If'I lack clarity, please let me know. Any other opinions will be listened to and appreciated as well.
Prince Hal in Shakespeare's
Henry IV, Part 1 surely grew much in his experiences with Falstaff and the lowbrow tavern crowd, so much that he understood better the common man in his later ascent to the throne and in his reign as King Henry V. However, looking at some chronicles of history concerning Hal's relationship to King Richard II, Shakespeare's depiction of Hal's rebellion can be seen as a manner of disapproval or dissatisfaction with his father's usurpation of the crown.
Here is an annotated bibliography which might help with understanding of why I've got what I do.
Are you claiming that the better interpretation of Hal is to disregard the popular coming-of-age theme and focus instead on a critique of Henry IV? Does the history suggest we've been misreading Hal for all this time?
ReplyDeleteYour tweethis needs to be connected to your bibliography -- both literally in the same post and in terms of content. I expect to see a relationship between the thesis and specific sources you cite and annotate.
Thank you, that's a good question. I've turned it over in my mind for several days now, and I'm still undecided. I wouldn't go so far as to say that we've been misreading Hal per se, but I am very interested in the idea that Hal didn't originally have such noble plans for his days with the low crowd.
ReplyDeleteI think one problem I'm running into is that Shakespeare really has worked his magic on me, as I love Hal's character in both this play and Henry V. I am finding that my heart is fighting against what I see to be a potentially interesting historical reading.