Henry IV, part 1

Friedrich Ludwig Schröder as Falstaff around 1780

Henry IV., Part 1 ( Early Modern English The First Part of Henry the Fourth, with the Life and Death of Henry Sirnamed hot Spurre ) is a historical drama by William Shakespeare . The work is about the reign of Henry Bolingbrokes (1366 / 1367–1413, King of England from 1399 to 1413) as King Henry IV., Describes the rebellion led by Henry Percy (1364 / 1366–1403) against the king and the experiences of Prince Harry and Sir John Falstaff . The drama is part of the so-called Lancaster tetralogy and takes place in England in 1402/03. Shakespeare's main source for the play was the 1587 second edition of Raphael Holinsheds Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland . The author probably finished the piece by the beginning of 1597 at the latest and it was most likely performed in the same year. It was first published in good quality in 1598. Eight editions of the quarto had been produced by 1632, which is regarded as an indication of the popularity of the piece. A slightly modified version appeared in the First Folio of 1623. The work has been popular with audiences in England since its inception and is highly regarded by critics. The figure of the "fat knight" Falstaff has developed a life of its own outside of the work in the form of numerous adaptations and is regarded by many scholars as the most important character drawing of Shakespeare, alongside Hamlet and Cleopatra. On the stages of the continent , the play is mainly performed in combination with Henry IV, Part 2 .

Overview

Detail from Andrew Armstrong's Map of Northumberland (1769). Homildon Hill is west of Wooler, Northumberland .

Storylines

The work has a multilayer structure. State action is opposed to an everyday world. The story of the title is about securing the rule of King Heinrich and thus the change from a medieval feudal system to an early modern form of government with strong central power. The second narrative path depicts a comical parallel plot that is set in Eastcheap and at the center of which stands the impoverished knight Falstaff. A third storyline is embedded in the dual structure, the legend of the prince's throne's wild youth. The prince is the character who participates in all levels of action and value conflicts of the drama. A side branch of the plot revolves around the Welsh Prince Glyndwr. With the motifs of music and magic, Wales appears as an exotic and alien part of the island kingdom.

main characters

The stage company of the work comprises three groups of people. The first group is formed by the title character King Henry, his sons Harry (called Hal) and John, and the king's allies, the Earl of Westmorland and Sir Walter Blunt.

Opposite her are the rebels against the king: Henry Percy (the Earl of Northumberland), his brother Thomas Percy (the Earl of Worcester) and Henry's son Harry (called Hotspur) as well as their allies: Lord Edmund Mortimer, the Welsh magician Owain Glyndwr ( Mortimer's father-in-law), the leader of the Scots (Archibald, Earl of Douglas), Sir Richard Vernon, Richard Scrope (the Archbishop of York), Sir Michael (a companion of the Archbishop), and the wives of Hotspur and Mortimer, Lady Percy (also Kate called) and Lady Mortimer (Glyndwr's daughter).

The third group of people is formed around the knight Sir John Falstaff and his cronies Edward Poins (called Ned), Bardoll and Peto. She also includes the robber Gadshill and Mistress Quickly, the landlady of the Boar's Head Tavern , the pub Zum Eberkopf in Eastcheap, with her entourage.

Told the time and places of the action

Berkeley Castle

The beginning of the plot is directly related to the Battle of Humbleton on September 14, 1402 and ends with the Battle of Shrewsbury on July 21, 1403. The work spreads a panorama of locations across England, especially its borders with Wales and Scotland . In addition to the two locations of the Battle of Humbleton in Northumberland in the north and Shrewsbury on the border with Wales, the seat of the Bishop of York is mentioned, the home of his brother, Lord Scrope of Bristol , and Berkeley Castle in Gloucestershire at the mouth of the Severn between Bristol and Gloucester, a country estate of Richard II and the old port of Ravenspurgh at the mouth of the Humber near Hull , where Bolingbroke is said to have landed after his return from exile in France. The courtyard, Whitehall in London and the Market Square in Little Eastcheap, near the Tower, are the focus of the action.

action

Act I.

In the first act, the viewer learns of the events at court, how the reign of the king is threatened by civil war and rebellion, while his failed son indulges in his pleasures in Eastcheap.

[Scene 1] Henry Bolingbroke deposed the weak but legitimate King Richard II and had him killed. He plans a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to repent for this robbery of the throne. However, uprisings in his empire prevent the project. The Welsh rebel Glyndwr has captured Henry's rival for the throne, Lord Mortimer. At the same time Harry Percy (Hotspur) defeated the Scottish rebels in the north. The king laments that his son Harry (Hal) does not support his father in the war. Although he admires the exploits of the young Hotspur and wishes him to be a son, Hotspur refuses to hand over the captured Scots to the king.

[Scene 2] While the king tries to secure his rule, his son spends his time in cheap pubs and in the company of drunkards, day thieves and prostitutes and plans, together with the impoverished knight Falstaff and his cronies, an attack on peaceful traders. As a special joke, Hal and Poins secretly agree that they let Falstaff carry out the robbery alone and then chase the loot from it in the dark to see how Falstaff talks his way out of the embarrassment and the loss of money.

[Scene 3] At court, the king and his adviser Worcester fall out and refuse to comply with Hotspur's request. Hotspur praises Mortimer's courage to fight and does not want to hand his Scottish prisoners over to the king until the king agrees to pay ransom for Mortimer captured by Glyndwr. The king considers Mortimer a traitor and is angry at Hotspur's intercession because Mortimer, as a rival to the throne, has a more well-founded claim than Bolingbroke himself. The king accuses Hotspur of lying and dismisses the Percys from his presence without admitting a reply. After meeting the king, Hotspur is furious and becomes an easy victim for his uncle Worcester's plans for revenge, to instigate a rebellion against the king together with Welsh, Scots and the Archbishop of York.

Act II

Little Eastcheap

The second act describes the preparation and execution of a raid in which the Crown Prince takes part out of arrogance. An inter-scene shows a marriage argument between the rebel leader Hotspur. This is followed by a long scene in the form of a mini-drama with a “game within a game”, which deals with the questionable lifestyle of Hal and Falstaff.

[Scene 1] In the early morning a carter and two grooms prepare the horses for the travelers in a run-down tavern. Then the robber Gadshill appears, who spied out his potential victims in the inn that night.

[Scene 2] The prince, Falstaff and their cronies arrive at the designated crime scene. As the traders approach, Hal and Poins hide, leave the robbery to Falstaff and again attack the robbers in disguise, who flee in panic.

[Scene 3] Hotspur is home alone and reads aloud from a letter addressed to him in which an ally refuses to participate in the rebellion. This makes him angry and he insults the anonymous sender in an excited self-talk: I could crack his skull in with his lady's fan . When his wife arrives and asks him why he is upset, a heated argument ensues. Lady Percy complains that she is an exile from Harry's bed and that she worries about her husband's brooding and melancholy. She vividly describes how Harry talks about the tumult of the battle in his sleep and insults him because he is about to leave again: You crazy monkey, I'll bend your little finger. Hotspur gives way. He does not tell his wife about his plans, but since he takes her with him to the campaign as a compromise offer, he also gives her the opportunity to find out everything for herself.

[Scene 4] Back at the Eastcheap tavern, Hal and Poins have fun at the expense of poor Francis, the landlady's servant, Miss Quickley. Then Falstaff arrives with no booty, but with sharp weapons from the night raid. He invents a hair-raising story of how he supposedly fended off a large number of superior enemies and still lost the booty in the course of the brave fight. When he becomes entangled in contradictions (color vision in the dark) and the lie becomes obvious, the prince reveals the truth and everyone is excited to see how Falstaff can talk his way out. He explains that he knew from the beginning that his opponent was Hal, of course he never thought of attacking the future King of England and was consequently a coward out of instinct. When a messenger arrives at the tavern and calls the prince to court the following day, Falstaff suggests that Hal should rehearse his encounter with the king beforehand. To do this, they stage a game within a game. Falstaff introduces the king and will question the prince. In the course of his embarrassing questioning, Falstaff insulted the royal family by first questioning the king's paternity (he only had the word of his wife) and then illustrating the king's relationship with his son using both misshapen facial features. Hal is concerned, he turns the game around and wants to take on the role of the king himself, Falstaff is supposed to give the prince. Then Hal, in the role of the king, bluntly holds out his debauchery to his older mentor and announces his repudiation. When the sheriff arrives with a guard immediately afterwards to arrest Falstaff for the attack, the prince protects his fatherly friend with a lie and a brazen claim to his authority and at the same time promises to pay for the damage caused.

Act III

In the third act, the conspirators prepare their rebellion. At the same time, the king's camp is organized. Heinrich reproaches his son seriously and Hal promises to improve. His first path leads him to Falstaff, whom he appoints captain and thus obliges him to be loyal.

[Scene 1] The conspirators Hotspur, Glyndwr and Mortimer meet in Wales to divide up their prospective booty, the kingdom. Immediately there was a dispute between Hotspur and the boastful Glyndwr about the border line of the intended division. Worcester knows his nephew's quick temper and tries to mediate. The scene is relaxed with the arrival of Hotspur and Mortimer's wives. The two women want to say goodbye to their husbands who are going to war. Glyndwr's daughter does not speak English and Mortimer does not speak Welsh. The magician translates and various vocal interludes form a counterpart to Hotspur's rough glorification of war.

[Scene 2] The king has summoned his son Hal and wants to hold him accountable for his irresponsibility by comparing his behavior with that of the vicious King Richard. Hal asks his father for forgiveness and vows to get well soon. He will go into battle against Hotspur. The king is satisfied with this and gives his son command of an army. As a proof of their jointly strengthened energy, concrete and precise marching orders are given immediately. As the king's troops set off for Shrewsbury for battle, the rebels gather in Wales.

[Scene 3] Falstaff complains about his fate in the tavern, he has debts and is afraid of death. Harry appears in command, appoints Falstaff as an officer, gives him command of a troop of soldiers and the right to raise recruits. In this way he tries to create order even on a small scale and to compensate for his mistakes.

Act IV

The fourth act shows the concrete preparations for war by both parties: the rebel alliance is crumbling, that of the king is growing stronger. Even Falstaff is doing its part to protect the king.

[Scene 1] At a briefing by the insurgents, the initial confidence in victory turns over when it becomes clear that alliance promises are not being kept, but the king's camp is strengthened by the prince's newly-won loyalty. Douglas, the leader of the Scots, and Hotspur have to listen to the realistic assessment of Worcester as much as Vernon's description of the fighting strength of Hals in the style of a knightly epic, given the rejections of the Welsh rebels under Glyndwr and the absence of Northumberland troops. The rebels' résumé is defiant gallows humor.

