「I know you all and will awhile uphold the unyoked humour of your idleness. Yet herein will I imitate the sun, who doth permit the base contagious clouds to smother up his beauty from the world, that, when he please again to be himself, being wanted, he may be more wondered at, by breaking through the foul and ugly mists of vapours that did seem to strangle him. If all the year were playing holidays, to sport would be as tedious as to work. But when they seldom come, they wished for come, and nothing pleaseth but rare accidents. So, when this loose behaviour I throw off and pay the debt I never promised, by how much better than my word I am, by so much shall I falsify men's hopes. And like bright metal on a sullen ground, my reformation, glittering o'er my fault, shall show more goodly and attract more eyes than that which hath no foil to set it off. I'll so offend, to make offence a skill, redeeming time when men think least I will.」



「What need I be so forward with him that calls not on me? Well, 'tis no matter, honour pricks me on. Yea, but how if honour prick me off when I come on? How then? Can honour set to a leg? No. Or an arm? No. Or take away the grief of a wound? No. Honour hath no skill in surgery, then? No What is honour? A word. What is in that word honour? What is that honour? Air. A trim reckoning. Who hath it? He that died a'Wednesday. Doth he feel it? No. Doth he hear it? No. 'Tis insensible, then. Yea, to the dead. But will it not live with the living? No. Why? Detraction will not suffer it. Therefore I'll none of it. Honour is a mere scutcheon. And so ends my catechism.」



「Brave Percy. Fare thee well, great heart. Ill-weaved ambition, how much art thou shrunk. When that this body did contain a spirit a kingdom for it was too small a bound, and now, two paces of the vilest earth is room enough. Adieu.」

