|Henry IV, Part i - study guide|
This study guide is intended for students taking exams at GCE Advanced (A2) and Advanced Supplementary (AS) level in the UK, but is suitable for university students and the general reader who is interested in Shakespeare's plays. Please use the hyperlinks in the table above to navigate this page. If you have any comments or suggestions to make about this page, please contact me by clicking on this link.
Preparing to study
This guide is written to support your study of Henry IV, Part i. The guide indicates the terms in which examiners will expect you to understand the play. It should be used in conjunction with study of Henry IV, Part i in performance, as far as possible, and of the text in one or more editions designed for study at your level.
What other resources should you use? This depends on your own aptitude and readiness for study. But any serious Advanced level student should expect to use at least some of the following:
Editions of the play: The most authoritative version is the Arden edition. Most students will find this challenging, although the introduction is well worth reading. The New Cambridge edition is good (but uses archaic spelling of names) while sound editions are published by Penguin and Macmillan.
Critical works and background sources: For critical writing about the play, you should use the Casebook anthology (Macmillan): read the introduction, and study essays selectively. At a more basic level the guides from Brodie's Notes (Pan) and York Notes (Longman) may help you. For general background information about Shakespeare, Ms. Marchette Chute's Shakespeare and his Stage (University of London, 1953) is hard to beat. Falstaff (who also appears in Henry IV, Part ii and The Merry Wives of Windsor) is the subject of a work of scholarship which is as entertaining as it is instructive, John Dover Wilson's The Fortunes of Falstaff (Cambridge, 1943).
Literature reference:Useful handbooks for the general study of English literature include The Cambridge Guide to English Literature and The Oxford Guide to English Literature, J. A. Cuddon's Dictionary of Literary Terms (Penguin, 1982) and Richard Gill's Mastering English Literature (Macmillan, 1985).
Use these books effectively: do not try to read them for extended periods like a story (unless you have unusual intellectual powers!) Study for short periods, then write down simple statements of what you want to remember, or questions to raise in class discussion.
Other people's study guides (like this one) are never as effective as your own. You may wish to use any or all of the following ways of owning your study of this play:
Tragedy, comedy and history
As a term to describe a category (kind) of play, tragedy (which means "goat song" in classical Greek!) originates in Athens in ancient times. Aristotle (a philosopher and scientist, but no playwright) describes rules or principles for the drama which tragedians should follow. These rules have proved helpful as a working description, but should not be seen as absolute: Shakespeare, in practice, ignores them more or less. Comedy is a term applied to the humorous plays of Greek (e.g. Aristophanes) and later Roman (e.g. Terence) dramatists. For Shakespeare, a comedy is a play with a happy ending - it may or may not be comical in the modern sense of being humorous.
In trying to arrange Shakespeare's work into categories (as for publication in book form) editors have produced a third category, of histories. More recently critics have noted that Shakespeare's latest plays do not fit any of these categories easily. Thus we have problem plays (or tragi-comedies) in Measure for Measure and All's Well that Ends Well and pastoral plays or romances in Pericles, Cymbeline, The Winter's Tale and The Tempest.
You should know that these labels were not consistently or even commonly applied in Shakespeare's time. Plays classed as tragedies (such as Macbeth) may have a clearly historical subject. Many of our histories were advertised as tragedies at the time of their performance. This has led to pointless arguments, as to whether Shakespeare wrote Richard II or Richard III as history or tragedy: the dispute implies a distinction which may not have existed for the writer. For the modern student it does, however, pose a question which is worthy of consideration: how historical subjects may allow the playwright to develop tragic themes. When our play appeared in print (in 1598) the title page read: The HISTORIE 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 John Falstaff.
Shakespeare as historian
The modern student has better access to detailed and accurate accounts of the events depicted in the history plays than Shakespeare did. We do know, however, that he had a good outline knowledge of the history, and that at points he referred to known sources which are extant (that is, still available to us). Most school editions of the plays will list these. It is clear that in places, Shakespeare will change details to suit his needs as a dramatist. There is a good example of this in Richard II and the Henry IV plays: as he wishes to present Prince Hal (later Henry V) and Henry "Hotspur" Percy as rivals for power in the realm, Shakespeare depicts them as of the same age; in fact, Percy was a contemporary of Henry IV, old enough to be Hal's father. In these same plays, we meet a character called Mortimer (after Richard's death, Henry IV's rival claimant to the throne): two (related) "historical" Mortimers have been conflated (made into one) to suit the purposes of the drama. There is a genuine question for scholars in how far the change was knowingly made, but it seems Shakespeare will not let the facts get in the way of a good story!
Shakespeare's view of history
The dramatic form enables Shakespeare to present characters who voice all kinds of opinions, from which we may, if we wish, attempt to infer the playwright's own view. Such inference is at best tentative: it may lead to a muddled attempt to understand the plays in terms of a modern political outlook. Thus, individualists like Richard II or Hotspur (Harry Percy) are seen as "dashing" and "romantic" (in 19th or 20th century terms) while the pragmatic Henry Bolingbroke (Henry IV) is seen as devious and dishonest: almost certainly these are judgements which would not have occurred to Shakespeare or his audience.
Shakespeare writes at a time when a period of peace at home has created the very conditions in England which have allowed the professional theatre to emerge and flourish, but where this peace is threatened by the ageing queen Elizabeth's lack of an heir. There is no doubt that his plays (history, comedy and tragedy) all reflect a horror of anarchy and a preoccupation with finding a balance between toleration of harmless pleasure and restraint of harmful lawlessness. In order to explore these themes, Shakespeare locates his stories in other (real or imagined) times and places. In referring to his own times (as at the end of Richard III and the very late history Henry VIII) he is careful to praise the Tudors generally and Elizabeth particularly, as he also does by implication in A Midsummer Night's Dream in the figure of the childless Titania.
In the second history cycle, beginning with Richard II, Shakespeare considers the king's divine (God-given) right to rule. Though given by God, this right may be forfeited by the king's failure to exercise it (this is Richard's fault). Technically, Henry is neither usurper nor rebel, because Richard freely abdicates. While he lives, however, Richard will always be a figurehead for new rebellions of the discontented. Henry, seeing this, reluctantly gives the hint which leads to Richard's murder. This is the murder of a man only (he is no longer king) yet the murderer receives not thanks but banishment from the kingdom, on pain of death: Henry's genuine grief at Richard's killing is something most modern audiences find difficult.