[Scene 2] Meanwhile, the troops raised by Falstaff lag behind the king's armies. Their leader also cares more about wine than morale. He has blatantly used his advertising patent to enrich himself and, in a meeting with the prince, shows absolutely no inhibitions about delivering his poorly equipped recruits as cannon fodder to the knife. That the prince urges him to hurry only elicits another cynical comment.

[Scene 3] There is another argument in the rebel camp, this time about the right time to attack. As negotiator, Blunt makes a fair peace offer with the prospect of fulfilling the rebel demands. Despite pithy sayings, Hotspur is conciliatory in the end, so that the outcome of the conflict seems open again.

[Scene 4] The short scene at the seat of the Archbishop of York forms a bridge to the previous drama Richard II and at the same time provides the starting point for the suppression of the rebellion in the second part of the double drama . The bishop joined the rebellion because his family was Richard's supporter; the bishop and his follower, Sir Michael, exchange disturbing news because "Percy's army is too weak". They prepare for the utmost when the king “wants to visit” them.

Act V

The climax of the drama follows in the last act with the Battle of Shrewsbury. The first two scenes take place in the respective army camps, the following scenes three and four show the fighting and the conclusion is the court martial of the king.

[Scene 1] Worcester appears in the king's army camp as a negotiator for the rebels. The king makes an offer of peace and again promises mercy. Hal demonstrates his determination by offering a divine judgment in the form of a duel between Hotspur and himself, which the king refuses.

[Scene 2] In the rebel camp, Worchester fears that if a peace treaty is reached, Henry would hold him accountable as the instigator of the rebellion, and he puts everything on one card by deceiving his own allies about the king's offer. Through this betrayal, the decision to go to war has been made and the battle begins with Hotspur's address to his army.

[Scene 3] The king not only fights with the sword, he also uses a ruse. His faithful Sir Blunt fights as a loyal doppelganger in the robe of the king and thus attracts the enemy; he falls bravely in an argument with Douglas, the Scottish rebel. Then Hal meets the boastful Falstaff, a miles gloriosus in the greatest possible contrast to the English heroes.

[Scene 4] With the Scots attacking the king, the drama is reaching its climax. Hal saves his father's life by fending off Douglas' attack and defeats Hotspur in a duel. But the comical twist is not long in coming, because in the meantime Douglas is fighting with Falstaff, who survives with a ruse by pretending to be dead and falling to the ground, apparently defeated. Hal honors the fallen Hotspur with a touching gesture and laments the alleged death of his fatherly friend. When the prince turns back to the fight, Falstaff rises from the dead and cheekily claims Hotspur's corpse as spoils of war. Happy that Falstaff is still alive, Hal magnanimously grants his friend the surreptitious triumph.

[Scene 5] The battle is over, the rebels are defeated for the time being. In the short final scene the king holds judgment. Worcester is sentenced to death for double treason and immediately executed. Hal leaves the captured Douglas to his brother John. In order to “win the opponent's heart”, at the behest of the Crown Prince, he set the prominent prisoner free without demanding a ransom, thus ensuring the good behavior of the enemy in the north. The final speech of the king leads on to the second part of the drama. The troops are divided, Prince John and Westmorland rush to York to provide Northumberland and the Archbishop, and the King will fight with Hal against Glyndwr.

Literary templates and cultural references

Title page of the second edition of Holinsheds Chronicles from 1587

Shakespeare's most important source was the Chronicle of Edward Hall : The Union of the Noble and Illustrious Families of Lancaster and York from 1542 and Raphael Holinsheds Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland in the second edition from 1587. The Pictures of Life (exempla) of the characters of Northumberland and Glyndwr, Shakespeare probably took from the collection The Mirror for Magistrates by William Baldwin and George Ferrers , which in turn are based on John Lydgate's Fall of Princes and Giovanni Boccaccio's De Casibus Virorum Illustrium . For the drawing of the characters of Prince Harry (Hal) and Harry Percy (Hotspur) Shakespeare may have used the first part of Samuel Daniel's The First Fowre Bookes of the ciuile warres between the two houses of Lancaster and Yorke , published in 1595 . The anonymous drama The Famous Victories of Henry the fifth was entered in the Stationers' Register in 1594 and published in 1598. Shakespeare may have known a manuscript or a performance and used it to portray the prince's wild youth. The Famous Victories quarto is of poor technical quality and resembles the "bad quartos" of other Shakespeare dramas. However, Hals's antics are also reported in John Stows Annales, or a Generale Chronicle of England from Brute until the present yeare of Christ from 1580. References to the unrestrained youth of Hals can also be found in other sources of the 16th century, for example in Thomas Elyot's famous work The Governor or The Boke Named the Gouernour , which appeared in eight editions between 1532 and 1580 and by Shakespeare for Henry V and Troilus and Cressida was used. The scholar J. Dover Wilson , known for his speculations, has suspected that there was a "great Henry IV" who was a link between the anonymous The Famous Victories and the double drama Henry IV . Some authors consider it possible that the anonymous drama Thomas of Woodstock , which is only preserved in an undated manuscript, with the character of the corrupt judge Tresilian described there, was a model for the Falstaff.

Dating

Extract from Palladis Tamia with the list of the 12 works of Shakespeare, which Meres was known in 1598

For the dating of Shakespeare's works, what has been said about other works applies .

Terminus ad quem

The latest date of writing is the entry in the Stationers' Register on February 25, 1598. It reads: (Andrew Wise) "Entred for his Copie vnder thandes of Mr Dix: and mr Warden man a booke intituled The historye of Henry the IIIJth with his battle of Shrewsburye against Henry Hottspurre of the Northe wth the conceipted mirthe of Sr Iohn ffalstoff. ”In the fall of that year, Francis Meres mentions the work Henry the 4 . However, it is not clear from these two documents that it is the first part, so the work is only mentioned in the First Folio . The reference to the Battle of Shrewsbury does not leave much room for interpretation.

Terminus a quo

Assuming that Shakespeare used Samuel Daniel's The First Four Books of the Civil Wars as a source, the work must have been written after its publication in 1595. This earliest possible point in time fits the drafting time of Richard II , since Shakespeare used Daniel's work for both dramas together, whereby it is assumed that Henry IV, Part 1 was written after Richard II . In addition, the writing of the work falls during the tenure of William Cobham as Lord Chamberlain (August 1596 to March 1597), who acted as censor against the piece in early 1597. The background was that Shakespeare had named the character of Falstaff "John Oldcastle" in the game versions of the work (i.e. before printing), which Cobham saw as a disparagement of his ancestors. From July to October 1597, theater performances were banned across London, an act of political censorship because of the rebellious (lost) play The Isle of Dogs by Thomas Nashe and Ben Jonson . It is believed that Henry IV's revision of the text , Part 1, took place at this time.

Summary assessment of the circumstantial evidence

In the authoritative editions and the overarching English and German secondary literature, the following information is given for dating. The Oxford Shakespeare mentions 1596/97 as the period of the first performance. The Textual Companion indicates the same period. The Oxford Companion names 1596 as the year of the first performance. The latest Arden edition mentions early 1597. The New Cambridge Shakespeare suspects the first months of 1597. The Shakespeare Handbook states that Henry IV, Part 1 is between Richard II and The Merry Wives of Windsor. so it was written around the end of 1596 / beginning of 1597. The English-German study edition gives the same information. Suerbaum suspects a somewhat earlier premiere in 1595/96. The turn of the year 1596/1597, with a tendency towards the beginning of 1597, is the most frequently mentioned period for the completion of the composition of the work and its first performance.

Text history

Detail from the fragment of Quarto 0 from 1598

Title page of the first quarto from 1598, British Library copy

The early quartos

From 1598 three copies of the 1st quarto by Heinrich IV., Part 1 and a fragment of the 0th quarto have been preserved. The text quality is very good. The complete quartos are located in the British Library , the Huntington Library and the Trinity College Library in Cambridge. Fragment Q0 is owned by the Folger Shakespeare Library . It was found by James Halliwell in the mid-19th century in a copy of William Thomas ' (Principal) Rules of (the) Italian Grammar (1550/76). These are four sheets (eight pages) of printed sheets C1-4, which contain the text from Act I, Scene 3, Verse 201 to Act II, Scene 2. A comparison of the corresponding text between Q0 and Q1 shows 250 variants, three of which touch the meaning of the text. The other variants concern orthography and punctuation. It is therefore assumed that the two prints were made by different typesetters in the workshop of the printer Peter Short . The title is: THE HISTORY OF HENRIE THE FOVRTH; With the battell at Shrewsburie, betweene the King and Lord Henry Percy, surnamed Henrie Hotspur of the North, With the humorous Conceits of Sir Iohn Falstalffe. The title does not name the author, nor does it identify it as the first part of a double drama. The author's information can only be found from the second quarto (Q2) of 1599 with the addition: “Newly corrected by W. Shake-speare. “The second quarto was no longer printed in Peter Short's workshop, but in Simon Stafford's . The changes contained therein are viewed as typesetter's revisions, not as corrections by the author.

The folio version

First page of the drama in the 1623 First Folio, copy from the Folger Shakespeare Library

The text of the work in the First Folio is based on the quarto edition of 1613, the so-called Quarto 5 (Q5). The folio version is in the second part of the book on pages 46–73 after the folio count (368–393 after facsimile count). The difference in the number of pages results from an incorrect pagination of page 47 with the entry 49 in the first folio. The title is: The first Part of Henry the Fourth, with the Life and Death of HENRY sirnamed HOT-SPVRRE. The folio version contains three main types of changes. In it, according to the prohibition of oaths and curses on the stage of May 27, 1606, everything that was blasphemous was removed or softened. For example, “God giue thee…” becomes the neutral phrase “maist thou haue”. In addition, F inserts nudes and scenes, adds stage directions and corrects speaker designations. There are also occasional metric corrections. Some authors have concluded from this that the folio text had been corrected using a so-called "prompt book" manuscript. However, the editors of the latest Arden edition consider this assumption superfluous and see the adjustments to the folio text as normal editorial activity.

The Dering Manuscript

Fragments of the Dering manuscript from 1613 in the Folger Shakespeare Library

The so-called Dering manuscript is a manuscript from 1613. It was discovered in a library near Pluckley in 1844 and acquired in 1897 by Henry Folger. It consists of 55 sheets that are slightly smaller than folio format. The manuscript contains a collation of the text from the first part of the double drama after Quarto 5 from 1613 and the second part from the complete edition of Quarto 1 (so-called Quarto B) from 1600. It was written by two different writers: Edward Dering , an Elizabethan literature lover, wrote the first page. The rest of the text was recorded by an unknown professional scribe. It contains almost the full text of the first part (only two scenes are left out) and about a quarter of the text of the second part. This version was probably intended for an amateur performance. The manuscript, since it is clearly dependent on the early quartos, does not have an independent textual authority, but is an important testimony to the practice of amateur theater in Elizabethan times.

