Tuesday, September 19, 2006

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.")


Blogger Justin L said...

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.

Wed Sep 20, 06:18:00 AM 2006  
Blogger Sean K said...

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.

Wed Sep 20, 07:19:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Molly M said...

Act 3 Scene 3:


If I were Falstaff in this scene, I would begin as being extremely angry and frustrated. He is very upset that he was robbed. Falstaff takes all of his frustration out on the Hostess and chews her out, blaming her for taking his ring. I imagine him yelling and getting in her face. Falstaff feels as if he has been completely wronged and he is not going to remain quiet about it. However, when Falstaff discovers that it may have been the prince, his attitude completely changes. Falstaff works around his threats of attacking his robber by saying that Hal did not claim the ring were copper. Falstaff appears to be very two sided. He will not show Hal the anger that he initially felt. He tells Hal that all he needs is his love, "thy love is worth a million; thou owest me thy love" (133-134). If I were playing Falstaff I would become sort of nervous when I discovered that Hal may be the culprate. I would act as if I knew I had made a big mistake and then spend the rest of the scene sucking up and trying to redeem myself. I would also be frustrated when the Hostess and Bardolph revealed my true words/threats. I think that Falstaff's double sided behavior serves as sort of a foil to Hal's own actions. It emphasizes the confusion between who characters really are and why they are acting the way they are.

Wed Sep 20, 07:45:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Chennery F said...

6/10) In this scene, his relationship with Falstaff appears to be changing. When Hal enters, Falstaff explains his story, how he was stolen from, in the same manner a little kid would tell his parents an excuse. Falstaff almost pleads with the prince to believe him and do something about it. The hostess even joins in and "tells" on Falstaff, about how he hasn't paid her yet. After this, Falstaff relinquishes even more power to the Prince when he says, "hou art prince, I fear thee as I fear roaring of the lion's whelp." Although there is a slight sarcastic tone here, since Falstaff does not fear him like the actual like (King Henry), he nonetheless places more authority in Hal. Before, Hal was searching for a role model in Falstaff, perhaps. But at this point, he acts as the adult, to steal from Falstaff to sort of teach him a lesson. Later on, Hal is more obvious about his new role as prince when he says, "I am good friends with my father." After the previous scene, Hal realizes his true responsibility lies in being a prince. This gives him the confidence to even start ordering Falstaff around, who will help him militarily. Since the 3rd act of every Shakespeare play is a turning point, I think this scene illustrates a major turning point for Hal. He realizes that he must now change and act more like a prince. His relationship with Falstaff changes as a result, since Hal becomes the one to give orders and act as the authority over the older Falstaff.

Wed Sep 20, 09:36:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Matt P said...

Act 3 Scene 3:
This scene begins at the inn with an exchange between Falstaff and Bardolph wherein Falstaff laments over the loss of the possessions Harry stole unbeknownst to Falstaff. Falstaff talks of when he was young and had virtue, and how he has slipped away from that into a life of immorality. He also gives a long speech about how Bardolph's face reminds him of "hellfire."
Then, Falstaff gets in a fight with the Hostess because she has not found his stolen items. They also quarrel over his large tab. The Hostess tells Falstaff that the stolen ring he claims to be very expensive is just copper, and that she heard this from the prince. Falstaff then insults Harry just before Harry enters with Peto. Falstaff promptly begins an appeal to Harry about the value of the ring, but Harry sides with the Hostess. This frustrates Falstaff, so, he begins a round of insults where he insults the Hostess' womanhood and she calls him a "knave."
To settle their quarrel, Hal admits to the crime of stealing Jack's belongings and describes them. This ends the quarrel and Jack, thinking of food as usual, asks the Hostess to prepare breakfast.
Then, Jack and Hal speak about how Hal returned the exchequer. Hal tells Jack that he has a charge for Jack to take on. With this, Hal sends Bardolph with correspondence to Lord John of Lancaster, Hal's brother, John, and to the Lord of Westmoreland. Then, Hal tells Jack to meet him the next day in the Temple hall to learn of his assignment and to get money to buy equipment. Hal and Peto exit with a long day's ride by horse ahead of them.