On the year of 2008, Olympic Game has been hold by England. For the sake of spreading England unique culture, which will also be beneficial to cross-cultural communication, BBC TV station has directed a series of film called Hollow Crown, which are some adapted works from Shakespeare’s history plays including RichardⅡ, HenryⅣ and HenryⅤ. To be honest, Henry Ⅳ is one of the greatest films I have ever watched.
Henry IV is a story about a king who stole the crown from his cousin, and is tormented by his guilt. Also, it's growing story about his son, a feckless young prince, who is always exposed to some blackguardly ruffians. However, when he suddenly is conscious of his father’s weighty responsibility and his massive burden, the prince, who seems to be cynicism, is forced to grow up and face his destiny. Then, on succeeding to the throne, the new young king takes his country to war, realizing he must assume his responsibility to strengthen national defense and fight against invaders. Eventually he becomes the greatest warrior king in English history.
In deep meaning, it's also an adventurous story of people facing an uncertain future, and of a country searching for a new sense of patriotic identity.
In this film, what deeply impresses me most is not father and son, but friendship and betrayal. In fact, this movie does not put emphasis on the relationship between HenryⅣ and his son HenryⅣ,but do stand out what happens between the young prince Hal and his so-called loyal friend Jack Falstaff. To some extend, the friendship and betrayal is the most dramatic aspect, running through the whole movie.
Jack Falstaff, as the leader of some ruffians, is almost paternal relationship with Hal, the young prince. Generally speaking, Falstaff is too much of a pretty crook, who is a congenital liar, congenital drunk as well as thief. However, Falstaff sets his affection on Hal, and the emotion shed by his eye really convince audiences that they own true friendship, conveying a message that even he is a ragtag, the prince still cherish their relationship.
However, that is totally wrong. Why Shakespeare is a most renowned writer, because everything that is Shakespearean is ambiguous. And in the most ambiguous but dramatically important scenes, Hal's split loyalties between Falstaff and his father of are central to both plays.①
Falstaff brings out the wayward and irresponsible side of Hal. However, the other side of the young prince's personality lies in this prince’s inherent essence. Although Hal seems like a terrible shit and he does some dreadful things, but in his inner world, he is a very upright person, he is also an ambitious and sophisticated politician.
I know you all, and will awhile uphold the unyoked humor of your idleness.
Yet herein will I imitate the sun, who doth permit the base contagious clouds to smother up his beauty from the world.
That, when he please again be himself, being wanted, he may be more wondered at, by breaking through the foul and ugly mists of vapours that did seem to strangle him.③
The words from Hal’s mouth show his ambition, appearing in the beginning of the film, give us a warning.
So how could the writer, Shakespeare copes with this difficult problem? Why Shakespeare is being Shakespeare, because he solves it through a play within a play.
Prof.Jonathan Bate(Worcester College Oxford) claims that:
This fantastic scene, to my mind. Come on, I'll say it the greatest scene Shakespeare ever wrote.
This fantastic scene where they act out Prince Hal returning to court, being interviewed by his father.
It's an amazing piece of theatre, where you have Falstaff and Hal playing the parts of King Henry IV and Hal.②
In this play within play, Hal and Falstaff have an interesting pub game, they need to play the parts of King Henry IV and Hal, imitating a conversation between father and son.
As first, Falstaff play the role of Hal’s father, the present king, in the course of communication, Falstaff doesn't tell Hal to pull his royal socks up. Rather, he instructs the young prince to spend more time with a splendid fellow called Falstaff. Falstaff regards that he is a loyal and true friend around Hal. And sometimes, indeed, he is, at least many audience thinks so, including me.
Then, they change the position, Hal do an impression of his father, and Falstaff plays him. At the beginning, Hal pretends to be his father, being angry to interrogate his son, Falstaff, why he would play with a local ruffian. Later, Hal's perspective begins to change. He claims that his son Hal must banish his fat friend, Falstaff.
Then Falstaff say the most impressive words from his bottom of heart:
Banish plump Jack, and banish all the world.③
The emotion from their eye contacts reveals that they are all touched by these sincere sentences. Especially Hal, he moves to tears, totally smothering his tears from his eyes.
However, the Hal say these words:
I do.③
Again, he supplies another sentences:
I will.③
That is really strange.
When Hal says “I do.”, he is within the context of the play within the play, as the acting the part, in his father’s tone. But then, in that instant pause, and the shift of the verb tense “I will” disclosures that he is speaking not within the play within the play, but as himself.
He is giving Falstaff warning that the moment will come, when he becomes a real king, he need to banish Falstaff.
What happens to Hal, why he needs to say these serious words?
It is believed that if you know the play well, if you love the play and the adapted movie, you cannot watch it with a dry eye.
So at the end of that game, there is a chilling premonition, and that what appears in the ending of this movie.
Gold save the king.③
With these cheerful sentences, Hal is crowned in Westminster Abbey, and eventually becomes the king. Then in the parade, Falstaff deliberately happens to meet his heart, Hal. Falstaff want to claim kinship and let the king give him some advantages. However, the king changes his voice, he is strict with this fat man, saying the follow sentence:
My lord Chief Justice, speak to that vain man
I know thee not, old man. Fall to thy prayers. How ill white hairs become a fool and jester.
I have long dreamed of such a kind of man so surfeit-swelled, so old and so profane. But, being awake, I do despise my dream.
Make less thy body hence and more thy grace, leave gormandizing.
Know the grave doth gape for thee thrice wider than for other men. Reply not to me with a fool-born jest!
Presume not that I am the thing I was.
For God doth know, so shall the world perceive, that I have turned away my former self. So will I those that kept me company When thou dost hear I am as I have been, approach me and thou shalt be as thou wast, the tutor and the feeder of my riots.
Till then I banish thee, on pain of death
As I have done the rest of my misleaders, not to come near our person by ten mile. For competence of live I will allow you, the lack of means enforce you not to evil.
And, as we hear you do reform yourselves, we will, according to your strengths and qualities, give you advancement.④
That’s a very long monologue, but when Hal says these words. It is really powerful and awful. Does he totally forget the time Falstaff around him, like his father to care of him? Does he never remember the happy ages he enjoy his youth, not worrying his duty to take charge of a country?
So why he does that?
Hal is not to do this having a mater plan, he just has an idea of how he wants his life to go, he is aware of his responsibility, who knows the fun will have to end one day.
Therefore, both these acts speak volumes. Hal gets rid of formal himself,
And I think that is the most dramatic aspect of the whole movie. Making you so convincing that Falstaff and Hal is a pair of close friend, but the end reveals that they break down their relationship in this way. So amazing, is not it?
 But the ending has its own premonition and reliable explanation. The most ambiguous part seems not so ambiguous, thanks to our greatest writer, Shakespeare.
Like the so-called “O. Henry-style ending”, disclosure when the movie ends the people of the psychological situation changes unexpectedly, or the fate of the hero suddenly reversed, giving audiences an unexpected result, but also be associated with real life, resulting in a unique artistic charm.


