Midterm Blogging

Sam Montagna

Professor Mulready

Shakespeare II

4 April 2012

Midterm

I typically pick a character or two and focus on them. After my first post, which was too broad and focused on all the characters of Merchant of Venice, I shifted my focus to one or two characters in my other posts. Instead of posting about all the characters, I talked about Kate and Petruccio and then Richard. In my first post, I talk about what happens in the first act of Merchant of Venice and then give my opinion on it. My second and third post consisted of focusing on a character’s trait and expanding on it. For example, I talk about Kate's feisty attitude, Petruccio's arrogant attitude and Richard's weakness as a King. Since my first post, I have been trying to focus my posts on a single idea and explore it.

Typically, I write the post, edit it to my liking, post it and hope that what I came up with makes sense and invokes thought. When I reread my posts after not reading them for a while, I am surprised that I am the one who wrote them. When I begin a piece of writing, I get all my thoughts down on paper first and then make it grammatically correct. After that, I search for awkwardness and choose my words wisely. When the final product is finished, a considerable amount of work has been put into it. I tend to underestimate myself as a writer, so rereading my posts and reading the comments makes me feel like what I wrote made sense. So, after realizing that my first post was not the best, I worked towards making my posts better. In my other two posts, I noticed that I made connections from Shakespeare to something else. I compared Kate and Petruccio to a high school snob and arrogant jock. I believe this idea is worth revisiting because their relationship is so complex and can easily be transferred to today. Their relationship can be seen as unhealthy or just what the doctor ordered. It depends on the point of view. At first, I did not like the blogging and I did not know what to expect. However, I do think there are benefits to blogging. I like having to expose myself to other people's ideas about Shakespeare. Also, the blogging challenges me to explore an idea that otherwise would not have been noticed at all.

Midterm Blog

My posts on the online blog normally come from the questions due for the day of the class. I would pick a few questions and expand more on it and add more details to it. I think my posts have stayed the same since the beginning of the year. I haven’t change the way I respond to blogs. I usually focus on one or two characters from the play. In my first blog, from the “Merchant of Venice” I focused on Antonio and Shylock. On my second blog, “Richard II”, I focused on King Richard and Bolingbroke. In my last blog, “1 Henry IV”, I placed my focus on Falstaff and Hotspur. Other classmates responding to my blogs helped me to know where I stand as my opinion and where other people agree or disagree with my post.  The aspects of the weekly blogging I value most is that when I put in my thoughts about a play and others comment on it, they don’t put down my opinion. People either agree with me or disagree with me, and I’ve done that with other blogs. It also gives me a chance to express more about a question or topic I was interested in. For the play, “Merchant of Venice” I was interested about the discussion in class about Shylock being a villain. I decided to expand more on the topic questioning whether Shylock is really a villain or not. It helped that someone agreed with my opinion. I enjoy hearing feedback on what others think about what I wrote. Sometimes though, I feel like I’m re-telling pieces of the play and I’m not sure if I’m on the right track but then I remember my point and get back on track. I think referring back to the original text while writing a blog is very important because it brings out more light on the topic. For example, in the blog “Merchant in Venice”, I used the text “You call me misbeliever, cut-throat, dog, and spit upon my Jewish gabardine” (1.3 107-108). This would bring out my point when I said, “…but because of his religion, he is singled out and can’t live a normal life”. I think using blogging in this class is a benefit to get your opinions out about a certain topic and the fact that we can choose what we want to write about is even better. 