Wed Sep 20, 10:43:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Melissa said...


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.

Thu Sep 21, 11:24:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Stacie C said...

Act III, iii.
-- 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?

Fri Sep 22, 10:04:00 AM 2006  
Blogger Maya R said...

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.

Fri Sep 22, 11:15:00 AM 2006  
Blogger Kylee L said...

Act 3 Scene 3:

4) In this scene I liked the quote when Henry says to Bardolf and Falstaff that, "Percy stands on high, and either we or they must lower lie" (176, lines 182-183). This quote really exemplifies Henry's earnest desire to win against Percy. Henry has a lot of motivation and determination. He wants to prove to his father that he is worthy to be king. Henry's seriousness is also seen when he assigns his friends some duties to help him prepare for the war.

Fri Sep 22, 11:59:00 AM 2006  
Blogger kelsee p said...

7.) Oh my goodness. If I were Falstaff in this scene I would feel like I was constantly being the scapegoat for everybody else. It seems in this scene that Falstaff is genuinely angry and although his anger is wrongly directed, as toward an innocent servant, he doesn’t have reason. Throughout the whole play insults have been thrown a him from right and left and if I were him I would probably explode and wrongly direct my anger as well. I could imagine myself having a hot red face and the inside of my head feeling as though it were ready to burst. As far as Falstaff’s view of himself in this part of the play he seems to take on the victim role and somewhat pity himself, blaming others for the way he is. “Villainous company, hath been the spoil of me” (3.3.10-11). He seems to express here that it is because of other people and the influences that they have had over him that he is the way he is. I would also probably behave very defensively as Falstaff does, but really I would be mad a Hal for calling out my faults. Therefore if I were Falstaff in this scene I would imagine myself behaving much like he did in fact behave.

Fri Sep 22, 01:06:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Emily M said...

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!

Fri Sep 22, 02:39:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Eric G. said...

I really didn't like this scene because it showed a side of Falstaff that I didn't like. To be frank he was a dislikeable slob. In preformance of the play I began to associate Falstaff with a comic Chris Farley. In scene three I really saw rehab Chris Farley. Falstaff was a complete jerk to the Hostess and tries to cheat her out of the tab. In reality one cannot live the indulgent lifestyle that Falstaff lives and have to experience some lows. Scene 3 was definetly a low. Falstaff even admits it saying "Now I live out of all order , out of all compass." (20-21) One also begins to see Falstaff's shortcomings in a negativce light. His gross lying was ok when it didn't hurt anyone and was comic, but now Falstaff is hurting his friends and that crosses the line for me. He becomes an annoyance and jerk making fun of Bardolph saying he's nothing but a pretty face. Bardolph doens't take this in a good humor at all responding by saying "I would my face were in your belly!" (Lines 51-2)I'm not exactly sure what that means but it sounds harsh. Falstaff doesn't lighten up calling Hal a "Jack" several times. In the end of the scene Hal comes in and announces that war is upon them and Falstaff is to command some foot soldiers. All in all I view the scene as a parties over scene and its time for everyone to get back to business, despite Falstaff's sad and pathetic attempt to have one more round.

Fri Sep 22, 06:27:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Karen W said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Fri Sep 22, 09:19:00 PM 2006  
Blogger ChristyH said...

Act 3 Scene 3
One major question I have after reading this scene is about Hal's actions toward Falstaff. Towards the end of this scene, he says, "...how would thy guts fall about the knees! But, sirrah, there's no room for faith, truth, nor hinesty in this bosom of thine" (3.3.136-138). Throughout the play so far, I've noticed there have been many times when Hal and Falstaff speak this way to each other, acting as if they have no respect for each other. This time, though, I'm wondering if Hal really isn't joking around, and if his maturity and inner "good side" is really speaking the words he is speaking. Basically, when Hal is speaking to Falstaff, is he speaking from his heart, or is he still his same old joking around self?
Another question I have could be asked to Falstaff. How come you aren't taking the upcoming war seriously, especially if one of your loyal friends (Hal) is heading up an army? Wouldn't you be the first to jump up and help? Your actions in this scene really confuse me because you are so consumed with yourself and the food in front of you, you can't even bother to honor your friend, rebel or king.

