King Henry IV, Part 1 -- Act 1, Scene 1 Reading Blog
When you have finished reading Act I of King Henry IV, Part 1, please post a reading blog for each of the scenes other than the one your acting troupe is performing. Please comment only on Scene 1 of Act 1 on this post. Be sure to label the entry number that you have selected.
Later, come back to the blog and comment on at least one of your classmates' comments. Be sure to indicate which specific comment you're responding to (the person's name), and comment on the appropriate scene's post.
Please complete all three of your comments before we move on to the next act of the play (in this case, before Tuesday, September 12, 2006)
Later, come back to the blog and comment on at least one of your classmates' comments. Be sure to indicate which specific comment you're responding to (the person's name), and comment on the appropriate scene's post.
Please complete all three of your comments before we move on to the next act of the play (in this case, before Tuesday, September 12, 2006)
posted by T Sale at 3:44 PM
9 Comments:
Act 1 Scene 1:
3)
After reading Scene 1 from Act 1, I found that I had a few questions regarding some of the action found within the scene. I did not understand the purpose of their talk of a religious crusade to Jerusalem, since the major crusades had ended about a century before Henry ever ascended to the crown. Thus, why was this mentioned during Henry and Westmoreland’s conversation? Is this only added to create a sense of urgency in controlling the rebels? But why must they “brake off our business for the Holy Land?” (1.1.48). Why are the rebels so threatening to king? Could it be because he overthrew Richard II and he thinks the rebels will do the same to him?
Another question that I had was in regards to Henry’s relational feelings toward this son. Why does Henry talk so highly of Hotspur, while leaving his own son completely out of this? What actions has Hotspur taken to garner such praise from the King? What actions has Hal taken that would defer praise from his father? Without knowing those actions, it is nearly impossible to understand the motives behind the King’s thoughts or actions. I would like to ask the king why he thinks his and Percy’s sons are switched? Is it because he wants his son to be the bravest and strongest, or is it because he does not want to look weak? In the end, is it because you are looking out for your son, or for yourself? These are the questions that I thought of while reading through Act 1 Scene 1.
5)
After reading Act 1 Scene 1, I was thoroughly surprised by the actions taken by the King. After deciding that his plans for a crusade had to be put off due to the turmoil in his country caused by the rebels, he was calm in the midst of all of this trouble. I would have personally been a bit distressed, yet even if the King was, he never showed it. In the first line of the play, when he mentions how shaken are we, I believe that he is referring to the state of the country and not of himself personally. To me, he seems to be more annoyed at what is happening than anything else. But, the more I looked into this, the more I began to feel that he forced himself to stay calm because that would help him achieve his goals in the end. The King’s statement that “for more is to be said and to be done/ Than out of anger can be uttered” (1.1.105-106), focuses on his beliefs of how he should lead his country. I think that the King realizes in order to beat the rebels, he must stay calm and collected, so that he may be able to conquer them. He realizes that anger will not solve his problems, thus he forces himself to be calm, even though the situation may call for panic and distress. This surprised me because I never viewed the King as thoughtful in his actions, until looking at his response to the news of turmoil in his country.
Response to Justin about ACT 1 Scene 1:
The line "brake off our business for the Holy Land" means that the court must putt of their plans for a crusade and fight the civil war with the Scots and Whelsh.
Henry is jealous of Hotspur because he tooks prisoners at a battle in Holmedon
#7
If I were acting on stage as King Henry, I would need to be capable of effectively conveying many emotions. In the begninng, I would be standing at center stage, with nothing around me-- simply a single person on stage. My monologue would be performed with great force and determination (picture lost of fists and stomping and shouting). Then my stance would become less stiff as West enters near the end of the speech. My stature would grow limper as West continues to inform me of bad news from battles surrounding England, including Glyndwr's defeat of my army and then Hotspur's refusal to send the prisoners to the king. The latter is a true offense to 'me', the king! Hotspur is purposely disregarding a royal tradition, because he hates 'me'. I would become enraged, partly at 'myself' for earlier wishing that 'my' Harry would be similar to valiant Hotspur. Throughout the scene, I would be standing and sitting at different parts. I would be standing at the beginning, sitting while admiring Hotspur, and then pacing the room at the end of the scene.