Blogging Reflection

     My first blog post is what I would consider my worst posting so far. I wrote about the characters Antonio and Shylock from Merchant of Venice, but my posting is fairly jumpy and does not stay on one main point. I think some of my main points were pretty valid, such as stating "The fact that Shylock would love to cut a pound of flesh off of Antonio if he is not re-payed shows just how strongly he dislikes Antonio. A pound of flesh is not valuable in any way, nor will he gain any benefit from it. This shows just how much hatred Shylock has for Antonio." I think that by reading into the terms of the bond to characterize Shylock and Antonio is what I should have used as my entire blog posting instead of jumping around.
     My second blog post improved greatly from my first just by staying on one main topic. For the second posting I wrote about clothing and what it represents about class in the play "Taming of the Shrew" I think my posting stayed on point very well and never got off-topic. I think I also did better with this blog post because I went through a few examples of clothing in the play, from the induction and Sly to Petruccio traveling to Venice for his wedding attire. I also stated that the fact that Petruccio shows up for his wedding in such horrible clothing is foreshadowing what is to come for the couple. This blog post also had many more comments than my first, which proves that my blogging improved because there was much more to say about the topic.
     For my third blog posting, I wrote about the two characters Bolingbroke and Richard. I went through the two characters progressions throughout the play and stated that I had no idea how I should feel about them or which I feel is in the right. I think this blog post was done well because I wrote about something that I personally felt, which allowed other students to comment about how they felt about the two characters as well. I think it was important that I stated "Throughout the play, it is evident that readers may not have a clear understanding of the two characters. Richard has done wrong to his country and to Bolingbroke by stealing money that was not his to have. Bolingbroke, however, practically forced Richard into giving him the thrown, just to force him to leave his wife and keep him prisoner." I feel that this very brief summary wraps up the blog nicely. However, this statement also shows me that I really need to proofread my blogs before I submit them because I spelled Throne incorrectly (whoops!). This blog posting was done at the very beginning of the tetralogy, which I think was a good blog posting for that time because it gives me something to think about as I continue reading the history plays.
     Overall, I think my bogging improved greatly from the first to the third. By looking back, I realize that I need to proofread my blogs before posting and also to make sure that I stay on one main topic while I'm posting about plays.
   

Falstaff

John Falstaff was the character that interested me the most while reading Henry the Fourth. There is just something about the character that appeals to people.
Falstaff is the exact opposite of the type of character you would think a prince should be associating with. He is a fat, sloppy, drunk. He is a thief and a liar, who will do whatever he can to make an extra buck. Normally Shakespeare would encourage the crowd to hate a character like this, but you just can't help but love him. He is the embodiment of Dionysus. I just want to sit in a tavern buying him drinks and listen to his puns. It is clear why Hal would choose him to be one of his closest associates. He demonstrates to Hal a different type of life then he would ever have seen with other members of the court.
Falstaff also seems to play a father figure to Hal. He is his partner in crime while dwelling in the taverns, and even plays Hal while Hal pretends to be his father at the end of act. 2. Here Hal seems to act out a conversation he has had with his father a number of times. Hal lists a number of reasons why he should not be associated with Falstaff. He says, "Wherein is he good, but to taste sack and drink? Wherein neat and cleanly, but to carve a capon and eat it? Wherein cunning, but in craft? Wherein crafty, but in villainy? Wherein villainous, but in all things? Wherein worthy, but in nothing?" (act. 2 scene line 414). Hal taunts Falstaff by stating all his faults, but also seems to reveal his fathers true feelings about the people his son associates himself with. Falstaff defends himself from these accusations, flipping the accusations by associating them with different sorts of people and biblical events. This interaction demonstrates Falstaff's wit, but also what Hal has gained from spending time with people form the lower class. It demonstrates that Hal has a sense of humor, and how he relied upon his past to make him a better ruler. As we talked about in class, Shakespeare wanted to use this plan to show how Hal's redemption from a tavern dweller to a great king, but also how he used his experience from his past to be a better king.

All in the Family

As I read the third act of Henry IV I was struck by the dynamics of the two main relationships in Prince Harry’s life. In the 2^nd scene Harry is summoned by his father King Henry and their meeting is hardly one that would indicate they are father and son. In the opening line of the scene King Henry refers to Harry by his title, “Lords give us leave—the Prince of Wales and I/ Must have some private conference” (1-2). He does not say leave me with my son; instead it feels like a professional political meeting. Henry then goes on to list Harry’s faults, and how he is really nothing but a disappointment at this point. Henry wonders if God is punishing him for disposing of Richard. Harry responds in the same formal tone as he tries to combat his father’s opinion. He says, “So please your majesty, I would I could/Quit all offences with as clear excuse” (3.2.18-19). I was surprised that Harry remained so formal; he seems to be the type to forget about such formalities. It is an interesting exchange because you would think that there would be more emotion involved with such a heavy discussion. A father is basically telling his son that he is disappointed in him, even ashamed. That is hard to hear, but Harry remains just as clinical sounding as his father. He uses the formal title for his king, emphasizing the subject sovereign relationship over the father son bond. It is not until Harry promises to redeem himself that Henry even refers to him by name. Harry must shape up before Henry will acknowledge any deeper bond to him.