In the two parts of Henry IV, we see how Henry, though his claim to the throne is weaker (on paper) than that of his rival, Mortimer, proves his right to rule by uniting the country, resisting many attempted revolts and providing a model heir, in his son, Hal. Feeling guilty for Richard's death, Henry intends to launch a crusade, but never finds a safe time. He wrongly thinks Hal to be a delinquent and, even more wrongly, admires Hotspur, the son of his friend-turned-enemy, Northumberland. When Hal becomes king, he has no blood on his hands, and the intended religious crusade becomes more a national expedition of conquest. Henry V is a celebration of Hal's almost legendary exploits in France, culminating in the great reversal of the odds at Agincourt.
Different kinds of exam question
In preparing for the exam you should be aware of the different kinds of question you will have to answer. In studying the text closely you should simply realise that the material studied can be approached in different ways in the exam. Does this seem confusing? The point is to understand how to use what is more or less the same set of ideas and references, to present different kinds of answer in different forms.
In theory any scene in the play could be chosen; in practice the number of suitable scenes is more limited, but usually the extract chosen will only be a brief part of a much longer scene.
The scenes of Henry IV, part i are listed below with an indication as to their suitability for selection on this question:
Key scenes rated on a five-star scale
Because of the part of the question (usually) which refers to the themes of the play (not necessarily in so many words) and which implies consideration of before and after, scenes from the middle of the text are more likely to be chosen.
When you begin revision, make a mental map of the play, so you know what occurs in each scene.
How to answer context questions
What the examiners do NOT want is a gloss (prose paraphrase) of the extract given. This might make you feel secure, but you won't be. What (usually) is required is as follows:
A map of the play
List the scenes down the page. After the scene number write no more than ten words about what happens. Follow this with the central phrase of a notable speech. e.g.
These are only suggestions. Choose a speech which is a clue to you.
The structure of the play in acts
This is not rigid or mechanical, but there is a fairly simple scheme one can see, whereby the fortunes of the rebels rise and fall, and the opposite occurs for the King's side.
You also should be aware of the relationship between public/ceremonial and private/intimate scenes or episodes, and of the connection between the serious, political episodes and the comic elements - both of which address the play's central themes of rule and misrule.
Finally it is worth making a plan of each act, identifying episodes/speeches in which the principal themes are addressed.
None of this is a guarantee of success in the exam. It is essential preparation, to give you the material you need to succeed.
These should be more straightforward. The examiners want to see lots of material but without irrelevance or sacrifice of depth and thoroughness. Sometimes, essays produced in trial examinations are too narrow in approach. It is essential to plan your essay to ensure that sufficient range of comment appears. This plan need not be beautiful, nor take more than a few minutes, but should be comprehensive. Embody the plan in your opening sentence(s). Here is an example:
Shakespeare presents Hal as a model heir by contrasting him with others (his father, Falstaff and, above all, Hotspur) and by disclosing his intentions early in the play and at various points thereafter. By these means, Hal's integrity (his ideal of "honour"), diplomacy and readiness to subordinate his youthful love of fun to his deeper belief in firm but fair rule are all revealed ...
This would be followed by detailed consideration of Hal in relation to the other characters named - in terms of such things as those identified in the second sentence (diplomacy, idea of honour, sense of purpose, belief in firm government, and so on). A suitable ending (supposing one were writing an essay about the presentation of Hal) would be to quote Vernon's statement that England did never owe so sweet a hope, so much misconstrued (as Hal) as an articulation of what has been displayed on stage.
While (given such a subject) you might briefly, at some point, show how the idea of Hal's rehabilitation runs through the play (notably in I,ii; II,iv; III,ii; in Vernon's speeches and on the field of Shrewsbury in Acts IV and V), you should not let the structure of the play be that of your essay. An essay which begins with the King's comments in I,i and ends with the death of Hotspur, by way of assorted and random comments is not a good idea. If you try it, you will write too much about one scene (I,ii) and little about the second half of the play.
Obviously you must answer the question as set, but you should be aware that, in doing so, you can introduce a wide range of material. An essay on Hal requires you to write about Hotspur, too; the converse is also true, while an essay on the King or Falstaff will involve comment on Hal, also.
This is a very organic, tightly-written play - for this reason character and theme are closely linked. This should help you, as essentially the same body of ideas and the same range of textual evidence can be used in addressing almost any question. However, it is worth having (not a prepared essay - which examiners hate) but a stock of ideas or headings in relation to a given character or theme, to save planning time.
Long quotation in support of comment is never a good idea - lots of brief and selective quotation is good. (And everyone else will doubtless quote the whole of Hal's soliloquy in I,ii - so just use the bits of it you need, or discuss Hal's image of himself as the sun, if appropriate. The critical lines, in showing Hal's purpose are simply: ... like bright metal on a sullen ground...My reformation ...Shall show more goodly ...Than that which hath no foil to set it off.
Note: Although students are required to refer to plays in detail, few exam syllabuses explicitly require extended direct quotation - it is perfectly acceptable to use indirect forms (In Act III, scene iii Hal reassures his father that he will prove his loyalty when he meets Percy in battle...)
Possible essay subjects
The examiners will play fair and certainly won't set an essay on the Second Carrier. Essays explicitly about a single character are comparatively rare at Advanced (A2) or Advanced Supplementary (AS) level (as they invite the prepared essay). Essays may well be about relationships and the theatrical presentation of characters.
In this play, a question about Hal must be expected. Questions about Hotspur, Falstaff and the King are also possible. Anyone else is most unlikely (only Worcester and Westmoreland are in enough scenes, and they are very long shots). Because of relationships and points of comparison, the same body of information can be used for all of these four.
Questions on themes look harder but aren't, usually. And they inhibit the retelling-with-comment method you should avoid. In this play, there are two recurrent ideas especially which may be the subject of a question. These are rule and honour. However, it is not likely that the question will be simply expressed.
Questions about rule may appear as questions (or statements to which you respond) about order/disorder, anarchy, kingship or government. You may be asked in what sense the play is a history play (how does Shakespeare interpret history to present a debate on ideas of kingship) or how Shakespeare depicts political realities. Any order/disorder question is really a question about the views of Hal, his father (Westmoreland and Blunt) as against those of the rebels, chiefly Hotspur (but note Worcester, too) and, in a quite different sense, about Hal's rejection of Falstaff's anarchic tendencies.
