Due in class Friday, April 20 (5-6 numbered pages, printed, double-spaced).

For this essay, be sure to read Russ McDonald’s essay, “Theater à la Mode: Shakespeare and the Kinds of Drama,” available through BISON on-line reserve.

CHOOSE ONE TOPIC:

Topic 1. Although the two parts of Henry IV form a continuous story, the second part carrying on with the historical narrative from where Part 1 leaves off, they both have the same form. Both plays shape Prince Hal’s story on the model of the parable of The Prodigal Son. In addition, both plays are equally haunted by the past portrayed in Richard II, and both plays give prominence to Falstaff, a character whose buffoonery poses a challenge to authority no less serious, in its own way. than the threats posed by the rebels against King Henry. In these plays we watch Hal change from a reckless “madcap” youth to become a heroic prince and finally Henry V, king of England.

Write an essay in which you explore and analyze the transformation of Prince Hal in the two parts of Henry IV. As preparation for writing, consider the following questions:

In the second scene of 1 Henry IV, after joking with Falstaff and the others at the tavern, Hal, alone on stage, tells how he will go along with the “unyok’d humor” of their idleness but will eventually cast aside his current “loose behavior, . . . redeeming time when men think least [he] will” (1. 2. 208-17). What does this revelation tell you about Hal? That he is a cold, calculating “politician” like his father? That he is not really friends with Falstaff, Poins and the others? That his ultimate transformation is no transformation at all but a display planned for public consumption?

In the background of both parts of Henry IV, and on the minds of the characters, are the events that brought King Henry (Bolingbrook) to power in Richard II. In what ways does Shakespeare use this past in 1 & 2 Henry IV? What themes are developed with it?

During the final battle in 1 Henry IV, Douglas encounters Henry but cannot tell whether he is just one more soldier disguised as the king: “What art thou / That counterfeit’st the person of a king?” (5. 4. 27-28). Aside from the obvious ironies, what does this moment say about the ideas of sovereignty and authority portrayed in this play?

In both plays Hal is first strongly attached to Falstaff and then firmly distances himself from him. At the end of Part 2, he absolutely rejects and disowns him. What does Hal see in Falstaff? What does he gain from friendship with him? What does he gain (and/or lose) when he finally rejects Falstaff?

The idea of a “history play” is an odd one, since it seems to mix historical fact with fiction, or to suggest that what is portrtayed on stage is not fiction at all, not really a play. Would tragedy and/or comedy be relevant concepts for understanding the Henry plays?

In Part 1, Falstaff declares that honor is just a word, no more. Do you agree with him? What function does Falstaff’s subversive humor serve in these plays?

In both plays, King Henry says he fears that his son Hal wanted him dead. Is his fear unfounded? Hal, of course, passionately denies the charge both times. But what purpose does Henry’s fear serve in the plays?

The Induction and first scene of 2 Henry IV portray a world of rumor and mis-interpretation. The play also portrays a world dispersed in cultural and political as well as geographical space, from country to court, and from high social rank to low, from sovereign to subject. What does this tell you about the issues of sovereignty and authority in the play?

Topic 2. You will have read Ovid’s retelling of the “Pyramus and Thisbe” story in Arthur Golding’s 1567 translation. Give some thought to the way Shakespeare uses the story in A Midsummer Night’s Dream (AMND) and another well-known story very much like it in Romeo and Juliet. All three stories, Ovid’s and Shakespeare’s, are about young love thwarted by parental (specifically, paternal) opposition, but Shakespeare tells two radically different versions: tragedy in Romeo, comedy in AMND.

Write an essay in which you explore and analyze the relationship between Shakespeare’s two plays. As preparation for writing, consider the following questions:

Aside from the obvious differences of character and plot, what accounts for the difference between the two plays, between comic and tragic versions of the same basic story? In AMND, what is the relationship between the workers’ comic version of “Pyramus and Thisbe” and the rest of the play? In Romeo, comedy comes in the roles of Mercutio and the Nurse: what function does their humor serve in the play? What changes after Mercutio is killed?

What do characters do, what do they experience, that is different in the two plays and might account for the different outcomes? What do you see as significantly different in the social, political and cultural worlds of the two plays? For intance, is there anything like the Capulet/Montague feud in AMND?

In both plays there is a good deal of self-conscious talk about language, poetry, and representation: theater and imagination in AMND, the “book” in Romeo. In AMND there is in fact a lot of playing with the idea of the theater. What do these features contribute to your understanding of the relationship between the two plays?

For each assignment, when you write, do not simply “answer” the questions, but use them first as guides for thinking about the plays and their relationship. Then write an essay for which you decide what the important issues are and what the best argument is to make about them. Support what you say with appropriate quotes and specific references to moments in the play. Remember: you are writing an argument: do not write just plot summary without having something to say about it. Make each paragraph count. Each sentence, too.

Also: if you use sources in Shakespeare criticism, be sure to indicate your usage with footnotes and entries in your list of Works Cited.