In the very next scene, 3.3 Shakespeare contrasts this with Harry’s relationship to his friend Falstaff. Their relationship is playful and extremely informal. Falstaff does not care that Harry is the Prince of Wales, he teasingly accuses Harry of owing him money and picking his pocket, even calling him by a nickname, “Sirrah, do I owe you a thousand pound?/ A thousand pound, Hal? A million! Thy love is worth/a million; thou owest me thy love” (123-126). Falstaff reveres Harry’s friendship, and maybe enjoys the free ride that comes along with the Prince’s friend, but I think he really does care for Harry and is more eager to show him that than his father seems to be. Falstaff even goes on to tell Harry that he does not care about his title at all. He respects Harry as a man and a friend but the title of ‘Prince’ does not affect how he sees him, “but as thou art prince, I fear thee as I fear the roaring of the lion’s whelp…The king himself is to be feared as the lion. Dost thou think I’ll fear thee as I fear thy father?” (3.3.134-139). The outright lack of formality is a stark contrast to the exchange between Henry and Harry. While father and son interact as if they were merely ruler and subject Falstaff (who really is Harry’s subject) and Harry act more as equals who show a genuine concern for each other.

Shakespeare’s portrayal of these 2 different relationships raises important questions in this play; which is more important family or the crown? We encountered this same question in Richard II; the crown was more important than family in that play, I wonder if the outcome will be different in this play? Will Henry and Harry prove that a real royal family dynamic can exist?

Heated in the Spur of the Moment

In Act 3 for Henry the Fourth, Hotspur reveals a different side of his character than what we can observe at first. Originally we know of him as someone ideal for the role of leadership, a man who has the outstanding ability to outmaneuver most in his military regime. However, when he is seen in closer contact with those whose loyalty and companionship he requires, he is unable to connect in a proper way. Even the coining of his name represents how Shakespeare is playing around with his audience, when Hotspur can mean only that he is someone who is “hot” tempered in the “spur of the moment”without any rational reasoning behind it.

When Hotspur argues with one of his allies, Glendower, he explains to Lord Mortimer his justification for quarreling with him because he would,”rather live / With cheese and garlic in a windmill, far, / Than feed on cates and have him talk to me” (865) only for the reason that Glendower did not think like him about changing the course of the river to his liking. He asserts that Glendower is a mystical person and therefore not worthy of his friendship. What Hotspur fails to realize is that Glendower is a valuable asset to his campaign as is any help in the position that Hotspur is in (as a rebel) and that in the long run his pride and his assumptions of Glendower are miniscule compared to the benefit he could get by putting up with Glendower. Hotspur lacks the ability to be diplomatic and therefore his worthiness to hold a role of kingship is questioned. One would think to be an ideal king in his society, you must have some sense of manipulation and diplomacy as well as the ability to suck up your pride when it comes to the well-being of his country and its people.

Hotspur’s immatureness in his dealings with Glendower are a striking difference from his keen sense of military conduct and the bravery he displays in the battlefield so much so that King Henry wishes that it was Hotspur that was his son and not Prince Harry. Nevertheless, Prince Harry surpasses Hotspur where he lacks in “kingly” characteristics.

Cultural Divides

The rejection of other culture’s the English had at this time period is touched upon in every play we have read thus far, and Henry IV is no different. In Act 3, Hotspur and Glyndwr are finally introduced to one another. The Welsh rebel leader, Glyndwr, is more than just a man. Besides being an important character in the play, as well as in history, he also plays an iconic role in Welsh culture; Glyndwr is a symbol of nationalism for the Welsh people. The Welsh certainly had a distinct and unique culture. Their religion consisted of many pagan rituals regarded as barbaric or evil by many Englishmen at this time. Glyndwr proclaims repeatedly that he is capable of summoning the dead and that he has some kind of supernatural powers: “These signs have marked me extraordinary,/And all the courses o f my life do show/I am not in the roll of common men” (3.1.39-40). This certainly would have been viewed as strange and sacrilegious to many Christian Englishmen at this time; many of the English felt that the Welsh were merely barbaric heathens. Hotspur, personifying this belief, immediately disregards all of Glyndwr’s behavior, mockingly stating, “I think there’s no man speaketh better Welsh.”(3.1.48) Hotspur’s tone of Glyndwr perfectly embodies the feelings the English had towards the Welsh of that time. Despite often being regarded as heathens by the English, the Welsh were actually quite the opposite. In the Middle Ages, many Welsh writers emerged as prolific poets, musicians and bards. There were also systems of government, religion, and education comparable to the systems of the English at this time. Mortimer, although portrayed as merely being under the spell of love, tries to speak to Hotspur of his ignorance towards Glyndwr: “In faith, he is a worth gentleman,/Exceedingly well read, and profited/In strange concealments, valiant as a lion.” (3.1.162-163). This quote is commenting on the fact that despite the two cultures having some obvious differences, that this foreign culture has created an intelligent, well read, wealthy man. Shakespeare is surely saying that this rich Welsh culture surely has created other intelligent men as well.