Questions about honour are narrower and are really about the ideas of Hal and Hotspur, with Falstaff's cynical comments as a point of reference. The King's ideas about Hotspur (as against Worcester's) and Vernon's comments on Hal, with Hal's praise of his defeated foe will require comment. Because the focus is narrower, close knowledge of text will be important here. You should really, therefore, have a checklist of references to honour in the text. But note also that honour can be displayed in conduct and speech - we will not find Hal using the term often, but his ideal of chivalry is not in doubt. Don't look only for honour and its derivatives: look also for synonymous terms: chivalry or nobility, for instance.
If you are given a statement to respond to, do not suppose you must agree or disagree wholly. Usually, the statement will be more or less fair but will invite some qualification. Wholly wrong comments are never used. Often the accuracy of a statement may depend upon the interpretation given to the text in performance.
Questions about history plays
It is possible that examiners will ask you in what sense this play is a History Play. Even if they do not, you should be aware of this idea, especially in writing about kingship and order, as addressed by the play.
Shakespeare is concerned generally, in the whole series of history plays, to justify the succession: to show how, in spite of human weakness and evil, the eventual accession of Elizabeth has divine approval. In the series of plays from Richard II to Henry V, we are shown how Richard, divinely-appointed, forfeits his throne by failure to rule well; how Northumberland (an advocate of power-politics) favours rebellion, while Henry Bolingbroke reluctantly acceptsthe throne which Richard clearly abdicates in his favour: the murder of Richard is an evil, but he is no longer king, so the greater offence of regicide is averted.
Because his accession is tainted with Richard's blood, Henry fears divine retribution. Shakespeare shows how Henry's action is a necessary evil in a desperate time. His son, who is wholly innocent of Richard's death, can thus be an exemplary monarch, and Shakespeare shows how he overcomes the weakness of his father's position and the danger, as heir-apparent, of showing his hand too clearly, to become the model king and national hero, long celebrated for his astonishing victory at Agincourt. From the dramatic point of view, the most interesting stage of this progress is that depicted in Henry IV, Part i. In considering our play as a history play, there are various elements which a competent essay should contain.
First, there is the weakness (real but exaggerated by himself) of the King's position; second, there is the presentation of Hal throughout the play as a model heir; third, there is the scheming of the rebels, especially Hotspur, whom Shakespeare shows to be neither deserving of power nor competent to exercise it; finally, the comic scenes, especially in the criminal activity of Falstaff and Gadshill, show how the weakness of the King's position gives licence to petty criminals, which, in turn, causes popular discontent. (And explains the comments about Robin Ostler, in II,ii, and the carrier's reluctance to let Gadshill borrow his lantern.) This gives more point to Hal's rejection of Falstaff's pleas for licence to rob. In Henry IV, Part ii we see how Hal directs the Lord Chief Justice to cleaning up the realm.
Recent history is important to many of the characters in the play, and you should consider the substantial speeches in which they give their views (especially in Act V, scene i. None is wholly right, but the King is nearest to the truth.
The language of the play
Much the best account of this is that given in the Arden edition (lvii - lxvi: The Imaginative Impact) of the play. To repeat this in detail is unnecessary here. Some general points are worth raising, and may be helpful either in relation to the context question, and any essay in which presentation of character and description of past or off-stage events might be discussed.
Single images are too many to list here, but key ideas reappear in related images throughout. We may contrast images of baseness (Hotspur in I,iii; Henry in III,ii, wonderfully taken up by Hal in his characterizing of Percy as ...but my factor...to engross up glorious deeds and so on) with images of glory and honour. Both Hal and Vernon use imagery of light and shining to suggest regal qualities. The same sun image appears many times in Richard II.
The play reveals a fascination with language, which suggests much about a speaker's shrewdness or lack of it. Hotspur conjures up wonderfully vivid (and almost certainly invented) pictures in I,iii in his accounts of the certain lord to whom he refused his prisoners at Holmedon, and of the battle by the gentle Severn's sedgy bank. Later in this scene, and again in IV,iii he gives lengthy accounts of Henry's alleged unfairness to his family. All are eloquent and persuasive, or would be if we did not doubt the accuracy of his judgment. When he describes (III,i) Glendower's tedious conversation (such a deal of skimble-skamble stuff) the justice of the charge is qualified by a sense that the same could be said of Hotspur. His condemnation of mincing poetry implies a curious blindness to the evidently poetic nature of his own speech, which even, according to his wife, marks his sleep-talking (II,iii, where she appears to give some verbatim examples)
. It is clear that Hotspur has a liking for the impressive image, but an inattentiveness to detail: his idea of plucking bright honour from the pale-fac'd moon is of this kind. The metaphorical pursuit of honour inspires Hotspur, but he does not listen to the detail of his uncle's plan, as Worcester notes: He apprehends a world of figures here/But not the form of what he should attend. Hotspur even as he draws his dying breath utters a stilted elegy for his lost honour.
Hal's language is more varied than Hotspur's: he is capable of vivid use of metaphor, but is generally more guarded and self-conscious in its use. His most eloquent speeches are in two cases soliloquies (in I,ii and in V,iv: in the latter case Falstaff is on stage, but Hal believes him dead). The other two occasions in the play where Hal uses picturesque speech in a serious situation are in his defence before the King in III,ii (another intimate situation) and (fairly briefly) in V,i, a highly public and formal situation, but note how Hal's praise of Hotspur, while very gracious, shows restraint, the only vivid metaphor being Hal's charge against himself of being a truant...to chivalry.
In other scenes we see more variety: in the Eastcheap scenes generally we see Hal engage in a kind of verbal jousting with Falstaff: insult matches insult, with a premium on wit, while Falstaff in I,ii complains of Hal's unsavoury similes. In the play extempore in II,iv we see this at its comic height, as both Hal and Falstaff conduct a public debate (Judge, my masters) at once serious and ironic.
In this same scene we note how Hal has been learning the slang of the drawers, how he confuses Francis first with verbosity (Wilt thou rob...) and then with nonsense (Why then your brown bastard is your only drink...), how, in a brilliant cameo, he ridicules with delicious accuracy the conversation of Hotspur and his wife (which we have just heard in the preceding scene), how he mimics his father and how he placates the sheriff. His simple but sincere politeness to the hostess as much as his diplomacy before his father reveal how, for Hal, though he can command rhetoric as ably as Hotspur, language is more a means of communicating with others than self-advertising verbal display.