The Dering manuscript is not the only contemporary manuscript of the drama. In the estate of the mathematician Thomas Harriot , 63 lines were found, which are an excerpt from the first four acts of the piece and were probably intended for a private notebook (Commonplace Book). The note is dated to before 1603.

German translations

See also : German translations of Shakespeare's works

The first German version appeared in the prose translation of Shakespeare's works by Christoph Martin Wieland . However, the translator has adapted the text to reflect current tastes. He left out passages that seemed "rabble" to him, left out obscene jokes as untranslatable and piqued the curiosity of the audience by explaining that you had to "be an Englishman ... and have a good portion of pounsch in your head to enjoy it" . After Wieland had resignedly given up, Eschenburg continued the work with the aim of "literality and sincerity"; between 1775 and 1777 the new edition of Shakespeare's works appeared. Eschenburg's prose version is considered to be one of the most careful and, according to some scholars, is unsurpassed in accuracy up to the present day. In 1800, the main piece of the "fat knight" was published in Schlegel's verse translation, which despite all its disadvantages is still regarded by German-speaking readers as the poetic voice of Shakespeare. However, it is rather unsuitable for performance purposes today, as it often contains cumbersome formulations and is difficult for actors to speak. For the theater today, Rudolf Schaller's or Erich Fried's translations are sometimes used, but in most cases new play texts are created based on raw translations. The translation by Frank Günther serves the purpose of a reading version best today .

Genre issues and work structure

The so-called history dramas are called histories , history play or chronicle play in Shakespeare's time . Heinrich IV. Is the first drama to be called "history". The heyday of the genus is short and limited to the late reign of Queen Elizabeth and the years from approx. 1580 to 1605. Put simply, these are dramas, the subject of the story of the English rulers from King John (1199-1216) to Henry VIII (1509–1547), in which a king is at the center of the plot and which does not end tragically. The interest of Shakespeare and his audience in historical material results on the one hand from the nationalist mood after the victory of the English over the Spanish Armada . The second reason was the Tudor's legitimation problem. This was due to the early death of Edward , the legitimate successor of Henry VIII. The violent recatholization by Mary and the subsequent restoration of Protestantism by Elizabeth from 1559 through the reintroduction of the Act of Uniformity and the Act of Supreme in that year led to an increased need for legitimation of the childless Virgin Queen and created a climate in which the desire for an idealization of the House of Tudor was reinforced and served, among other things, by Shakespeare's royal dramas.

Overarching topics

Shakespeare dealt with four themes in his historical dramas:

• What are the characteristics of a good monarch?
• Which line of succession legitimizes a ruler?
• Can a less legitimate aspirant to the throne remove a weak ruler from the throne?
• Can a criminal usurper be overthrown by an illegitimate opponent?

The fact that King Heinrich is plagued by a remorse for having ousted the legitimate King Richard II from the throne is already clear in the opening scene. Heinrich is therefore planning a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The question of the character traits of a good king is parodistically negotiated in Act II in the long scene IV in the "play-in-play" and in Act III, scene 2 between the king and his son. In doing so, Hal renounces his immoral lifestyle.

Philosophical aspects

Some scholars are of the opinion that histories primarily deal with order and authority and, in the case of Henry IV, Part 1, also address the honor and fools of the time . The idea that royal dramas are based on a similarly directed dogmatic tendency, that they are, so to speak, the stage version of a state vision of order, goes back to the British scholar Tillyard and his works The Elizabethan World Picture (1942) and Shakespeare's history plays (1944). It is advocated by conservative scholars such as G. Wilson Knight and J. Dover Wilson , and rejected by protagonists of New Historicism such as Stephen Greenblatt and feminist scholars such as Catherine Belsey . But Tillyard's study is undoubtedly the most influential in the history of the 20th century.

The problem of an order out of joint is exemplified by Shakespeare in Hamlet ; he describes the subject of authority in King Lear . In Heinrich IV., Part 1 , these aspects come to the fore through the rebellion and the challenged legitimacy of Heinrich's rule, on the one hand through the cheeky opposition of Hotspur, on the other hand through Falstaff's disrespectful royal parody in the "game-within-a-game". The ideological “hot spot” honor is addressed in Heinrich IV., Part 1 in Falstaff's famous monologue: “What is honor? One word. ”The intertextual references are diverse. They range from Antionio's loss of honor, Othello's description of himself as an “honorable murderer” to Hamlet's admiration for Fortinbras. Falstaff's skepticism about honor is shared in a cynical version of Iago. In his last words, Hotspur gives the aspect of the fool of time a fitting expression: “But thoughts, the slaves of life, and life, time's fool, And time, that takes survey of all the world, Must have a stop.” That Life is at the mercy of the transience of time is a recurring theme in Shakespeare. It is treated particularly clearly in Hamlet in the gravedigger scene.

Position of the work in the context of the Lancaster tetralogy

If you look at the sequence of actions from Richard II to Henry IV, Parts 1 & 2 to Heinrich V, it becomes clear that the first part of the double drama occupies a central position. While with the dethroning of the legitimate ruler by Henry Bolingbroke in Richard II the cause for all subsequent events is shown, in Henry V the last part of the tetralogy, with the victory of young Hal in the battle of Agincourt, the ideal image of a king is drawn . In the first part of Henry IV , the scenario of a fragile political situation is expanded in which, together with Hals' youth in Eastcheap, the threatening moral neglect of the Crown Prince becomes tangible. This is where the conflicts are developed and expanded, the causes of which have been described in the previous work and which will find a provisional conclusion in the following. The interplay of state disorder and insufficient character aptitude of a ruler, in short as disruption and crisis, is a continuous theme in all of Shakespeare's dramas. With the sovereign interweaving of the disparate elements in the drama, Shakespeare also succeeds in creating a complex system of relationships, which is also reflected in many ways in the proverbial abundance of the figure of Falstaff, the "Socrates of Eastcheap". This has drawn a great deal of respect from critics at all times.

Criticism and interpretation

"... Heaven forgive you, Falstaff you are an arch-rag - but you have amused far more people than beleyed."

- Ulrich Bräker

The history of the work review

The first part of Henry IV was a success from the start. This is reflected in the appreciative statements made by critics in the 17th century. 131 cases of allusions to the work were found in the 17th century alone, more than twice as many as in Othello . John Dryden described Falstaff as the "best of all comic characters". Joseph Addison considered him an exemplary humorist because he was able to arouse the humor of other people. One of the few not only critical, but downright devaluing voices is that of Jeremy Collier .

At the beginning of the 18th century, Nicholas Rowe was the first to express the unease that was often repeated later on about Falstaff's violation. He thought it was a design flaw that Falstaff was endowed with so much wit and yet was treated shabbily by the prince. Maurice Morgann certified Falstaff in his essay on the Dramatic Character of Sir John Falstaff (1777) "great natural courage". He questioned the cowardice of Falstaff and pointed out that he was always respected in the play by other characters, fought valiantly against Sir Douglas and could afford an exchange with the king. Samuel Johnson was then the first to specifically defend Falstaff's repudiation. He considered him a dangerous impostor.

The dispute over the character of Falstaff continues in the 19th century. At the same time, a politically guided debate begins about the position of Shakespeare's historical plays as a whole. Of all the nineteenth-century critics, Coleridge has been the least gracious to Falstaff. He accused him of total moral depravity, compared him to Iago and Richard III. and at the same time admired his outstanding skills and his unmatched intelligence. Today's scholars see his harsh judgment primarily as a corrective of sentimental interpretations from the 18th century. Hazlitt, on the other hand, defended Falstaff. He regarded him as "the most important comic character that was ever invented". With Schlegel's suggestion, based on Schiller, to view the histories as a planned cycle - "... a historical heroic poem in dramatic form, as it were" - a tradition of criticism begins that has shaped the debate about histories ever since. Shakespeare gave "examples of the political course of the world", the works were "instructive for the upbringing of young princes" and the author had shown how one could "learn history according to the truth". Many critics of the 19th century followed this interpretation. Gustav Rümelin called the histories a "cycle of patriotic character images in scenic form" and Dowden declared the prince to be the "ideal of masculinity in the field of great deeds".

The two main streams of criticism can also be found in the 20th century. The positions of Coleridge and Hazlitt on the character of Falstaff are now being taken over by Andrew C. Bradley and John Dover Wilson, and the discussion about the political content of histories initiated by Schlegel and Schiller is supported by Tillyard and his opponents, for example among the representatives of the New Historicism continued. An examination of the connection between character drawing and work analysis provided Bradley in his study The Rejection of Falstaff . He implied that Shakespeare had planned the violation of Falstaff from the beginning and that it was necessary and consistent in the context of the work, because Hal, as king, had the right to break with his previous way of life. However, Shakespeare made the character of Falstaff too attractive to be disregarded and the manner in which Hal proceeded was lying. As a result, the king's actions would cause a great deal of annoyance to those who enjoy Falstaff. Much like Morgann, Bradley believed that Falstaff was neither a liar nor a coward. His exaggerations are all too transparent to seriously pass as a lie. He believed that Falstaff's inner freedom stems from the fact that Shakespeare, like Hamlet, Cleopatra and Macbeth, had given him an “inexplicable touch of infinity”.

Criticism of Bradley came mainly from Elmer Edgar Stoll and Dover Wilson . Stoll criticized Bradley's unhistorical approach and psychologizing tendency to treat the dramatic characters like real people. He considered Falstaff to be a conventional boastful soldier and mouth heroes (braggart) based on the model of Miles Gloriosus von Plautus , as occurs again and again in the Elizabethan plays. Above all, he rejected Bradley's tendency to idealize the figure. Falstaff's "quibbles about honor are completely worthless" and his jokes are "treacherous excuses". In his study, The Fortunes of Falstaff , Dover Wilson summarizes Bradley and Stoll's arguments. His work is considered to be one of the most influential on the subject in the 20th century. He compared Falstaff with the Vice character of morality plays , who of course are thrown into hell at the end of a piece. Shakespeare's audience was therefore not surprised because of Falstaff's fate. Falstaff is at the same time an archetype of the theater and a typical representative of the London underworld in his time, who represented all the imponderables and dangers that a civil London gentleman was exposed to when one wanted to have fun in Eastcheap. Despite all the sympathy one might have for Falstaff, it remains inevitable that the knight will be banished at the end of the play, this is the logic of morality, as it necessarily follows from the prince's maturation as king. Dover Wilson therefore puts the prince at the center of the play and justifies his behavior. Wilson also points to the impression of the abdication of Edward VIII , which was still fresh at the time his work was published in 1944 , who was forced to resign because he pursued private amusements.