Shakespeare further comments on the divide between Welsh and English culture by making Mortimer and his wife unable to communicate with one another. “This is the deadly spite that angers me:/My wife can speak no English, I no Welsh.” (3.1.188-189). This is an obvious commentary on the distance between these two cultures. Furthermore, it is important that these two characters are married; implying the possibility that these two cultures possess to overcome their differences and begin to communicate with one another effectively, much like in a marriage.  Shakespeare further comments on the power of empathy and the universality of human emotion in order to demonstrate this point in the following quote made by Mortimer to his wife: “I understand thy kisses, and thou mine,/And that’s a feeling disputation;/But I will never be a truant, love/Till I have learnt thy language.”(3.1.200-204).This is commenting on the power of love and the necessity for these two cultures to embrace each other’s different lifestyles or “languages” in order to achieve peace. Clearly Shakespeare saw the differences, divides, and the need for unification between these two cultures. 

Like Bright Metal on a Sullen Ground

Henry IV opens with a country on the brink of political turmoil. The order of things has been completely disrupted by the death of Richard II and it seems that all of England has been turned on its head. Class distinctions are blurred and we see characters cross over from courtly life into the lives of commoners.

Primarily, we see a question of what makes a ruler legitimate. Certainly King Henry is not a legitimate ruler, he overthrew Richard II and took his place as King. Now, in the wake of this violent upset of the norm, we are introduced to new characters who are planning yet another overthrow. The thing is though, the norm has already been disrupted, things have already begun to change, and as a result, we see marked examples of increasing disregard of traditional conduct and behavior.

In a way, not unlike his father, Prince Harry has a knack for interacting with the common people. He likes to be out amongst them. He too may tip "his bonnet to an oyster-wench." But unlike his father, Harry has a penchant for frequenting taverns and engaging in other more unscrupulous acts unfitting of a future king. We see Prince Harry speak, in Act I Scene III, of making amends for his undignified behavior whenever he chooses.

"And like bright metal on a sullen ground, my reformation, glitt'ring o'er my fault. Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes than that which hath no foil to set it off. I'll so offend to make offense a skill, redeeming time when men think least I will."

Perhaps Harry is overly confident in his ability to win people over, in his ability to control a situation. Or perhaps he is on to something. Unlike his father, Harry truly does win the trust of both commoners and noblemen alike. He has the unique ability to understand the way people communicate with one another and adopt his mannerisms accordingly. He can speak passionately and emphatically before a King, while still being able to banter with a bartender in the local dialects. Harry is more of a man of the people than his father ever could have been. And while his father's "right" to the throne is questionable, and his place was certainly not got through ethical means, we can't help but question whether or not Harry might have a viable and rightful place on the throne simply because he can relate to the people with greater ease and understanding than any who have gone before him.

Comedy vs Revenge

Falstaff is an interesting man in this play. He is what makes this play a comedy. In the beginning when he was robbed by Hal and Poins, he lied and said he fought at least fifty men during the fighting. When Hal reveals that it was himself and Poins to robbed Falstaff, Falstaff admits that he knew all along that it was Hal and he said that he ran away to avoid hurting Hal. In Act 3 Scene 3, again we see Falstaff trying to make himself look better than he really is. He accuses the Hostess of picking his pockets. He claims that he had money and a valuable ring but Hal reveals that he was the one who really picked Falstaff’s pockets. Hal says that tavern bills, candy and receipts from whorehouses were what were really in his pockets. In Act 4, again we see Falstaff trying to make things better for him. Hal asked him to recruit an army, but instead he asks wealthy men and men who are in love to join, but instead they give him money because they don’t want to leave their lives behind, which is exactly what Falstaff wanted. He instead recruits prisoners and poor men to become part of his poorly organized army.

