Henry -- Act 3, Scene 3
Please post your comments for Scene 3 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 9:45 AM
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Previous Posts
- 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
7 Comments:
Response to Act 3 Scene 3:
3) After examining Act 3 Scene 3, I had quite a few questions about why what happened occurred. For why at the beginning of this scene is Falstaff so intent on accusing the hostess of picking his pocket, but so quick to forget that when Prince Hal settles the matter? Why is his mind changed so easily? It seems as if Falstaff conjures up great images about what has occurred, telling those around him of those images and his beliefs, yet whenever Hal is willing to criticize those beliefs, he denies them and changes? What is different about Hal, that the other Pub-Crawlers lack? Could it be that Falstaff knows the moral grounding of Prince Hal, thus attempting to leach to him in order to make himself look better? Or is it because Hal is the only one strong enough to challenge him on his beliefs and actions? For example, in this scene Falstaff continually questions the validity of the statements made by the Hostess, never taking her responses as worth anything telling her to “ go to, you are a woman, go” (3.3.65), yet accepting at a statement of Hal. This seems so unjust, however this could be a sign of the times. At that time in history, women were not respected very much, if at all, thus Falstaff’s reaction to the woman may not heed any decent meaning, except to show that Falstaff is a man of his times. Overall, my question was does this portray Falstaff in a good or bad light? During his interchange between himself and the hostess (3.3.55-148), he is cast in a very negative light, becoming a liar and a thief, just trying to live off of lies, however towards the end, he is cast in a positive light as Hal offers him a commission in the infantry (3.3.197-218), showing the confidence that Falstaff had managed to gain within Hal. I had a really hard time trying to decide which one had more impact? It may be that the negative light shows more of his true character, and thus more important to the play.
Act 3 Scene 3: 2)
The purpose of this scene is to show the extend of Falstaff’s decline into immorality. At the beginning of the scene he claims that, “I have forgotten what the inside of a church is made of,” (line 6) because he once was a virtuous man who settled his debts, swore little, and lived in reasonable limits. He sinks to a new low because he accuses the honest host of thievery and insults the Prince, his only true friend. This scene is vital to the play because until this scene, Falstaff is only seen as the fat liar and leader of their crew, but now the reader knows his virtuous past and wonders how he reached this status. This creates a pity for him when Bardolph insults him on lines 21-25 by saying that because of his weight, he must be living well beyond reasonable limits. Also, this scene could be the turning point for his character because he is in command of an infantry, and military achievement would raise his stature in society. This gives him purpose, which is evident when he says, “Oh, I could wish this tavern were my drum,” because he is excited for something that is not a robbery. Furthermore, Falstaff believes that war is a place where a dishonest man can profit (lines 189-192), and praises the rebels for this chance.
3.3
2) After reading and thinking about scene 3, I believe that it is significant for a few reasons.
-The scene is quite comical and exhibits Falstaff's character. He is constantly changing and adapting to situations. We see his wit and performance abilities as he gets stuck in a lie with the hostess and the prince as he does so many times throughout the play.
To escape from paying his debts to the hostess, he accuses her of picking his pocket. He elaborates that what she "stole" from his was an expensive ring, "Shall I not take mine ease in mine inn but I shall have my pocket picked? I have lost a seal ring of my grandfather's worth forty mark" (80-82), when the ring is actually a cheap trinket. He also explains that the shirts the hostess buys for him were made of cheap, coarse material not meant for clothing, so he doesn't have to pay her back for them. Falstaff's wit and ability to weasel out of tight situations displays the type of life he leads. He is not afraid of being cornered, and can get away with whatever he wants, especially in this scene.
-Also, this scene shows more dynamics of Hal and Falstaff's relationship. Hal seems to show more kindness and friendship to Falstaff in this scene. He informs Falstaff that he has paid back the money that Falstaff stole from the pilgrims, after having said the night before he would turn him in. With the news of the war, however, I believe that change is in store for their relationship. This scene does exhibit a change in Hal. He is giving orders for the war and his father, and putting other people to work for the country with noble jobs. He even awarded Falstaff a commanding position of infantry soldiers. Already, this scene is setting the stage for Hal's plan for reformation from thievery and his life with Falstaff... but he is not completely detaching himself from his companions. He is involving all of them in the war and bringing them along for his ascension to Kingdom.