Response to Sam's question:
(By the way, Ferrill would be proud to read that blog post!) Anyways, Sam I'm going to disagree with you. Kind Henry's speech at the beginning is one of force and power. He wants to finally fight for the good of something else (in this case religion).But as everyone knows, something has to disrupt 'the plan' for the plot to continue. So therefore, the audience members listen to the hope in King Henry's voice, knowing that in reality, he will not see his plan through. The audience is waiting to see just what that interuption might be.
Response to Dayna Z.’s blog #5:
Reading through Act 1 Scene 1, I noticed this constant emotional shift, yet I think that Shakespeare meant more by this shift, than just exploring the moods of the King, which will probably become clearer further along in the play. These emotional changes seem to signify a weakness of King Henry IV, which is his obsession with maintaining power and projecting that throughout England and the world. This is well evidenced by the King’s response that they “must neglect our holy purpose to Jerusalem” (1.1.100-101). By utilizing the word neglect, the King is setting up the idea that he is being taken away from his purpose, which is to spread the “sepulcher of Christ,” (1.1.19) an idea which removes more power from his position as king because he is now no longer in control of the affairs of his own country. These negative developments during his rule provide the foundation for his change in emotion because he is moved from a comfortable position of power and leadership, to a role of being a spectator in his own country. His angry response to the situations in his country lead to the idea that he is afraid of losing power, as seen when he states that “so shaken as we are, so wan with care” (1.1.1), yet could this reaction be possibly a positive move on the part of the King? This leads to a greater point of whether this obsession with maintaining power and projecting that throughout the land is a good or a bad fixation. I think that this will either be beneficial to his reign, by solidifying the he is in control all of the time, or it will be detrimental to his rule, by showing how he is unable to control his subjects. I think this answer will play out later in the novel.
In response to Kelsee's question, I would say that the king is just ashamed that his son does not take the responsibility a prince should take. While the country is in the midst of a civil war, the prince is stealing travelers' money. I'm sure the king knows about his son's thievery and pub parties and is upset in that respect.
In response to Kendra's question about King Henry dwelling on the negative behaviors of his son, I think the reason he does this is because the King is aware of the jeaopardy his throne may be in. For example, in lines 37-41, Westmoreland recounts the news that "noble Mortimer,/ Leading the men of Herefordshire to fight/ Against the irregular and wild Glendower,/ Was by the rude hands of that Welshman taken..." Although Westmoreland acts as though Mortimer is a noble warrior, the King knows that Mortimer has the rightful claim to his throne, and could try to raise an army to depose the Bolingbroke line. Furthermore, since the nation is already in a state of civil turmoil, both the nobility and the soldiers are apt to attack him as the easiest way to end their problems. King Henry complains about his son because he knows that Hal's actions and presence at taverns place him in danger and may cause him to be more vulnerable to attack. However, I do agree with Kendra that the King needs to act upon his complaints-- so far we have seen no interaction between father and son, and certainly no attempts by the King to prevent his son's irresponsable behavior.
Act 1 Scene 1
2)
The significance of this scene is to introduce the king as being slightly pompous and overconfident, and revealing his feelings about his son's behavior
In response to Kendra's comment, I think that the king dwells on his son's shortcomings because of his own personal pride. Hal's shortcomings as a prince reveal King Henry's shortcomings as a parent. Hal is a reflection of the King, and thus the king would want Hal to try and better himself. The king also criticizes the prince's actions and choices, as opposed to actually qualities of his character, thus he is hoping that Hal will change his ways and possibly become more like Harry Percy. His hope that Harry Percy is his true son merely serves to portray the qualities that King Henry values.
Post a Comment
<< Home