On the opposite side is the revenge of story. Hotspur wants revenge on King Henry for not releasing his brother-in-law. He plots to overthrow the King and take over his throne. He makes allies with the Scots and Welsh to make war against the king. He works alongside Mortimer’s father-in-law Glyndwr to use his troops to go to war against the king. When he overthrows the king, Hotspur will become the new king. This reminds us of Richard II, when Bolingbroke forces Richard to give up the throne and Bolingbroke takes over. Not only does Hotspur want revenge on the king, but Hal also wants revenge on Hotspur. He wants to prove to his father that he is worthy of the throne and prove he can defeat Hotspur in the battle that is coming their way. He swears he will take revenge on Hotspur for everything that Hotspur has done against Henry.  He believes that when he defeats Hotspurs all of Hotspur’s achievements and glories will become his and he will gain respect from his people.

Again we hardly see women in this play. In Act 3 we see Lady Mortimer, Mortimer’s wife who doesn’t speak English. She weeps for him and he speaks loving towards her. Glyndwr has to translate between his daughter and son-in-law. She sings him a song in Welsh to everyone. While Lady Percy bids her husband farewell in a half-affectionate, half-fighting manner.

Telling the Devil the Truth

In act two, we hear about Hotspur’s plans—which seem to be far more complex than they need to be really—to dethrone King Henry the fourth, which include getting the Scottish help and the like. In the beginning of Act three these conspirators which includes Mortimer and Glyndwr among its midst, meet to begin their actual planning.  Glyndwr is one of the Scottish and Mortimer’s father in law, who appears to have agreed to help him. Glyndwr reveals that he has sent back and beaten the army that Henry has sent against him a total of three times before, which makes him a good ally for them to have to over throw Henry.

At any rate, to say that Glyndwr and Hotspur do not get along upon first meeting would be one heck of an understatement. It begins with them seeming to attempt to flatter each other by saying that King Henry both wishes them dead, however, when Glyndwr mentions that the earth shook when he was born, among other cosmic events such as the shooting stars and the heavens being on fire, it seems to cause a bit of that old game “my horse is bigger than your horse” to occur. Glyndwr offers up more events that occurred on the day of his birth, and each time Hotspur denies the truth of these events or offers up other reasons for these events occurring. “O, then the earth shook to see the heavens on fire,/ And not in fear of your nativity” (3.1.23-24). He also insults Glyndwr to say that the other man speaks the best Welsh, implying that he is a barbarian and that he speaks in nonsense. Despite the fact that Mortimer tries to stop this boasting match, both men seem to ignore the warnings and will not take peace.

Hotspur implies that Glyndwr is crazy, and that he can do something that everyone can do and seem crazy when he says that anyone can attempt to call spirits but that doesn’t mean they’ll call, which appears to be him calling the Scot ineffectual, and that he doesn’t need the help.

Though the men eventually do get themselves on track—with Hotspur and Glyndwr constantly clashing throughout—this first meeting could be seen as foreshadowing in a certain respect. If these two allies cannot keep themselves on track and keep from fighting each other when they are simply planning what they are to do next, how can they possibly hope to keep themselves on track when they are banding together to go against Henry?  Hotspur certainly lives up to his name in this moment, being hot tempered and constantly lashing out, even after Glyndwr has left them to go get the ladies. Both other men blame Hotspur for his temper, which is something we do see time and time again how Shakespeare plays on the name that the character has.

Will Hotspur be the outdoing of his own plan? It seems so if his temper would keep going at the rate that it is. It was his temper that caused him to create this plan, and it could be his temper that causes him to break from his allies or make them angry in turn with him and have it fall apart.

What makes a King?

In Act III of this play we see a lot of action involving Hotspur. At the meeting of the rebel leaders there is an immediate clash between Hotspur and Glyndwyr during which Hotspur argues Glyndwyr's claim that the Earth shook and the heavens rained down fire on the day of his birth. Glyndwyr is a believer in magic and claims to have supernatural powers which casts him as a confident yet extremely pompous leader and Hotspur's attempts to disprove his claims reinforces him as short-tempered and bold, especially to challenge someone as powerful as Glyndwyr.

After reading this scene and especially noting these two character's behavior, it brings to mind the question we discussed in our last class about power, corruption, and what traits make a king. It seems that all of these leaders are extremely flawed in some way or another and they are all thirsty for more power which makes them extremely dangerous. Thinking about any of these men as King of England is a scary thought, all of them could rule as tyrants unchecked by anyone they rule.