Reference:
①,② From: BBC Documentary: Shakespeare Uncovered_Jeremy Irons on the Henrys.
③ From: The movie: Henry IV
④ From: The Book: Henry IV

沒辦法，考據(jù)癖又發(fā)了，其實我還一集都沒擼，看劇之前，可以先大致上擼一下The Hollow Crown的時代背景。
就從亨利四世登基的1399年說起。

單就這個孤零零的年份來看，也許天朝人沒有什么感受，但就在這一年的前一個年份，也就是1398年，明朝的開國皇帝朱元璋病逝在都城南京應(yīng)天府，而隨即即位的是皇太孫朱允炆，年號建文。

同樣是跳過兒子，由孫子即位的理查二世，其人生歷程同建文帝頗為相似，都是在擁有強大權(quán)力的叔叔們的陰影下，成為了君主；都死于非命；帝位/王位都被叔叔或叔叔的后代篡奪了。

此時，英格蘭、法蘭西以及后來加入的勃艮第，正處在著名的“百年戰(zhàn)爭”之中（1337年愛德華三世在位-1453年亨利六世在位）。

愛德華三世是英格蘭國王，愛爾蘭領(lǐng)主，1327年-1377年在位。由于他的母親法蘭西的伊莎貝拉是法王查理四世的妹妹，愛德華三世以及其后的多代國王都宣稱對法蘭西王位有繼承權(quán)；

理查二世的父親是愛德華三世的長子，黑太子愛德華，如果黑太子沒有早亡的話，將是他繼承王位成為愛德華四世；

理查二世是黑太子的次子，也是最小的兒子；

愛德華三世有七個兒子（又似乎是八個？數(shù)不清，總之好多個），次子是克拉倫斯公爵，安特衛(wèi)普的萊昂內(nèi)爾，

第三個兒子，蘭開斯特公爵，剛特的約翰，他是亨利四世的父親，所以理查二世跟亨利四世是正經(jīng)堂兄弟，是Hal小王子的堂叔父，他在亨利四世當時還是德比伯爵被放逐的時候，收養(yǎng)了Hal；他是都鐸王朝的亨利七世的母親瑪格麗特郡主的祖父；

第四個兒子，約克公爵，蘭利的埃德蒙，他是阿金庫爾戰(zhàn)役（1415年）中死掉的約克公爵愛德華的父親；在愛德華死后，約克公爵的封號被授予了埃德蒙另一個兒子的兒子，也是埃德蒙唯一的孫子理查金雀花；理查金雀花是約克王朝的第一位國王愛德華四世、第三位國王理查三世的父親；約克王朝的第二位國王愛德華五世是愛德華四世的兒子，是著名的“倫敦塔王子”的其中之一；愛德華四世的長女伊麗莎白公主是都鐸王朝的亨利七世的妻子；

第七個兒子，格洛斯特公爵，伍德斯托克的托馬斯，在理查二世在位期間，這位叔父一直跟理查二世作對，死后格洛斯特公爵爵位被奪，其子漢弗萊只繼承了白金漢伯爵；

亨利四世是蘭開斯特王朝的第一位國王，1399年他繼承了蘭開斯特公爵的爵位，同年登基成為英格蘭國王，蘭開斯特公爵的爵位被授予亨利四世的長子威爾士親王、蒙茅斯的亨利（也就是Hal），Hal有個哥哥愛德華，早夭，所以Hal是實際上的長子；

1399年，理查二世被關(guān)在倫敦塔，時年32歲；他的堂弟亨利四世與他同歲，時年亦是32歲；Hal小王子12歲；日后打敗了阿金庫爾戰(zhàn)役的法國國王查理六世31歲；

1415年，阿金庫爾戰(zhàn)役，亨利五世此時剛登基2年，正值28歲大好年華；法王查理六世時年47歲，法國公主圖盧瓦的凱瑟琳不知幾歲，但鑒于當時歐洲女子婚齡大多較早，公主這時候大概10-15歲；其后的1420年，英法簽訂《特魯瓦條約》，法王查理六世放棄其子王太子查理（日后的查理七世）的繼承權(quán)，以換取英王亨利五世對其王位的承認；王太子查理時年12歲；