Falstaff, too, is a brilliant speaker. He matches Hal for the most part in their exchanges of insults, while his excuse of instinct (II,iv) for his running away is as much a verbal victory as a moral defeat. As the King in the first play extempore he partly satirizes Henry's speech while at the same time attacking chiefly the stilted lines of contemporary writers. He, too, (IV,ii) makes word-pictures; unlike Hotspur's fantasies in I,iii, the audience sees that the description of Falstaff's company (whom Hal has seen but the audience cannot) is an exaggerated but honest account. Falstaff is shameless in this soliloquy but candid: his conduct may be deplorable but his speech is more honest than Hotspur's. Where Percy's metaphors allow him to claim the moral high ground for honour which is really no more than a lust for personal fame, Falstaff's one-man Socratic dialogue in V,i lays bare the truth about this mere scutcheon. Even if it should be admitted that this honour is worth gaining, as it might live with the living (and Falstaff sees no merit in this since it lacks material value) the reputation which Hotspur craves will not live on, as detraction will not suffer it. Here, Falstaff's skilful use of verbal reason is employed by the playwright to show a flaw in Hotspur's outlook which better but less acute spirits seem to have missed. A more pithy example of Falstaff's ability to cut through equivocation comes in his remark about Worcester, that Rebellion lay in his way, and he found it.
The King, like Hotspur, is given to very picturesque speech. We see this in I,i in a series of images which show the damage to the country of civil strife, and also reflect Henry's sense of the weakness of his position. In III,ii Henry speaks at great length, giving an essentially accurate picture of Richard's reign, parts of which (as in his account of The skipping king) remind us of Henry's former vigour, while in his portrayal of Hal and his inappropriate likening of his son to Richard, and Hotspur to himself (when younger) we see the inaccuracy of Henry's rhetoric reflecting his loss of vigour. Henry always was a man of action (as portrayed in Richard II) and in Henry IV, Part i his conduct (with the help of his sons and Westmoreland) of the campaign against the rebels brings a return of dignity and power. This is shown in the authority with which he speaks in the play's final act. The lengthy account of the shaken and wan country and king (we covers both) and the ill-judged rebuke of Hal give way to a pithy and shrewd dismissal of the rebels facing the garment of rebellion with some fine colour to impress poor discontents. Henry's opening words in the play's last scene (Thus ever did rebellion find rebuke) are a clear and powerful statement from a King who has reasserted his threatened authority and whose belief in the rightness of his rule has been vindicated.
There are four principal characters in the play, of whom, clearly, Hal is the central figure, uniting the comic scenes and the serious, Henry's court and the low life of Eastcheap, making decisions about the future and confronting the issues of rule and anarchy throughout the realm. The King, Hotspur and Falstaff, either as alternative models of authority, or as the Reverend Vice who tries to mislead the heir, are shown in relation to Hal, as well as in their own right: Henry compares Hal to Hotspur; Hal and Hotspur speak of each other; Hal reasons with his father and argues with Falstaff; Hal and Falstaff pretend to be the King and the Prince, and vice versa.
Other characters appear in the play first of all for the obvious reason of historical accuracy: we have a large number of the rebels; Westmoreland and Blunt - an Earl and a knight - stand for all those at the highest and intermediate levels who support the King. They are real people, but so were Shirley and Stafford who are named but do not appear. A great range of characters from the amiable Poins, through the notorious Gadshill and two nameless carriers, to Falstaff, a knight (Sir John) who chooses to lord it over poor and simple people, suggest the vibrant social world of a poor part of London.
However, Shakespeare is not in the business of putting on stage characters who are there solely for reasons of their historical participation: in fact, in the case of Mortimer, he notably confuses two real people into one stage character! Many of these characters have clearly-drawn qualities, while others may appear chiefly to express views which colour the audience's judgement of important questions.
This is shown in the presentation of Vernon. He is a knight, and Hotspur is glad to see him at Shrewsbury. He brings news of the King's army and of Glendower's absence. But the most important thing he does in the play, probably, is to respond to Hotspur's mocking question about Hal, the nimble-footed madcap. Hotspur expects to bolster morale with a comic reminder of Hal's deficiencies. He is at first incredulous, then unconvincingly dismissive, as Vernon, who is Hal's enemy and so a reliable witness, eulogizes Hal, praising his horsemanship (at which Hotspur will certainly be annoyed) and likening the prince to the god, Mercury. The reformation promised by Hal earlier, solemnized by his vow to his father in III,ii, is shown, in this speech to be complete.
Worcester is a well-drawn character, present in many scenes: he has planned the rebellion and concealed until the last minute the details from Hotspur, doubtless foreseeing that Hotspur (as II,iii and III,ii show) will be unable to keep the plan secret. He is an articulate spokesman of the rebels' grievances, blamed (partly, but not wholly, fairly) for Hotspur's misconduct, but ultimately shown to be treacherous in not delivering the liberal and kind offer of the King. As well as this, though, he (as in I,iii is his brother, Northumberland) is regularly critical of Hotspur. In I,iii he rebukes him for impatience and inattention and in III,i for his repeated rudeness to Glendower (which may explain the latter's failure to appear at Shrewsbury).
Westmorland and Blunt are more simply drawn because they are less complex characters. Both men are utterly loyal to the King. The Earl is, like Henry, an efficient organizer of his forces, while Blunt is praised by Hotspur for his valour, both to his face, in IV,iii, and after he has been killed (which refutes the groundless theatrical tradition that Blunt is the popinjay of whom Hotspur speaks in I,iii). If anyone tries to tell you this, refer them to Hotspur's praise of Blunt.
Mortimer, when we see him, conforms more to Henry's view than to the claim of his brother-in-law. He is effete, besotted and under the influence of Glendower: his notional claim to rule is risible and it is clear that were the rebels to succeed, he would be the tool of the Percy family. He does have the diplomacy that Hotspur lacks, but could not exercise power, in a world of strong men like Westmoreland and Hotspur, and cunning men like the Percy brothers.