Interpretations

honor

The political success of the Earl of Essex is considered evidence of the assumption that the concept of honor still had great social significance even in Elizabethan times. Essex determined its position and goals by reference to a military code of honor with recourse to medieval traditions. He gathered a large number of supporters around him and later justified his uprising on the fact that he was cut off from access to the queen by lobhudlers ( flatterers ) at court. As Holinshed reports, the historical models of the rebels around Henry Percy at the beginning of the 15th century used a similar justification (they could not reach the king with their complaints) and the Archbishop of York explicitly said that because of the large number of courtiers ( flat charterer ) no free access ( free access ) to the king. In this context, “honor” is to be understood as a gratification for the exercise and exercise of public office and the lack of access to the king as a withholding of this “honor”. When Falstaff now states that honor is just a word, he is expressly referring to the fleeting nature of this type of reward.

Friendship

While in Elizabethan times the concept of honor can be understood as an expression of a binding bond between a leader and his entourage, friendship denotes a form of voluntary social relationship between two equal individuals. Montaigne's contributions are crucial to understanding the humanistic concept of friendship . You have two main statements: true friendship is only possible between people of equal social rank and you can only have one friend. Shakespeare describes friendships in his plays that put this Renaissance concept to the test. The ideal friendship is threatened by economic circumstances, as in the case of Basanio and Antonio in The Merchant of Venice , it is destroyed by marriage, as in the case of the "twin cherry " Helena and Hermia in A Midsummer Night's Dream , or it ends prematurely by the Death, as in the case of Hamlet and Horatio. The friendship between Falstaff and Prince Hal is at the same time improbable and yet corresponds to Montaigne's ideal of a free relationship. If you look at the two characters from this point of view, it is possible to avoid the traditionally opposing interpretations of the characters, for example by Bradley and Stoll. The friendship between Hal and Falstaff then corresponds on the one hand to the mixture of the genres historical drama and comedy and the transformation of the characters can be viewed in analogy to Lewis Hyde's theory of the exchange of gifts: just as an object gains in value when it is given away, people change, when they become friends.

carnival

The Protestant reformers in Elizabethan England regarded all forms of festivities and leisure as a pagan legacy and strove to control them if not to ban them. The Elizabethan stage practice corresponded at least in part to the Puritan prejudice, as it was characterized, for example, by a close spatial proximity between actors and audience, which came close to the performance conditions of popular small stages, for example at annual fairs. One can understand Falstaff's portrayal of the king impromptu as a carnival-like element, because such a parody is in the tradition of private entertainment of the rulers by the fools they employ. It has also been suggested that Falstaff and Hal are portrayed in the play as though they were aware that they were playing the roles of Vice (the vice) and the prodigal son from medieval morality. Hal's mockery of Falstaff's obesity can be seen as an allusion to the beginning of Lent, reminding the Elizabethan viewer of the argument between the personifications of Shrovetide (Shrovetide) and Lent (Ash Wednesday), an old fat man and a young thin man. The antithesis of the rooms of the Eastcheap Tavern as an institution frequented by the lower class and the aristocratic-dominated venues is an important feature of the play. Steven Earnshaw writes about the setting of the tavern that it is "[...] inverts normal societal relations" and thus "substitutes in miniature the day of misrule - by allowing such role reversals". This also indicates Bakhtin's understanding of carnival in literature: "Carnival is the world turned inside out."

nation

As mentioned at the beginning, the drama addresses the change from a medieval feudal system to an early modern form of government. This naturally raises the question of whether and in what way Shakespeare made a reference to the modern concept of a state that was emerging during the Renaissance, in particular to Machiavelli's ideas, which were perceived as amoral in England. In the aftermath of Tillyard's interpretation, it is usually assumed that Shakespeare drew the image of an ideal kingdom in his Henriade and that the ruthless Prince Hal, who was successful as King Henry V in the Battle of Agincourt, is the prototype for this. This traditional notion has been called into question in recent research for a variety of reasons. For example, the topography of England designed in the drama directs the viewer's gaze to the borders of the country and there (especially in Wales) a simultaneously terrifying and fascinating world of sorcery, magic and eroticism is drawn. Besides Henry V, none of the rulers, starting with the "royal masochist" Richard II, over the usurper Bolingbroke to the tyrant Richard III. be seen as an exemplary king. In fact, the confrontation with “wild” Scots and “evil” Welsh people described in the play is suitable for questioning the idea of ​​the idealized island kingdom, as John of Gaunt , Bolingbroke's father, so emphatically portrayed: “This people of blessings, ... this gem set in the Silbersee. ". Rather, the peoples on the other side of the English borders are portrayed as an imaginary threat that corresponds to the collapse of the rule of the English crown in Ireland during the Tyrone's Rebellion at the time the work was written . Some scholars therefore see features of the Irish rebel leader Hugh O'Neill and Falstaff's "Rabble Army" in Owen Glyndwr as a parody of the poorly equipped English soldiers of this time.

history

Probably the best-known bon mot about Shakespeare's historical dramas comes from John Churchill , who said of himself that he only knew English history from the works of Shakespeare. The question therefore arises as to the reasons for the popularity of these pieces. By comparing historical dramas with the historical works of Polydor Virgil , Edward Hall and Holinshed and the historical dramas Marlowes and George Chapman , some scholars have concluded that Shakespeare would write about English history in a self-reflective manner. Therefore, Shakespeare's histories have been compared to the metafictionality of modern works. This and the representation of complex political issues in combination with a sophisticated psychological character drawing is considered to be the main reason for the continued popularity of these works, at least in England.

The traditional view of Shakespeare's historical dramas comes from Eustace Maudeville Wetenhall Tillyard and is based on the assumption that the classic English histories of the Elizabethan period, particularly those of Hall and Holinshed, are the central, if not the only, source for the dramas. He assumed that the two tetralogies represent English history in the sense of the "Tudor myth" as an expression of divine action. God had first punished England for the dethronement and murder of Richard II and with his people by the victory of Henry VII over Richard III. reconciled at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485. The effectiveness of the Tudor myth was derived by Tillyard from analyzes of contemporary theological literature and the contents of collections of sermons (homilies), especially their criticism of rebellions. According to Tillyard, the Tudor myth is a religious concept "according to which historical events develop according to the principle of compensatory justice, are under the rule of Divine Providence and Elizabethan England is to be viewed as the result (of such a process)." With the two tetralogies, Shakespeare created a kind of national epic about the fall and redemption of England. The criticism of this interpretation is manifold. For example, the interventions of the censor in the pieces are incomprehensible if the works were the expression of a state ideology. Even Tillyard's assumption that the Tudor myth is expressed within the works primarily in the context of prophecies does not stand up to examination, since in the few places where a character takes on such a prophetic function, the concept of Providence does not Role play. The speech of the Bishop of Carlisle is mentioned here as an example. In addition, Tillyard regards Bolingbrokes' robbery of the throne in Richard II as a kind of original sin that drives the process described in the Lancaster tetralogy. However, Shakespeare wrote the Lancaster tetralogy after the York tetralogy. Tillyard's interpretation therefore assumes (similar to Andrew C. Bradley) without any evidence that the author had already had an overall plan for both tetralogies when he wrote the first history piece ( Henry VI, Part 2 ).

In the special case of Heinrich IV., Part 1 , various authors have pointed out that the source situation for the piece is much more complex than was assumed by Tillyard and that this has an impact on the genre structure present in the work. In addition to the historical narrative, there are tragic moments in Hotspur's failure, a complex comic parallel plot and elements of romances are woven in with the so-called Welsh world. If one does not consider the variety of sources, an interpretation misses the variety of genre elements in the work and thus the relationship between the different storylines. Phyllis Rackin has therefore explicitly pointed out that the drama breaks the genre boundaries. Falstaff's first words: "Now Hal, what time of day is it, lad?" place the tavern scenes in the timeless context of a theatrical performance and thus clearly delimit the historical scenes. Thus, the comedy elements realized in the tavern scenes not only have the function of a comic relief , a relaxing parallel plot, they also serve to emphasize the fictional character of the state plot.

Politics and royalty

Sir Walter Raleigh has survived the remark that history can be used like a mirror and cast a critical light on the present by "accusing the living of those who are long dead of their vices." Historical comparisons were in Elizabethan times extremely explosive, as the example of John Hayward shows, who was indicted by the Queen in front of the Star Chamber in 1599 for high treason because he dealt with the dethronement of Richard II in his work The First Part of the Life and Raigne of King Henrie IV . and he had dedicated the book to the Earl of Essex . Hayward was imprisoned, his writings burned, and Devereux was executed in February 1601 after his failed rebellion. The Queen's comment was: "But I am Richard II. Know ye not that?"

Because of such connections, scholars have recently become increasingly concerned with the extent to which Shakespeare responded to current events in his histories. It was assumed that he had the uprising of Catholic nobles in mind in 1569, the so-called "Rising of the North" under the leadership of Charles Neville, the 6th Earl of Westmorland and Thomas Percy, the 7th Earl of Northumberland. The story of Prince Harry, who is not legitimized as king from birth, but first has to prove himself through his deeds, was compared with the situation of the rising new gentry of the Elizabethan era. Other scholars have pointed to the emphasis on economic practices in this work and the emerging marketplaces, and Falstaff's discourse on honor has been related to the "culture of violence" of Elizabethan times.

Stephen Greenblatt's studies are significant for the relationship between the dramas Henry IV, Parts 1 and 2 and Henry V and the political situation in Shakespeare's time and have recently been discussed controversially. Using the key words “subversion and containment” in his case study on Henry IV and Henry V, Greenblatt had made the claim that the theatrical practice of Elizabethan times posed a threat to the established order by addressing liberality, Shakespeare would always have withdrawn these provocations. Various recent works dispute this assumption. Tom McAlindon criticized Greenblatt's assumption that Shakespeare would induce his audience to accept the existing order by suggesting “corrosive thoughts”. In fact, the portrayal of the monarchy in Henry IV, Part 1 is much too negative to assume that Shakespeare managed to manipulate his audience in such a way that they would enthusiastically accept the status quo. David Scott Kastan had proposed that the "production of power" was the most important concern in the play. However, he considers it unlikely that Falstaff's subversiveness could be contained; rather, the “mixing of kings and clowns” effectively called totalizing power fantasies and hierarchical barriers into question. Kastan compares the similarity between the positions of Tillyard and Greenblatt because both claim that Shakespeare supports the existing order by ultimately submitting to Halstaff. However, the positions of the two scholars are different in the sense that they assume that Shakespeare realizes this intention by different means: according to Tillyard offensive and unambiguously through a commitment to the existing state order, according to Greenblatt through manipulative tricks. The question of whether Shakespeare in Henry IV, Part 1 supports or challenges the existing order, so Kastan downright depends on the reading of individual words. When Falstaff explains: “Let us be Diana's hunters ... and let us say that we have a good rule over us. ”This can be read as an expression of loyalty to the Queen, who was often identified with Diana, or as a secret subversion, because“ Diana ”was also a nickname for Hugh O'Neill, the leader of the Irish resistance. So while Kastan, like Shakespeare himself, keeps the sense of poetry in the balance according to the third type of ambiguity, Richard Helgerson wants to state that Shakespeare's main aim in his historical dramas is to "consolidate and maintain royal power."

