Summary of findings:

 A great deal of the scholastic literature surrounding I Henry IV deals with the character of Prince Hal.  Both Black, Dickinson and Pereira see Hal as the focal character in the work and his development as the major theme. They seem to be in agreement on his full maturity being reached when he defeats Hotspur on the field of battle.  Hal is seen as being between the corruptibility of Falstaff and the temperamental Hotspur. These authors see Hal as on his way to being the ideal King Henry V through his actions in Henry IV in the tavern, the court and in the battlefield.  McNamara sees Hal as a focal character, but not the driving force in play.  Instead she assigns that role to the King himself as she believes his is the impetus for all goings on in the play.  She sees the development of Hal as important but not as focal as the King maintaining the monarchy and mastering his surroundings.  Fehrenbach shows how the King is constructed as a character differently than Hal or Hotspur, he isn’t characterized through direct means but rather through indirect and non intimate means.

Annotated Bibliography

Black, James  "Counterfeits of Soldiership in Henry IV."  Shakespeare Quarterly, 24:4 (Autumn, 1973), 372-382. Annotations by Margaret Olson

In the article "Counterfeits of Soldiership in Henry IV," James Black argue that the heroism of Prince Hal is developed through a series of events, including the speech at the battle of Shrewsbury and the ultimate killing of Hotspur.  The beginning of Part One of the play has the King musing that maybe his son was switched at birth with a changeling because he feels Hal does not possess the characteristics of royalty.  This idea is passed on to the audience and it is not until the battle that we fully understand the kind of person Shakespeare created Hal to be.  Black argues that Hal, the true hero of the play, is not ready to assert himself as the complete soldier-prince and is quite willing to let others claim his heroic honors.  He finally becomes the full character when he kills Hotspur on the field and conveys honor to him. The true hero would not place honor upon himself, and it is through doing this that the audience is reassured of Hal's role in the play.

Dickinson, Hugh. “The Reformation of Prince Hal”. Shakespeare Quarterly. 12.1 (Winter, 1961): 33-46. Annotation by Erika G. Hall.

In this article, Dickinson, as the title of his article suggests, explores the factors that lead to and influence the reformation of Prince Hal in the Henry IV Part I. It is argued that Prince Hal’s purpose within the play is dramatize the education of the ideal prince and to demonstrate the exemplary attributes of a king-to-be. The essay is organized by focusing on the plays super-objective which Dickinson says is to “redeem the time.” This is to say that each major force in the play, each redeeming time, converges upon Prince Hal thus forcing the successor to define his position. Dickinson lists these forces as the crown exemplified by the King, the tavern exemplified by Falstaff, and the field exemplified by Hotspur. Hal’s commitment, honor and morals are challenged and examined in this article by the mentioning of his father’s guilt and expectations, Falstaff’s detractive ways, and Hotspur’s emphasis on and quest for honor. Met with the challenge of all these, Dickinson argues that by experiencing all these people and places, Hal is able to prove his honor and courage in every aspect, the court, the tavern, and the field, with grace, to rise to be an ideal monarch.

Fehrenbach, Robert J. “Characterization of the King in I Henry IV.” Shakespeare Quarterly, 30:1 (Winter, 1979),42-50. Annotation by Kristina Donahue:.

In the “Characterization of the King in 1 Henry IV”, Robert J. Fehrenbach talks about Shakespeare's technique in developing and displaying the character of the King in 1 Henry IV.  He claims that the mystery of the King's character in this play has little to do with the fact that he is not present during most of the play, but that it comes from Shakespeare's indirect descriptions of his character.  Shakespeare used the techniques to describe these characters in the manner corresponding to their personalities.  While Falstaff, Hal, and Hostpur are all open book characters, Henry is very secretive and mysterious.  So, Shakespeare used matching methods of displaying their characters.  His techniques for describing Falstaff, Hal, and Hotspur where direct, while his description of Henry was indirect.  The indirect approach is best suited to Henry's character.  Henry's personality is also dependent on other characters compared to him.  Another way that his character is defined, is through descriptions that deny the audience the intimacy that we can develop with the other three characters.  So, Fehrenbach's claim is that the characterization of the King in 1 Henry IV is not by means of intimate contact, nor is it done in an open and direct approach.  It is, however, done so indirectly and distantly.

McNamara, Anne Marie. “Henry IV: The King as Protagonist.” Shakespeare Quarterly 10:3 (Summer 1959):  423-431. Annotation Tom Escobedo.

 McNamara argues in this article that King Henry IV has been overlooked as being the protagonist for the play.  She bases this on the fact that she believes history plays are not about the rise and fall of individuals, but rather the changing nation.  She asserts that the King is the symbol of his nation’s prosperity. Many other characters have been focused upon as the protagonist: Hal, Hotspur or even Falstaff.  McNamara believes these characters to be essential and important but they are all antagonistic in ways to the King. It is the King that sets all of the events of the play in motion and is the true driving force in the play.

Pereira, Kim.  "The Making of a King."  IPL Online Literary Criticism Collection. 1994:  http://ipl.org. Annotation by Adam Downing.

The Making of a King" by Kim Pereira suggests that the title of the play Henry IV is a misnomer.  The play is actually about his son, who later becomes Henry V, and about his growing up and accepting responsibility.  The article talks of how the play King Lear is about a failing king, Richard II is about the unmaking of a king, and Henry IV is about the making of the next king.  The article also comments on how Hal is torn between three world: Henry's court, Falstaff's taverns, and Hotspur's countryside, and although he performs well in all three, most of the people think that he belongs in the taverns.  The article points out that in Hal's soliloquy at the end of Act 1, Scene 2, that he knows that he will have to grow up, he is just waiting for the right moment.  Pereira also writes of how Hal's destiny lies between Falstaff and Hotspur.  Both of them are corrupt knights, but in different ways.  The two of them lie on Hal's different paths, and the one that he chooses, will determine whether or not he will become a great king.