The usual Shakespearean cameos (the carriers; Scroop and Sir Michael) provide social or political comment. We have a snapshot of how the welfare of ordinary people has suffered from the lack of stability following Richard's abdication and death, so that his reign (the time of Robin Ostler) or earlier times, at least, is looked on with nostalgia, while mistrust is rife and crime rampant. (The joke is that the carriers fear that Gadshill will steal their lantern, when he is actually planning a great highway robbery!) Scroop, the Archbishop of York, gives a very balanced view of the likelihood of the rebels' success: he is aware of the forces on both sides (his intelligence service is efficient) but is not over-confident. This is of a piece with the gradual loss of morale in the rebel camp and the growing confidence of those on the King's side, though the outcome of the battle is not a foregone conclusion in military terms, until Hal has defeated Hotspur.
It is worth studying how virtually all of the characters in the play are presented in relation to the central themes of kingship, order and honour: this will enable you to write comprehensively, and give an essay a structure which is not simply that of a running commentary on the action.
How does Shakespeare present Hal as a model heir?
This section gives you an outline for answering this question. In an exam, you would not be able to write so much, but if you recalled the outline and principal points of argument, you can adapt this, to answer many questions about Shakespeare's presentation of Hal, of Hotspur, of the King and of Falstaff.
Do not start at the beginning of the play, and give a running commentary on what Hal does. (If you do this, you will write far too much about the play's first act, especially scene ii, and will lack time for the critical later scens). Structure your essay by looking at different ways in which Shakespeare presents Hal to the audience. Remember the word how in the essay title.
You will consider qualities of character, but should not merely describe them. You should always relate these qualities to actions, words and stage relationships in which the qualities are shown to us.
Do not refer to the reader. A play is performed before an audience.
The following suggestions may be helpful, but do not constitute an inflexible essay-structure. Arrange them as seems appropriate to you. Ignore ideas which you do not understand.
Hal compared to others
Consider Hal and Hotspur as heirs to the throne, in terms of:
Hal's attitudes, words and behaviour
The play in performance
All of the above comments require you to discuss what happens within the world of the characters in the play. However, in considering effectiveness in the theatre, you might also consider how these things could be made more clear in terms of acting and direction: gesture, delivery of lines, position on stage, set, lighting and so on.
Always support your work with brief quotation. Quotation of several lines should be indented, and followed by act, scene and line numbers (not page numbers). Quotation of short phrases needs only inverted commas. If in doubt, follow the style used in the introduction to your copy of the text
Key Scenes Analysed
Act I, scene iii
Relation to whole play
Worcester invites Hotspur to take part in a rebellion, the detail of which is already plotted (in concert with Northumberland, Scroop, Douglas, Glendower etc.)
Revelation that Mortimer was nominated heir leads to Hotspur's account of the honourable Richard and dishonourable Bolingbroke (King Henry IV). Hotspur also reveals his preoccupation with honour. He believes he will win more honour in the rebellion.
The King shows his political astuteness and perhaps forces a rebellion he knows is coming. Alternatively we might argue that he lacks diplomacy in his ultimatum.
Structure: scene falls into two major parts (the second begins with King's exit), of these the second can be further divided into the account of Richard's abdication and death, and the broaching of the rebels' plot.
Relationships: the first part is very much a public display. Henry rebukes Hotspur formally in the council, humiliates Worcester, and ends with an ultimatum. Blunt and "others" are there no doubt to create a sense of a public, ceremonial occasion. One can see how the whole stage will be used to distance Hotspur from the King and his party. Blunt is something of a mediator and may move between Hotspur and Henry.
In the second part, Hotspur will move more freely, away from his father and uncle when he rebukes them, but will be near them for the more intimate plotting of the rebellion.
Objects: the King appears with full regalia, Worcester with his staff of office - we know their ranks. Later we will hear that Worcester has broken this staff of office.
How characters reveal themselves
In this scene the most important characters are Hotspur and the King. In the early part we see the King is imperious (he laments his past mildness and issues his ultimatum) but direct and acute. Despite Northumberland's plea, Blunt's mediation and Hotspur's own defence, the King sees the political realities of the situation and refuses to "buy" the Scots prisoners by ransoming Mortimer. He swiftly brushes aside Hotspur's fanciful defence of Mortimer. Even before the King's exit Hotspur speaks at length and in a highly picturesque manner of the "certain Lord" and "gentle Severn's sedgy bank".
While Worcester's revelation that Richard named Mortimer his heir has the intended effect of making Hotspur see Henry as dishonourable, the length of his outburst (while it enables Shakespeare to rehearse recent history for the audience's sake) is excessive and delays Worcester's next step.
The moment Worcester hints at a rebellion, Hotspur launches into irrelevant apostrophising of honour, at the expense (almost) of hearing the detail of the plot. Worcester's reaction is helpful in showing Hotspur's character. This is Hotspur's first scene, and does not support the King's praise of him in I,i.
Act II, scene iii
Relation to whole play
Hotspur's second scene is an intimate domestic one. Here we see Hotspur, the husband. The solo reading of the letter shows how the rebellion is not universally supported and explains the swiftness of the King's response, as he has early information from those who decline Hotspur's invitation to take part in the rebellion. We can also compare Hotspur off-duty with Hal, in the following scene. Hal, unlike Hotspur, is able to see his public duty clearly and also enjoy the social pleasures of Eastcheap. He is splendidly confident, while Hotspur's preoccupation with honour and war is revealed to be obsessive.
Structure: Scene is in three parts - the reading of the letter; Kate's question, and Hotspur's evasive response.
Relationships: Hotspur is distant from Kate yet familiar with the servant.
Objects, movement: the letter; account of riding.
How characters reveal themselves
Note Hotspur's response to the letter (from a noble who has rejected Hotpsur's invitation to join the rebellion against Henry) ; Kate's account of dreams; the chauvinist treatment of a woman.
Act II,scene iv
Relation to whole play
This is the most important scene in the play, and should have been discussed at length already. It is critical in showing Hal's underlying seriousness of intent, and his rejection of Falstaff's vanity, and licence. In the early part of the scene, we see the realization of Poins's practical joke, which connects the scene with the comic subplot of the robbbery in II,ii. Before the climax of the scene, Hal also discusses the rebels, and Hal and Falstaff purport to rehearse Hal's interview with the King (which occurs in III,ii). In fact, Falstaff attempts to justify himself and his conduct, and to secure Hal's approval, with an eye to the future, when Hal will reign. Hal's rejection of Falstaff is quite clear, if briefly stated, but has its sequel in the public rejection of Sir John in Part ii of Henry IV. Hal's I do; I will is a reaffirming of the manifesto he declares in the famous soliloquy of I,ii, and anticipates the seriousness with which, later, he will approach his kingly duties. This scene prepares for III,ii and for Hal's valour and chivalry at Shrewsbury
Structure: The scene falls into a number of episodes: i.Hal and the drawers - the twitting of Francis; ii.Falstaff's humiliation and defence; iii.news of the rebellion, prompting... iv.Hal's and Falstaff's improvisations; v.Falstaff's hiding and falling asleep.