Other authors have viewed the drama as a comment on the so-called "succession crisis", the open question of the succession of the childless "Virgin Queen". Howard Erskine-Hill has investigated the assumption that the Worcester, Northumberland and Hotspur rebels had a legitimate right to rebel. The mix of genres has also repeatedly raised the question of the extent to which Shakespeare wanted to give a voice to the "common people" that Holinshed neglected in his reports on the history of England in this drama, and whether this was in connection with the rapid rise in food prices due to poor harvests in 1596. In summary, one can say that in this work Shakespeare looked at “high” and “low” culture at the same time and, as in Richard II, repeatedly raised the question of whether inherited rights are sufficient for the legitimation of a king.

Falstaff

"We don't need Heinrich V. ... we need Falstaff."

- Harold Bloom

While the application of historicizing research methods is unproblematic in the case of the political and cultural context of Shakespeare's dramas, character analyzes resist such an approach. The figure of Falstaff in particular has been viewed as an expression of “timeless human nature” since the 18th century. Against the analytical methods of "New Historicism" the argument has been put forward several times that they sacrifice access to the subject and its history to the primacy of all-encompassing systems of power and overlook the fact that a drama consists of nothing other than the characters acting in it. This is probably one of the reasons for Harold Bloom's vehement rejection of post-structuralist methods and analyzes of “New Historicism”, who never tires of emphasizing that Shakespeare's primary achievement was the invention of characters, a “diversity of people”. His best characters, Hamlet and Falstaff, based on Hegel's dictum, are "free artists of their own", a reader defines himself through his attitude to Falstaff, the role that is almost identical to Shakespeare's esprit and sagacity.

Other authors have placed the figure of Falstaff more in a historical context and above all referred to the original naming “ Sir John Oldcastle ”. Lord Cobham, called Oldcastle, was the leader of the Lollards in the 15th century and was executed as a Protestant martyr under the reign of Henry V. Hence, it has been suggested that Shakespeare originally designed the drama as a puritan satire. Richard Helgerson said that since Falstaff frequently "thrashes pious phrases," it was natural that he would mock the Oldcastle-glorifying portrayal of Puritan historians such as John Fox and John Bale, a point that Kastan shares. From the (presumed) satirical characters of the drama, Gary Taylor concluded that Shakespeare was close to Catholicism. Kastan has expressly contradicted this, because mocking a Lollard martyr is rather an expression of Protestant orthodoxy at a time when the Puritans tried to suppress dissenting religious opinions. Shakespeare wasn't the only author to use Oldcastle material, either. In contrast to the adaptations by Michael Drayton, Anthony Munday and John Weever, Shakespeare drew Oldcastle as a grotesque figure. Much attention has been paid to these grotesque elements of the piece. Falstaff's eccentric character has led some scholars to draw comparisons between Henry IV and the satirical pamphlets of Martin Marprelate . Several authors have pointed out the similarity between Falstaff and Rabelais ' giants. Falstaff's full body and his unreasonable belly were compared not only to Gargantua and Pantagruel , but also related to contemporary festive customs, such as the "roasted ox on a spit, with sausage filling in the stomach" when Hal berated his fatherly friend.

Performance history and cast

Early performances and the late 17th century

Henry Marsh: The Wits (1662)

Before the theater closed in 1642, five performances can be documented. In March 1600, Lord Hunsdon gave a private performance of a play called Sir John Old Castell for the Flemish Ambassador Ludovik Verreyken . We know of this from a letter from Rowland Whyte to Robert Sidney , which is regarded as proof of performance for one of the two parts of Henry IV . At the turn of the year 1612/13, Princess Elizabeth married the Palatine Elector Friedrich . Twenty plays were performed at court in her honor, including a play called The Hotspur . It could have been the first part of Henry IV . At the turn of the year 1624/25 (on "New-Years Night") a play entitled The First Part of Sir John Falstaff was performed in the Palace of Whitehall . Before the theaters close, there are two more reports about the performance of a play called Olde Castell and Ould Castel . The first performance dates from January 6, 1631 at court and the second from May 29, 1638.

After the theater was reopened in 1660, Henry IV was immediately on the program. Three performances are booked for this year alone. Samuel Pepys noted his disappointment because he had read the piece beforehand. In the collection The Wits, or, Sport upon Sport (1662, 1672) there is Falstaff on the title page and in it a swank entitled The Bouncing Knight, or the Robbers Robbed , which parodies the tavern scene in a similarly abbreviated way as Bottom the Weaver does from it Collection that processes the artisan scenes from Mid Summer Night's Dream . From 1682 Thomas Betterton first gave the Hotspur, later Falstaff. He played the role for many years and shortened the play selectively.

18th and 19th centuries

The early peak of enthusiasm for the play in England was between 1700 and 1750. For this period, theater historians have counted 250 productions in London alone. The most famous actors were James Quin and John Henderson . Quin gave the Falstaff over a period of nearly thirty years (1722–1751). He almost completely eliminated the impromptu play in Act II, Scene 4, which many subsequent productions took over until the middle of the 19th century. Henderson's portrayal of Falstaff as captain of a shabby troop of poor recruits was described by a contemporary critic as a "ragamuffin regiment".

Charles Kemble, 1832

Interest in the work decreased in the 19th century. Charles Kemble practiced the historicization fashion typical of the time in Covent Garden in 1824, with elaborate costumes. It wasn't until Samuel Phelps' 300th anniversary performance in Drury Lane received a lot of attention again. Phelps reinserted the impromptu play, which was often deleted in the past, as well as the "Welsh scene" from Act III, 1. Beerbohm Tree's 1896 production at the Haymarket Theater was more faithful to the text than many previous versions. In a resumption in 1914, he adopted the manner of making Hotspur stutter, which had been widespread in Germany since Schlegel.

20th century and present

At the beginning of the twentieth century two developments in theatrical practice began on the English stage that changed the presentation of the work more profoundly than any earlier intervention: on the one hand, the tendency to either perform the historical dramas in cycles or to compile two or more pieces into one , a practice that Dingelstedt had introduced in Germany in 1864. On the other hand, Falstaff's role is pushed back in favor of that of the prince.

In the first decades after World War II, there were three important performances. The 1945 production by John Burrell in the Old Vic with Laurence Olivier as Hotspur and Ralph Richardson as Falstaff was highly praised . In 1951 Richard Burton as Hal and Michael Redgrave as Hotspur were seen in a performance of the complete tetralogy at the Shakespeare Memorial Theater in Stratford. In 1964 Peter Hall directed the second tetralogy ( Heinrich VI, 1-3 and Richard III. ), Which, like Peter Brook's so-called white box production of Midsummer Night's Dream in 1970, was clearly inspired by Jan Kott's historically pessimistic theory of power.

Since the 1970s, the mood of the performances has been increasingly serious, the comedic nature of the work tends to take a back seat. The following performances are given special mention in the literature. In 1975 Terry Hands directed the production of the Royal Shakespeare Company . Michael Bogdanov produced the work for the English Shakespeare Company in 1986 as part of a cycle. Since the 1990s, the Royal Shakespeare Company went public with several productions of the Histories. The drama was directed by Adrian Noble in 1991 and directed by Michael Attenborough in 2000 . In 2008 both tetralogies were listed under the title “Staging History”. Nicholas Hytner performed a recap of both parts of Henrich IV for the National Theater.

Germany

Shakespeare's works were already performed in the form of shortened adaptations by English traveling actors on the continent during his lifetime. The first performance by Henry IV is believed to have taken place at the French court in 1604. In March / April 1631 the English comedians in Dresden performed a play that was also not precisely identified, entitled Vom König in Engelland . The first documented performance of the work on German-speaking stages took place in 1778 by Friedrich Ludwig Schröder at the Hamburg Theater. He shortened both parts of Eschenburg's text for one evening. The performances in Hamburg and Berlin were considered a success, in Vienna the audience and criticism were negative. The liar and drunkard from Heinrich IV. Could not compete with the affable skirt- hunter Chevalier Ranzenhoven, copied in Windsor , whom Josef Bernhard Pelzl had brought to the stage in 1771 under the title Die Lustigen Abenteuer an der Wienn . Schröder's cuts of the two dramas have survived in two versions, they emphasize the role of Prince Harri in particular .

On April 14th and 21st, 1792, the Ducal Liebhabertheater in Weimar gave the play unsuccessfully under the direction of Goethe . Although the performance failed, the Weimar Shakespeare lover remained attached to the play. He wrote two drafts for a comedy, but did not finish them. A few years later, in 1797, Schiller noted the idea of ​​treating the two tetralogies "... for the stage. This could initiate an era." Actors like Ludwig Devrient shaped the theater practice of royal dramas until the middle of the 19th century . In 1864 Franz von Dingelstedt took up Schiller's idea and in fact ushered in an era in the performance practice of the German Shakespeare stage in Weimar with a large-scale performance of both tetralogies. From 1867 to 1912, Henry IV successfully staged both parts on 43 evenings with a pronounced realism of furnishings. In 1912 Max Reinhardt gave the work at the Deutsches Theater in Berlin. His interpretation again aimed more at the comedy. Between 1865 and 1914, theater historians counted an average of three new versions per year. The beginning of antimonarchism in the first half of the 20th century probably contributed to the fact that there were only seven new productions from 1913 to 1927. Saladin Schmitt went against the trend of the time in Bochum when he brought a complete and largely unabridged cycle on stage in 1927. After the Second World War, as in England, the German-speaking theater makers were also heavily influenced by Jan Kott's theory of power, the “Great Mechanism”: “If there were any other motive for playing Shakespeare's royal dramas than dissecting the mechanics of power ? “The production by Peter Palitzsch at the Stuttgart State Theater in 1970 set the first sign. Peter Roggisch gave Prince Heinz a dangerous charm, and revealed the cruel reality of war with uninhibited frenzy on the Shrewsbury battlefield. Luk Perceval then created with battles in 1997 ! a compilation of both tetralogies, for which the "Great Mechanism" gave the keyword, to which Shakespeare's royal dramas were reduced one-dimensionally. Sigrid Löffler summarized the criticism of this reductionism in the formula of a “world as a blood swamp”, in which Shakespeare's “anatomy of power” is completely lost. This is countered by more recent, less radical and more textual works. In 2002, Stefan Pucher conducted a performance in Zurich with Josef Ostendorf as Falstaff, in which the critics particularly praised the careful handling of the text after the translation by Frank Günther . In 2007 Ostendorf played Falstaff in a cut by Heinrich IV and Heinrich V at the Frankfurt State Theater. Peter Kastenmüller compiled the text from the translation by Erich Fried and spiced it up with contemporary youth jargon. For the 2003/04 season, Lukas Bärfuss worked on a new translation that put an end to "philological subtleties and historical types of drink" once and for all. Falstaff drank schnapps .