What is especially notable is the contrast between Hotspur and Henry. Hotspur is an immature, quick tempered, and bold person who speaks his mind without fear of consequences. He is a brilliant military strategist because of this but is also a terrible diplomat who can easily get himself in hot water and cut important ties. Henry on the other hand is a cunning diplomat yet seems to be slightly corrupted by the amount of power he has. Henry and Hotspur are in a few ways contrasted with each other yet neither of them make particularly good kings.

Bringing back the question about what characteristics make a good king, it would seem that none of the people fighting for the crown would make "good" kings. I would argue that Prince Harry is the only character would be fit to rule. In the beginning of the play he is immature and would rather bum about and play pranks with his friends than take any real responsibility although he privately reveals his true intentions to act foolishly and lower people's expectations of him and then surprise them when he does an adequate job. In this act though we see Harry beginning to take a real interest in the events going on around him, realizing that only one side will be victorious. Additionally, he returns the money that he stole earlier in the play, partially motivated by fear of punishment, but still, it is a step in the right direction. Harry is a clever person, he might be slightly lazy but I think that is just a characteristic of his immaturity and that as time goes on Harry will be able to use his strategic and manipulative abilities in the favor of the crown.

The Unruly Son

We learned that the word “blood” appears more than fifty times in Richard II.  We find this word again in Henry IV several times, which strengthens the connection between these two plays even further.  In 3.2, King Henry mentions the importance of blood when talking to Prince Harry.  He’s disappointed that his son has not followed in his footsteps because he has royal blood and should hold himself a certain way in front of the public eye.  Harry has been hanging around commoners and is not showing an interest in becoming king, and Henry believes that he is being punished by God for having such a difficult son.  “I know not whether God will have it so for some displeasing service I have done, that in his secret doom out of my blood he’ll breed revengement and a scourge for me” (4-6).  This is a typical example of the common parent-disappointed-in-child storyline where the young son is not meeting the expectations of his proud father.  This is seen all over the place in books, movies, and television shows and we have to ask ourselves – who is right?  Personally, I understand King Henry’s motives in getting his son to accept that he is of royal blood, but he does it in a very harsh way.  If I were Harry, I would have a lot of trouble hearing my father speak to me the way that Henry does.

                What is also very important about the word “blood” making an appearance here is that it is not only alluding to Richard II, but Henry even brings him up when speaking to his son.  He tells Harry that Richard “mingled his royalty with cap’ring fools”  and that he was “being daily swallowed by men’s eyes, they surfeited with honey, and began to loathe the taste of sweetness” (63, 70-73).  After explaining everything that Richard had done wrong during his rule, he tells his son, “And in that very line, Harry, standest thou” (84).  It’s very interesting and shocking that Henry compares Harry to Richard.  He is telling him that he is doing everything wrong, which is setting himself up to become a bad king, like Richard was.  This is slightly ironic, because Henry was the one who de-throned Richard and indirectly was the reason that he was killed.  And now there is already a group of rebels who believe that Henry is a bad king, so should Harry even be taking Henry’s advice?  Also, we have to wonder if the vast amounts of pressure that Henry is putting on Harry will ultimately kill him, just like he killed Richard.