The fourth of these is the most important, but you should know the whole scene.
Relationships: An intimate conversation with Poins, leading to a more extensive use of the stage, as Francis is teased (Poins is out of sight, perhaps off stage.) With the arrival of Falstaff, all eyes are on Sir John, and the scene expands to accommodate more characters. But in the play extempore both a public battle of wits and a more serious debate between Hal and Falstaff take place at the same time. It is not clear how far, at all times, Falstaff hears what Hal says. How this will appear on stage depends on both actors and director.
Objects and movement: Some of the scene is fairly static (the opening monologue by Hal) but most of it involves much action and use of properties. There is the simple action of the practical joke on Francis, Falstaff's display of his fighting skill (ecce signum and so on), several significant exits and entrances, and the mock ceremonial of the extemporized interview. Properties will be used throughout, but spectacularly in Falstaff's demonstration of his swordplay, while the use of these props to represent other things, is explicitly referred to between lines 355 and 359.
How characters reveal themselves
In this scene we learn much about Hal and about Falstaff. We are not fooled by Falstaff's lies, but we admire his resourcefulness in the instinct argument, and his verbal skill. Apart from the cameo lampooning the harlotry players we find this well exhibited in his ridiculing of the affectations of the King's manner of speech. Look for similarities between Falstaff's speeches here, and those of the King, notably in III,ii.
But the chief dramatic function of the scene is to show how Hal is still exercised by the purpose he has outlined in I,ii: that he is aware, but not fearful, of his enemies, and that he is not at all persuaded by Falstaff's attempts to corrupt him. There is a kind of truth in his apparently bantering reference to Falstaff as a devil or embodiment of vice. The seriousness Hal shows so evidently in III,ii is here first shown in a clear, but understated way.
Act III, scene i
Relation to whole play
Between Hal's rejection of Falstaff's values (in II,iv) and his reconciliation with the King (in III,ii) comes this scene, in which the rebels reach the zenith of their fortunes, in their own expectation. Hotspur's energy and Worcester's shrewdness are undermined by serious doubts about Mortimer and about the unity of purpose of the rebels. As Hotspur and Glendower conduct a petty argument over land which they have not yet won, we see how unfit to rule these rebels are. In a sense, this scene, therefore, anticipates Henry's remark at the end of the play: Thus ever did rebellion find rebuke
Mortimer's (over)confident (and mistaken) belief that Glendower's forces will not be needed within a fortnight can be set against the efficiency shown by the King, who (in the next scene) gives notice to Westmoreland that his troops will be assembled to face the rebels in twelve days.
These episodes are marked by Glendower's exit and later return.
Relationships: After a formally polite greeting Hotspur antagonizes Glendower - as if he fears to lose face before another renowned warrior. In the ensuing quarrel, Glendower backs down. While Mortimer is emollient and gently reproaches Hotspur, Worcester is far more severe in his criticism of his nephew. While Hotspur is impressed by Glendower's musical skill, he remains irreverent and his behaviour towards Kate suggests that he wishes to ridicule Mortimer and his wife, whose amorous conduct he partly imitates.
Objects and movements: In the first part of the scene the conspirators will sit around the map. It may be that Glendower and Hotspur will rise from their seats as their quarrels become heated. In the latter part of the scene there will be far more movement. Mortimer lays his head in his wife's lap, while Hotspur does the same, partly in jest, with Kate. As their conversation contains whispered improprieties, this pair must be placed nearest to the audience. Worcester may seem the odd one out while Glendower plays or, arguably, uses his power to command the music to be performed as if by magic.
How characters reveal themselves
This is the only scene in which Mortimer and Glendower appear, and we see their failings, as well as Hotspur's. Mortimer, ineffectually trying to make peace between brother-in-law and father-in-law, is clearly interested more in love than war - he is as unbalanced as Hotspur, but in an opposite sense.
Hotspur's criticism of Glendower seems to strike home. The man is shown to be a self-advertising windbag whose bluff Hotspur apparently calls when he invites him to summon a devil. Hotspur is contemptuous of his alleged achievements and of his inflated speech. Hotspur's failings are shown again. He is unable to be diplomatic to those whose support he needs and cannot bear to hear another praised.
His piety (about shaming the devil with truth) reflects his concern with honour, but may also be used as an excuse to attack Glendower. Glendower, as a Welshman, speaker of a strange language and master of dubious arts, is obviously seen by Hotspur as less than a gentleman. (Shakespeare, writing for English audiences in London, may exploit a popular prejudice against the Welsh.)
Hotspur's criticisms of the mystical prophecies quoted by Glendower, of his supposed esoteric knowledge, and his concern for poetic speaking, seem justified - but the audience notes how Hotspur seems blind to his own capacity to bore and irritate others - where Glendower lists devils' names, he spouts military tactics in his sleep (II,iii).
The condemnation of poetry comes strangely from the man who (in I,iii) twice apostrophizes (praises) honour, and who gives us the wonderfully picturesque accounts of the certain lord and of Mortimer's imagined epic struggle with Glendower.
Act III,scene ii
Relation to whole play
This is a critical scene for Hal's development. So far, in the play, Hal and the King have not met. In a deep political crisis, the King expresses his fear that God has appointed Hal as an agent of punishment and that this is happening in various ways: first, Hal has neglected his duty to the throne (has lost his place in council); second, he leads a debauched life among drunks and crooks, and third, he may even be ready to serve, under Hotspur, against the King.
The intimacy of most of the scene allows the King to express freely his pain at Hal's wildness. The King is still powerful, but apt to moralise rather tediously in exactly the way Falstaff (how does he know?) has satirized in II,iv. We can contrast Hal's dignified and patient silence as he hears his father out, with the impetuous conduct of Hotspur in I,iii, II,iii and III,i. This lends irony to the King's praise of Hotspur in this scene.
In terms of revelation of Hal's character we may compare this scene with I,ii, where he tells us of his plans, with those parts of II,iv where he distances himself from Falstaff, and later scenes where he fulfils the promises he makes here. It is the first part of his reconciliation with the King. This will be completed on the battlefield of Shrewsbury and will allow the King in Part ii to hand over the throne with confidence.
