The First Part of King Henry the Fourth [Hardcover]

While he is preparing for war against the rebels, Henry IV laments that his own son Henry (Hal), the Prince of Wales, is a shameful libertine living the high life in London and consorting with a gang of scurrilous miscreants. Indeed, Prince Hal's idea of fun is robbing people, and his best friend and accomplice in this activity is Sir John Falstaff, who turns out to be not Hal's peer but a middle-aged man. In a character transformation of an abruptness that can only be described as magical, Hal becomes a serious young man determined loyally to defend his father's kingship from Hotspur's assault after he receives an earnest lecture from his father about the dangers of acting irresponsibly as a public figure.

Not enough can be said about Falstaff, who is undoubtedly one of the most richly realized characters in literature. He is fat, lazy, cowardly, yet boastful, but not in the same way Owen Glendower is -- Owen really believes what he says; Falstaff is just trying to make himself look better than he actually is, but fools nobody because he prevaricates and embellishes without bothering to remember his previous lies for the sake of consistency. You probably know somebody like this in real life -- especially if you're ten years old. Falstaff's piquancy, in fact, so outweighs the stature of the other characters that his absence is sorely felt in the scenes in which he does not appear.

Most of all, Part One of "Henry IV" is a play of contrasts personified by Prince Hal and Hotspur, who incidentally is also named Henry. In their confrontation on the battlefield, it seems unlikely that Hal, who wasted many of his best days living as a rake, could conquer a seasoned warrior like Hotspur in a swordfight. But there wouldn't be much of a tale to tell if not to show Hal triumphing after his resolution to change his weak habits, and the play ends with the conviction that, despite his past mistakes, he would make a noble king himself.

a comment about the reviewer who wrote that prince hal acted dishonorably by abandoning his drinking buddies. hal had no choice but to abandon his old dissolute ways if he was to be a king people respected and followed. if abandoning his old ways meant abandoning his old buddies, then so be it. everyone has to grow up, and hal had too big a role to play and too great responsibilities and duties to continue fooling around. also, he didn't completely abandon falstaff. he specifically said that if and when the fat fool mended his ways he was welcomed to return to see the king who would willingly bestow whatever accolades he deserved.

falstaff, on the other hand, was a knave from beginning to end. he bad-mouthed the prince behind his back. he ransomed off the soldiers in his charge who were commissioned to fight for the king and prince for personal profit. he was a coward, and a braggard. yes, he was funny, but only because we laughed AT him, not with him.

king henry v did what he had to do. and, if you've seen this play enacted, you'll know that he did it with a heavy heart, not callously. look at his reaction to the news of bardolf's execution in 'henry v' for further confirmation. hal did what all good leaders do: he put the good of his country before his personal feelings. it takes great courage and honor to do this. henry v was a brave and honorable man (at least, the hal of shakespeare's plays).

and as for the charge that hal stole his father's crown, the play makes it clear that hal mistook his father for being already dead when he snathed the royal headdress. and he was duly shocked and contrite when he discovered his father was still alive. so, i don't see how this shows hal's 'dishonor'. also, historians doubt the event ever happened. this is the kind of anecdote that begins as rumor in henry's time, and is passed down through generations so it becomes the stuff of legend. but there's no historical evidence that hal ever did such a thing.