Appearance Vs Reality

   One of the most important aspects of the first part of Henry IV lies in the conflict between appearance and reality. In this play the fact is that how characters appear to others can be very different from how they really are, as can be seen with the character Hotspur and most especially with the character Prince Harry. It is through these characters that the audience can see how people can use appearance for their own needs, and in certain cases in order to gain more power. This can be seen in several characters such as Hotspur, who use appearances in order to either maintain their standing or reclaim power that was lost. Then there is Prince Harry who is the most obvious example of someone who uses appearances in the pursuit of power.
   There are several characters in this play that use appearance to cover up reality in order to fulfill their own needs and desires. This is seen in the opening of the play when Hotspur is forced to face the king concerning the prisoners that he was supposed to give to the king but did not. It is very difficult to determine what exactly happened that led to this decision, whether Hotspur actively chose to insult the king or not. Hotspur is one of the only witnesses to the actual decision and at the end of the day it is his word against the word of the other lord. This is seen in Hotspur's explanation. "when the fight was done,/ when I was dry with rage and extreme toil . . . came there a certain lord, neat and trimly dressed,/ Fresh as a a bridegroom, and his chin, new-reaped . . . amongst the rest demanded/ my prisoners in your majesty's behalf." (1.3.29-46). It is clear from Hotspur's explanation of his actions that he is being show in the best presentable light given the potentially treasonous actions he made in not giving over the prisoners of war. Because of the difficulty in determining the reality of what Hotspur's actual actions or intentions the only real credible source of information on the matter lies with Hotspur himself and as such he has the power to create the appearance of what happened and thus ensure he retains his power and suffer no lasting consequences, because this action.
   Then there is the character of Prince Harry, there is no other character in this play that further shows that difference between appearance and reality and how this difference can be used in order to suit his own needs and get power for himself. This seen most often in the way that Harry acts like a drunk, thief, and basically an incompetent person. This is all done in order for people to underestimate him and thus be even more impressed when he turns out to be an incredible king. This is seen Harry's speech "So when this loose behaviour I throw off/ and pay the debt I never promised." (1.2.186-187). It is clear that Harry is not nearly as incompetent as he pretends that he is, merely using the appearance of incompetence in order to for people to underestimate him. This would eventually help to convince people that he is much more than what he appears to be thus ensuring that he is looked upon with much more respect and loyalty than he would normally have been. Finally there is the fact that Harry is aware of the power that appearances have in this world. This is seen in "Yet herein will I imitate the Sun." (1.3.175). Unlike others before him, Harry realizes in order to have power he need not actually be as powerful as the sun but appear to be like the sun. Through this appearance that he has power will eventually lead to him actually have power.
   In the play Henry IV, the two characters of Hotspur and Prince Harry use appearances in order to manipulate power for their own needs. With Hotspur it is by manipulating the appearance of what happened in order to make himself look as good as possible in the current circumstances. With Prince Harry it is through the appearance of incompetency that he will become even more powerful with the revelation of his better qualities. Both of these characters follow the belief that the appearance of power will lead to the reality of power.

Equally Divided?

    So right dab in the the first scene of act three, I'm faced with something I feel the need to discuss about something that has come about. After Glyndwr and Hotspur argue and continue to mock each other, the men take out a map of Britain and decide to divide up the land among them. The men plan to split up the land (England and Wales), when and if their plan to overtake King Henry IV comes about. Glyndwr will be granted the western England and all of Wales; Mortimer will get the southeast section of England; and Hotspur will get the northern part of England.
     After all the arguing that we see between Hotspur and Glyndwr I could not see this plan happening, especially as easy as they make it seem. I feel as if they are counting their chickens before they hatch as an understatement. I was really questioning these men's sanity as I was reading. Hotspur and Glyndwr argue the whole time and not even Mortimer can control Hotspur's agitating mouth. Call me crazy but if they are arguing this much already about how to divide the land up among them, how is it they they think they will be able to run their lands in the same country differently? This just seems like a recipe for disaster and a lot more war and bloodshed. All that was running through my mind is the picture of the snake that is split into pieces that we learn about in US history in the seventh grade. "A house divided cannot stand" as Lincoln put it. If only Lincoln was around earlier on to warn these men of the mistake they are about to make.
      I feel as if the arguing between Hotspur and Glydwr should be an omen to Mortimer and the rebels. They should be able to see that they will not be able to work together to get the job done, or if they do get it done that they would never be able to divide up and run the different parts of the same land without a large amount of arguing, or even an eventual war between them. It should be obvious that with the selfishness that is apparent between men that eventually someone will want more than they have received and another battle will begin. Also Hotspur begins to argue as soon as the land is divided up. Hotspur complains about the land he is to receive because there is a river in a part of it that he does not like. Hotspur argues that he will change the shape of the river when he attains his land. Sounds to me like Hotspur is a real pain that the other men should have thought to leave out of this major plan to overthrow the king. All Hotspur really does is continue to create problems, not to mention he seems extremely immature. At this point Hotspur reminds me of Prince Harry. Neither of these boys show much potential in running anything on their own, or even going through and executing a plan of action.
     I just do not see how any plan between these men will work. They do not share the same points other than wanting to get rid of King Henry IV. Hotspur even goes as far to make fun of Glyndwr's pagin beliefs. I just do not think these men thought this plan through. It seems as if they are just looking to the reward of getting rid of Henry rather than all that would go into the motion. The men seem to unorganized to be able to achieve this big goal that they have set for themselves and I don not see any of their plans working out for them, and if they do there is no way that it will all work out in the end without another overthrow, or fight for more than what they have. I have already learned enough from Shakespeare to know that greed gets the best of just about everyone.