Structure:for purposes of discussion we should break the scene up, as follows:
Section (v) is not so important - it merely gives information. The other parts are but notably (i) and (iv) where Hal answers the charges against him. The juxtaposition of this scene with Act III, scene i enables us to see the gradual degrees by which the King's star rises and that of the rebels falls.
Episode i - lines 1-28
Stage directions are important: lords enter in order to leave. Why?
The accusation:The audience probably knows of usurpation of Richard (but this will be referred to later). The King fears that God is punishing him through Hal - hence Hal's dissolute behaviour and base associations.
Hal's response: He would like to clear himself of all charges as, he is sure, he can clear self of some. Asks for extenuation in that, while he will disprove some accusations, he will confess to others and ask forgiveness for these. Hal's answer is gracious, diplomatic, balanced (some denial, some admission) and, we know, true.
Episode ii - lines 29-93
God pardon thee ... says the King, but he is not yet ready to.
By referring to Richard's reign and his own rise to power, the King tries to show Hal his mistake. A skilful move by Shakespeare, as this combines political analysis with potted history of recent past (in case we don't know all this). As an assessment of Richard's reign it's mostly fair comment (if tedious and rather prone to self-congratulation). The audience will tend to share this view. But the King fails to see that Hal's situation is quite different. And he does not know (as we do) Hal's grand design. Thus we feel some impatience in Hal's behalf.
The King uses an interesting range of images (as Falstaff observes in II,iv) many drawn from nature, but the whole speech is overwhelming.
Notable images include:
Actions: At line 90 the King indicates by his own comment that he is moved to weeping. During this long speech there must be gesture and movement - increasing/decreasing closeness to Hal. Perhaps he makes some imitation of Richard. Hal again attempts to make peace, but is over-ruled by the King. Hal (unlike Hotspur) bears it patiently.
Episode iii - lines 93-128
The King praises Percy now. Hal loves his father (despite appearances) - so this is most painful. This rather sickening eulogy ends with the King's claim that Hal would probably be ready to serve Hotspur against him.
Note the reference to honour (106).
Episode iv - lines 129-161
Hal's answer is diplomatic but he can barely contain his outrage (that the King could believe such things, and that the affection due to him seems to have been usurped by Percy).Hal describes the coming day of reckoning, when blood will cleanse him of shame.Hal takes up the theme of honour, which he will win from Hotspur.Hotspur is (basely) likened to the agent who will earn profit for Hal.
There is a steely, solemn character in Hal's words here - this speech (more than those of the King) is full of hints for the actor playing Hal. The speech should probably end with Hal on his knees, making a solemn oath before the king.
Before Blunt's entry Hal is behaving in a public, dignified manner. He invokes God and addresses his father formally as your Majesty.
The King's response indicates a readiness to trust Hal, but he does not retract his comment on Hotspur.
Episode v - lines 162-180
Nothing more can be done to effect the reconciliation. Now, to create a sense of urgency, Blunt brings news of the rebels. Their plan (III,i, 85) to meet at Shrewsbury is partly achieved. Blunt does not state which English rebels. Perhaps he thinks all are at Shrewsbury, but Northumberland and Scroop are not there. Glendower, as we know, has yet to arrive. Blunt notes that they will be powerful foes if all promises are kept - but they won't be.
The King's response shows his efficient approach to the rebellion. His intelligence has alerted him to the revolt five days ago. Already West. and Prince John are in the saddle. Hal and the King will follow shortly (more swiftly than Glendower can). At this speed they are likely to prevent Glendower's joining the other rebels. This appears to show Mortimer in error in saying (of Glendower) (III,i, 87): Nor shall we need his help these fourteen days!
This mood of busy, urgent response, is continued in the next scene.
Act III,scene iii
Relation to whole play
In the face of danger Falstaff ironically laments his corruption and blames his company. He comically uses the image of Bardolph's red face as a memento-mori (an image, popular in the Middle Ages, which makes people mindful of death): Bardolph's face reminds him of hell-fire. This seems apt as the redness would be thought to be caused by drink and, perhaps, infection caught by a debauched life.
The prince arrives - first, in a comic version of chivalry, to defend the honour of the Hostess against Falstaff's slurs, and, second, to recruit Falstaff and the others for the fight. The prince has already begun this (see final part of II,iv) - now he gives Falstaff his orders. Peto has already commenced his duties.
As this scene marks the departure from London, so it also ends the period of Hal's close association with Falstaff. The extended comedy of these scenes is not found again, as events take on an increasingly serious turn - though Falstaff still has ironic and critical cameo appearances.
It is a welcome comic interlude, after two very serious scenes, and before the generally serious final acts of the play. Falstaff would like to stay in the tavern - but he can't. When he leaves, he leaves behind an important period of his life.
We also see how Hal's sympathy for ordinary people is strong: he defends the hostess, gives Peto an honourable place, and says he loves the hostess's honest husband.
Act IV, scene i
Relation to whole play
The optimism of the opening lines is an illusion, which is rapidly dispelled. The focus is on Hotspur who receives news of his father's absence, and at whom Vernon's remarks are chiefly directed. The unreadiness of the rebels is contrasted with the efficiency of the King's forces. Hotspur's attempt to draw comfort from a jibe at Hal's expense is met with Vernon's eulogy of Hal's martial prowess. This description, which transcends the limitations of the stage, shows how Hal has fulfilled his promise in I,ii: this is the reformation, glittering o'er (his) fault. Hotspur's grudging response suggests that his praise of Douglas is prompted by the thought that he has already beaten the Scot in battle. In brief, Vernon's views need only to be borne out on the field of battle.
Structure: The scene falls into two episodes: praise of Douglas and news of Northumberland's illness; Vernon's news of Hal and of Glendower.
Relationships: Everything centres on Hotspur. While others bring him bad news, or express doubts, he tries to find reassurance, or to show fortitude. His grounds for optimism are less convincing than his air of desperate defiance at the end of the scene. The arrival of Vernon briefly comforts him (Vernon brings more men), but this is undone by Vernon's news. To put things in proportion (he thinks) Hotspur addresses all present in his sarcastic dismissal of Hal.
