Contents

Talk:Henry IV, Part 1

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Theatre Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Elizabethan theatre (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Elizabethan theatreWikipedia:WikiProject Elizabethan theatreTemplate:WikiProject Elizabethan theatreElizabethan theatre articles Shakespeare Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move[edit]

Henry IV, part 1 → TBD – The "P" in "Part" should definitely be capitalized. I'd like to see the consensus on Roman versus Arabic numerals and comma versus no comma before moving the page, though; hence {{moveoptions}}. — Quuxplusone 02:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The current title (Henry IV, part 1) is obviously incorrect. The questions are, first, whether to use Roman or Arabic numerals, and second, whether to keep or remove the comma. That is, which of the following is preferred? Quuxplusone 02:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Approval voting is encouraged for page moves requested on WP:RM.

• Do not move the page from Henry IV, part 1
• Propose move to Henry IV Part I and (Part II)
• Propose move to Henry IV Part 1 and (Part 2)
  1. I vote for Henry IV, Part 1. --Quuxplusone 02:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Propose move to Henry IV, Part I and (Part II)
• Propose move to Henry IV, Part 1 and (Part 2)

Are the ideas of "ideal king" and Machiavel neccessarily mutually exclusive? Arguably Hal became the ideal Machiavellian king? Without any more detail about what is meant by "ideal king" the section is a bit unclear; would the author care to expand upon their concept of ideal king? --Trithemius 00:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are several factual errors in the "Plot" section:

• the rebellion was coming from the Scottish, yes, but also Wales, the Archbishop of York, Edmund Mortimer, and the Percies. Hotspur led the battle at Shrewsbury, but not necessarily the rebellion as a whole, which had several co-equal leaders.
• The trick Poins and the Prince played on Falstaff had them dressing in buckram -- not in Kendall Green.
• As to Falstaff's seal-ring, the text does not support the statement either that the Prince ever took it, or that it was valuable.

Moreover, "drowsy and pudgy" hardly describes Falstaff -- "fat, vital, and clownish" comes closer.-- Jrmccall 00:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In "Themes and Interpretations" the phrase "prolix inventions" is not useful -- it has no referent, either in Wikipedia or on Google. Moreover, while it is true that several of the characters are prolix -- Hal, Falstaff, Hotspur, even old Henry Bolingbroke (let's face it, Shakespeare usually gives lots of words to his major characters!) -- and much may be revealed thereby, yet they are not, in general, re-inventing themselves -- or if they are, it is not through prolixity (Bolingbroke, of course, reinvented himself in Richard II as a king). And Falstaff, who exhales falsehood, rarely expects to be believed. Others tell truth (lubricated by the usual lies of social life), or cautiously evade it. In Part 2, Justice Shallow is an old fabricator, or may just be deluded about his supposed wild youth. But the most outrageous liar in Part 2, Prince John of Lancaster, is hardly prolix, and his treacherous lie more reveals than re-invents him.

So I feel that sentence to be more confusing than enlightening, and am removing it. -- Jrmccall 15:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely untrue that there is a widespread consensus Part II is worse than Part I. To many Part II is considered the better play and it is rare, even in Shakespeare, to find more profound and moving scenes than Henry IV on his deathbed. The reason Hal and Falstaff meet sporadically is to show that Falstaff is losing touch with Henry and Henry is completing his transition into a worthy heir.It demonstrates that their relationship is coming to an end and Falstaff is no longer worthy of a place in the Prince's life. Matt_Wilk

The section on "Oldcastle Controversy" contains a sentence which appears to have been copied from somewhere else, because it inappropriately refers to Part 1 as a previous play: "The name was changed to "Falstaff", based on Sir John Fastolf, an historical person with a reputation for cowardice at the Battle of Patay, and whom Shakespeare had previously represented in Henry VI, Part 1". I'm not sure if we should just remove that last clause or whether the author had another, similar phrase in mind. GCL (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a character called Fastolfe in Henry SIXTH Part 1. And it is indeed thought that Shakespeare incorporated that character into Henry FOURTH Part 1 as a reult of the Oldcastle controversy. And it seems to me that's what the article is saying. Does that deal with your issue? If not, please feel free to suggest some clearer language. AndyJones (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Shakespeare didn't incorporate that character into Henry IV, Part 1. He simply changed Oldcastle's name to Falstaff. The name he apparently got from Fastolfe, but that's about all. john k (talk) 06:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the section on the Oldcastle Controversy -- is there any reason that the link to Sir John Oldcastle links to the play titled "Sir John Oldcastle" versus the historical figure's page ("John Oldcastle," without the Sir)? Looks to me like the text is talking about the person, not the play. Ministry of Silly Walks (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reading the linked article on the meaning of this latin term suggests the wrong term was used here. Apparently, it should either be terminus post quem (date after which) or terminus a quo. The phrase given apparently refers to "latest possible date" of composition of an uncertain text, rather than "earliest possible date". PaulHammond (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Latin serves no better purpose than to impress the reader, and we've now had three iterations of this phrase, I've simply rewritten it in plain English. --Xover (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at sourcing the section and it's caused me to change it. It seems to me that saying Holinshead was a source is enough to make the reader realise that the play couldn't have been written before its publication. Calling it the terminus-whateveritis-quem gives the impression that scholars don't consider other evidence of a far later dating to be relevant, and clearly they do: Humphreys and Kastan put the play in the late 1590s, by which time the 2nd edition Holinshead was a decade old, and had served as the source for at least five of Shakespeare's earlier history plays. I'm not minded to expand the section myself, at the moment, though. AndyJones (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cast list remarks that Henry IV is sometimes referred to as Bolingbroke or Lancaster, his lesser titles. Perhaps it should be added that referring to the King this way is a subtle insult, implying that he does not deserve the title of king and is "really" just the Duke of Lancaster or Mr. Bolingbroke. CharlesTheBold (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The synopsis section needs to be edited for grammar, punctuation, and clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:EEE3:1900:C5BC:48AC:C665:8C68 (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know what the Auden reference in the "Themes and Interpretations" section (to which I just added "better source needed") is a reference to? His『Lectures on Shakespeare (1946–47, reconstructed and ed. by Arthur Kirsch, Princeton, 2001)』maybe? Dingsuntil (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to work this in, but given the forthcoming publication of a new Oxford edition that says Marlowe co-wrote it, he clearly needs to be mentioned in this article. Telegraph article announcing the ascription. --Haruo (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to that article and this one, they're referring to Henry VI, Part 1, Henry VI, Part 2 and Henry VI, Part 3 as being co-written by Marlowe, not Henry IV.Oakshade (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]