Fri Sep 22, 11:21:00 PM 2006  
Blogger sarahg said...

Act 3 Scene 3


The most significant part of this scene is Hal's actions toward Falstaff and the rest of the pub crawlers, because the way that he takes responsibility for Falstaff's debts, and for the orders that he has been given by his father show how seriously Hal is taking his societal and political position.

This scene shows Hal's changes, and that Hal is, in fact, loyal to his father and to his country. If this scene were left out of this play, the reader/audience would not know whether Hal was truly faithful, or just trying to escape his father's punishment.

Fri Sep 22, 11:29:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Amy J said...

I found the relationship between the hostess, Mistress Quickly, and Falstaff, very interesting. Their dialogue focuses on the fact that she is a woman, and they argue whether that is important or not. Falstaff criticizes her several times and seems to be more serious than when he is normally joking. In lines 52-53, he tells her, “Go to, you are a woman, go.” He seems to insinuate that simply because she is a woman, she is doing bad things and not worth his time. He also condemns her in lines 99-102: “There’s no more faith in thee than in a stewed prune, nor no more truth in thee than in a drawn fox, and for womanhood, Maid Marian may be the deputy’s wife of the ward to thee.” She retorts by exclaiming, “I am an honest man’s wife” (106). I find it interesting that instead of calling herself an honest woman, she characterizes herself by the type of man her husband is. This is very reflective of the times, in which women were not held as equals, only as inferiors to the men. This brought up a question of whether Falstaff thinks that all women are worthless and untrustworthy, or whether Mistress Quickly has done deeds to make him think even worse of her. He speaks of her in such a despicable manner while she tries to defend herself, so I was curious as to where the truth lies.

Sat Sep 23, 12:23:00 AM 2006  
Blogger Robyn Louis said...

In this scene Falstaff and Harry reveals themselves as foils of eachother. Harry respects Hotspur and is affraid of his military achievements. Harry explains, "The land is burning. Percy stands on high, And either we or they must lower lie." However, Falstaff pretends to praise Percy. Falstaff exclaims, "Well, thank God for these rebels. The only people they bother are the good people. I like that. I honor and salute them." Falstaff may be joking about honoring the rebels but they are who he is marching off to fight. Prince Harry is taking the serious side to the war and respects his opponent, while Falstaff jokes about him.
Finally, in an analysis of this scene that I read, the closing lines of these two characters is also foiled. Harry ends with "Percy stands on high, And either we or they must lower lie." Falstaff ends with "Hostess, my breakfast, come. O, I could wish this tavern were my drum." The solemn closing rhyme of high/lie is compared to the silly rhyme of come/drum.

Sun Sep 24, 04:32:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Kaeli K said...

4) "O, if it should, how would thy guts fall about they knee! But, sirrah, there's no room for faith, truth, nor honesty in this bosom of thine. It is all filled up with guts and midriff."
I think this quote is marvelous. Prince Henry is cleverly insulting Falstaff, but it isn't simply mean, it is also funny.

"Hostess, I forgive thee. Fo make ready breakfast, love thy husband, look to thy servants, cherish thy guests. Thou shalt find me tractable to any honest reason. Thou seest I am pacified still. Nay, prithee, be gone."
I like this quote because Falstaff changes his character in an instant from raging mad and insulting the Hostess to preaching on being a good wife. Falstaff is simply hilarious.

Sun Sep 24, 05:00:00 PM 2006  
Blogger joshb said...