If you look at the theater practice since Schiller's “remarkable idea”, the résumé is sobering. Today there is one new production of Henry IV on German-speaking stages every year . Part 1 and Part 2 , three quarters of which are collages from several works. Despite all the appreciation of the critics and the British public, the Falstaff from Henry IV., Part 1 and with it Shakespeare's “Epitome of Abundance of Life” (Harold Bloom) is practically not present on German stages. This is explained by the fact that the work lacks political discussion material.

swell

• Stephen Greenblatt, Peter G. Platt (Eds.): Shakespeare's Montaigne. The Florio Translation of the "Essays". A Selection. New York Review Books, New York 2014, ISBN 978-1-59017-722-8 .

Text output

English

• Charlton Hinman, Peter WM Blayney (Ed.): The Norton Facsimile. The First Folio of Shakespeare. Based on the Folios in the Folger Library Collection. 2nd Edition. WW Norton, New York 1996, ISBN 0-393-03985-4 .
• John Jowett, William Montgomery, Gary Taylor, Stanley Wells (Eds.): The Oxford Shakespeare. The Complete Works. 2nd Edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2005, ISBN 0-19-926718-9 .

• David Scott Kastan (Ed.): King Henry IV. Part 1. The Arden Shakespeare. Third Series. Cengage Learning, London 2002, ISBN 1-904271-35-9 .
• David M Bevington (Ed.): Henry IV, Part I. Oxford Shakespeare. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2008, ISBN 978-0-19-953613-9 .
• Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (Ed.): The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, ISBN 978-0-521-68743-0 .
• Jonathan Bate, Eric Rasmussen (Eds.): William Shakespeare: Henry IV. Part I, The RSC Shakespeare. MacMillan, London 2009, ISBN 978-0-230-23213-6 .
• Barbara Mowat, Paul Werstine (Eds.): William Shakespeare: Henry IV, Part 1, Folger Shakespeare Library. Simon & Schuster, New York 1994, ISBN 0-7434-8504-1 .
• Claire McEachern (Ed.): William Shakespeare. The First Part of King Henry the Fourth, The Pelican Shakespeare. Penguin Books, New York 2000, ISBN 0-14-071456-1 .

German

• Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, ISBN 978-3-86057-571-0 .
• Holger Klein (Ed.): William Shakespeare: King Henry IV., Part 1. King Heinrich IV., Part 1. English / German. Reclam, Stuttgart, 2013, ISBN 978-3-15-019048-7 .

literature

Lexicons

• Anthony Davies: Henry IV Part I In: Michael Dobson , Stanley Wells (Eds.): The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2001, ISBN 0-19-280614-9 , pp. 188-192.
• FE Halliday: A Shakespeare Companion 1550–1950. Gerald Duckworth, London 1952.

Overview representations

• James C. Bulman: Henry IV, Parts 1 and 2. In: Michael Hattaway (Ed.): The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare's History Plays. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2002, ISBN 0-521-77539-6 , pp. 158-176.
• Hans-Dieter Gelfert : William Shakespeare in his time. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65919-5 , pp. 249-252.
• Margareta de Grazia, Stanley Wells (Ed.): The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2001, ISBN 0-521-65881-0 .
• Bernhard Klein: King Henry the Fourth, Parts I, II. In: Ina Schabert (Ed.): Shakespeare-Handbuch. Time, man, work, posterity. 5th, revised and supplemented edition. Kröner, Stuttgart 2009, ISBN 978-3-520-38605-2 , pp. 355-364.
• Ulrich Suerbaum : Shakespeare's Dramas. A. Francke, Tübingen / Basel 2001, ISBN 3-8252-1907-0 .
• Stanley Wells, Gary Taylor: William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1987, ISBN 0-393-31667-X , pp. 329-350.

Introductions

• Harold Bloom : Shakespeare. The invention of the human. Berlin, Berlin 2000, ISBN 3-8270-0325-3 , pp. 397-462.
• Anthony D. Cousins: Shakespeare. The Essential Guide to the Plays. Buffalo 2011, ISBN 978-1-55407-928-5 , pp. 50-54.
• Andrew Dickson: The Rough Guide to Shakespeare. 2007, ISBN 978-1-85828-443-9 , pp. 92-101.
• Marjorie Garber : Shakespeare after all. New York 2004, ISBN 0-385-72214-1 , pp. 313-342.
• James N. Loehlin: The Shakespeare Handbooks. Henry IV: Parts I and II. A Guide to the Texts and their theatrical lives. MacMillan, New York 2008, ISBN 978-0-230-01911-9 .
• Ulrich Suerbaum: The Shakespeare Guide. Stuttgart 2006, ISBN 3-15-017663-8 , pp. 271-280.

Monographs

• Cesar Lombardi Barber: Shakespeare's Festive Comedy. Meridian Books, Cleveland 1968, pp. 192-221.
• William Empson: Seven Types of Ambiguity. New Directions, New York 1947, ISBN 978-0-8112-0037-0 .
• Eustace Maudeville Wetenhall Tillyard: The Elizabethan World Picture. Penguin Books, London 1970.
• Eustace Maudeville Wetenhall Tillyard: Shakespeare's history plays. Penguin Books, London 1962, pp. 264-304.
• Steven Earnshaw: The Pub in Literature: England's Altered State . Manchester UP, Manchester 2000.
• Michail Michailowitsch Bachtin : Literature and Carnival: to the romance theory and laughter culture . Carl Hanser Verlag, Regensburg 1969.

Editions

• Jonathan Bate, Eric Rasmussen (Eds.): William Shakespeare: Henry IV. Part I, The RSC Shakespeare. MacMillan, London 2009, ISBN 978-0-230-23213-6 , pp. 1-23, 129-206.
• Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, ISBN 978-3-86057-571-0 , pp. 11-57 and 297-350.
• Holger Klein (Ed.): William Shakespeare: King Henry IV., Part 1. King Heinrich IV., Part 1. English / German. Reclam, Stuttgart, 2013, ISBN 978-3-15-019048-7 , pp. 7-173.
• Barbara Mowat, Paul Werstine (Eds.): William Shakespeare: Henry IV, Part 1, Folger Shakespeare Library. Simon & Schuster, New York 1994, ISBN 0-7434-8504-1 , pp. XIII-LIX, 235-257.
• David Scott Kastan (Ed.): King Henry IV. Part 1. The Arden Shakespeare. Third Series. 2002, ISBN 1-904271-35-9 , pp. 1-132.
• Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (Ed.): The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, ISBN 978-0-521-68743-0 , pp. 1-81.
• Claire McEachern (Ed.): William Shakespeare. The First Part of King Henry the Fourth, The Pelican Shakespeare. Penguin Books, New York 2000, ISBN 0-14-071456-1 , pp. XXIX-XL.

Online text editions

• Arden version at MIT (English)
• Schlegel-Tieck version at Zeno.org
• Quarto 0 1598 in the British Library , Shakespeare in Quartos
• 1st Quarto 1598 in the British Library , Shakespeare in Quartos