Act III, iii.
Questions
-- Falstaff begins the scene by asking Bardolph if he has "fallen away" since his last action. Does this symbolize some sort of repayment for Falstaff's misdeeds? A few lines later, he says that he will repent, and return to his Christian roots. If Falstaff has spent most of his life carousing at taverns and robbing others, should he be able to redeem himself, and isn't his physical state simply the consequence of his lifestyle?
--Later in the scene, Falstaff asks Bardolph for entertainment, and says that he his "virtuous enough". How does Falstaff justify his actions, and how does he define the concept of being "virtuous enough"? Furthermore, Falstaff begins to judge Bardolph, and says that he is "altogether given over" to the devil. Considering his behavior, how can Falstaff judge others?
--Just as Hal enters the tavern, Bardolph says that the three must march in "Newgate Fashion". (Newgate is a prison where criminals were fastened to march in columns of 2x2). Does Bardolph's reference to prison foreshadow punishment for any of Hal's companions?
--Just before his exit, Hal says, "The land is burning, Percy stands on high,/ And either we or they must lower lie" (188-189). What are Hal's plans? He has seemed entirely uninterested in the kingdom up until this point, so will he be able to rally forces and command them competently?
1.
Falstaff tells Bardolph he [Falstaff] is growing thin. He then claims bad company has spoiled his godly character. Bardolph makes fun of his size and age. Falstaff calls Bardolph "the son of utter darkness." Falstaff asks the hostess who stole his money from his pocket. She says she has searched but does not know. Falstaff calls her a liar and a woman ;0 She says she won't tolerate that treatment in her own house and reminds Falstaff that he owes her money. Falstaff tells her to make Bardolph pay it, but she says he is poor. Falstaff threatens to beat the prince. The prince enters and the whole argument is brought before him. Falstaff continues to insult the hostess and she continues to defend herself and becomes more upset. She tells the prince Falstaff would beat him. Hal reveals he took the papers out of Falstaff's pockets. Falstaff forgives the hostess for doing nothing ;/ Hal tells Falstaff the robbery was paid back at court (the robbery of the king's exchequer). Hal says he is friends with his father.
Response to Act 3 Scene 3:
3) In Falstaff's dialogue at the very beginning of the scene, he confesses that he feels bad about his lifestyle. He says "...what the inside of a chuch is made of...Company, vilainous company, hath been the spoil of me." He is cursing the other pubcrawlers, when he himself is the epitome of a pubcrawler. Why does he say this? Does Prince Hal's absence make him want to repent?
Also, why does Prince Hal pay for Falstaff's dues near the end of the scene? In the scene previous to this, Prince Hal curses his old friends at the pub. He tells the King that he will never associate with them again. So then why does he feel he needs to 'cover' for Falstaff. It seems as though everyone in this scene is being very fickle!
This scene is very significant, for the following reasons.
-Once again, it shows Falstaff's growing hypocracy. He is angry because his ring and other belongings get stolen, unbenounced to him by Hal, but yet he continues to steal. He yells and screams at the Hostess for not finding his items, but yet he is not looking himself. I feel bad for him because everyone is picking on him, but i think he needs to follow the golden rule.
-Also, this scene demonstrates the relationship between Falstaff and Hal. I think Hal is beginging to become annoyed with Falstaff, he does things just to get his goat, and in a way enjoys seeing him suffer. I'm having a hard time seeing how he will fit in as king. Will he become annoyed with his people and enjoy seeing them suffer? This is my question from the beginging to this point. How will Hal fit in as king? He vows to change his ways, yet does nothing to change them. He is a king, but he steals from others. He runs around with the pubcrawlers and expects to wear a crown. How will this all fall into place?
Post a Comment
<< Home