But the ground is cut from his feet by what follows: Vernon silences him for longer than anyone has yet done in the play. Hotspur's hearty domination of the scene yields to a moment of profound introspection. He tries to regain the initiative with a speech of equal length, but the lasting impression is made by Vernon.
Objects and movement: As the soldiers are now encamped, there will be appropriate touches in costume and props: armour may be suggested by breastplates, and weapons will be carried. Hotspur may use his sword as he speaks of the mailed Mars...up to his ears in blood. Hangings and favours will show the colours of the rebels; contrasting colours will be used for the King's forces in later scenes. (We see more of the rebel camp as their situation is more interesting dramatically). The letters (at line 13) are a cue for the news of Northumberland's sickness. They are read (or one is) by Hotspur who glosses the contents between line 31 and line 40. In his reaction to the news, Hotspur will be excitable and will move around the stage. He will certainly mimic the comrades who have daff'd the world aside but Vernon's praise will stop him in his tracks.
How characters reveal themselves
In this scene, Worcester exhibits his usual succinct but shrewd judgements of the political and military realities, but the real interest lies with Hotspur, Vernon and Hal (in Vernon's account). Hotspur, in trying to see his father's absence as a hope of refuge, is not convincing (numbers on the battlefield are critical). We see this well as a perilous gash a line later in faith...it is not. Worcester's comment on the quality and hair of the attempt which brooks no division shows us how Hotspur is whistling in the dark. Hotspur's comment that Vernon's praise of Hal doth nourish agues shows his ill grace, his jealousy of others' praise. Contrast this with Hal's praise of Hotpsur in V,i (as he offers single combat) and in V,iv (after he kills Percy). In the latter case, his sincerity cannot be doubted, as there is no-one else (he thinks, though Falstaff is feigning death) to hear him.
Vernon is not a character, as such, but a spokesman for Hal's merits in the rebel camp. His praise is, thus, worth more, as he has nothing to gain from it. Though Hal later kills Hotspur, Shakespeare uses this scene to show that this is no fluke, by establishing Hal's soldierly credentials.
Act V, scene i
Relation to whole play
This is the last scene to contain a long speech (Worcester's in this case) in which the historical background is rehearsed. The others are in I,iii (Hotspur); III,ii (the King) and IV,iii (Hotspur, again). Any consideration of the idea of the play as a History Play (i.e., a play in which Shakespeare interprets, through the characters, historical and political theories) will need to refer to these speeches. Though the situation seems irretrievable, the King and Hal still try (sincerely, it seems) to avoid bloodshed. This reflects their concern for the welfare of their people - an attitude we see from Henry in Richard II.
Worcester seems more concerned to justify himself (if he expects defeat in battle, there is some reason for this: to save his reputation, if not his life). Falstaff in one line (28) and the King in the speech beginning at line 72, cut through Worcester's dishonest pleading. (Note that war seems to re-invigorate the King's speech: here he speaks with force and clarity, rather than the tedious moralizing which we see in III,ii, lampooned by Falstaff in II,iv.) Hal's offer is concealed by Worcester and Vernon from Hotspur, until the battle is joined. (Hotspur's comment on it in V,ii, line 47, shows that Hal's "it will not be accepted" would have proved true had Worcester told his nephew of the offer.) The celebrated speech which ends the scene does nothing to further the action, but is an important passage of commentary on the central theme of honour.
Structure: After the diplomatic niceties of the opening, there are three episodes: Worcester's defence of his conduct; the King's reply, and Hal's offer; Falstaff on honour.
Relationships: Though the KIng speaks particularly to Worcester, who is the rebels' spokesman, the formality of the situation demands that the King's words are addressed to all present: it is important that he act properly in the eyes of his subjects. Hal's offer of single combat, though honestly made, is likewise delivered with a ceremonial flourish, and maybe an eye to effect. (Though in the next scene, Vernon refutes vigorously Hotspur's suggestion that it was in contempt.) As all depart for the battle, Hal is left alone with Falstaff. This intimate and private conversation shows Sir John's very real fears. Left wholly alone by Hal, he is fortified by his characteristic resourcefulness, as he argues in defence of the cynical conduct which will save his skin. The sequel to this is the celebrated remark in V,iv about the better part of valour...in the which better part he has saved his life.
Objects and movement: This scene, like I,iii and the opening of III,ii, shows a highly formal situation. The King and Worcester (and Hal) are bound by strict rules of etiquette (hence Hal's irritation at Falstaff's Rebellion lay in his way, and he found it - although reconciliation seems unlikely now, it is important that the King make an offer of peace to the rebels; their rejecting it, makes clearer the illegality of their action ). The King's status and power must be reinforced by ceremonial trappings, attendants and by the position he adopts - perhaps (say) seated upstage on a raised dais, while Worcester appears in the rôle of supplicant. This is in marked contrast to the informality of Falstaff's soliloquy (though he uses the apparently formal device of the Socratic dialogue [asking a question, then answering it], as he considers honour).
How characters reveal themselves
In this scene we see how far the King is in control of the situation. The image of Worcester as a planet which has left its obedient orb (proper orbit) implies that he knows himself to be like the sun, about which the planet moves; the cosmological allusion is continued in the suggestion that Worcester has become an exhal'd meteor. There is a vigour in the rhetoric of his reply to Worcester at line 72 (gape and rub...hurly-burly...pell-mell) which we have not yet seen in the play, while his reference to old limbs crushed in ungentle steel (this refers to the uncomfortable armour which he feels too old to wear) is somewhat affected: the situation requires him to play the elder statesman whose sons will act for him. Worcester's self-justification in response to his offer of clemency is met with such force that Hal must move to avert an impasse. When his father's diplomacy seems exhausted, Hal intervenes with his praise of Hotspur and his offer of single combat. This recalls Henry to his initial hope of a reconciliation, and he endorses Hal's offer.
Vernon, in the following scene, recognises the kingly qualities Hal shows here (England did never owe so sweet a hope/So much misconstrued...) prompting the usual grudging response from Hotspur, whom Shakespeare has shown to be wholly unsuited to high office. Falstaff's soliloquy is in keeping with his cynicism and instinct for self-preservation but tells us nothing new about himself. As a commentary on honour, it helps us compare Hal's and Hotspur's ideals of chivalry: the objections to honour made here, are fatal to Hotspur's sense of honour as fame (detraction will not suffer it, after death) but the argument in no way compromises Hal's view of honour as a kind of private moral integrity.
© Andrew Moore, 2000; Contact me