supporting documents

1. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 17.
2. ^ Marjorie Garber: Shakespeare after all. New York 2004, pp. 320f.
3. ↑ In different editions there are the variants Richard le Scrope, Richard Scrope or Richard Scroop, depending on which early print edition the publisher is based on. In the four-high edition the spelling Scroop and in some places also Scroope is used; see. on this: Stanley Wells, Gary Taylor: William Shakespeare - A Textual Companion. Norton, New York / London 1997, p. 333. There are also Glendower names for Glyndwr and Bardolph for Bardoll.
4. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, pp. 60–63.
5. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, act I, 1, 55.
6. ^ Katherine A. Craik: Recent stage, film and critical interpretations. In: Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (eds.): The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, pp. 62-79, especially 63.
7. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, pp. 297-299.
8. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, pp. 300-304.
9. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, pp. 304-308.
10. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 308f.
11. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, pp. 309-311.
12. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010. Act II, 3, 20.
13. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010. Act II, 3, 32–59.
14. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010. Act II, 3, 82.
15. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010. Act II, 3, 94: Come here, do you want to see me ride?
16. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 312f.
17. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, pp. 313-320.
18. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, pp. 320–323.
19. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, pp. 323–328.
20. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, pp. 328–331.
21. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, pp. 331–333.
22. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, pp. 333-335.
23. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, pp. 335f.
24. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 254; IV, 4.19: I fear the power of Percy is too weak.
25. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 336f., P. 254; IV, 4 ,: ... he means to visit us.
26. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, pp. 337-340.
27. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 341f.
28. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, pp. 342-344.
29. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, pp. 344-349.
30. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 249f .; V, 5,30f: His values ​​shown upon our crests today Have taught us how to cherish such high deeds Even in the bosom of our adversaries.
31. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 349f.
32. ↑ Ina Schabert (Ed.): Shakespeare Handbook. Kröner, Stuttgart 2009, p. 356.
33. ↑ ^{a b c} Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 20.
34. ↑ Holger Klein (Ed.): William Shakespeare: King Henry IV., Part 1. King Heinrich IV., Part 1. English / German. Reclam, Stuttgart, 2013, p. 11. H. Klein explains that the text resembles a "pieced together short form of two pieces".
35. ↑ Ina Schabert (Ed.): Shakespeare Handbook. Kröner, Stuttgart 2009, p. 356.
36. ↑ See Alfred Ainger: Sir Thomas Elyot (c. 1490–1546). Critical Introduction. In: Henry Craik (Ed.) English Prose. Volume 1. Macmillan, New York 1916, (online) . See also The Boke named the The Gouernour. ( Memento of the original from October 22, 2015 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. In: The Clark Library. Retrieved September 7, 2015. 
37. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 21.
38. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 21.
39. ↑ David Scott Kastan (Ed.): King Henry IV. Part 1. The Arden Shakespeare. Third Series. Cengage Learning, London 2002, p. 106.
40. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 23.
41. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 23f.
42. ^ John Jowett, William Montgomery, Gary Taylor, Stanley Wells (Eds.): The Oxford Shakespeare. The Complete Works. 2nd Edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2005, p. 481.
43. ^ Stanley Wells, Gary Taylor: William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1987, p. 120.
44. ↑ Michael Dobson, Stanley Wells (Ed.): The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2001, p. 188.
45. ↑ David Scott Kastan (Ed.): King Henry IV. Part 1. The Arden Shakespeare. Third Series. Cengage Learning, London 2002, p. 76.
46. ↑ Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (ed.): The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 4.
47. ↑ Ina Schabert (Ed.): Shakespeare Handbook. Kröner, Stuttgart 2009, p. 355.
48. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 23.
49. ↑ Ulrich Suerbaum: The Shakespeare guide. Stuttgart 2006, p. 273.
50. ↑ David Scott Kastan (Ed.): King Henry IV. Part 1. The Arden Shakespeare. Third Series. Cengage Learning, London 2002, pp. 106-108.
51. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 52.
52. ↑ David Scott Kastan (Ed.): William Shakespeare: King Henry IV. Part 1. The Arden Shakespeare. Third Series. Bloomsbury, London 2002, p. 111.
53. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 53.
54. ^ Charlton Hinman, Peter WM Blayney (Ed.): The Norton Facsimile. The First Folio of Shakespeare. Based on the Folios in the Folger Library Collection. 2nd Edition. WW Norton, New York 1996, p. 368.
55. ↑ David Scott Kastan (Ed.): William Shakespeare: King Henry IV. Part 1. The Arden Shakespeare. Third Series. Bloomsbury, London 2002, p. 113. see: Arden edition: 1 Henry IV, 1, 2, 144. Study edition: King Henry IV, Part I, 1.2.126.
56. ↑ David Scott Kastan (Ed.): William Shakespeare: King Henry IV. Part 1. The Arden Shakespeare. Third Series. Bloomsbury, London 2002, p. 115.
57. ↑ David Scott Kastan (Ed.): William Shakespeare: King Henry IV. Part 1. The Arden Shakespeare. Third Series. Bloomsbury, London 2002, p. 349.
58. ↑ David Scott Kastan (Ed.): William Shakespeare: King Henry IV. Part 1. The Arden Shakespeare. Third Series. Bloomsbury, London 2002, p. 351.
59. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 55.
60. ↑ Margarete and Ulrich Suerbaum (eds.): William Shakespeare: The Tempest. The storm. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2004, p. 37.
61. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 56.
62. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 24.
63. ↑ Ulrich Suerbaum: The Shakespeare guide. Reclam, Stuttgart 2006, p. 229.
64. ^ Hans-Dieter Gelfert: William Shakespeare in his time. CH Beck publishing house. Munich 2014, p. 232f.
65. ^ Hans-Dieter Gelfert: William Shakespeare in his time. CH Beck, Munich 2014, p. 232.
66. ^ Hans-Dieter Gelfert: William Shakespeare in his time. CH Beck, Munich 2014, p. 202.
67. ^ Hans-Dieter Gelfert: William Shakespeare in his time. CH Beck, Munich 2014, pp. 206-208 and 218-220.
68. ↑ Ina Schabert (Ed.): Shakespeare Handbook. Kröner, Stuttgart 2009, pp. 328–331.
69. ^ Norbert Greiner, Wolfgang G. Müller (ed.): William Shakespeare: Hamlet. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2008, p. 167; 1.5.188: The time is out of joint; O curs'd spite, That ever I was born to set it right!
70. ^ Frank Günther (Ed.): William Shakespeare: King Lear. Bilingual edition. Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, Munich 2007, p. 48; 1.4.27: No Sir; but you have that in your countenance wich I would fain call master.
71. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 264; V, 1.127-138.
72. ^ Hans-Dieter Gelfert: William Shakespeare in his time. CH Beck, Munich 2014, p. 206f.
73. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 285; V, 4.79-81.
74. ^ Norbert Greiner, Wolfgang G. Müller (ed.): William Shakespeare: Hamlet. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2008, p. 381; V, 1,200: Imperious Cesar, dead and turned to clay.
75. ^ Hans-Dieter Gelfert: William Shakespeare in his time. CH Beck, Munich 2014, p. 202f.
76. ↑ Harold Bloom: Shakespeare. The invention of the human. Berlin Verlag, Berlin 2000, p. 403.
77. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 11.
78. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 11.
79. ↑ James N. Loehlin: The Shakespeare Handbooks. Henry IV: Parts I and II. A Guide to the Texts and their theatrical lives. MacMillan, New York 2008, p. 196.
80. ↑ he is singular in his wit. quoted from: James N. Loehlin: The Shakespeare Handbooks. Henry IV: Parts I and II. A Guide to the Texts and their theatrical lives. MacMillan, New York 2008, p. 196.
81. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 12. see: John Jowett, William Montgomery, Gary Taylor, Stanley Wells (eds.): The Oxford Shakespeare. The Complete Works. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2005, p. 541; 2 Henry IV.1,2.9-10: I am not only witty in myself, but also the cause that wit is in other men.
82. ↑ (Falstaff) is thrown out of favor as being a rake, and dies like a rat behind the hangings . quoted from: James N. Loehlin: The Shakespeare Handbooks. Henry IV: Parts I and II. A Guide to the Texts and their theatrical lives. MacMillan, New York 2008, p. 197.
83. ↑ Does he fall like a coward? No, like a buffon only ... or: cowardly in appearance and brave in reality. quoted from: James N. Loehlin: The Shakespeare Handbooks. Henry IV: Parts I and II. A Guide to the Texts and their theatrical lives. MacMillan, New York 2008, pp. 197f.
84. ↑ ... no man is more dangerous than he that with a will to corrupt, hath the power to please. quoted from: James N. Loehlin: The Shakespeare Handbooks. Henry IV: Parts I and II. A Guide to the Texts and their theatrical lives. MacMillan, New York 2008, p. 198.
85. ↑ complete moral depravity, but with first-rate wit and talents. quoted from: James N. Loehlin: The Shakespeare Handbooks. Henry IV: Parts I and II. A Guide to the Texts and their theatrical lives. MacMillan, New York 2008, p. 199.
86. ↑ "He is represented as a liar, a braggart, a coward, a glutton etc. and yet we are not offended but delighted with him." Quoted from: Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (ed.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 39.
87. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 13.
88. ↑ "He overshot his mark"
89. ↑ "he had no right to talk all a sudden like a clergymen."
90. ↑ "... [cause] a good deal of pain and some resentment."
91. ↑ "It is preposterous to suppose, that a man of Falstaffs intelligence would utter these gross, palpable, open lies with the serious intent to deceive". All quotations from: James N. Loehlin: The Shakespeare Handbooks. Henry IV: Parts I and II. A Guide to the Texts and their theatrical lives. MacMillan, New York 2008, pp. 200f.
92. ↑ Falstaff's “freedom of soul” ... was illusory only in part, and attainable only by a mind wich had received from Shakespeare's own the inexplicable touch of infinity, wich he bestowed on Hamlet and MacBeth and Cleopatra, but denied to Henry the Fifth . Quoted from: Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (ed.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 40.
93. ↑ James N. Loehlin: The Shakespeare Handbooks. Henry IV: Parts I and II. A Guide to the Texts and their theatrical lives. MacMillan, New York 2008, p. 201.
94. ↑ James N. Loehlin: The Shakespeare Handbooks. Henry IV: Parts I and II. A Guide to the Texts and their theatrical lives. MacMillan, New York 2008, pp. 202f.
95. ^ Mervyn Jones: Society, Politics and Culture: Studies in Early Modern England. 1986, pp. 416-465. quoted from: Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (eds.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 30.
96. ↑ Holinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland. 6 vols. 1587, 1808 Edn., Reprinted 1965, pp. 23, 37. Quoted from: Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (Ed.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 30.
97. ↑ Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (ed.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 31.
98. ↑ Michel de Montaigne: Complete Works. engl. Translation by Donald M. Frame, 1958, pp. 135-144, 195. Quoted from: Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (eds.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, pp. 30-37. Stephen Greenblatt, Peter G. Platt (Eds.): Shakespeare's Montaigne. The Florio Translation of the “Essays”. A Selection. New York Review Books, New York 2014, p. 50 (Of Friendship): each man doth so wholly give himself unto his friend that he hath nothing left him to divide elsewhere.
99. ^ Frank Günther (ed.): William Shakespeare: The merchant of Venice. Bilingual edition. Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, Munich 2011, pp. 209–211.
100. ↑ Martin White: The Shakespeare Handbooks. A Midsummer Night's Dream. A Guide to the Text and the Play in Performance. MacMillan, New York 2009, p. 145: So we grew together, like to a double cherry MND III, 2, 208f.
101. ^ Report me and my cause aright to the unsatisfied. Hamlet V, 2,342f.
102. ↑ Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (ed.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 32.
103. ↑ Barbara Everett: The Fatness of Falstaff. Shakespeare and character. Proceedings of the British Academy 76 (1991) p. 109. Quoted from: Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (Ed.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 33.
104. ↑ Lewis Hyde: The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property. (1983).
105. ↑ Ronald A. Sharp: Friendship an Literature. Spirit and Form. 1986, pp. 84-88, 93. Quoted from: Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (ed.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 33.
106. ^ Jonas A. Barish: The Antitheatralical Prejudice. 1981. Quoted from: Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (ed.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 34.
107. ^ Robert Weimann: Shakespeare and the popular Tradition in the Theater: Studies in the social Dimensions of Dramatic Form and Function. 1978. Quoted from: Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (eds.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 34.
