King Henry IV, Part 1

Prescribed on both lists. King Henry IV, Part 1 is prescribed on both the 2019 to 2026 list (English Advanced Module B: Critical Study of Literature) and the 2027 to 2030 list. For the 2027 HSC it sits in the Critical study of literature focus area. This page was written for the earlier Module B and still applies, so read "Module B" below as Critical study of literature if you are on the 2027 course.

Why this text suits Module B

Module B asks for sustained, considered engagement with a single substantial text as a constructed work, and for a personal response informed by other readings. King Henry IV Part 1 rewards that brief because the play is built out of three competing rhetorics in deliberate tension: the official Lancastrian voice of the King, the chivalric voice of Hotspur, and the comic-philosophical voice of Falstaff. Its textual integrity lies in how tightly these voices are orchestrated around Hal, the prince who must absorb, ventriloquise and discard each in turn. A strong essay treats that orchestration as Shakespeare's design and argues for its enduring value, rather than retelling the plot.

Structure at a glance

• Act 1 sets up the three worlds: court, rebel camp and Eastcheap tavern.
• Act 2 develops Hal's double life through the Gads Hill robbery and the play-extempore in the tavern.
• Act 3 stages the rebel council and the King's interview with his son.
• Act 4 moves toward Shrewsbury and exposes the moral cost of Falstaff's recruitment.
• Act 5 resolves the political plot at Shrewsbury with the death of Hotspur and the staged death of Falstaff.

Performance and self-fashioning

Hal's first soliloquy announces that his tavern life is a calculated performance designed to make his eventual reformation look more impressive. Read this declaration as a structural key. Every later scene tests it: the tavern role-play in 2.4, the reconciliation with his father in 3.2, the killing of Hotspur in 5.4. A sophisticated argument treats Hal's identity as a political construction rather than a personal awakening, and reads the play's craft as the source of that meaning.

Two readings to put in tension

A traditionalist reading treats the play as the education of an ideal king. A new historicist reading, after Stephen Greenblatt, treats it as the staging of subversive energies that the play ultimately contains. The critical study focus area rewards exactly this move: a strong essay holds both readings, judges where each illuminates the Falstaff problem, and arrives at a considered personal view rather than reporting the critics neutrally.

Common pitfalls

Avoid treating Falstaff as comic relief; he is the play's most articulate ethical voice. Avoid moralising about Hal; the play asks readers to admire and distrust him at once. Avoid letting borrowed criticism replace your own judgement, which is the heart of what Module B assesses.

Essay scaffold

Introduction. Frame the play as a tightly constructed competition of rhetorics. State your considered thesis on how Shakespeare builds Hal as a political performer and why the play endures.

Body 1. The tavern as political theatre, with focus on the play-extempore.

Body 2. Honour as contested concept, contrasting Hotspur's 1.3 speech with Falstaff's catechism in 5.1.

Body 3. The Shrewsbury sequence as a staged resolution that leaves residual unease.

Conclusion. Argue that the play makes Hal's reformation a performance the audience is invited to judge: Falstaff's tavern wit and Hotspur's honour are both weighed against a prince who chooses when to be seen, so power here is made by staging as much as by deeds. Say whether the play endorses that calculation.

Sources

• NESA, HSC English prescriptions 2019 to 2026 (English Advanced Module B: Critical Study of Literature).
• NESA, English Advanced Year 12 content page (Critical study of literature).