CRITICISM

Barish, Jonas A. “The Turning Away of Prince Hal.” In Twentieth Century Interpretations of Henry IV, Part One: A Collection of Critical Essays, edited by R. J. Dorius, pp. 83-88. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1970.

Maintains that Hal prepares himself to be a ruler in Henry IV “by scrapping part of his humanity,” which is represented by his uncompassionate rejection of the comic folly and excess of Falstaff.

Bevington, David. Introduction to The Oxford Shakespeare: Henry IV, Part I, edited by David Bevington, pp. 1-110. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.

Surveys the historical sources, structure, stage history, major themes, and characters of Henry IV, Part 1.

Bisset, Norman. “The Historical Pattern from Richard II to Henry V: Shakespeare's Analysis of Kingship.” In En Torno a Shakespeare: Homenaje a T. J. B. Spencer, edited by Manuel Angel Conejero, pp. 209-39. Valencia: Instituto Shakespeare, Universidad de Valencia, 1980.

Interprets Henry IV, Parts 1 and 2 in conjunction with Richard II and Henry V, contending that these historical dramas demonstrate a unified examination of the theme of kingship.

Davis, Hugh H. “‘Shakespeare, He's in the Alley’: My Own Private Idaho and Shakespeare in the Streets.” Literature/Film Quarterly 29, no. 2 (2001): 116-21.

Appraises Gus Van Sant's 1991 film My Own Private Idaho as an adaptation of the Henriad set amid the world of street hustlers in contemporary America.

Dobson, Michael. “Falstaff After John Bull: Shakespearean History, Britishness, and the Former United Kingdom.” Shakespeare-Jahrbuch 136 (2000): 40-55.

Considers distinctions between British national identity and the historical ideas present in the Henry IV plays and other Shakespearean dramas featuring the figure of Falstaff.

Dutton, Richard. “Shakespeare and Lancaster.” Shakespeare Quarterly 49, no. 1 (spring 1998): 1-21.

Traces cultural data related to the house of Lancaster in Shakespeare's historical dramas, and briefly studies the theme of succession in relation to Henry IV, Parts 1 and 2 and the other plays of Shakespeare's second tetralogy.

Empson, William. “Falstaff and Mr. Dover Wilson.” Kenyon Review XV, no. 2 (spring 1953): 213-62.

Offers observations on Shakespeare's use and possible misuse of Falstaff, while defending Hal's rejection of Sir John in view of the overall thematic movement of the Henriad.

Evans, Gareth Lloyd. “The Comical-Tragical-Historical Method—Henry IV.” In Studies in Drama, edited by Ghassan Maleh and Yasser Daghistani, pp. 67-94. Beirut: Dar Al Fikr, 1972.

Contends that Prince Hal is the focus of the Henry IV plays, and comments on the interplay of comic, tragic, and historical elements in the dramas.

Hodgdon, Barbara, ed. The First Part of King Henry the Fourth: Texts and Contexts. Boston: Bedford Books, 1997, 419 p.

Endeavors to place Henry IV, Part I within the cultural context of late sixteenth-century England by reprinting excerpts of relevant primary texts, such as selections from political treatises and a conduct book on marriage, alongside Shakespeare's play.

Leggatt, Alexander. “Henry IV.” In Shakespeare's Political Drama: The History Plays and the Roman Plays, pp. 77-113. London: Routledge, 1988.

Overview of Henry IV with special emphasis on the motifs of appearance, time, and comedy within Shakespearean historical drama.

Levine, Nina. “Extending Credit in the Henry IV Plays.” Shakespeare Quarterly 51, no. 4 (winter 2000): 403-31.

Studies the economic metaphors of the Henry IV plays in terms of an early modern view of monetary exchange and social value.

Prior, Moody E. “Comic Theory and the Rejection of Falstaff.” In Modern Critical Interpretations: William Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 2, edited by Harold Bloom, pp. 57-69. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1987.

Presents a theoretical study of Falstaff's comic nature, and contends that Prince Hal's rejection of the tavern knight represents the “triumph of the embodiment of power over the embodiment of the free spirit of comedy.”

Siegel, Paul N. “Falstaff and His Social Milieu.” In Weapons of Criticism: Marxism in America and the Literary Tradition, edited by Norman Rudich, pp. 163-72. Palo Alto, Calif.: Ramparts Press, 1976.

Marxist interpretation of Falstaff that sees the comic tavern knight as a “degenerate descendant of the feudal gentry.”

Sprague, Arthur Colby. “Gadshill Revisited.” In Henry the Fourth Parts I and II: Critical Essays, edited by David Bevington, pp. 187-205. New York: Garland Publishing, 1986.

Considers the question of whether Falstaff is a comic coward or a clever dissembler in Henry IV.

Womersley, David. “Why is Falstaff Fat?” Review of English Studies 47, no. 185 (February 1996): 1-22.

Discusses the historiographical and theological contexts in which Falstaff should be properly understood.

Wood, Nigel, ed. Henry IV, Parts One and Two. Buckingham: Open University Press, 1995, 193 p.

Collection of essays that apply contemporary critical theory—ranging from Marxist-historicism to the theories of Foucault and Bakhtin—to the Henry IV plays.