根據(jù)《特魯瓦條約》，亨利五世在1420-1422年間，自稱“法蘭西太子兼攝政王”；

1422-1429年，亨利六世是實際上的法蘭西國王；

1429年，夏爾七世（也就是查理六世的王太子查理）在圣女貞德的支持下，在亞眠登基，時年26歲；貞德時年17歲，1431年，19歲的貞德被勃艮第人燒死；

法王查理六世有精神病，這也許是日后英格蘭國王亨利六世精神病的由來（可見選老婆定要查清家族病史的重要性）；

法國公主圖盧瓦的凱瑟琳在1421年生下了亨利五世唯一的兒子，日后的亨利六世；之后與歐文都鐸生了亨利七世的父親埃德蒙都鐸；亨利七世曾說過：我家的先祖通過一系列聯(lián)姻獲得了王位繼承權(quán)（大意，忘了哪里看到，當時我就斯巴達了），大概指的就是這個；

亨利六世在位期間，爆發(fā)了著名的“紅白玫瑰戰(zhàn)爭”，主要就是蘭開斯特家族與約克家族之間的爭斗（是不是有宮廷大戲的趕腳啊XDDDD），亨利都鐸一腳踩著約克家族的船（妻子家族），一腳踩著蘭開斯特家族的船（母親家族），最后奪得了王位；

亨利七世的母親是蘭開斯特公爵、剛特的約翰的孫女，她的父親是蘭開斯特公爵與第三位妻子凱瑟琳·斯溫福德所生的兒子索默塞特公爵約翰·博福特，是愛德華三世的曾孫女；

亨利七世的妻子是約克王朝的伊麗莎白公主，愛德華三世的五代孫女；

亨利七世在登基后，用各種理由和手段，逐步除去了其他對王位有威脅的人，致使后來他的孫子愛德華六世因為沒有子女又宣布他兩個姐姐是私生子后，議會找不到其他繼承人，因此最后愛德華六世在臨死前還是恢復了瑪麗公主和伊麗莎白公主的合法身份；

亨利八世活到成年的三個子女全都登上了英格蘭王位；

自愛德華三世去世（1377年），直到伊麗莎白一世去世（1603年），226年間所有英格蘭國王/女王都是愛德華三世的血親后代；

伊麗莎白一世沒有子女，她死后英格蘭的王位由蘇格蘭國王詹姆士六世繼承，稱英格蘭和愛爾蘭國王詹姆士一世；斯圖亞特王朝開始；

王太子的封號雖然有“威爾士親王”的爵位，但一直到1536年，亨利八世在位期間的《威爾士法案》，才將威爾士并入英格蘭；

自1413年亨利五世登基后，蘭開斯特公爵的爵位就被并入王室頭銜，再也沒有單獨授予某位王子；

戰(zhàn)爭場面像倆村打架其實是因為英格蘭本身沒有多大啊，加上當時英格蘭在法蘭西的幾塊飛地（所以亨利五世才能渡海去法蘭西的地盤跟人打架），也就一米米的領(lǐng)土；法蘭西當時也還沒統(tǒng)一，勃艮第什么的都還不是法蘭西的；所以我天朝人習慣了兩個部落打架都幾萬十多萬的場景，總覺得英格蘭法蘭西這小貓三兩只（英軍萬余法軍兩、三萬）就號稱“有劃時代意義的戰(zhàn)役”的檔次的國戰(zhàn)實在不夠看啊不夠看；

我皇明都有火器營了，英格蘭國王還帶著農(nóng)民在泥巴地里打滾，太落后了！

————————
金雀花王朝
——愛德華三世
——（黑太子愛德華，愛德華三世長子）
——理查二世

蘭開斯特王朝
——亨利四世
——亨利五世
——亨利六世

約克王朝
——愛德華四世
——愛德華五世（倫敦塔中的王子之一，另一位王子是他的弟弟約克公爵理查）
——理查三世

都鐸王朝
——亨利七世
——亨利八世
——愛德華六世
——瑪麗一世
——伊莉莎白一世
——————————
延伸閱讀
莎士比亞：
四部曲——理查二世，亨利四世上下，亨利五世；
四部曲——亨利六世上中下，理查三世；
亨利八世（合寫）

約瑟芬·鐵伊：時間的女兒——關(guān)于“塔中的王子”非常獨特的一篇小說；