**This was supposed to be posted Feb 27th**

Richard II seems like every other Shakespeare’s play about a king or a man wanting power. In an effort to gain power he decides to send away two people, Mowbray and Bolingbroke. Richard makes a decision to banish both men. Mowbray is banished forever from England while Bolingbroke is banished for ten years. John of Gaunt is not happy to see his son banished because he knows that he will die and never see his son again. The king reduces Mowbray banishment to only six years. When they are sent away, Richard thinks he will be able to gain Bolingbroke’s land and get money for it. John of Gaunt, while dying, accuses Richard of destroying England with his mismanagement. Richard is not listening to what John of Gaunt and threatens him by telling him if he was not already sick, he would have his head chopped off. Gaunt continues telling Richard that he is running England. The Bolingbroke’s land is seized by Richard’s men so that he pays for the war in Ireland. Also Gaunt’s dying curse upon Richard is a bad omen for his future. “Live in thy shame, but die not shame with thee. These words hereafter thy tormentors be.” (2.1 135-137). We’ve seen in other plays, where the main actors have been cursed upon and in the end something bad has happened to them.

We hardly see women in this play, while in the past two plays women were the main focus. The Duchess of Gloucester wants revenge for her husband’s death and that Mowbray should be killed immediately during the duel with Bolingbroke. John of Gaunt tells her to pray to God for her revenge. The second time we see a woman in this play is in Act 2.2, but we hardly hear from her. The Queen is upset that Richard has been forced to go to Ireland and she misses him. There is a lot of male dominance in this play.

Bolingbroke puts together an army and invades through the North to come back to land that is now legally his because the John of Gaunt has died. York, who is taking place for Richard while he is in Ireland, punishes Bolingbroke for illegally entering England and makes his nephew stand instead of kneel. Someone would think that because they are family, York wouldn’t treat him so harshly, but he does. Bolingbroke said that he only came back to rightfully claim land that is his. York remains neutral, offering help to both sides. Bolingbroke is going to Bristol where he thinks Bushy and Bagot are hiding so that he can remove them from power. Again we see that power is the most important factor is in this play. Everyone is trying to gain power and take over land. 

Characterizing the King

King Richard is portrayed in almost every circumstance imaginable: in full power to order the lives of others, and in complete dissaray and loss of position. At the beginning of the play, Richard is as powerful as kings can be. He orders the banishment of Bolingbroke and Mowbray. He has been king since the early age of ten, and he's just learning how to assert his powers, which is why, I personally believe, he ordered the banishment. The two disputers could've settled the matter there and then, but Richard had to step in and postpone the duel to a later date. The fact that he's still unsure of how to use his power properly, he lowered the banishment years for Bolingbroke from ten to six. This gives off the sense that he is experimenting with his power, rather than being stubborn about it and sticking to his original decision. This decision does barely any good to anyone, especially none to Bolingbroke's father, who won't ever be able to see his son again, be it ten years or six, since he is so close to death as it is.

There's also the question as to Richard's intentions and his past. There is uncertainty if he has killed the Duke of Woodstock and if that was so, if this murder was for the good of the people and the land, or for selfish intentions. This matter was introduced very early in the play, which is normally unusual to do, as the play is long and the characterization of a person can be easily revealed over time and pages. The fact that so many characteristics and facts/rumors are thrown at the king so suddenly shows that, especially as the play progresses, that there is more to Richard than meets the eye. At the beginning, he seems like a poor excuse for a king, who still doesn't know how to use his power rightfully. Later on, however, Shakespeare begins to slowly strip Richard of his power, his status, and his sense of self. It's his way of saying, "if this man didn't have his crown and sceptre, would he be anybody at all?"

In the video version of 3.2, King Richard is being shown as being stripped of his power and his inner struggle to maintain his sense of self as he realizes he's losing everything. This is a fascinating representation of him as a man, as he was being played by a woman. I believe this sex-exchange role is significant and shows a different side to the king which wouldn't be apparant if his role was played by a man. The woman shows his feminine side, as well as the fact that despite his power or loss of it, he's a human being all in all. Despite his actions and his past and his inevitable future, he is a man who's trying to do the right thing, despite his failures. He is also a man of feelings and fear and every human emotion that would be more obviously present if he weren't king in the first place. This representation of him helps the readers/viewers connect with him on a deeper level, because who on this earth hasn't lost something (or everything) dear to him? This personification kind of takes away from the idea that the king was given his role by God which makes him appear more realistic in our eyes, as well as help us draw a deeper connection to him.