108. ↑ Hardin Craig : Morality Plays and Elizabethan Drama Shakespeare Quarterly 1 (2): 71 (1950). Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (Ed.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 35.
109. ^ Francois Laroque: Shakespeare's Festive World: Elizabethean Seasonal Entertainment and the Professional Stage. 1993, pp. 96-104. Michael D. Bristol: Carnival and Theater: Plebeian Culture and the Structure of Authority in renaissance England. 1985, pp. 204-207. quoted from: Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (eds.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 35.
110. ↑ Steven Earnshaw: The pub in literature: England's altered state , Manchester University Press, Manchester 2000, p. 61.
111. ↑ Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin: Literature and Carnival: to the romance theory and laughter culture. Carl Hanser Verlag, Regensburg 1969, p. 48.
112. ↑ Jane Kingsley-Smith: Niccolo Machiavelli. In: Michael Dobson, Stanley Wells (Eds.): The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2001, p. 270.
113. ^ David Read: Losing the map: topographical understanding in the Henriad. In: Modern Philology. 94 (1996/7), 475-95, especially 494f. Quoted from: Katherine A. Craik: Recent stage, film and critical interpretations. In: Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (eds.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 62.
114. ↑ Anthony Davies: Henry V. In: Michael Dobson, Stanley Wells (ed.): The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2001, p. 198.
115. ^ Katherine A. Craik: Recent stage, film and critical interpretations. In: Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (eds.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 62.
116. ^ Marjorie Garber: Shakespeare after all. Anchor Books, New York 2004, p. 318.
117. ↑ Harold Bloom: Shakespeare. The invention of the human. Berlin Verlag, Berlin 2000, p. 373.
118. ↑ Falstaff to Prince Hal: "You are heir to the throne, could the world choose again three such enemies for you as this Satan Douglas, this monster Percy and this devil Glyndwr?" Quoted from: Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, act II, 4, 309-312, p. 164f.
119. ↑ Richard II. Act II, 1, 31-66.
120. ^ Katherine A. Craik: Recent stage, film and critical interpretations. In: Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (eds.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 63.
121. ↑ Christopher Highly: Wales, Ireland and 1Henry IV. In: Renaissance Drama, n, pp. 21 (1990), 91-114 (93). Quoted from K. Craik, p. 63.
122. ^ AJ Hoenselaars: Shakespeare and the early modern history play. In: Michael Hattaway (Ed.): The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare's History Plays. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2002, pp. 25-40 (25).
123. ^ Katherine A. Craik: Recent stage, film and critical interpretations. In: Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (eds.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, pp. 64f.
124. ↑ Michael Hattaway: The Shakespearean History Play. In: Michael Hattaway (Ed.): The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare's History Plays. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2002, pp. 3-24 (18f).
125. ^ AJ Hoenselaars: Shakespeare and the early modern history play. In: Michael Hattaway (Ed.): The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare's History Plays. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2002, pp. 25-40 (28).
126. ↑ Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (ed.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 20.
127. ^ EMW: Tillyard: Shakespeare's History Plays. 1944, p. 321. Quoted from: Michael Hattaway: The Shakespearean History Play. In: Michael Hattaway (Ed.): The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare's History Plays. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2002, pp. 3-24. (20)
128. ↑ Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (ed.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 21.
129. ↑ Michael Hattaway: The Shakespearean History Play. In: Michael Hattaway (Ed.): The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare's History Plays. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2002, pp. 3-24. (20)
130. ^ Marjorie Garber: Shakespeare after all. New York 2004, Henry IV Part 1, pp. 313-342, (318). Paul Dean: Forms of time: some Elizabethean two-part history plays. Renaissance Studies, 4-4 (1990) pp 410-30 (410). Quoted from: Katherine A. Craik: Recent stage, film and critical interpretations. In: Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (eds.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 64.
131. ^ Katherine A. Craik: Recent stage, film and critical interpretations. In: Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (eds.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 65.
132. ^ "The historical world never takes on the illusion of full presence. The double plot (dh: Staatshandlung und komische parallelhandlung) in the Henry IV plays, in fact, can be seen as a kind of allegory of mediation, representing in dramatic structure the split between the historical past that is represented and the theatrical mediation required to make it present. " Phyllis Rackin: Stages of History. Pp. 138, 139 and 238. Quoted from: Katherine A. Craik: Recent stage, film and critical interpretations. In: Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (eds.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 65.
133. ↑ Dominique Goy-Blanquet: Elizabethan historiography and Shakespeare's sources. In: Michael Hattaway (Ed.): The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare's History Plays. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2002, pp. 57-70, (61).
134. ↑ Lily B. Campbell: Shakespeare's Histories: Mirrors of Elizabethean Policy. San Marino 1947, pp. 168-193. Quoted from: Dominique Goy-Blanquet: Elizabethan historiography and Shakespeare's sources. In: Michael Hattaway (Ed.): The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare's History Plays. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2002, p. 61.
135. ↑ James C. Bulman: Henry IV, Parts 1 and 2. In: Michael Hattaway (Ed.): The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare's History Plays. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2002, pp. 158-176, (165).
136. ^ Reginald A. Foakes: Shakespeare and Violence. P. 9. Quoted from: Katherine A. Craik: Recent stage, film and critical interpretations. In: Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (eds.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, pp. 65-68, (65).
137. ↑ Stephen Greenblatt: Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in Renaissance England. 1988. [1]
138. ↑ Stephen Greenblatt: Invisible Bullets . [2]
139. ↑ Tom McAlindon: Testing the new historicism: "Invisible Bullets" reconsidered. In: Sudies in Philology, 92 (1995), pp. 411-438 (412f). quoted from: Katherine A. Craik: Recent stage, film and critical interpretations. In: Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (eds.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, pp. 65f.
140. ^ David Scott Kastan: Shakespeare after Theory. 1999, pp. 129 and 133. Quoted from: Katherine A. Craik: Recent stage, film and critical interpretations. In: Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (eds.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 66.
141. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010. Act I, 2, 22f.
142. ^ Understanding the Politics of the Play. In: David Scott Kastan (ed.): King Henry IV. Part 1. The Arden Shakespeare. Third Series. Cengage Learning, London 2002, pp. 33–43, (35, 43)
143. ^ William Empson: Seven Types of Ambiguity. New Directions, New York 1947, pp. 102-133.
144. ↑ Richard Helgerson: Forms of Nationhood: The Elizabethan Writing of England. 1994, pp. 234, 245. Quoted from: Katherine A. Craik: Recent stage, film and critical interpretations. In: Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (eds.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 66.
145. ^ Howard Erskine-Hill: Poetry and the Realm of Politics: Shakespeare to Dryden. 1996, p. 80. Quoted from: Katherine A. Craik: Recent stage, film and critical interpretations. In: Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (eds.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 67.
146. ^ Charles Whitney: Festivity and topicality in the Conventry scene of 1 Henry IV. English Literary Renaissance, 24, 1996, 410-448, (418f). Quoted from: Katherine A. Craik: Recent stage, film and critical interpretations. In: Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (eds.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 68.
147. ^ Katherine A. Craik: Recent stage, film and critical interpretations. In: Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (eds.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 68.
148. ↑ Harold Bloom: Shakespeare. The invention of the human. Berlin Verlag, Berlin 2000, p. 462.
149. ↑ Maurice Morgann: An essay on the dramatic character of Sir John Falstaff. (1777), reprinted in: GK Hunter (Ed.): King Henry IV Parts 1 & 2: A Casebook. (1970), pp. 25-55. Quoted from: Katherine A. Craik: Recent stage, film and critical interpretations. In: Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (eds.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 68.
150. ^ Hugh Grady: Falstaff: subjectivity between carnival and the aesthetic. Modern Language Review, 96 (2001), pp. 609-623, (609). Quoted from: Katherine A. Craik: Recent stage, film and critical interpretations. In: Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (eds.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, pp. 68f.
151. ↑ Barbara Everett: The Fatness of Falstaff: Shakespeare and character. Proceedings of the British Academy, 76 (1991), pp. 109-128, (124). Quoted from: Katherine A. Craik: Recent stage, film and critical interpretations. In: Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (eds.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 68.
152. ↑ Harold Bloom: Shakespeare. The invention of the human. Berlin Verlag, Berlin 2000, p. 25.
153. ↑ Harold Bloom: Shakespeare. The invention of the human. Berlin Verlag, Berlin 2000, p. 397.
154. ^ Katherine A. Craik: Recent stage, film and critical interpretations. In: Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (eds.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, pp. 69f.
155. ^ Katherine A. Craik: Recent stage, film and critical interpretations. In: Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (eds.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 70.
156. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, pp. 170f, II, 4,383f: "... that roasted Manningtree ox with the pudding in his belly." Manningtree is a town in Essex that was known for its cattle markets.
157. ↑ David Scott Kastan (Ed.): William Shakespeare: King Henry IV. Part 1. The Arden Shakespeare. Third Series. Bloomsbury, London 2002, p. 79. Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (Eds.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 43.
158. ↑ David Scott Kastan (Ed.): William Shakespeare: King Henry IV. Part 1. The Arden Shakespeare. Third Series. Bloomsbury, London 2002, p. 43. Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (Eds.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, pp. 79f.
159. ↑ David Scott Kastan (Ed.): William Shakespeare: King Henry IV. Part 1. The Arden Shakespeare. Third Series. Bloomsbury, London 2002, p. 80. Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (Eds.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 43.
160. ↑ David Scott Kastan (Ed.): William Shakespeare: King Henry IV. Part 1. The Arden Shakespeare. Third Series. Bloomsbury, London 2002, p. 80.
161. ↑ my expectation beeing too great. quoted from: Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (eds.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 43.
162. ^ THE WITS, OR, SPORT upon SPORT.
163. ↑ Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (ed.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, p. 44.
164. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 37.
165. ↑ "ragamuffin" = rag and womanizer. Herbert Weil, Judith Weil (Ed.): William Shakespeare: The First Part of King Henry IV. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007, pp. 44f.
166. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 38.
167. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 38.
168. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 38f.
169. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 40f.
170. ^ The court doctor of King Ludwig XIII. reports that the Dauphin imitated the fencing skills of the actors on the occasion of a visit to Fontainebleau with the words Tiph, toph, milord . This is considered a reminiscence of 2 Henry IV, II, 1.187f. viewed. Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 42.
171. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 42, footnote 87.
172. ^ Google digitized version . On Pelzl cf. Isabel Kunz: Inkle and Yariko. The Noble Wilde on the German-speaking stages of the late 18th century. Dissertation, University of Munich, 2007 (PDF) .
173. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 43.
174. ↑ He preferred to occupy himself with the theory of colors, he by no means regretted working on it, “although I put half a life into it. I might have written half a dozen more tragedies, that's all, and enough people will find me for that. ”Quoted from Albrecht Schöne: Goethe's Theology of Color. CH Beck, Munich 1987, p. 8.
175. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 44.
176. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, pp. 44–46.
177. ↑ Jan Kott: Shakespeare today. 3. Edition. Alexander, Berlin 2013, p. 64.
178. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 47.
179. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 47.
180. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 48f.
181. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 49f.
182. ↑ Wilfrid Braun (Ed.): King Henry IV, Part I. King Heinrich IV., Part I. English-German study edition. Stauffenberg, Tübingen 2010, p. 51f.