Hey Kelsee P,

I liked your interpretation of Falstaff’s feelings and outbursts directed towards the hostess. I definitely did not see it that way when I first read it, but found the new perspective refreshing. It seems to me that you view Falstaff as a victim, who lashes out on the Hostess solely because he sees her as a weaker adversary. I disagree with that though, because, as you said, insults have been hurled at him from the beginning of the play, but he also fights back. Falstaff is far from defenseless; he turns on Bardolph and makes fun of the boils that plague his face after Bardolph attempts another fat joke. The nonstop insults mark the relationship between all of the pub-crawlers, providing comic relief and a look at the common man during Shakespeare’s era. I don’t think that Falstaff was truly angry. He was probably annoyed, but he was trying to get more out of the ordeal by exaggerating the value of the stolen goods, which consisted only of a cheap ring, sugar and receipts. He wasn’t angry; he was simply playing the role of an opportunist, which he does well and quite often.

Mon Sep 25, 06:22:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Rebecca S said...


I think it's funny that I see Falstaff in exactly the opposite light. He's brutish and disloyal and slings the greatest slanders of anyone. Everyone is always picking on him because he is always picking on everyone else.

I see Falstaff, not pitying himself, despite the fact that he is a pitiful person, but rather puffing himself up in his own head, bloating his self-image. He sees himself as worth more than what his actual worth might be. The only time he cows to others is when there is a possible gain in it for himself. Which makes Hal the perfect target to be submissive to, which he does brilliantly with remarks such as "A thousand pound, Hal? A million. Thy love is worth a million" (3.3.145-146) or "I fear thee as I fear the roaring of the lion's whelp" (3.3.155-156). It's only to Hal, a person of power, that you'll ever see Falstaff speak to in this manor.

And as to Hal pointing out all of Falstaff's faults... well, he's not making them up, these are actual faults of Falstaff, and so really he has no excuses.

Mon Sep 25, 09:56:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Eric W. said...

5) I have never seen this side of Falstaff before. Normally he is in the scenes to add comic relief, but in scene 3 most of the time he had a draconian mentality.Falstaff to Bardolph "I never see thy
face but I think upon hellfire and Dives that lived in purple,
for there he is in his robes, burning, burning. If thou wert any
way given to virtue, I would swear by thy face" (3.3.25-28) He is not even funny. He treats people with disgust and I wonder why Shakespeare included such a shift in Falstaff's personality. He also treats the mistress with complete disrespect "Hello there, Madame Clucking Chicken! Have you figured out yet who picked my pocket?" (3.3.43-44). At first, you might laugh, but further in the conversation he is completely disrespectful. Maybe Shakespeare is revealing Falstaff's true heart. He might seem like a nice person to be around but why does he gamble and go to brothels almost everyday. Is there a deeper meaning behind this almost rebellion from Falstaff. And later, Falstaff sees Prince Hal and completely changes back to normal. Overall, why does Falstaff profess to be a man of strong beliefs but completely demoralizes the lives of other people through his direct rhetoric? Can anyone say HYPOCRISY!

Tue Sep 26, 07:02:00 AM 2006  
Blogger Paige w said...

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?

Tue Sep 26, 08:40:00 PM 2006  
Blogger RachaelR said...

I really like the comments about Falstaff; I had never thought of him as a hypocrite. Also I have had those same questions about Hal. But I think a lot of his wavering decisions have to do with the fact that Hal is really insecure about actually having to rule. Also I think that he doesn't quite have what it takes to become a solid ruler. I too am interested on seeing how this all falls into place.

Wed Sep 27, 08:01:00 AM 2006  
Blogger barbarab88 said...

The scene of this scene closes with Hal and Falstaff becoming foils of one another. Hal seems motivated for one of the first times in the pub to do something. He directs and orders the men to posts in the battle. Falstaff, however, is much more concentrated with staying at the pub and eating breakfast. He barely pays attention to the news that a war is on hand. Whereas, you see for the first time Hal assuming a role of responsibility. He goes to the pub to simply give orders. He does chose to save Falstaff from the law again. This was also interesting. Why did Hal chose to save Falstaff? Hal appears to be responsible for Falstaff, and not the other way around. Hal appears to try to reform Falstaff continually, yet Falstaff continually acts the same way. Hal is the one who changes. It appears that Hal is the more "corruptable" of the two.

Wed Sep 27, 11:14:00 PM 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home